ryrona Plus, there is a fair chance an actual secure and private phone like a GOS phone would be interesting to companies too. They generally only buy the most secure and private phones on the market to their employees anyway, to protect company secrets.
DeletedUser313 A phone only bought by privacy enthusiasts would be seen as an obstacle to surveillance
[Offtopic (Preface, Politics)]
Which leads back to a weird, almost instrumental relationship regarding privacy-vs-surveillance, which I see in many organisations (whether public, private, or hybrid) around the globe: Demanding secure and (more or less) private systems for themselves, but wanting to exploit vulnerabilities at the "other organisations'" systems.
With the principal problem, that a vulnerability in a technical system (biological systems may behave differently) per se does not care who exploits it and for what reason ...
This sometimes results in almost comedic situations, e.g. with the TOR network, where a state simultaneously likes it (funds the development, advises foreign dissidents to use it, uses it for own agents) and hates it (when it hampers their surveillance operations).
[More on-topic]
I'd really hope that reliable partners, good PR work, own ethos etc. could keep a GrapheneOS Phone at least somewhat away from becoming (too much of) a token and target in such janus-faced intelligence and counter-intelligence processes. Or at least ensure it stays an acceptable option for ordinary people instead of getting pushed into a "shady corner" adverse actors apparently want to push it (and sometimes all privacy enthusiasts) into.
It would be annoying as heck if buying a GOS phone would actually make you even more of a target (than is the case for some people even today) in the future, because you had to expect unending supply-chain attacks, be stigmatised etc.