First, cross-posting what I wrote on keybase:
Another option @kurt2 @justaresearcher would be to create an account/brand that sounded less “official Grin”, and then the grin account could regularly retweet it to boost it and bootstrap it
Gives you more freedom, while at the same time not confusing individual’s voices and opinions with that of Grin (which doesn’t really have a voice, the same way as nobody speaks for bitcoin)
Just an idea. I imagine it would be easier to manage and less hard for community to figure out how to monitor etc
Second, comments to responses to this thread:
I will say that the current account is run by the kind of noisy and slightly annoying bots that lead to low interest and engagement.
I don’t disagree; this could always be turned off. It would lead to lesser interest and engagement, but at least not annoyance.
I think having a community run Twitter would be much better for attracting members to the project.
Yes, if done right, that could be amazing.
I’m no twitter expert, but I’ve seen “takeovers” done successfully where individuals are “borrowed” the account for a time period (a week? a month?) and then are free to tweet from it (under some conditions). This can lead to quite interesting engagement, and is also an opportunity for the “guest tweeter” to get a bit more followers and outreach by borrowing a larger megaphone, essentially.
How would a concrete proposal for this look like, how does it all work? Who gets to tweet? For how long? Are there any restrictions on what they can tweet about, and if so, what are those? What happens when there’s a violation? Who polices the whole thing? And what are the other questions I’ve surely missed to ask here? Any examples of successful approaches we could learn from?
 I remember this one some years ago, it was getting some good PR at the time: https://twitter.com/sweden?lang=en
Although just saw that they stopped doing this, and found this article about it, which I guess shows a couple of interesting learnings lol: