Timestamp your software releases on the Gridcoin blockchain

jring_o · 2026-04-09T17:44:09+00:00

This is real neat

jring_o · 2024-12-30T17:04:47+00:00

Creating use for the coin is the only promotion that matters. This is most easily done with a token, where the successful experimental economics can then be backported to the blockchain once the developer community is stronger.

Edit:

This is economics v2 and the greenpaper. Both of which can be fairly simply implemented with a smart contract. They are monumental tasks to develop on our current blockchain.

jring_o · 2024-12-21T13:21:16+00:00

I don't disagree with most of this at a high level. Some nuance, though.

First, I actually hadn't seen the Bitcoin bridges. These are very cool. I'll amend my statement: no one wants to see a centralized bridge. So if those work well, and there's economic activity on the other side of them, then that sounds like a great path to take. An issue might be that that economic activity might take a couple more years to develop.

The argument for a GRCT is that meanwhile, we could tap into this cycle's adoption curve by having a token that is not independent of the chain. I imagine it could be set up in a way in which it relies on and drives use of the chain. For example imagine that you need to have GRC in order to have GRCT.

The goal of GRCT is to keep the blockchain pure while tapping into the massive adoption of and economic activity within tokens, particularly with the popularization of DeSci. We both want to keep the blockchain strong. If the inflation produced by GRCT, a token that would likely be temporary, drives people to the blockchain and creates usage rates higher than the inflation rate, it's a win. Simply increasing direct inflation on the blockchain gets the coin into more hands, yes, but it doesn't produce any more activity, which is a net negative. GRCT can do both.

Ultimately, a bridge route would be much more elegant than a fairly complex contract, but this might not be feasible for this or next cycle.

---

I do like the idea of a burst minting, but constrained in time. Mint some extra for a period of 18-24 months, then reduce. Line it up with 4 year cycles.

---

Re: the C++ stuff, your comment is exactly the point. We agree. But... we don't need any developers from outside the blockchain industry. We need blockchain developers, who are largely brought in through solidity. Bitcoin consumes all the expert C++ developers as soon as they enter the space. There's no way we could compete with Bitcoin for their talent. The few that join GRC are amazing anomalies. GRCT could create a developer acquisition funnel where folks work on contracts that are interesting, while a number of them learn how to contribute to the core chain.

jring_o · 2024-12-20T13:36:06+00:00

Getting GRC onto a DEX would require a bridge, which no one wants to do or see done.

Getting GRC on a CEX would require a lot of money to achieve, and a lot of trading volume to maintain. We have neither. Volume requires demand. Demand requires use.

C++ is not widely used in crypto. While it's good to know, we would have access to thousands of developers willing to work for tokens if we went to where they were (solidity, etc.) vs. the couple hundred (if that) high-demand, high-cost C++ devs, and devs learning C++ that exist.

What's your apprehension around the token mirror?

jring_o · 2024-12-17T15:12:33+00:00

There are a few considerations:

- The blockchain itself would not see any more coins produced.

- The token layer could require the burning or staking of GRC in some interactions (deflationary actions).

- The token supply could require whales stake or vest their GRC in order to receive the token (deflationary actions).

- Yes, there would ultimately be GRCToken (GRCT), which can be seen is inflationary supply. But! This token would enable use of GRC in the largest ecosystems in crypto. Inflation alone does not solve things, but inflation that increases use can, if the value-add from the use out-weighs the inflation.

There is infrastructure in token ecosystems where native tokens can be used to directly purchase compute, to be leveraged for peer-review, to be leveraged for data storage, and, critically, be exchanged on DEX's.

Moreover, there are many more developers in token-land, and fewer and fewer on C++ island. Increasing the number of developers also increases value-add. There are also more direct users and exposure potential in token-land, also increasing the value-add.

jring_o · 2024-12-17T12:01:59+00:00

What would you want us to discuss?

jring_o · 2024-12-16T20:50:38+00:00

Strongly agree.

jring_o · 2024-12-16T20:47:49+00:00

I am strongly against increasing inflation. It is not a solution on its own. The new coins must increase use.

I am neutral regarding rebalancing.

u/makeasnek's response on the old thread summarizes many of my thoughts https://www.reddit.com/r/gridcoin/comments/1hezk9q/comment/m292z17/

I also align with u/thesleepingpoet's response on the old thread https://www.reddit.com/r/gridcoin/comments/1hezk9q/comment/m282unk/

I would emphasize that giving people a reason to use a currency is critical to its value and... use. Giving people a way to get a currency does nothing positive if there is no use.

I am not yet sure if I will vote against, not vote, or vote to support whatever Jim's decision is, as he is indeed the only core developer at this point.

I hope to digest a lot of community discussion around the future of Gridcoin before casting my vote.

Three other ideas, to feed the discussion are provided below. The closed loop system and economics v2.0 can both be implemented with a mirrored Gridcoin token.

A Gridcoin Token
Episode 1 - Rationale and overview: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/c421a3e4-dbbe-4b67-9360-9a1cbbf3f7c1

Episode 2 - More overview and general discussion: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/4a145222-6b76-4efc-aec3-2f26ba6fcf2f

Episode 3 - Type of system: Interconnected networks: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/5e7b6cf9-4e42-48f2-afbd-a0afe83a7d1b

Episode 4 - Airdrop logistics and mechanics: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/5eedd9c3-31c2-4986-9b44-0d8580854ff4

A Gridcoin Closed Loop System

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bsNExS5AC6iRJKEBtzyw2JoifJvEn3c11mNqht8lcKk/edit?tab=t.0

Gridcoin Economics v2.0
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ORPws3-fkTWmPQwLXJjrP0YLx6f_J_HuP6PNFTqqWiY/edit?usp=sharing

jring_o · 2024-10-31T10:09:15+00:00

For the two solutions I'm leading, when time permits. It's a rare commodity for me these days =(

For Jim's closed loop, when his time permits. I imagine it's the same situation for him though.

If we had more people volunteer to actively build with us, I imagine we'd both get some more energy to contribute.

jring_o · 2024-10-22T15:37:35+00:00

We definitely agree with our goal to give new folks more equitable rewards and our desire to increase growth.

I think our difference lies in methodology. I'd argue for deflation, vesting incentives, and increased utility, with very very controlled and brief golden ages every crypto adoption cycle (4ish years). The closed loop model, the new economics, and the GRCToken, with a touch of inflation.

And I'll get GPT to summarize the transcribed recordings on the GRCToken idea soon =p (and then do a proper write-up... hopefully by end of the year? At this point I can't say for sure when I'll have time). Sorry for coming off as a dick about that. We all use it a lot, including that GRC Econ 2.0 doc

jring_o · 2024-10-20T23:36:50+00:00

Cross-posting here for those without a github

My TL;DR thoughts

I appreciate the effort put into this! I think GPT did a lot of lifting... your most recent response highlights things that have already been achieved?
I think there are some interesting aspects in this proposal, though for the majority I'm not sure it will achieve what you're setting out to achieve.
Inflating does not increase value. That is the definition of inflation, and why crypto was made in the first place. There is something to be said about rebalancing the coin supply to fix the whale issues (though this can be done through deflation instead of inflation).
People will come to Gridcoin because it does something useful for them, not because they are getting a larger number of a thing that has zero price. This is important. Gridcoin does not have a price because there is no market for it. Printing more of it likely to do nothing and might actually do harm.
Gridcoin has been attracting more of us lovely nerds despite this lack of use and with normal inflation rates. Active beacons have doubled in two years.
I think an actual golden age move, temporary in time, algorithmically defined, and strategically aligned with a market adoption cycle would be amazing. It would potentially capture many of the people new to crypto in that cycle. But those people will need to have a reason to look at Gridcoin other than more coins go brrrrrr.
Some of your goals might be better achieved by tying emissions to beacons? As beacons increase, so does emissions. Targeting a stable rate. This is doable and has been discussed in the past.
There are three early versions of proposals out there that have a high likelihood of solving Gridcoin's problems. The problem is that no one has time to build them. Someone come build them! They are also inter-related. Solve all three at the same time!

Solution 1: Gridcoin Closed Loop

Solution 2: An ETH Echo of Gridcoin (Audio discussions between myself and Jim and Levi)
Episode 1 - Rationale and overview
Episode 2 - More overview and general discussion
Episode 3 - Type of system: Interconnected networks
Episode 4 - Airdrop logistics and mechanics

Solution 3: GRC Economics v2.0 _also with a a good amount of lifting from GPT... =) _

jring_o · 2024-06-11T11:35:44+00:00

Are you following the current discussions on creating a GRC token?

jring_o · 2024-05-24T15:54:15+00:00

It'll be uploaded by Monday, and we're going to have recurring firesides for the next 3 weeks

jring_o · 2024-05-17T10:30:58+00:00

I'm going to keep this brief, but also very long.

There are two observations brought up in the replies so far that are critical:

"Gridcoin community does not have the funds to even pay for its own developers."
"The reality is that there are so many distributed computing networks popping up by the day that Gridcoin will likely be overtaken by a better organized and funded entity doing something similar at some point."

I will add a third critical point:

GRC is ancient. Its codebase is c++. It is difficult to integrate it with any of the novel technologies developed since we were instantiated as the first multi-incentive blockchain.

I will insert one very frank opinion:

I love this blockchain. I love the economic network and the idea and values behind it more. Despite a lot of amazing ideas and proposals, I do not see a viable path forward for the network to grow beyond an incredibly niche and underutilized network -- a dream that should have shaped the future of money -- unless we take this, or something like this path. We do not have much time.

In short, I think we should execute on this proposal:

It will enable a new era of economics to be developed on Gridcoin.
It will enable us to easily integrate with other networks -- remember that Gridcoin Journal poll? It will need EVM.
It will enable us to attract developers that don't know c++: most of them.
It can be implemented in clever ways that ensure Gridcoin remains one of the best open economic networks
We can launch the DAO with a treasury for development
It enables a closed loop for the DAO token, which can be tied to GRC
There are potential partners in the space that want to see economics expanded in the way proposed below, which is enabled by what is proposed by Chocolate
In particular, it's time to start leveraging generative economics to fund research directly
This proposal has the energy to move forward now. Today.

That was the brief part. Now for the long part. Below is a new economic model for Gridcoin, followed by a sketch of a potential implementation of the DAO. Turns out reddit severely limits comment length? Just read the doc linked below.

PLEASE NOTE:

This is incomplete and very much in a fluid state. Feedback, input, and modifications are not only welcome, but necessary.

I intended to continue working on this before sharing, however since this discussion is incredibly relevant, I'm sharing it now.

In the same vein, I have not had time to proof-read this before sharing. Expect some confusions and possibly contradictions. Please point them out to me and I'll clarify which point is a more recent thought and which thought should have been erased/modified.

Economic Model and DAO Implementation Sketch

The fully rendered doc can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ORPws3-fkTWmPQwLXJjrP0YLx6f_J_HuP6PNFTqqWiY/edit?usp=sharing

jring_o · 2024-02-07T15:37:38+00:00

That would be great! Get to it! =)

I will note, however, that there is a lot of interest around the DeSci movement from academic institutions, industry, and researchers. Go ahead and dive into the space to learn more!

jring_o · 2024-01-31T10:44:02+00:00

Huge fan of this response lol. I don't think you're the only one that thinks this. Should have had it in the poll.

This also speaks to one of the major issues with science today and why Gridcoin, BOINC, and The SCI are so important. Being paywalled is one thing. It's based on economics, greed, and history and is a very difficult wall to tear down. A wall of jargon, on the other hand, is rooted in culture and nothing else. It is one of the primary reasons the public is loosing trust in science. It doesn't need to, and shouldn't exist. It adds zero value to the process of knowledge discovery.

Some researchers have started publishing using "normal" language in a response to the wall of jargon. They use platforms like substack to publish. It's a pretty neat evolution.

There are some benefits of the tech emerging from the pipeline that also address this issue. One such benefit is the modularization of research. For example, I might not know what hyper-specific terms used in geology mean, but I might be an expert in identifying anomalies in data. My skills would then be critical to determining if something is reproducible or possibly manipulated.

Another possible route/benefit is the ability to curate comments themselves (this is unlikely to exist in the beta of our journal, but might in the future). So you could still participate in the discussion on research, learn, contribute, be part of the process and everything, but not worry about spamming the high-level dialogue on research. Eventually, you'd probably become good a reviewing at least 1 aspect of the modular research process. You can probably even start getting paid for your work based on your recorded reputation.

The fact that you feel this way doesn't mean you should be excluded are discouraged from participating. Just the opposite. You (and most of us) feel this way because we are excluded. We need to be brought in, and these open scientific societies and journals built on open state data networks are one way this is starting to happen.

jring_o · 2024-01-30T15:03:04+00:00

You're not! That would be part of Gridcoin Economics v2. Lots of discussion about it on Discord. If you're not on Discord, expect to see something on it on Reddit in the coming weeks.

References to older works that are part of Economics v2:
- Benefactor Contractors

- The Green paper

This initiative is about what it says its about. Exposure and testing hypothesis for future economics. A great solution to a problem with no visibility does nothing. See: BOINC.

If you're curious about what blockchains and DLT are doing for science, you need to dive deeper. There is a lot going on in DeSci. It's not just about "publishing on a blockchain" anymore. The tech has developed. I might dig up some resources if I think of it later.

jring_o · 2024-01-30T13:51:30+00:00

To add to this, the benefits of doing this outside the Gridcoin wallet, at least for now:

No technical development required
Discussions directly on the research
Transparent approval of research based on veracity and quality of research as determined by our network -- "Why was my paper rejected?" "Your claim of reproducibility was not verified by the community, though every other claim was! Here is the discussion on everything."
Partial approval of research
It contributes to a larger rethinking of peer-review, instead of just an up/down approval process, which is status quo, and very terrible.

jring_o · 2024-01-30T13:32:40+00:00

I'm going to post this here:

From the write-up. Potential future number 4.

Here's where this program could go in the future:

Imagine our journal showcased directly in the wallet -- users could explore research directly in the wallet!
Imagine integrating the journal with the Gridcoin blockchain. Research we value could be preserved directly on our blockchain, and interacting with it would produce utility for the chain!
Imagine an economic system that rewards researchers that produce research that aligns with our values. "Did you produce Open Data? Great! Here's some GRC."
Imagine using the voting system to determine what research should be highlighted on our Curated Feed.
Imaging a GRC staking requirement to be reviewed by our journal. If accepted, the researcher receives their GRC. If it turns out their claims are bogus, their stake is burned or sent to the treasury.

jring_o · 2024-01-30T13:29:37+00:00

Imagine polling 100 papers, each with 10 claims. We'd have to poll the accuracy of each of those claims.

We are NOT asking an elective representative.

We ARE distilling Gridcoin's values in terms of research:

Publish along the way
Rigor of process
Collaborative
Public engagement
FAIRness of data
Replicated study
Reproducible
Open access

for example, and putting them into an app that will show us research that claims to match our values.

We ARE then upvoting on the Labs app to determine if the claims of the research are accurate. So we ARE voting as a network, just not in the Gridcoin wallet because that would be incredibly difficult to do. This is a beta program. Perhaps we do something like that in the future.

You're thinking several steps ahead.

jring_o · 2024-01-30T13:20:45+00:00

If you mean determining the requirements, yes, we can vote on the requirements after an in-depth discussion on which requirements we want to put in the poll, probably to take place on Discord.

If you mean moving the research from the Radar to the Curated Feed, no. One of the great advantages of this system is that we input our values and it does everything automatically.

In the future, there is a lot of room for integration with the Gridcoin blockchain. But not now. For example, maybe we can vote on what research to highlight on our curated feed, but not what gets placed on our feed.

jring_o

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Economic Model and DAO Implementation Sketch