Grin can become a store of value eventually, but as a medium of exchange I can only see it functioning well early in its life cycle, and that as it ages gradually change towards a better fit as a store of value.
In general I do not think those two properties (store of value and medium of exchange) are really compatible as a single medium if both are to function well.
Grin is touted as being more fair because of linear emission, and thus better for exchange. But at the same time, we brag that Grin will eventually have a lower inflation rate than Gold.
So which is it? Grin is better for exchange or better for SOV?
Is it even possible to be both or even just good for exchange? Maybe with some kind of variable emission rate?
It all depends on the loss rate. I estimate a loss rate of 2% for Grin is realistic. At the moment gold has an inflation rate of 1.4%. So I do not think Grin will become a better store of value than gold, apart from having the advantages of being digital and so less cumbersome to handle than real gold.
For me there is a simpler argument against calling Grin a SOV. There will always be projects with a finite supply of which some will be better stores of value than Grin. Sure, Grin will become a decent store of value in 50 years when supply and loss will probably balance each-other, but I do not think that we should focus of the property SOV for Grin, that is not its main purpose in my opinion nor will it be very relevant for the cumming decades.
Grin will have a smaller loss rate than other coins because you can’t send to an address who can’t spend it
I’d say a feature of a good SOV is also predictability which in the case of systems like Bitcoin/Grin is also predictable security. While Grin’s inflation rate drops much slower, it has more predictable security.
We also have to account for the fact that the mining rewards will be worth less and less over time, right? 60 grin when the supply is 30 million is different from when the supply is 30 trillion.
So really the author of the post brings up the good point that essentially, the soft supply cap of Grin sort of flips the current narrative upside-down.
I think the desire is to figure out what the true consistent narrative of Grin really is.
It’s a good philosophy, but we probably should have an answer for people at least regarding diminishing mining rewards.
People make the same argument about Monero. If the tail emission is the same forever now, it eventually won’t be rewarding enough to actually secure the network.
Just thinking out loud, but maybe we can look to Gold for precedent. It is being unearthed at the same rate, but theoretically you get diminishing returns the more of it you unearth. How has this affected the gold mining industry?
I’m not familiar with the gold mining industry. You’re right that the inflation rate becomes lower and lower, but I’m not worried about the long term Grin security. We’ll have 1% inflation in 100 years. Bitcoin will have 0.9% next year. I also believe adoption will play a bigger role in security than the inflation rate as security is proportional to price.
My goodness, my own logic is completely flawed I realize The whole point of having a loss rate of 2% for Grin, or perhaps lower, means that there is no increase in the amount of available Grin in 50 years or so. So yes, when the loss rate per year equals the mining reward per year, there will be no inflation at all and as such Grin will become a good SOV even better than gold for which the loss rate is unlikely to become equal to the amount of gold being mined.
These arguments make Grin IMO superior both as SOV and as digital cash/money. I do think that in 10-20 years from now everyone will applaud Grin’s interactivity and all the benefits that come with it.
Most importantly, everyone is free to use Grin for whatever purpose they like. I am more interested in its properties as digital cash, but sure, other might hoard it as a long term SOV. The whole point is that no one can dictate the use of a decentralized project like Grin
One of the ways that people critique Bitcoin is thus:
In order to be a good SOV, the network has to be secure longterm. The network cannot be secure longterm if the mining reward drops to zero.
Is Grin immune to this criticism? in 100 years, the mining reward will effectively be zero because it will stay exactly the same but the total coins will be massive. The mining reward will be a drop of water instead of a bucket of water.
Definitely not immune. I would consider it the primary criticism.
The counter argument is that lost and dormant coins will result in the reward not being effectively zero. It will be as compared to all coins ever mined, but coins in circulation will certainly be less than that. How much less? We can only speculate, and with hidden amounts we will never know either. We will only be able to make assumptions based on the market.
The alternative would’ve been rising block reward, and there’s just no hope that we would’ve convinced anybody of the sustaining value in that. It’s hard enough with constant. Constant is the conservative compromise.
What we can say for sure is that “arguably effectively zero” is a lot better than actually zero.
It’s not as different as you might think. Monero allows the size to grow (slowly) if the miner accepts a (growing) penalty on the reward.
There is no penalty for block sizes up to 300KB (correct me if I got some details wrong).
For me the wording of being more fair, doesn’t make sense, because fairness is not measurable or gradable. I think Unfairness could measurable or gradable. But being less unfair in a specific dimension does not mean being more fair.
I expect the loss-rate and the demand being unstable and depended. Dis-inflationary coins like bitcoin and grin will probably suffer the problem, that the fraction of lost coins becomes more and more unknown. At some point users will question whether the fraction of lost coins is 1% or 99% and can not answer it.
I would say that if unfairness is measurable then so is fairness (it’s just the inverse). It’s true that there are many dimensions where one could measure (un)fairness, but when people say that it’s more fair they usually mean that early adopters have less of an advantage, so in that regards i think it’s fair to say that it’s more fair in this dimension - and this dimension is probably the most important one. So i applaud anyone who says that grin is the most fair coin out there
You applaud. I roll my eyes. Fairness is such a silly marketing point. I think childish marketing like that actually undermines the project more than it helps.
I think it’s childish to assume all people are saying that for marketing purpose. If you would follow chats on keybase you would have known that i’ve never cared about grin’s marketing. Sometimes people just have different opinions and that’s fine
Equality is a widely accepted value that promotes fairness among all individuals. Throughout history, there have been instances where unequal treatment has been challenged and efforts have been made to correct it. Examples include promoting education for women and ending slavery for Black people. This is not a marketing point, but a fundamental aspect of creating a just society.
The whole point of having a loss rate of 2% for Grin, or perhaps lower, means that there is no increase in the amount of available Grin in 50 years or so. So yes, when the loss rate per year equals the mining reward per year, there will be no inflation at all and as such Grin will become a good SOV even better than gold for which the loss rate is unlikely to become equal to the amount of gold being mined.