Announcing my official candidacy for position on the major grant review committee:

Full Transparency: I did vote ‘no’ for MGRC (Believe MGRC could become a permanent bureaucracy).

MGRC will have major sway over Zcash development. First team elected will leave their fingerprints on how MGRC operates, possibly forever. I care about longterm success for Zcash, and love her community. Think I can help MGRC run like a well oiled machine, and do my part to set a solid path for MGRC’s future. Would be honored if the community allowed me to contribute to the MGRC. I will effectively filter workable/unworkable proposals in a very efficient manner to help create maximum value for the Zcash community. I have no financial interest in ECC/ZF, and’ve never been employed by either entity. I’m a complete outsider that WILL represent the community/Zcash well. I will always review all proposals carefully, and quickly so proposers aren’t left hanging in the breeze very long. Will never collude with any proposer, and I’ll analyze every proposal fairly.

Also, won’t apply for any MGs while I’m on the review committee, or work for any winners (other than retweets, etc to help promote them/Zcash).

Few things that might set me apart from other candidates:

  1. View market performance as the most critical health indicator for a cryptocurrency. That will always be on my mind when reviewing proposals.
  2. Even though MG will most likely be tech heavy; artists/content creators/etc would have a major supporter on the MGRC because I view them as essential for outreach (Zcash needs more outreach).
  3. Been publicly visible/active since Feb. 2017.
  4. Participated in 2 Community Advisory Panels.
  5. Understand the strengths/weaknesses of the grant system after applying for a grant myself (didn’t get funded).
  6. Been through highs-n-lows with Zcash, and I’m still here. I’ll always be here ; ) you’re kinda stuck with me.
  7. Have enough “free time” that I’m capable of devoting myself to thoughtfully analyzing proposals.

My Review Checklist:

  1. Is this proposal a scam (have a nose for sniffing them out, because i’ve seen just about everything during years spent in this industry)?
  2. Will proposal increase Zcash utility/usability?
  3. Will proposal onboard new users?
  4. Is proposal really necessary/feasible?
  5. Cost of proposal.

Will always be very transparent with the community/proposers. I’ll always be able to explain in detail why I voted yes/no on every MG.

VOTE KEK!

18 Likes

Good luck @kek :slightly_smiling_face:!

Also, lol at the new avatar :sweat_smile:

5 Likes

I support this! 20 char

2 Likes

+1 from me 20 char…

1 Like

Hey kek,

interesting idea to candidate for a seat on the major grant review committe. While we didn’t agree too often on discussions i believe that someone that focuses a bit more on the financial/economic/price impact on various grants is a good addition as there are anyway way to much tech focused people in important decision making positions already.

You have my support, good luck!

6 Likes

Kek, my vote will go to you.

1 Like

Hey kek,

I think I already know your opinion since you’ve mentioned it before, but for people reading this thread and considering voting for you, could you give your thoughts on what should be done regarding dev funding after the 4 years of the major grants committee? Should it be continued after the 2nd halvening (year 8), or be discontinued in favor of something else?

Personally I would like to eventually move toward something more decentralized, such as coin holder voting on dev funding.

2 Likes

think MGRC should stick to original charter (4 years). if nothing interesting is proposed within 4 years; community could vote to retain MGRC. going to do my part to make sure MGRC becomes a solid organization the community really wants to keep, but i’d like to see something more decentralized.

personally, pro-coin holder voting, but do share some concerns others have brought up in other threads. if a proposal offered a way to mitigate 80-90% of manipulation risk - i’d be inclined to vote in favor.

3 Likes
  1. pretty sure it’s wildly understood MGRC members will be compensated. here was my attempt at posting actual numbers:

ZIP 1014 states committee members should receive fair compensation. if we stick to original ZIP - will be up to the MGRC members to figure compensation, so compensation is unknowable until people are elected. being said, imo, members should be paid somewhere between $100-150K annually.

  1. have no doubt MGRC will eventually become full time work. If there’s no immediate proposals to analyze, perhaps MGRC should actively seek out teams that share zcash community’s vision. MGRC could also perform outreach operations, etc when things are slow.

  2. personally against changing 1 year memberships. CAP must be able to easily make changes to MGRC membership when necessary.

2 Likes

also, think it would be a good idea to open the community advisory panel again to accept new members. MGRC voting delay gives the community the perfect opportunity to increase CAP membership (i know some people were really bummed they couldn’t vote last time around).

3 Likes