It seems that your assumption/prediction is wrong @hanh
According to what @aquietinvestor just posted, I think @hanh was right. 
or at least on a high degree. If the grant is retroactive then it also applies to what you had originally proposed on gaining the community’s trust again, which I believe is a fair argument.
@aquietinvestor how does that retroactive grant model work exactly?
Does ZCG have any idea of Ledger’s workflow, timeframe or costings?
Does ledger work to an open cheque book and then give ZCG an invoice?
Will ledger still release the shielded app if the community disagrees on the price?
2 Likes
Yes. Ledger has provided ZCG with a draft proposal outlining the work required to support shielded addresses, including a rough timeline and estimated cost. They plan to share this proposal publicly with the community in the near future.
No. This is a project-based grant, not hourly or time-based billing. We agree upfront on the project scope, rough timeline, and estimated total cost, similar to any other ZCG grant. This helps ensure we’re roughly aligned before work begins. Ledger will not invoice us based on hours worked for shielded support integration.
The point of the retroactive grant is that ZCG wouldn’t pay unless, or until, the community is satisfied with what Ledger delivers. It’s up to ZCG to approve the terms of the grant, and community sentiment is one factor we consider in making that decision.
11 Likes
Update: Ledger has released Zcash app version 2.4.2 for Nano S+, Nano X, Stax, and Flex, which includes a fix for the issue that was causing ZEC with shielded inputs (Sapling and Orchard) to become bricked. A few people have tested the update and confirmed the bug is resolved. Please let me know if you encounter any issues.
14 Likes
Great to see progress here! @outgoing.doze does this update fix your particular situation? 
1 Like
I don’t personally have this problem but I’ve observed few people having their funds stuck and I’m very curious to see the outcome of this patch. Crossing fingers this fix will put an end to this long term issue.
1 Like
Its a shame they did not update the nano s also. Its been a fundamental flaw for a long time
3 Likes
This is probably already the case, but to be sure - for the grant for Ledger shielded support, can we make sure it supports passphrases? (This is something Keystone didn’t include)
Keystone does not supports passphrases (aka optional password)??
ot but yea Keystone doesnt for Zcash atm. supports for most other coins afaik.
got this response to this question on Zashi discord:
I raised your request with Keystone and it seems that there are some details which need to be determined and implemented on our side prior to the Keystone team enabling this.
More technically the Keystone team said that: “SLIP39 seed phrases are a bit different with normal BIP39 seed phrases, it’s “seed” (which is called encrypted master seed in SLIP39 context) can be 16 bytes length, while Zcash UFVK derivation needs a minimal 32 bytes length seed. Currently there is no standard for this situation so we hold the SLIP39 for Zcash.”
Looks like our core engineers got nerd-sniped already and will discuss and determine what needs to be done to unblock this functionality.
1 Like
Not for Zcash
1 Like
Oh wow, thanks for the clarification @zerodartz & @acre.
So, no SSSS enabling much stronger passphrase backup strategies. And no plausible deniability through optional passphrases.
Another 
moment to be honest. I find it plain disrespectful to our usebase to no disclose this more visibly, while kind of strongly promoting this commercial product.
I understand it’s exciting to have a new wallet, and it’s actually awesome indeed! But again it’s the communication that fails miserably. If I, someone checking the Zcash happenings on a very regular basis, only discovers after months, critical features lacking on a product pushed by one of the orgs maintaining Zcash, what kind of emotion do we think this going to create to people just getting onboard the Zcash train?
Disappointment, deception, you name it.
Communication, Communication, Communication.
<insert altered Steve Ballmer meme>
3 Likes
Inability to generate new T-addresses and lack of passphrase support in Zashi and for hardware wallets are at the very top of my most wanted features.
Without those two huge things it’s hard to feel the app meets the standard of convenient, safe, and good. It feels like having a nice car but having no door lock and a wheel missing. No matter what other features you add, it’s hard to give a strong recommendation without those two things.
I hope we don’t get an incomplete Ledger Shielded rollout that we get stuck with for years because these things are missing in Zashi. That will suck.
I’m not meaning to imply these things are easy to add and that the devs aren’t working very hard, I’m just saying how it is.
1 Like
I think the single best way to get features you want included in updates is to communicate that yourself. No need to get dramatic 
They are currently working on getting this fixed AFAIK
4 Likes
This is also being fixed as stated multiple times
1 Like
So what I was saying is that I disagree with the approach you are suggesting. Before promoting something, I think it’s important to present the facts, being pros and cons, properly, respectfully, transparently.
How could anyone possible know every demand of @outgoing.doze? Are we mind readers now? How about you list everything you want, so the devs can understand your needs?
It’s not about me, it’s about basic safety features people expect in hardware wallets. If you think SSSS & plausible deniability are custom demands for myself, maybe read a bit more about the importance of those two features.
This is about you, you complain more than anyone in this forum. At least be honest
You assume way too much here.
Bottom line, AFAIK, they are aware and are making progress!