ZCG is the only organization that continues to receive direct funding, which means ZEC holders like me are effectively taxed to support it. I have the right to call Amber’s candidacy for ZCG into question here, and any ZCG candidate, running for one of the seats that grant the power to allocate community resources, should be prepared to face criticism for their voting record.
Beyond the clear indication of her inability to manage conflicts of interest, Amber’s ZCG voting record is not great. For example, she refused to vote to cancel the grossly overpriced Zcash Media grant despite abundant feedback from contributing community members that have something she doesn’t—relevant professional experience. She’s also repeatedly dismissed the need to focus on early adopters and user research, arguing against the product adoption curve, presented and explained to her multiple times—ignoring the expertise of contributors who understand these basic, widely-accepted principles of product adoption. If she doesn’t have any relevant professional experience and can’t base her decisions on professional feedback, community input, or data provided to her, what guides her decisions to approve or deny six-figure grants that are supposed to drive Zcash adoption—gut feelings? Her “confidant”? Anecdotal evidence? This lack of experience, combined with the apparent lack of desire to learn and absorb input from others, is a disqualifying trait for anyone entrusted with ZCG responsibilities.
We deserve leadership that seeks feedback and makes decisions in the community’s best interest—not their own. And we deserve better stewardship of community resources.