By this time, Grin’s inflation rate and unlimited supply were much discussed. I will offer you a different perspective on this matter.
We all know the fact that Grin started with a high inflation rate and this will continue in the coming years. It’s been about 2.5 years since Grin came out and our inflation rate is now 42%. This is still too high and we think it could turn the investor away from Grin. At the same time, we think that the current low price is due to this. However, it may not be this way.
Let’s explain this first.
There are currently 75 million Grins on the market. If a big investor buys a large amount of Grin at the current cheap price;
If he/she buys 10 million units, it will have 1/60th of the total supply in the first 20 years.
If he/she buys 20 million units, it will have 1/30 of the total supply in the first 20 years.
If he/she buys 30 million units, it will have 1/20th of the total supply in the first 20 years.
If he/she buys 40 million units, it will have 1/15 of the total supply in the first 20 years.
If he/she buys 50 million units, it will have 1/12 of the total supply in the first 20 years.
So if Grin, with its anonymity, scalability, lightness and fairness, is going to be the money of the future, or at least have a significant place, it cannot prevent a rich person from investing. Because, as can be seen, with the current cheap price and low market value of 30 million dollars, the large amount of investment to be made now will give a significant percentage power in the coming years.
Although Grin is open to a large amount of investment, it will still resist the formation of a central authority. Because the investor has to constantly buy Grin to maintain his/her percentage in the supply while the supply increases forever. If he/she does not continue to invest, his power will constantly decrease. Note that 20 years are given in the example. As the time increases, the power will decrease.
When we look at this issue from the Bitcoin perspective, we come to a very different point. If we give a single example;
If 1 million Bitcoins were bought in 2010–2011, at least 1 in 21 would be owned forever.
This shows that with a single purchase, you will have the same percentage forever.
As a result;
- Limited supply is not necessary for something to rise and increase in value. Because, as seen in the Grin example above, large purchases can easily ensure that a large part of the supply is stocked and its value increased. In this respect, it shows that inflation and supply are only one factor for investment but not a single factor.
- While heavy purchase in Bitcoin creates a centralized power forever, in Grin the power is decreasing over the years. This shows that when a large amount of investment is made, justice in Grin is achieved over time, while in Bitcoin it can create injustice forever.
- Even if Bitcoin is useless, its price can be inflated with its unlimited supply. For example, when millions of Bitcoins are locked in wallets without being used by central authorities, the price may inflate artificially. However, the big investor who buys Grin will look for a usage area. Because supply is unlimited, there is resistance to creating price inflation just by buying. Mass adoption and use is required.
- Finally, let’s consider that the price of Bitcoin and Grin starts at $1.Bitcoin soared as high as $65,000. This enabled the first investor to become 65,000 times richer. When we calculate the value of Grin with its unlimited supply, let’s assume that even if it replaces Bitcoin, it would average $2000 when it was in supply of 500 million. This enriches the first investor 2000 times.
So which one is more fair? Being 65,000 times richer? Being 2000 times richer?
In 2010–2011, we make 65,000 times richer, even those who bought Bitcoin and forgot about it. Let’s think about these well.
“No road is long when you have a good friend by your side.”
Minexpert — Cihat Ozturk