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.



Good luck @kek :slightly_smiling_face:!

Also, lol at the new avatar :sweat_smile:


I support this! 20 char


+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!


Kek, my vote will go to you.


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.


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.

  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.


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).


imo, 1 week per quarter doesn’t seem right. especially for the 1st elected team.

list seems to be a fair outline of what i consider to be MGRC’s main focus, but feel MGRC could possibly take on more responsibilities during downtimes, like outreach, etc. (have a few ideas, but i’ll wait until we’re closer to elections to post).

i expect almost everything to be completed in house. every ZEC spent on MGRC operations will pull available ZEC from funding pool. this should be avoided (if possible).


personally don’t believe MGRC should sit around and wait for proposals. MGRC should actively recruit teams to research/complete projects the community would like to see deployed on zcash. could have quarterly, or monthly (for smaller projects) ZCAP votes for projects the community would like MGRC to pursue.

for example, i’d really like to see someone figure out how to use zcash as a raw pass through mixer for multiple cryptocurrencies, and think a type of ZEC reflex bond could be useful too. if no team’s offering proposals, and ZEC community decided to back these examples; community could direct MGRC to locate competent teams to build ZEC’s “pet projects”.

imo, MGRC shouldn’t just sit back and wait for proposals to analyze. MGRC should be a proactive organization to complete the triforce.


looks like payment processors are going after streamers again
got me thinking. there’s a huge hole in the market that we could fill. at first was thinking an entity could offer a proposal to build a new streaming service from scratch, but thought to myself, “wonder if MGRC could straight up buy an existing service like bitchute”; improve the site/add zcash payment rails. what do y’all think - should MGRC be capable of buying existing services to expand zcash usage?


interesting! guess people from outside the forum are paying attention

imo, MGRC should absolutely be capable of acquiring existing services. don’t think there’s a more aggressive way to push zcash into the public sphere (especially outside of existing cryptocurrency space). few things that’ll happen when MGRC buys an existing service:

  1. it’s a splash play - zcash will receive media coverage/create a buzz (marketing).
  2. zcash gains a significant portion of the user base from existing services (new networks of ZEC users).
  3. vast majority of our competitors do not have the infrastructure to follow our lead. they’ll be forced to sit back and watch the zcash community aggressively push ZEC into the public realm (zcash will no longer be “nerd money”)
  4. won’t need to spend as much time convincing people to start using new projects built from scratch that MGRC funds.

since nobody poo-pooed the idea, guess the community is largely okay with this. if there’s not a major objection; we’ll need to figure out stewardship over MGRC acquisitions. thinking that would fall into the zcash foundation’s lap.
this strategy will increase zcash user base, will add to ZEC’s velocity, “free” marketing o’plenty, and these moves will signal to other cryptocurrency projects; zcash is here to win. join us, or sit in the sidelines!

have a good one! love you guiz!!



I have been thinking about this, where would legal responsibility for the services fall? For example in the tweet you posted, Dick Masterson lost his banking ability for New Project2 because he was receiving and passing on payments for kiwifarms (specifically null). Null is on a banned processor list. Even cryptos wont deal with him (Brave for example cancelled his account) - I am not going into the rights and wrongs of his specific case, but there is serious legal repercussions from financially dealing with him.

If the blockchain is distributing the funds then could there be potential trouble for the ZFND? It is a real company, if not what about the members of the MGRC? I am not a lawyer, nor american, so I have no idea at all. It is just a pretty big concern.

Imagine exchanges pulling support because of links to something like this? Then what happens? - they are already really skittish of monero and z2z. would zcash bend to exchanges? it would kill the coin if the do, and probably if they dont.

This isnt meant to be specifically about kiwifarms (or politics), but it does highlight the issue pretty well.


definitely share some of your concerns. dick’s post just made me think of the problem a little deeper. wouldn’t be the 1st time a cryptocurrency/community acquired an existing service. tron already set the path when they bought dlive. imo, one of the boldest moves i’ve seen in the industry for a long minute. we’ll need to learn what they did right, and what they did wrong.

side note - think ECC (or new holding company) would probably need to hold stewardship over MGRC acquisitions, not ZF.

side note 2 - should clarify, don’t believe acquisitions should be MGRC’s top priority, but do think if an opportunity does present itself; MGRC should be positioned to take advantage of it. also kinda brain storming a bit. think it’ll be a huge waste if MGRC only sits back, and analyzes proposals. ZF already does that. MGRC should be working on ways to proactively increase zcash’s user base…

1 Like

personally think this is a target for potential exploitation. feel so strongly about this - believe MGRC members should have 0 investment in funded projects, and probably should be barred from working for grant winners for at least 1 year after leaving MGRC.

1 Like

hate to say this, but we’re getting really close to election time, and there’s a lot to iron out before elections. don’t feel comfortable electing people to MGRC then finding out what their policies are going to be. honestly feel we need more concrete policies in place before elections. can think of several ways to game MGRC currently

especially here:

this is super gameable

believe the community deserves more protections against possible exploitation.
maybe we need a “MGRC policy” thread to help form concrete policy?? dunno, but it really needs to be ironed out while we still have time to do it in a thoughtful manner.

I think it would probably be best to make a questions post in the mega thread and tag each of the candidates to respond in their own threads, rather than the megathread.

I think thought that defining this stuff before is not really possible. The ethics and code of conduct is going to have to be ratified by the actual committee. and I have yet to see anyone come out in favour of being able to have a vested interest.

@sarahjamielewis (sorry to single you out, it is nothing personal) does have a strong potential conflict of interest, and I agree that having to trust her alone to do the right thing is a risk. However reading her work, seeing what she has actual accomplished in her career shows her to be of very high integrity. When you then do this for the other candidates who you can do this for shows a similar pattern. A group of 5 people who all have strong feelings should be enough to develop a sound set of rules whilst keeping each other honest.

For candidates like yourself and myself where we are semi anonymous they have all posted strong feelings about the integrity of the system and how it needs to be honest. I know I will give up my pseudoanon. if i get elected. I am sure the same is true for you. But people can look back through our post history over the past 18 months? idk how long i have been a member and see what sort people we are to the community.

1 Like

still requires too much trust for me to feel comfortable. tbh, i’m not too worried about the 1st team… more concerned about MGRC in 2-3 years. nobody knows what the community will look like then, and feel more protections we build to protect community early will help MGRC stay in the right path over the longterm.

fantastic idea, BTW! hopefully i’ll have time this weekend to finish a rough list of policies i think MGRC should follow for maximum community protection. i’ll post it in each candidate’s thread, and start the debate.

it’s definitely time to start the debate to figure out where candidates stand on different issues.

1 Like