How many though? Bitcoin started in 2009. I think rationality comes with adoption. Real crypto adoption is still negligible, I think.
1 Like
True, even people using Bitcoin as real money (with the exception of El Salvador), are only few.
Actually, although the Area 51 proposal did not make it because of some innactivity rule community member did not knew about, to already get 51 Grinners onboard with the effort of a single person, kind of amazed me.
It means that if we would retry with more people helping out, e.g. some fun activities like a Grin Area51 meme contest, that we would most likely succeed. When I joined in 2019, no chance you could get so many people motivated for anything.
1 Like
Itâs way too early in the life of the project to say anything. Grin gets better decade after decade. If youâre in for a quick buck, itâs not for you. The initial network effect is gone, but we have a unique tech, the fairness and a great story. We just need to push things further, but we have time.
4 Likes
âTo be duly born, one must first dieâ
This is a philosophy of Socrates and my first statement on Grin Book.
Blog-Article why something Grin already has since the beginning would be good for the (barely usable) biggest cryptocurrency. Who would have thought!
2 Likes
so if grin becomes a âsuccessâ and adoption grows more than the inflation making the price increase would that mean it became a âgreater fool coinâ 
i mean seriously, it doesnât make sense to me, lets imagine that grin keeps decreasing its value in the future (which might not happen) ok if i want to save money i lose with grin, if i want to sell a car i want a store of value not grin, if i want to buy stuff i have to use something that sellers accept and no one accepts grin so no reason to even have grin to spend anyways, if i want fast and cheap money there are other better options like the 2nd layers for the âstore of valueâ coins that sellers actually accept.
also this âbiggest fool theoryâ assumes the underlying asset is worthless, but if bitcoin becomes the reserve currency the biggest fool is the seller.
of course grin is disinflationary so no problem here, eventually the price might increase and people might actually use.
Not true. Anywhere in the world, if you try to buy a car, the sellerâs preferred payment form will be the local fiat currency. In the US, car dealers expect to sell a car for dollars (or some cash equivalent) even though dollars are universally known to be a bad store of value.
Store of value != utility. Just because something loses value over time (e.g. dollars) doesnât preclude it from becoming a favorable medium of exchange (e.g. dollars). In fact, history shows the opposite to be the case.
they do it because this is the most known, trustworthy fiat currency that is enforced by the most economically powerful country in the world, people use their local currencies because the government forces you to do so and itâs not worth the trouble to go against it, but if you currency its bad enough for example if you live in argentina or venezuela a car seller will tend to prefer dollars.
but my point itâs not that people will always want the store of value, of course there is some randomness to it and other factors, what i mean is that given enough time and transactions people will tend towards using the currency that loses less value or gain value
Gaining value is not encouraging spending. Hence bankers came up with the magical number of 2% inflation which should balance a currency from keeping value while still encouraging spending.This number of 2% cannot be found back in scientific literature though. Hence I call it a âmagic numberâ.
Although opinions differ on what should be the optimal inflation, ranging from 0-10% roughly, there is a general consensus that some inflation is good for a currency since it stimulates spending opposed to just HODLING which is bad for the economy.
Deflation also makes debt mostly untenable, a loan would get harder and harder to pay back over time.
3 Likes
To answer the original question on this thread, there are enough supporters of Grin to keep it running, even if development stagnates. It looks like the new world of crypto is still being discovered. It looks like we have a strong candidate for store of value (Bitcoin), but peer to peer cash is still up in the air. Main reason for that IMO is that itâs still easier to use fiat currencies. I do believe though that once fiat goes fully digital and the backdoor of cash closes, we will then see stricter controls and therefore more need for P2P cash and I think Grin is a great candidate for that and could perhaps also be the best SoV. Until then, Grin supporters should be patient and keep this idea going.
4 Likes
This is why I have mentioned multiple times the need for an SDK.
Typically, UX-focused designers / developers are not the same people that specialize in blockchain. It would be great if we had a Grin SDK that we could give to React or Flutter developers and say âhave funâ.
To summarize, yes itâs non-trivial at the moment. But that doesnât mean that we are wrong. It is a UX problem, not a fundamental problem with Grin.
And Iâm going to ask the same thing, again, why donât you write the SDK you say we need? Here you will find the basics around communicating with the grin-wallet API and also 20+ bash scripts using cURL. I think thatâs a good start.
What is the problem with Grin UX exactly?
iâm barely a developer. in fact, iâm exactly the kind of person you say that should not be touching grin code lol
Yeah this is a big plus for interactive transactions and mimblewimble.
This is such a HUGE issue with the current coins available. Basically one must expect that some random person can taint your wallet at any time and render it useless to any services and there seems to be virtually nothing that you could do to prevent it.
2 Likes
in my country the only way to get BTC is peer to peer. you give cash they give you btc
i was always thinking what if I get tainted BTC ? what if months later I get blocked by an exchange because of trading activities with tainted bitcoin
1 Like
To be fair, that tornado cash thing is easily solved if the chain is using utxo model instead of account model because then utxos would be blacklisted. But yes, account models wouldnât have these issues if they had strictly only interactive transactions. People will become even more clever with time so i expect more problems on nitx chains.