Application for the Major Grants Review Committee

Governance
12

Since I will not be attending a MGRC Q&A live stream event I took the time to respond to all of the questions (Above and Below the fold) presented on the MGRC Open Questions Doc.

Hopefully this will give a more in-depth perspective of my thoughts on the MGRC. Please feel free to ask any questions regarding my responses

Above the Fold Questions:

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?

  • I would like to see the MGRC utilize the two best options we have for gauging community sentiment: 1. The Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and 2. These forums via methods such as polls and threads. I understand that the ZFND has the say in when they choose to use the CAP for a community vote however, I would like the MGRC to also have this lever to ask the community a question. Long term I don’t see the MGRC needing to use the CAP much because they will be a committee that can act on their own, but initially it will help the MGRC get some of the major sticking points (like if/how they should be paid) out of the way.

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)?

This question has two parts:

  1. RE: “Active vs Passive” MGRC
    • a. The key is how to balance the outreach for new opportunities for developers while the committee itself remains impartial. I could see something like a bug-bounty style system where a particular project is posted for applicants to take on and the committee picks among the best applicants, but we have to be careful that the MGRC members don’t become the creators/directors of thier own projects that could potentially bring up major conflict of interest issues.
      b. I think MGRC members should be impartial and agnostic when deciding where to spend the communities ZEC. Only spending where the ecosystem needs it, granting to parties that are most qualified to do quality work.
      c. See also my views on potential Conflict of Interest in the Megathread
  1. RE: Should the MGRC be a Bureaucracy or Adhocracy
    • a. It has to be an adhocracy. The MGRC will be a small team that will need to leverage its members skills as a fluid entity, balancing off each other and being honest and communicative about each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Each person should rise to the occasion to fulfill the needs of the MGRC in whatever capacity they can.
      b. The MGRC should have one or two seats that are full-time compensated positions held by persons who will serve Zcashs best interests. However, all members of the MGRC should have an equal of 5 “voice” with regards to the decision-making process to make voting on proposals fair.

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?

  1. In my day-job I get new employees working for me several times a year. There’s always an adjustment period of a week or two but after that they know where you stand.
  2. I have found that most disagreements can be avoided/resolved when each party takes the time to understand where and why they are taking their position. MGRC members will have to be strong enough to speak up and defend their positions when pressed but must also be willing accept the majority opinion of the MGRC members or community majority. They must also be humble enough to concede or step away from their stance if its in the best interests of the community.

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?

  1. MGRC will be in a unique situation where there is no established “way of doing things” so the first thing to get out of the way will be to choose two or three channels for communication (ie: Discord, Email, Hangouts, Docs)
  2. No. I think experience and perspective from other sister crypto projects can be a great benefit to the MGRC, particularly if they have served on a crypto foundation or board before.

All Other Questions in the Open Questions Doc:

(Number is the Question A: is my answer.)

  1. Conflict Policy. How/when should MGRC members disclose potential conflicts and resolve issues related to them? Who should be excluded from MGRC? When should MGRC members abstain from decisions? ZIP 1014 provides the following guidance: “ “The Major Grant Review Committee is subject to the same conflict of interest policy that governs the ZF Board of Directors (i.e. they MUST recuse themselves when voting on proposals where they have a financial interest).”
    • A: ASAP, a COI policy should be the one of the first articles drafted by the MGRC, using the Zcash Foundations existing policies as guidance. If a COI is present the member with the COI must recuse from voting.
  1. What qualifies as a conflict of interest, including what relationships might appear as conflicts of interest?
  2. What standards should there be for disclosing a conflict of interest - both upfront and during governing activities?
  3. How conflicts of interest are reported, to what extent are they available to other governing members or to the wider community?
  4. What consequences should there be for violating the policy or withholding such information from other committee members?
    • A: Questions 2-5 will need to be discussed and voted on by the MGRC
  1. Is it a conflict of interest for a member of another cryptocurrency project to be on the MGRC?
    • A: No.
  1. Ethics Policy. How/when should MGRC members develop and maintain an ethics policy?
    • A: ASAP, an Ethics policy should be the one of the first articles drafted by the MGRC, using the Zcash Foundations existing policies as guidance.
  1. Should the MGRC adopt other requirements and policies around reporting, ethical review, security engagements (etc.) as part of the grant process?
    • A: Yes, there need to be a robust reporting method for where funds are being spent including disclosures
  1. Should MGRC membership be a full time or part time position?
    • A: Both, see my above answer.
  1. Assertion: MGRC as the driving actor. The members take this on as a full time job and set an innovative vision and plan in motion, using their budget to hire teams, contractors, advisors, etc, as necessary to carry it out. OR
  2. MGRC as oversight and review. Developer teams, including for profit companies with entrepreneurial leaders and quick execution, set their own visions and apply for multi-year grants.
    • A: 10-11 Answered above RE: “Active vs Passive” MGRC
  1. Is it possible that MGRC should consist of a combination of full time and part time people?
    • A: This question is redundant to # 9
  1. Should MGRC members be compensated? If so, how much, how often, by whom, etc?
    • A: Yes, personally, I feel if a MGRC member is to be full time they should be compensated, part time can potentially be a volunteer or greatly reduced rate proportional to the number of hours worked. However, I don’t believe this falls within the scope of ZIP-1014. The question of if they should get paid, and how much is a reasonable hourly market rate should subject to a new ZIP or CAP vote. Any funds spent on overhead (ie: wages) should be deducted from the MGRC slice of the Dev fund, not The Zcash Foundations.
  1. Should MGRC be a proactive organization that aggressively seeks to grow zcash’s user base/fund projects that will increase the value of the zcash ecosystem OR should MGRC be more passive, and wait for proposals to be offered.
    • A: Answered above RE: “Active vs Passive” MGRC
  1. Term. How long are MGRC members elected for ZIP-1014 says: “Major Grant Review Committee members SHALL have a one-year term and MAY sit for reelection.”
    • A: Seems pretty clear to me; MGRC members shall sit for a one year term and must run for re-election every year.
  1. Level of involvement: “Should MGRC members get involved with shaping the outcomes and reporting of individual grants? To what extent should the MGRC shepherd projects v.s. making firm accept/reject decisions.”
    • A: Answered above RE: “Active vs Passive” MGRC
  1. Should the MGRC require budgets and restrict funds to the stated purpose (as is common in grant funding)?
    • A: Yes, when the MGRC votes to allocate a grant it must be used for the stated purpose of the grant.
  1. Should the MGRC consider funding in tranches?
    • A: Yes, grantees should be given concrete milestones to meet to unlock the next batch of funding.
  1. Should the MGRC members all speak english?
    • A: Not a written requirement
  1. Should the MGRC move a portion of funds into a ‘savings’ account to fund larger unforseen projects?
  2. What % of funds per block should be allocated to a savings account?
    • A: 20 – 21 No. The MGRC as defined in ZIP-1014 does not custody any ZEC and thereby cannot put ZEC into a “savings account”.
  1. Should the MGRC grant Zcash, or USD, or half/half?
    • A: The MGRC does not grant funds to recipients, grantees will sign a contract with the Zcash Foundation upon being selected by the MGRC to receive a grant. The Grantee should receive their funds from the MGRCs ZEC allocation in ZEC.
  1. Once elected, should the 5 members brainstorm a formal process for determining whether a grant is funded or not?
    • A: Absolutely, the MGRC will need to clearly define their grant selection process so potential grantees know how to apply and what to expect.
  1. Should the MGRC require weekly/monthly reports from grantees?
    • A: MGRC should provide Monthly reports to the community about what they are doing. Grantees should report to the MGRC on a Milestone or quarterly basis depending on the project.
  1. Should the MGRC require full financial transparency for how grant funds are spent by applicants?
    • A: Grantees should provide details about the service/job/project they are hired to do. Reporting requirements should be set on a project by project basis depending on scope.
  1. Should MGRC members discuss every application on voice chat?
  2. Should the MGRC members have a private, or public group text chat, or both?
  3. What platform to use for text chat?
  4. Should each individual MGRC member write a short report assessing the application and submit it to the rest of the team, and then speak over voice to finalize?
    • A: 26-29 will be preferences to be discussed by MGRC members once elected.
  1. A lot of the suggestions are committees deciding upon other committees upon other committees. This could lead to unnecessary bureaucracy and include subtle ways in which members can be influenced. A way around this would be to use more “DAO”-like tools in conjunction with some needed bureaucracy. Should MGRC prioritize applications for creation of DAO-like capabilities for Major Grants specifically, and the Zcash ecosystem more generally?
    • A: A DAO like system or on-chain voting style system would be an interesting grant application to consider :slight_smile:
  1. Is MGRC supposed to be a bureaucracy (with hierarchy, continuity, defined rules, and expertise) or can it be an adhocracy (decentralized and flexible)?
    • A: Answered above; RE: Should the MGRC be a Bureaucracy or Adhocracy
6 Likes