A Grand Compromise/Synthesis ZIP Proposal

[tromer]

@acityinohio

The ZF Grant Review Committee would be compromised of five members, voted on in the following manner:

• 1 seat for the ECC. Though the appointed member may change, they retain power to choose the seat for 4 years.
• 1 seat for the Zcash Foundation. Though the appointed member may change, they retain power to choose the seat for 4 years.
• 2 seats voted on by ZEC holders directly, elected every year. There would be open elections held by the Foundation similar to the 2018 advisory process which resulted in Ian and Amber’s election, except using a ZEC coin-staked vote directly.
• 1 seat held by a technical member, elected every year. This member would be selected by the combined group (2 coin-staked seats + ZF/ECC seat) with an express focus on ability to evaluate technical proposals.

The presence of an ECC member causes difficulties in assigning grants to ECC (even in the absence of competitive third-party proposals). Is that supposed to be allowed?

The “ZEC holders” vote is problematic, and I’m wary about having it determine two seats in a binding way. Especially since, if these are two seats captured (which takes no more than paying interest on a ZEC loan), then the others two seats don’t suffice to mitigate the damage (and there would be a deadlock on electing the 5th, technical member).

This committee, controlling the largest slice (40%) of the Dev Fund, would be of utmost importance, but it seems very difficult to create a robust, independent and qualified one.