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.