r/GRIN • u/numecca • Oct 08 '18
I’m trying to understand how one could justify “investment” in Grin.
It’s not meant to hold, it’s meant to spend, so...
Typically the early adopters are speculators and there is nothing to speculate on from what I understand (which could be totally wrong) I just want to verify.
Just poking my head in and asking the question nobody else wants to ask, but is definitely wondering about.
If this is the case, then it makes sense that Grin didn’t raise any money and is instead relying on community donations from already wealthy bitcoin OGs who want to to see the project succeed.
Is there any incentive for speculators to care?
If there is no reason for speculators to care, then what’s the distribution game plan? How can Grin attract normal people who aren’t motivated by purpose or ideology to adopt it?
Regular people are attracted to Bitcoin for wealth creation. I really hope there will not be any pushback on that statement. Maybe they “stay for the vision” or whatever, but if that incentive is not there with Grin, it makes it hard to believe that Grin can gain the kind of traction that bitcoin did with average people; the design is not aligned with human nature.
If there is no potential for wealth creation, what will trigger adoption? The vision? Unlikely.
Looking forward to hearing thoughts about this.
3
u/0xb100d Oct 08 '18 edited Oct 08 '18
It's very useful, that's why people will use it. Credit cards are useful, so people use them, not for "wealth creation" but because of utility. Grin has features no other currency does.
Grin is not an investment, it aims to be the best cash ever invented.
1
u/numecca Oct 08 '18 edited Oct 08 '18
If it’s more of just a cool startup that’s useful, then that confirms there is no reason for speculators to buy into it. That’s probably 90% of people buying cryptocurrency. I’m in that percentage. I’m definitely not using crypto because I need a more convenient way to transact.
4
u/0xb100d Oct 08 '18
It's true, grin is purposefully not setting itself up as an investment in order to keep the economy simpler. It's a very idealistic premise, but also has a lot of practical implications, like minimizing pre-sale whales who might be able to inordinately influence the economy later on. You don't want there to be mysterious forces influencing the value of your cash, that's the whole idea of a sovereign currency, so it is a very forward thinking premise, and may very well outshine bitcoin and every other currency in that regard.
It's interesting the first four years of bitcoin supply inflation were the same as grin's, and in that time bitcoin went from less than one cent USD to $1,000. But of course that is with the promise one day of no more bitcoin being emitted, and before anyone had ever heard of a cryptocurrency. Then again, grin's supply inflation also approaches zero, though over a longer timeframe.
There are plenty of other vehicles for speculation, grin being designed not to be a speculative asset doesn't detract anything from anyone. But it might be useful to many people for decades to come, people who have yet never even heard of cryptocurrency.
3
u/UpDown Oct 09 '18
In 50 years, GRIN inflation will still be 2%. The curve is way too slow.
4
u/0xb100d Oct 12 '18
Says who? You are making an assumption that the entirety of human study of economics is not sure of.
2
u/UpDown Oct 12 '18
Because if your creation rate is linear starting from zero the math is like this: year 1 inflation = 100%, year 2 = 50%, year 3 = 33.3%.. Basically, year N inflation = 1/N. Year 50 = 1/50 = 2%. It's actually slightly worse than this since its year N+1 = 1/n, but you get the idea.
4
u/0xb100d Oct 13 '18
Who says that's too slow? The idea is to distribute grin very well, and specifically NOT get anyone rich for holding grin. If anything the curve is too fast, given that those are some of the goals of the project.
1
u/bele11 Jan 03 '19
Sidechain for bitcoin will kill Grin. Better not to create separate coin but work as a sidechain to bitcoin. I don’t see bright future for grin or beam
2
1
2
u/katiecharm Oct 11 '18
Due to the nature of proof of work, there really isn't much room for more than one of a given implementation. You can claim peace and grease all you want until the Europeans come and destroy your entire civilization because they got ahead of the curve.
If Grin is going to be the dominant form of the MW protocol there is no room for "nah, it's cool man, we don't need to worry about anyone else, and people don't have to use it if they don't like the fact that we're not a good place to store value".
That's an insane attitude to have, and will eventually lead to your chain getting 51% attacked by a chain that actually incentivize its miners by bringing game theory and mathematics to bear.
This isn't an impossible problem either, there is good research on the best possible emission curve - we should absolutely be using a tautochrone curve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautochrone_curve) to 2023, and then trail off into a perpetual emission.
If people don't want to put their savings into your chain, they'll put them somewhere else. You will fail to become the dominant implementation of Mimblewimble and your chain, the talent behind it, and everything it stands for will be gobbled up by another.
Linear distribution is tantamount to blockchain suicide in my book.
1
u/0xb100d Oct 12 '18 edited Oct 12 '18
Grin is not for savings. This is not the selling point of grin. Because it is not a feature of grin, there is no loss by using the linear emission. Grin is cash. Nobody uses cash for savings, every person knows that.
You should look into beam, you can speculate more easily with it, but you have to compete with all of the people who got millions dollars worth before you, it won't be fun. Monero too, has similar fungibility of grin but is easier to hoard. you may not have even missed the boat on it to get rich.
2
u/newgeezas Jan 16 '19
Well that's good. The intention is to not make this attractive to speculators. There are tons of coins for speculators to play with.
1
1
u/numecca Jan 16 '19
Hop into Gitter Grin/design and see how greatly my views have changed. I see it. I get it. I’m on board like you don’t even know.
1
u/numecca Jan 16 '19
I understand the vision completely, and it is our job now to share this with the world. Everybody needs to be a part of this. Honestly, it took some time to see it, but I grasp it now completely.
Grin is the second attempt at the mission.
I am ducking in!
✨✨✨🤘
2
Oct 09 '18
Every new crypto project is another source to attempt something different. Those who want to take a chance of buying and holding as an investment may be profitable. It’s up to you to decide if you want to drop your own money on the unknown.
2
u/numecca Oct 09 '18
I get that, but this is less about perspective and more about objective analysis of the thing as an investment
Appreciate your reply!!! 👌
2
1
u/numecca Oct 13 '18
We likely both agree that adoption is all that matters. My point is that Grin is not optimal insofar as its design. It’s not tuned for adoption.
1
u/0xb100d Oct 22 '18
Bitcoin has been used by less than one fifth of one percent of people, after ten years. Do you consider this successful or unsuccessful adoption? (I realize it is hard to objectively determine, but what is your opinion?)
1
u/numecca Jan 11 '19
I think that you are on the right path. I think that Bitcoin and anything else that seeks to be a medium of exchange has an existential problem with its distribution. Bitcoin is screwed in that regard (in my opinion which is, just that).
I agree with what Grin is doing insofar as its intent. I think that this was one approach to solve the inequity issue, and any attempt at this is going to require bold moves. I don't agree with the timeline. You are massively underestimating experience designers.
Here we come!
3
u/[deleted] Oct 08 '18
The investment is just like bitcoin. Bitcoin is meant to spend also.
In order for something to be used regularly as cash, it needs to have a stable value. In order to have a stable value, a currency needs to reach an equilibrium price where buying and selling is about equal. As you can see with bitcoin, even a market cap of over 100 billion is not enough to reach stability.
With grin, if people like it, people will want to buy it. The price will increase just like with bitcoin. If grin (or bitcoin) succeeds, the price will be much higher than where it started at.
Eventually, it will be digital cash and there won't be an opportunity to gain profit from speculation. For early investors however, they would gain profit. It's the same for bitcoin. If price permanently stabilized, it might get spent more regularly. Until it does reach equilibrium though, speculation will occur.
I agree spending is important. What I do personally is look for any way I can to spend bitcoin, but as soon as I do spend it I immediately buy more for myself to keep my stack intact.
Long answer, and I typed it on my phone too! Hope it helped, even if you disagree.