I support the idea of burning Coins for private projects, if not as well of all voluntary projects. I thought of it also. As the supply of GRC is unlimited, we have to think of a mechanism to restrict / subtract Coins from the supply to gain some value of the Coin.

I do see Vortsac’s argument under 1) and 2) in his comment in the other thread, but I am not able to see his point 3) as I do not see it for Sparc, Golem etc. either.

Why would a private company take all the hassle to implement a BOINC project in the first place? As several projects demonstrate, it is quite complicated to implement a project in a cross platform environment: different OS used, different Hardware (CPUs and GPUs), age of the hardware and so on. I think it is much easier to go to a company with homogeneous Soft- and Hardware to set up a project, than investing in the set-up of BOINC, buying GRIDCOIN, convincing the community that the project is trustworthy to get it whitelisted and so on.

I think it might be much easier to convince a Hardware manufacturer or an Online Retailer to accept GRC as direct payment option (See for example NEWEGG accepting BTC), as a “marketing gag” or another form of supporting public/volunteer computer science as IBM does with World Community Grid. There you create real demand of the GRC. We cruncher might directly buy hardware with the Coins offsetting the electric bills to pay for, and the others “cryptocurrency” aficionado indirectly over the exchange.

What I do not see, if the company will come to the FIAT currency to pay the wages and so on… but this is a whole other story.