Hi Zcash community - ZCG is planning to include a question in the upcoming Helios election poll regarding a requested increase in committee member compensation.
In 2024, committee members recorded an average of over 20 hours of work per month, as documented in their timesheets submitted to the Zcash Foundation. To better align compensation with this time commitment, we are requesting community approval for a pay increase.
Additionally, we propose that the difference between current compensation and the new rate be paid in a static amount of ZEC. We believe that testing a hybrid adjustment like this could foster greater competition in ZCG elections, attract a broader pool of talent, and/or enable greater time commitments, particularly if ZEC appreciates in value.
For reference, the question will be:
Do you support increasing ZCG Committee members’ compensation for 2025 from $1,725 per month to $1,725 + 10 ZEC per month?
With the new model of ZCG no longer funding community projects (outside of the potential whole year funded projects like ZecHub) do the ZCG members feel this new approach will result in a reduction of the typical hours worked per month?
I’m personally not a fan of set denomination in ZEC for a set one year time period. It exposes the community to potential overcompensating ZCG for work not being performed while also risking members being underpaid for their work.
If ZCG members want exposure to ZEC price volatility I would suggest setting the (10ZEC approx USD $550) requested pay raise as the new standard $2,275 base pay. Then ZCG members can choose for themselves what % of that USD amount they wish to have paid in ZEC.
Thereby, by HODLing their ZEC, the ZCG members can be exposed to the amount of market volatility that they feel comfortable with (more or less aggressive ZEC% of base USD pay) without the risk of monthly over or underpayment.
I support the increase, because I think and feel that the ZCG is a very important entity within our ecosystem. And I like that fixed amount in ZEC.
Now, playing devil’s advocate, and thinking about the twists and turns of life… what if the community unanimously says NO to this request, just as they have often said NO to community proposals? It would be paradoxical, and food for thought?
I appreciate all of the work that ZCG members do, but I also think that $1725 per month is a generous enough stipend.
All Zcash orgs are tightening their belts, and the global macroeconomic climate has been quite challenging in recent times.
A 32% pay increase (at current prices) seems like a lot to me and I would be in favour of keeping it as is for now. Or to give annual cost of living increases of ~3% which would be ~$1775 per month for next year.
I would also be in favour of potentially having 1 role in ZCG that is more full time, In which that person would have increased compensation in line with increased duties and hours.
If $1725 is not enough to attract committee members of high enough quality then I seriously think we should consider expanding the candidate pool to people outside the Zcash community. As others have pointed out $86/hr is a good hourly rate in the vast majority of the world, even in developed countries. A couple of people with neutral and objective eyes might even bring other benefits. It seems like this pay increase is rooted in an assumption that the committee members should live in California or New York.
1) I believe the assumption that workload will decrease is incorrect. The shift to an annual funding model reflects:
Increasing demands from other areas of committee work. For example, recent efforts have required greater coordination for larger grants, oversight of ZCG direct reports (such as the Zcash Community Wallet Developer and Least Authority), and forward-looking business development (e.g., work on ZSAs).
Efficiency through community-led groups like ZecHub, which better support new entrants by organizing common goals and task-oriented work with measurable outcomes. If groups like Zcash Brazil/Español emerge from ZecHub and demonstrate an established track record, I’d be open to considering them for a major grant.
2) I understand your concern about potential overcompensation. This is why we’re proposing a hybrid model rather than a fully static ZEC amount. I believe that offering a ZEC component can serve as a valuable recruiting tool to attract industry professionals with the networks and skills to enhance the quality of grant applications.
For context, my interest in this proposal isn’t driven by a desire for more ZEC exposure. Earlier this year, I requested the ZF to withhold my compensation for 6 months while I continued working. This resulted in 343.29 ZEC withheld—equivalent to roughly six months of static (10 ZEC) compensation under the hybrid model for the full committee. I mention this to illustrate commitment and the willingness to test compensation structures, not to suggest a personal preference for ZEC volatility.
There is no limit on the candidate pool. I’m excited that this year’s pool of candidates is truly global, albeit still comprised of well known community members. A hybrid structure that serves as a recruitment tool might attract helpful, well connected resources from outside our ecosystem or enable greater time commitments from existing members. I expect that the community would hold future candidates accountable with greater expectations on our 6 month election cycle.
I honestly don’t know what the current compensation is, but my opinion is that until we get to a ZEC price level of $100 or more it is premature to talk about any increases. It’s a fair position in terms of all the other projects we’ve had to freeze or stop. The level of administrative costs should not prevail over those that directly affect the success of Zcash.
I believe that ZCG members should be directly incentivised to increase the price of ZEC. Personally, I would prefer a fixed payment in ZEC at any ZEC value. Speaking only for myself, a rate of 20 ZEC and a cap of $2000 (assuming ZEC is above $100) is reasonable compensation for me.
In addition to your points I would add that one reason I like periodic deadlines (doesn’t have to be a year) is that we often see a pattern of grant approvals being quickly followed by similar grant proposals that seem spurred on by competition and/or “if they can get more than we can get more” kind of dynamic.
I’ve seen this both in community grants and wallets.
While I have no problem giving all of the fantastic teams around here equal opportunity for grants, it becomes very hard to estimate the budget when we’re in continuous mode, especially under financial constraints. When the committee is trying to figure out whether a particular grant is a solid proposal that fits in the budget, it’s a lot easier to calculate if we have a good understanding of what that allocation is competing against in the near term in its category.
For wallets, we have previously notified the community of a yearly per team cap, which worked in that situation, but community groups are more proliferate and we don’t even necessarily know how many groups will apply.
We still have to review all the grants, but it saves speculation if we know who is in for a given period.
As far as I know the ZF, and now FPF, haven’t done any outreach outside the Zcash community. In theory sure, anybody can apply. In practice nobody outside the Zcash community even knows this position exists. A simple LinkedIn ad advertising a remote job paying $1725 for an expected workload of 20 hours a month would get a ton of applications.
20 ZEC per month, with a USD cap of $2,000 (@artkor)
Plus a few more that could quickly be firmed up into specific proposals (e.g. @dismad, @zerodartz).
ZIP 1015 is pretty clear that the amount of compensation “SHALL be determined” by ZCAP (“or successor process”)…
A portion of the Discretionary Budget MAY be allocated to provide reasonable compensation to members of the ZCG Committee. Committee member compensation SHALL be limited to the hours needed to successfully perform their positions and MUST align with the scope and responsibilities of their roles. The allocation and distribution of compensation to committee members SHALL be administered by the FPF. The compensation rate and hours for committee members SHALL be determined by the ZF’s Community Advisory Panel or successor process.
…but it doesn’t specify how to decide what options should be presented to ZCAP for approval.
I’d recommend approval voting (i.e. they can vote to approve as few or as many as they want). Then the option with the most approval votes would “win”.
