@daira and I made an initial review pass over this PreZIP. This is not a formal part of the proposal process (in particular, @daira is not acting in hir role as ZIP editor); this is just a joint comment between @daira and myself on the current state of the PreZIP.
This needs to be formalized as a ZIP. See the ZIP guide for details.
Reformatting suggestions:
- There may be content from the introductions of the Executive Summary and in-depth analysis that is suitable for the Motivation section.
- The TLDR sections would form the Specification. Their preceding text appears generally more suited for Rationale, which could be handled inline instead of in its own section.
- Inverting the order of each section, i.e. moving the TLDR content to the top of each section, and then making the rationales subsections, would likely be sufficient.
This is making a statement about others’ opinions that may not be true. It should be removed before this becomes a ZIP draft.
Clarify that the proposal’s intended dev fund precedent results in the dev fund amount, denominated in ZEC, quartering every four years.
The rationale explicitly references the earlier analysis, so we take that it is assumed as background here. Per the following quote from the analysis:
The stated rationale is to not assume the fiat price will stay the same. However, per above, the ZEC-denominated dev fund would quarter every four years, and as the proposal claims it would provide sufficient resources for continued development, it is assuming that the fiat price will increase. For a steady-state dev-fund denominated in fiat, the fiat price would need to quadruple every four years. Contrary to what is stated in the background, this could be considered a very optimistic scenario; it should be explicitly stated in the ZIP draft rather than relying on the assumed background. This enables readers of the ZIP to see what claim is being made.
This would go in the Non-requirements section. It should also be clarified that this means the split is not enforced by the consensus rules or the coinbase outputs (which appears to be implied by this section).
Additionally, as the split is not specified in this proposal, the ZIP needs to either specify where the funds are sent to (e.g. a single address, a rotating set of addresses, a multisig address controlled by ZF and ECC, etc.), or a non-requirement should be added stating that this is out-of-scope (and would need to be addressed by a separate ZIP).