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

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

You have my support sir !


thank you, i’m honored to have your support! will work hard to make sure MGRC becomes a second-to-none operation that serves the ecosystem well.

1 Like

I don’t think there should be any constraint on how MGRC members invest.
I do think MGRC members should have vesting shares of Zcash, as has been proposed elsewhere.

1 Like

I am in favor of MGRC members having Zcash on a vesting schedule.

That would make explicit at least one of their biases.

I am opposed to “stick-based” rules governing MGRC member behavior beyond that.

If an MGRC member believes a project is worthy… why shouldn’t they invest in it? If an MGRC member votes for a project then (including incentives arising from re-election, reputation, etc.) that is a signal that they are psychologically, emotionally etc. biased in favor of the project.

This approach seeks to constrain MGRC member behavior with carrots… not sticks.


I am in favor of vested interests.

I like the idea (floated elsewhere) that MGRC members have their fingers in other pies…
EFF, ethereum, bitcoin, monero, Derechos Digitales, etc.

I think MGRC members should also receive Zcash on a vesting schedule.

I think of this as a Pro-Diversity, or Pro-Diversification stance to the MGRC roles.

1 Like

I think this is a good idea too. I see no reason not to pay out in zec - I even believe it is desirable. I am uncertain to the mechanism that is going to be used because none is outlined in 1014.

fingers in other pies is okay too, imho. It allows more people to stand and it also allows people who have full time jobs in crypto or related to leverage their skills.

This is the whole point behind the MGRC, to diversify the amount of people that can keep the project running. I am very much in favour of this stance. In the short term though we have a company (Thesis) who wants to apply for a tech related MG. In their estimation it is going to take at least a couple of months to get the developers up to speed - This is an ideal time for the MGRC to cut its teeth on a project.

Once that has been done we will be in a much better position to assess roles and responsibilities.

1 Like

Thoughts on this:


i’m pro rust, and think this is the right move for them. would have no problem with MGRC helping to support the project.

MGRC QA panel:

  1. ZIP Ambiguity: The ZIP-1014 language has some ambiguities. Where would you stand on how to interpret and implement operational activities when there is no explicit language to guide you? How should the MGRC consider community will/preference?

A) if 1014 ambiguities become a real problem; MGRC should re-word trouble spots with heavy community input.

  1. MGRC Role: Should MGRC be a “driving actor” or provide sourcing, oversight and review? [context]. Should MGRC be more of a bureaucracy (with hierarchy, continuity, defined rules, and expertise) or can it be an adhocracy (decentralized and flexible)?

A) MGRC should be capable of being a driving factor, and provide oversight, etc. this is why i’m not too excited about voting for candidates with part time availability. don’t believe MGRC should operate as a bureaucracy/hierarchy, but understand if there’s a mixture of full/part time members; full time members would probably become the ring leaders by default.

  1. Teamwork: Have you had previous experiences of being put together rather arbitrarily in a team before? If so, how did you manage? How will you go about managing disagreements between 1) yourself and another MGRC member and 2) other MGRC members with each other?

A) previous experience -

yes, i’m very comfortable working with teams. definitely wouldn’t be running for a spot on MGRC if i felt i couldn’t work with a team.

managing disagreements

most logical answer to managing disagreements between members is aerial jousting. survivor wins the debate.

  1. Processes: If you were elected to the MGRC, what processes and frameworks would you attempt to set in place in order to allow frictionless collaboration between the members of the MGRC? Is it a conflict of interest for a member of another cryptocurrency project to be on the MGRC?

A) MGRC should do a deep analysis of how ECC/ZF already operates in this fashion. seems to work well for them. no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Is it a conflict of interest for a member of another cryptocurrency project to be on the MGRC?

for the most part, no, but wouldn’t be real excited about a candidate that works for the competition (XMR for example).

1 Like

wasn’t very happy with my response to the “teamwork” question, so i figured i’d leave a real world example of how i’m capable of putting aside my own personal stances on a subject to continue pushing ZEC forward.

voted against MGRC for several reasons, and my “kick the can” ZIP did pretty well by finishing (off top of head) in 3rd place with voters. but community voted in favor of MGRC. rather than moving on, or being salty immediately thought to myself - how can i help MGRC become successful? so, even though i voted against MGRC i’m running for a spot to help MGRC grow the ecosystem.


curious people that don’t take themselves too seriously are my favorite.

all options have strengths/weaknesses, but this one’s my favorite because zcash would get a solid team, some marketing, also signals strength to traders.

1995 ford mustang GT (i like wrenching on old cars) lol

if we want to become a top 10 coin - we’ll need a top 10 wallet. this is one area where i’d like to see MGRC operate in a proactive fashion by not waiting for proposals, and funding a full time zcash wallet development team/company

small grants to content creators for marketing purposes

my theories:

  1. probably lack of education/outreach.

  2. there’s not many services that use shielded zcash currently (DNMs etc)

  3. vast majority of people currently using ZEC are most likely miners/speculators that are only trying to make loot.


Thank you for diligently replying to my questions. I appreciate you

1 Like

Hello @kek For my vote, please answer my questions frankly:

  1. Are you pro BTC? If yes, Why? If not, Why?
  2. What is the largest account size you’ve handled in USD? How many end users did it impact?
  3. MGRC will control 8640 ZEC per month or 25920 per quarter, how will this be roughly spent? (provide napkin calculation).
  4. MGRC announcement attracts 100s of applicants from all over the world with all random ideas, all matching your goals, how would you evaluate them?
  5. KPIs aren’t entirely possible on a privacy preserving payments protocol project’s level, it’s all z2z, how will you evaluate funded team’s impact?
  6. DeFi fever made ETH run 2x compared to every cryptocurrency this year, thoughts?
  7. What locals, regions, languages, ethnicities, educational backgrounds of people have you worked with? What are your preferences of assembling teams that deliver?
  8. We live in a remote world now, how do you evaluate applicants for grants?
  9. Projects in Zcash are going to go through a huge change beyond the handful, driven teams funded via Zcash Foundation, thoughts?
  10. Zcash is a protocol at its core, ZEC price is volatile. How will you handle a single digit ZEC? ($9 x 8640/month = $77,760) How will you handle a 5 digit ZEC? ($21,000 x 8640/month = $181.44MM) Thoughts…

i appreciate you :heart: too

no, bitcoin is nothing more than a tracking token on the most impressive financial surveillance network the world has ever known. has potential to become a tool of oppression. also, i’m a “sound money” type fella …due to lack of uniformity bitcoin’s not sound money.

in a past life i was a NASD registered representative at a wirehouse firm. i’ve managed very large accounts, including corporate accounts. i’ve also founded/ran several successful companies.

not possible to answer this with much accuracy before MGRC’s officially formed, and deployed.

who can deliver the most with the least amount of financial support.

we would need a schedule with specific goals/milestones that need to be achieved. do believe markets can also offer some information on a project’s impact.

seems like an effective way to scam financially unsophisticated people out of their money. this can change, but i’m currently uninterested in defi.

worked with people from all over the globe. track record is most important to me. being said, i wouldn’t mind taking a chance on a team if the team doesn’t have a long track record of success, but they’re competent, and excited.

the world’s not as remote as one would think. we have the tools to operate at distance.

“huge change” think this really depends on who gets elected. a few candidates want to see MGRC operate as a redundancy (zcash foundation grants part 2). being said, the greatest change will be the community has more say in what gets funded since MGRC is a literal representation of the community. MGRC should be constantly polling community to locate sentiment.

excluding “splash plays” that could immediately effect exchange rates; with single digit ZEC, smaller grants should be MGRC’s main focus until markets improve. really don’t want to see MGRC become another entity creating selling pressure on ZEC markets, so i do think ZF should hold majority (if not all) of funds in zcash, not $$$ or anything else.


You get my “High Energy” vote because you are the only community member who invested (like me) and also holding long. I really admire you’re attitude because the social structure of this demographic is struggling and we need more high energy IRL components to this decentralized network.

Also your name is epic +1 for that.


absolutely honored to have support from longterm zcash holders like yourself. will bring dragon energy to MGRC, and i’ll be very responsive to the community. promise you, i’ll pour my heart and soul into MGRC’s (our) success :heart:


that was me!

some people not might realize how close this came to becoming a reality lol