Alarm bells! 🚨 re ZOMG

[aiyadt]

Better idea: Set aside % of Dev Fund to acquihire Mozilla Rust engineers to join ECC & ZF to build out all the outstanding ZIPs.

[David_Heisenberg]

Hello all,

I have not been around for long, but have done a lot of research on Zcash and it’s governance, and have interacted with the ZOMG/ECC/ZF arms of Zcash.

First of all, I think the first ZOMG committee was filled with highly experienced and very well meaning people. And there are clearly examples of them going above and beyond the call of duty. I don’t support any criticism of the committee members themselves.

Having worked in effectively uncompensated service roles before that wind up requiring much more work than was let on, I understand exactly where the first committee is coming from. One thing I learned from my experiences was that these service type positions need to be sustainable. Committee members should not feel like they are on a year-long “sprint”. They should feel like they have adequate support so that their main role is using their expertise in making judgement calls on which grants to fund. This by itself certainly requires more than 5 hours per month, not to mention following up on grants. Without a sustainable and supporting framework for ZOMG, people might get burned out and want nothing to do with Zcash anymore. We don’t want anybody leaving Zcash with a bad taste in their mouth, let alone a ZOMG person.

1. I am in support of adding more expected hours per month for ZOMG people, although not too much to dissuade candidates who might already have a full time position. I am also in support of increasing the compensation. We don’t want to exclude people who have a full time position, but also could very well put the money received from working on ZOMG to good use.

2. I am not sure the nuances of ZOMG being able to contract out help. It seems to me there is a clear need for help for more logistical tasks, and that ZF has promised to help with this once the organization is fully hired, but the designated helpers for ZOMG need to be formalized one way or another before a new committee comes on. I am pretty confident that the ZF is revving up in a lot of the right ways, so maybe ZOMG/ZF can support each other in the near future in a way that ZOMG feels like was initially missing.

3. I am also in support of pausing the next turnover until we come to an improved framework for ZOMG and solicit a diverse round of candidates with broad experiences in business, technology, activism, etc. The ZOMG committee is handling a lot of money, and being a member of the ZOMG committee should not be the biggest role that person has ever held. That being said, I don’t want to dissuade super enthusiastic community members who many not have had the chance to manage a big budget or work at high levels in an organization before to be able to be ZOMG committee members. Therefore, maybe we should consider an apprenticeship program, whereby people who didn’t make the cut to be on ZOMG board, but still are active members of the community, could help out ZOMG members by volunteering. They might be able to research a particular grant and provide an analysis of whether it is really needed, or the budget seems appropriate, etc. Or just summarize community comments into a shorter analysis so ZOMG people don’t have to read every thread in addition to the proposal itself. There could be many ways to volunteer as a ZOMG apprentice. Then the next election comes around, they may be better suited to win the candidacy.

4. I think it might be too early to consider some more exotic methods of ZOMG (DAO on Ethereum, etc.), and would support outlining alternative plans over the next year in parallel with employing an improved, although largely the same, ZOMG structure.

Overall, the response to this situation has reinforced just how much everyone wants Zcash to succeed and how many enthusiastic people are involved. This can be a great example of trying to keep improving and make the best thing happen for Zcash, which is what Zcash is all about.

[Dodger]

@zooko

I followed up on this internally, and it sounds like we dropped the ball. It might have been due to personnel turnover in that department around that time. In any case, we’ll follow up and get you those introductions if they’re still desired.

They are still very much desired. FYI, dropping the ball due to personnel turnover is something I can sympathise with.

@zooko

Okay, let’s do it! We’ll organize a call and invite representatives of Zfnd leadership, and hopefully other leaders from the Zcash community if they can attend. We’ll reach out about scheduling and so on.

@zooko

Dodger, I hope this clarifies that my intent in suggesting possible governance upgrades for the Zcash community as a whole was never to interfere with the Zcash Foundation’s operations, and I’m happy to support Zcash Foundation however I can going forward.

It’s not about supporting the Zcash Foundation. It’s about working together constructively to help ZOMG be successful.

I and the rest of the Foundation board agree that ZOMG’s first year could have gone smoother but the important thing is that it is up and running, and is making grants (over $2.4m worth to date). There is clearly scope for operational improvements (in terms of the time commitment and resource constraint issues highlighted by Chris) but we believe that we have a solid plan for addressing those issues. To be specific, we are actively recruiting to expand the Zcash Foundation team (with several candidates at the final interview stage) so that we can devote more time and resources to better supporting ZOMG operationally, and to address the more strategic challenge of attracting high quality teams to submit grant applications. More details can be found in my response to the thread that Chris started.

With the ZOMG elections just round the corner, and candidates already volunteering to serve on the next iteration of the Committee, we don’t feel that it is necessary or appropriate to put everything on hold, and effectively suspend the major grants program. That would kill the momentum that we have begun building up, and cast doubt upon the reliability of ZOMG as a source of funding, discouraging potential grant applicants.

Instead, in the short term, we intend to continue working with both the current and next Committees to implement our plans to address the resourcing, support and time commitment issues raised by the Committee members, and to begin building a pipeline of grant applicants who can leverage the ZOMG funds to make a real impact on Zcash.

For the avoidance of any doubt, we’re happy to continue the discussion about whether changes to ZIP 1014 can make ZOMG more effective but we feel strongly that it is not appropriate to rush into making such changes, given the time and effort that went into drafting and approving ZIP 1014. We will continually review our progress and, if it becomes apparent that the plan is not working, we will, of course, revisit this decision, take a step back to examine whether changes to ZIP 1014 are necessary, and take appropriate action.

In the longer term, the other ideas that Chris raised (e.g. managing a treasury in order to accumulate an endowment, and transitioning ZOMG to a DAO) require a lot more discussion. We’re happy to participate constructively in such discussions and put relevant questions to ZCAP when the time is right. However, for now, the structure described in ZIP 1014 is the settled consensus of the Zcash community.

[zooko]

Great post! Thanks for contributing to the community this way.

[zooko]

Okay, great! I understand where you’re coming from. You and the Zcash Foundation have different opinions than I have about what the community should do next, and I think that’s great. You have direct experience managing the first ZOMG, your arguments are strong, and if the community wants to take your recommendations on that, that’s fine with me.

I still don’t really understand the part that implied that I or ECC was doing something that impeded Zcash Foundation’s operations or failing to do something to help the Zcash Foundation in some way. If there’s anything else we can do to help (beyond the two items previously discussed), just let us know!

In the meantime, I think it’s great for the broader community to feel free to explore what they think is best for Zcash as a whole. By design, the Zcash community as a whole is not constrained to “Stop Energy” from either the Zcash Foundation or ECC — they are upstream of both, and if they decide they want to amend ZIP 1014 or replace it entirely with something new, we’ll just have to deal with that.

[hanh]

@Dodger

but the important thing is that it is up and running, and is making grants (over $2.4m worth to date).

I don’t think the amount granted is a correct metric. By this logic, we could have given all the money to charity.

@aiyadt

The responsibility of project planning, management and delivery is up to the grant recipient team.

In my opinion, this is a major loophole/flaw in the zip-1014. We have had many (most?) of the grant recipients deliver the absolute bare minimum and claim astonishing success. Unfortunately, this is the norm when you don’t have a separate regulatory entity.

[den]

There should be a project manager on both sides that track the same planning.
The one on the ZOMG side should make sure the deliverables are on the way in agreed time. The one in the project team to make sure he’s prioritizing the work efficiently to meet the agreed project timeline.

[David_Heisenberg]

@hanh

In my opinion, this is a major loophole/flaw in the zip-1014. We have had many (most?) of the grant recipients deliver the absolute bare minimum and claim astonishing success. Unfortunately, this is the norm when you don’t have a separate regulatory entity.

In regards to this point, I’d be happy to see a meta-analysis done at years end for all the grants. But I also think it is important to wait a while to fully judge each grant period since some of them (e.g., $130k for trezor hardware shielding) don’t even start until after Orchard is activated. We need a holistic and long-term evaluation, without too many knee jerk reactions.

If a grantee winds up turning in the bare minimum, they will likely exclude themselves from future larger grants or be subjected to more scrutiny to get a grant. Over the course of a year or two, there will be a natural selection process that results in identifying the most effective teams.

In my opinion, ZOMG catalyzes the formation of a larger ecosystem of productive teams beyond ZF and ECC. Due to transparency of proposals and auditing of results, analyses of ZOMG’s effectiveness should not be too hard as we get more data.

[hanh]

@David_Heisenberg

If a grantee winds up turning in the bare minimum, they will likely exclude themselves from future larger grants or be subjected to more scrutiny to get a grant. Over the course of a year or two, there will be a natural selection process that results in identifying the most effective teams.

That’s pretty much what is happening now but it is not desirable.

• a lot of grant money ends up being spent on trials,
• it is unfair to “burn” a team if the issue was miscommunication in the scope and deliverables.
• it takes a lot of time too.

[David_Heisenberg]

Avoiding pray and spray methods of grants would be good. Don’t know how to do that if we don’t already have roster of proven people other than current proposal and vetting structure since ZOMG just started. Suggestions very welcome.

Definitely want to avoid burning teams due to miscommunication.

Minimization of time/effort needed through process development should definitely be a goal for an improved ZOMG experience.

[JimHarper]

Data point: I considered running for the board last year. Uncertainty about compensation was part of my decision not to run.

Yes, in traditional fields, retirees and senior people “give back.” This field doesn’t have any of those yet. Absent such a reservoir, you probably get what you pay for. (Not a comment on the current board or its activities, which I have not followed closely.)

I also think that rotating seats is important. It’s among the customs of non-profit boards that exist for good reasons, even if the reasons aren’t patent.

[tromer]

Thank you, @zooko for clearly raising this well-merited alarm bell. And thanks to all, especially the ZOMG members and @dodger, who are working so hard to make things work and improve them!

I have a question that might be pertinent:

How do things currently work with respect to ZF’s internal (non-ZOMG) grants? I understand that the grant submission system is unified. Are grants decided and funded just by ZOMG from their slice, or by both ZOMG and ZF personnel from their respective slices? And if the latter, how is it decided which track the grant takes and who reviews it?

(Sorry if I’m missing something obvious, but I couldn’t find easily find this information on the ZF website, the ZOMG website, or the grant system’s website.)

[tromer]

Well in this case…

I’d like to bring up a point which I haven’t seen mentioned recently. The idea guiding ZIP 1014 is:
ZOMG is not supposed to be the third entity; it’s supposed to sponsor the third, fourth and perhaps fifth entities, while leaving small grant-making to ZF.

Recall, the envisioned model was having two grant streams:

• Regular (“minor”) grants on the scale from meme production to small development projects, would be issued through the ZF grant system. There would be many of these, and they would be decided, supervised and handheld by ZF staff.
• Major Grants would be few but very large, feeding projects of a scale approaching ECC or ZF. When prospective major “entities” shows up, with the ability to build sustained, in-house capabilities, the money would be there to support them. This is why ZIP 1014 talks about “bolster teams with substantial (current or prospective) continual existence, and set them up for long-term success”. This is why it has such a huge fraction of the Dev Fund, 40%, more than either ZF or ECC. The vision was supporting a small handful of such large entities, perhaps 2 or 3 at a time. They’d be large enough to not need much handholding. The ZOMG would be there to vet them, keep an eye on things, and stop renewing their funding if things go awry.

Indeed, according to the brief history of Zcash decentralization, this is where we were supposed to be now:

But that not today’s reality, is it?

What really happened is that ZF mostly froze its own (“minor”) grant program, around the time ZIP 1014 went into effect. This put the burden on MGRC/ZOMG to handle all the grant proposals, including small and “needier” ones. That’s far more time consuming (as those of us who served on ZF’s internal grant committee, back when it existed, are well aware).

Conversely, the large grant applications by “third entity”-class major players, of which at least one was tentative, haven’t materialized! My conjecture is that the explosion of DeFi, around the same time, hoovered up all the teams and attention. The Zcash Dev Fund, despite its amazing long-term prospects, could not compete with the financial conjuring magic and immediate gratification of DeFi token issuance.

Now, all of those changes are legitimate decisions by the relevant parties, and strictly speaking none of this contradicts ZIP 1014. And yet, the offshoot is that we find ourselves trying to shoehorn responsibilities into a body that was never designed, equipped or compensated to handle them. You can’t cook steak on a lava lamp.

[aiyadt]

agree with your points. Everyone needs to read this.

Question: Have we as a community decided on a framework which ZF + MGRC/ZOMG adheres to?
We have the Zcash Community Grants | The Zcash Community Grants program funds independent teams entering the Zcash ecosystem, to perform major ongoing development (or other work) for the public good of the Zcash ecosystem. Is that enough of a criteria to not leave out open ended questions?

[wobbzz]

@tromer

What really happened is ZF mostly froze its own (“minor”) grant program, around the time ZIP 1014 went into effect. This put the burden on MGRC/ZOMG to handle all the grant proposals, including small and “needier” ones. That’s far more time consuming (as ZF those of us who served on ZF’s internal grant committee, back when it existed, are well aware).

Conversely, the large grant applications by “third entity”-class major players, of which at least one was tentative, haven’t materialized! My conjecture is that the explosion of DeFi, around the same time, hoovered up all the teams and attention. The Zcash Dev Fund, despite its amazing long-term prospects, could not compete with the financial conjuring magic and immediate gratification of DeFi token issuance.

This background is helpful and is why we need seasoned elmers like you active on the forums. I would love to see other seasoned individuals that voted for this vision more active here (or at least communicating this vision more), mentoring newer entrants to the space and reminding/roping the discussion back in line with the vision. I would also love to see more communication from the Zcash Foundation about their plan and vision.

This raises some questions for me when thinking about how we move forward from the current situation:

1. Does the ZF currently intend to operate in the spirit of this envisioned model (funding minor grants) once they have obtained the staffing they have planned?
2. Do you think this vision is still the best course of action given the broader DeFi explosion?
3. I’m curious to see your thoughts on the ZOMG white paper. Should this really be a ZF white paper? Or a white paper that drives the mission behind a 3rd, 4th, or 5th entity that already exists, is created, or enters the space, is awarded a major grant, and is assigned significant
   responsibility for various items mentioned in the white paper? (brainstorming here)

[earthrise]

@Dodger

@zooko

I followed up on this internally, and it sounds like we dropped the ball. It might have been due to personnel turnover in that department around that time. In any case, we’ll follow up and get you those introductions if they’re still desired.

They are still very much desired. FYI, dropping the ball due to personnel turnover is something I can sympathise with.

This is my mistake, I knew about this and I let it slip for too long. Sorry!

[tm3k]

I feel like some of the problems come from zomg members not feeling appreciated for their work. Most problems are solved with money.

Honestly, 500 a month is pathetic.

They might be ‘working’ only 5 hours a month. But you’re on the ZOMG, its constantly on your mind. There is an expectation of innovation with poor compensation.

ZOMG reviews grants for potential million dollar multi year grants, its not a part time job at Subway.

[tromer]

To all those who want to create a “third entity” that does substantial in-house work other than deciding and monitoring grants, I have a question.
Why would you want just one third entity doing in-house work, and why should it simultaneously deal with making grants to others?

Concretely:

Suppose you found a team of people who, working together, can do some major, amazing work for Zcash. Say building a privacy-preserving DeFi bridge, or a secure Wasm+Ledger wallet, or whatever.

Option 1: ZOMG as a lucky dev team that also makes grants
Urge the team to become ZOMG members. Urge the community to rewrite ZIP 1014 to allow this new ZOMG to do the work internally, get fairly compensated, hire employees, become an independent legal entity, and manage their money. Hope they all the necessary team members get elected. Remind them that even though they’re hard-core developers, they are now also the ZOMG and thus need to deal with deciding grants for other applicants.

Option 2: ZOMG as grant experts/representatives that sponsor the dev team(s)
Urge that same team to submit a Major Grant proposal to ZOMG, with whatever cohesive personnel plan makes sense. Keep ZIP 1014 essentially as is, populated by diverse representatives of our community (and with focused improvements such as support personnel and fair compensation for grant-making effort). Let ZOMG review the team’s proposal and, if it’s any good, fund it in large increments. Let ZOMG also award other grants, to other groups, meanwhile.

Why would you prefer Option 1?

The implicit answer seems to be “because we tried Option 2 and it failed, no such team stepped up!”
Well OK, but then why do you think the 5 people who will happen to be elected to the next ZOMG committee will magically be that team?

[dismad]

@nultinator

This will sound a bit radical, but instead of giving ZEC away, what if we burned ZOMG money to increase scarcity and just let people build on their own?

Sometimes less is more. Everyone jumping ship screams ZOMG has failed. We need to treat every zat like its precious. Thanks for your thoughts.