It could work, but I think it could be a little complicated. Here's my approach. I'd like to see what you think.
I say we keep everything as it is now, with whitelisted projects being voted upon, but with the added feature of private projects being able to buy being whitelisted(whitelisting?), with Gridcoins.
Now in this model all projects are "equal", with private projects having the ability to be voted into the whitelist, in theory. Now that most likely wont happen. So a company could buy whitelisting for 6 month for lets say, 10,000 GRC. (Not saying how much we should charge, just saying a random number.) Then the funds would be taken from the company's GRC wallet and burnt, or permanently wiped from the total amount of GRC which would increase the price per coin. And to prevent too many Gridcoins from being burnt at any time, we could scale the whitelisting rental to the amount of current coins in circulation on top of limiting the total number of private projects. The rewards for researching could remain the same for all future projects, Private or Non-Profit.
So Gridcoin could not only hold wealth and buy products, but also give private companies access to BOINC's vast processing power, which burns the coins, increasing the price of each individual Gridcoin.
Just me spit balling a few ideas I had, don't take it too too seriously. Let me know what you think @guk
I don't like in general 'coin burning' idea. Money is a means of exchanging goods and services, not for burning! It's not a coal.
I see it like this:
Company is buying N GRCs. Their project is launched with a separate bounty of N. If payout for miners is attractive they will join and start crunching this project. Now let's assume it will take 4 months at steady pace. Half of N coins will be locked for more than 2 months. This and other forces are limiting amount of GRCs available on the market. Simple, intuitive, allows market to directly evaluate GRC value.
Bitcoin supply increase is if I'm not mistaken at 4% at the moment. It is very close to what we have at the moment in Gridcoin. Also, Bitcoin is a father of all, the first one, the special one. It's a base coin to exchange other coins on all the exchanges etc. It makes many comparisons with Bitcoin to be inadequate.
Gridcoin would still serve as a currency when burnt. It would serve the typical role as a means to purchase goods, as well as a resource for organizations to be whitelisted. The whole burning idea is a way to counteract the inflationary nature of a unlimited coin.
So if a company spends X GRC to be whitelisted for a month, then X coins are being burnt from that transaction, which increases the price per GRC. If we were to set a price per month for whitelisting, lets say $100 worth of GRC for example, then the subsequent whitelisted companies would spend the same amount of USD, but less GRC each time do the increase in the price per GRC. So the amount of GRC burnt would lessen and lessen with every company added, and with every month of whitelisting paid for,while the price per GRC would rise.
With this we can keep the current work/reward system for GRC. The only thing that would need to be added is a way for companies to apply for whitelisting, and a way for the blockchain to be able to burn the GRC from said company.
Then again, I'm kinda new to all this and i'm just throwing some ideas out there that I had. I bet there's plenty of problems with this idea, but I'm always trying to help out and learn in the process.
Burning coins in return for providing processing power to a project was what I thought of originally, with new coins being minted to reward the crunchers.
I changed that to merely recycling the coins as I thought it may be easier. Either way if we are constantly creating coins we need to constantly create demand.
Personally I think burning could be helpful. I've expanded upon it in my most recent post. Here's the link. I mentioned your post as inspiration.
https://steemit.com/gricoin/@b-reis/burning-the-value-into-gridcoin