Thank you, @Dutch. This again confirms my concerns that this just creates a higher barrier to entry. I think @scaletrix and @jefpatat are tone-deaf (no offense meant, of course; we can all agree to disagree) to the challenges we are currently facing with getting BOINCers to join: they don't want to join the pool. Why would they? A big component of BOINC is individual recognition and contribution and loyalty to your teams. Why would you go into the pool - a centralized resource - when you are trying to support a decentralized resource, be loyal to your team and help it move up the ranks, and still get credit under your own user name. If we're trying to do away with the team requirement, yet then forcing people over to the pool it's a self-defeating effort.

Therein lies the existing problem with GRC already: BOINCers don't like it because it disrupts the existing team framework, so we already have an adamant wing of the BOINC base against us. Why create an even higher barrier to entry now?

As others have painfully pointed out, it's already difficult enough to join GRC, so I'll just repost what I've posted before: I started to think about to when I started GRC. It was already a pain in the ass to get the wallet and blockchain loaded. Then I had to send a beacon and wait like 1-2 weeks to get my first payout - and that was after buying a couple thousand coins.

Here's what I see as issues based upon what I'm reading:

1. As a newbie, I wanted to stake at least once a week. Anything beyond that was scary to me. I think the idea that you could need 10K-30K coins to even start tasking once a month or so, that might be pretty daunting and create a huge barrier to entry.
2. GRC's purpose is to support BOINC - anything that creates barriers to entry to GRC creates a barrier to entry to new participants in BOINC.