This is how we win in the long run

there is one thing I always found myself struggling with and that is the decentralization vs centralization issue… I understand that this is open source, I understand that as a contributor (dev) I don’t like to be told what to do… that said, the reality is much more complicated than I like and see… why do I say this? because Grin is already released on mainnet and with so little human power, I think one have to prioritize what has the most impact.

the problem with this is that this could lead to centralization because who am I to know where the next steps should be, right? but contributions can be made as individuals and or as a group? could the current people around here be considered a group or just individuals?

I always tell others to spend time outside of what they are comfortable with because it gives people perspective and IMO a lot of people with a lack of perspective can never agree on anything specially when we have to fight with our own ego.

but I believe that we all want Grin to succeed…

there is no doubt that although I disagree with a lot of things, I would love to see Grin succeed and I think everyone else would as well.

I don’t know how, but I think we should find a way to coordinate efforts and find a balance (and I don’t like the way the term “balance” is mostly used).

things like having a healthy testnet environment, writing and improving documentation and releasing packages for the different languages like go, python, php, etc., will greatly simplify any third party grin implementation… should the OC or CC be pushing that? but I think the broader question is: how to make things done in a decentralized manner?

sometimes I don’t think it’s clear enough that although when we do open source we should work on things we enjoy, we also need to remember that we are not doing this just for us, that is the reality.

it’s not about being right, even if we always like to be right as we all do… this it’s about doing what’s best for Grin, that is how we win.

thinking about what is best for Grin few things come to mind:

  • I suggest we start embracing Grin’s characteristics to exploit its potential. If we fail, we do so with the awareness that we failed doing what we think is best.

  • we should stop shilling Grin to others… sorry to those who think we should invade social media, forums and mailing lists… what we need to defend and take care of is our own tribe, yes, tribe. I said it.

  • the innovation train must continue and never stop… all efforts to improve the protocol should be welcomed, all efforts to simplify Grin should be discussed.

  • we have to understand that decentralization is the future, and what do I mean by that? clear and simple: f*ck institutions… yes, we should make things simpler and easier to implement, but we should not adapt Grin to them, but who are them? them are the regulators, exchanges and institutions in general… if they don’t like Grin, so what? f*ck them.

  • we need to build our own ecosystem… beyond pump & dump schemes, what ethereum and others have taught us is that by building an ecosystem people will find a way to use your technology.

I don’t care about being wrong, I don’t care… what I care about is being honest, and honestly Grin is the best piece of technology ever imagined. Grin is Art, so deal with it!



It took me two years to understand why Grin was a technocracy and why that is actually a good thing.
Yes, Grin is a decentralized project, meaning all voices are heard. But decentralization does not imply its a democracy in the sence that every ‘vote’ or opinion is counted equally. Voices with well argued argumentation as well as those who have shown their merits hold more weight. For example, if any (core-)developer makes a statement about the direction Grin should take, in general that opinion will hold more weight than than for example a statement made by a new forum user with no track reckord.
However, in the end Grin a a technocracy, meaning that as long as the arguments are convincing enough, it does not matter who makes the statement. In general this provides a fair balance between decentralization and some centralization in the sense that there are representatives in the community with some more influence. Actually, according to its definition that still counts as a democracy, since these figures are ‘elected’ given this power by the community.

In the end we all have to follow our own heart and believes in directing this project. One important aspect IMO that is often overlooked is that its not about winning an argument or discussion. By having discussion, the overall solutions that emerge will be better defined, more well argued than it would have been without discussion. Hence we are all belping find that ditection through objective communication. There is no right or wrong, often multiple solutions have their own merits and tradeoffs, in the end I believe than the consensus will make the project go in the right direction, even if sometimes that direction might deviate from my own preference, that is fine by me. Because that is how a well decentralized project should function.

1 Like

I think part of this involves adding the features that this tribe needs to be successful in itself. Not far fetched ideas, but something we could use to accelerate our own workflow right now.

I mention the idea of a crowd funding app here as an example: Grin product wishlist - #4 by trab

general crowd funding allows us to have the benefits of the community council, but more decentralized.

rather than someone being mad at the community council for not funding them, they can just be mad at the world for not donating to their bounty.

just a thought. wondering what other “dogfooding” opportunities there could be