Hi all -
Bootstrap Org / Electric Coin Company has submitted an application for a retroactive grant for our work performed since the sunset of the development fund in November 2024. Please see our full GitHub application here.
We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your feedback.
Tony, Josh & the ECC Team
In principle, I agree with the grant, but I think the amount requested is too high for the following reasons:
The current ask of 2.6m for 6 months exceeds the total content of the lockbox at the current market price. Thus, it seriously puts the funding of any other project and the decentralization of the Zcash ecosystem in jeopardy.
I agree with the overall points! ECC is an indispensable part of Zcash. Their work is an invaluable achievement that cannot be measured in money. However, the requested amount seems too large compared to the funds available in the lockbox. I think there should be a cap on the amount that can be requested when applying to use lockbox funds.
I cannot follow that logic. ECC is asking for $2.67M.
After one year (when the first disbursement will happen) the lockbox will have approximately 78,750 ZEC. Letâs assume a price per ZEC of $55 then thatâs $4.33M.
The lockbox currently receives 0.1875 ZEC per block, thatâs 6480 ZEC per 30 days â $356k per month. Or roughly $1.07M/quarter at current prices.
So technically they are asking for a large portion of dev fund at current prices, but thatâs also looking at it with a fixed mindset perspective.
From a growth mindset perspective I consider the work on Zashi done so far and whatâs in the pipeline as absolutely crucial for the future of Zcash as a whole.
I wouldnât be here if it werenât for Zashi and I would also not have bought a sizable ZEC position.
There is a lot of great work happening in the ecosystem and I recognize @hanh as having delivered a lot of value there.
There are many great things in the Zcash pipeline: Crosslink, NSM, completing the transition to Rust, more coinholder voting, ZSAs, Project Tachyon, and all the work Zingolabs is doing (and I probably forgot a bunch).
But for the end user thatâs all moot without a great wallet and integration into the wider ecosystem. With the upcoming âswap to ZECâ feature that integration will be complete, which means there will be an end user friendly way to store value in a private way which is integrated into the entire crypto ecosystem (without having to go through KYC). Thatâs huge and will hopefully help the ZEC price to improve further.
Iâm honestly impressed that ECC could deliver all of what they delivered so far on that budget and with their given team size. I have seen my fair share of waste in crypto and for that standard itâs a very lean operation.
I agree that ECC is asking for a lot and that other project should have a chance to get funded as well.
However, the biggest problem I see is that the cake is too small (that is, the ZEC price is too low) and the largest chance to have it appreciate further is to allow ECC to continue to deliver.
Honestly, should ECC not get funded and that leads to a stop on the work they are doing I would probably just divest from ZEC.
And then go cry, because there is no other place to go. I view Zcash as the one shot we have at real financial privacy. And for Zcash to succeed I consider it crucial that ECC under @joshs is able to keep doing what they are doing.
The logic is that ECC is asking for 2.67 M for 6 months of work. At this rate, they will ask for another 2.67M in another 6 months. Thatâs more than 4.33 M per year.
They should be funded. But itâs not either 0% or 100%.
We may disagree on the details, but I think that today, with this proposal, the community has achieved the long-awaited transition to a fair form of financing for Zcash development.
I appreciate that Josh has tirelessly published reports on ECCâs work for over a year and a half in an interesting format that was great to read. We knew what was happening at all times. This is the most transparent and correct form of reporting that could be imagined.
I donât know how to estimate the amount. I definitly donât can it, especially based on the concept that it will take a certain percentage from LockBox. We donât know how much ZEC will cost in a yearâs time or what percentage of the LockBox volume it will represent, but thatâs not the point. The point is that I can trust this figure simply because it is specific and calculated from the staffing table, because I trust to Josh. And this is the part of the work that cannot be funded by separate grants because it requires a large number of people with high levels of expertise in a specific and highly competitive labor market, where many teams have far greater financial resources than the Zcash community.
I assume that the idea to switch to this format did not come about yesterday, and so I am pleased to know that we are finally at this point. I also understand that even though we call it a retroactive grant, and even though legally that is what it is, this funding will in reality help us move forward and create new opportunities and features.
So I definitely welcome this step and fully support it for the benefit of Zcash and its community.
Is it not going to be paid as soon as approved? I am missing why there is a 1 year delay for a retroactive grant.
Good question. Weâve never been through this before.The proposal does not mention anything about the request period. I just assumed that we would already that broader voting mechanisms in place by that point. And it probably wonât happen this year. Iâm not sure about that.
Itâs a quarterly grants program. Hereâs the timeline for this round:
From ChatGPT:
Block time = 75 s â 1,152 blocks/day
6 months â 182.5 days â 210,240 blocks
Block subsidy = 1.56 ZEC
Price = $58/ZEC
Ignore fees/other rewards; constant subsidy/price over the period.
ZEC mined: 210,240 blocks Ă 1.56 = 327,974.40 ZEC
USD value: 327,974.40 Ă $58 = $19,022,515.20
In ZEC: 7% Ă 327,974.40 = 22,958.208 ZEC
In USD: 7% Ă $19,022,515.20 = $1,331,576.06
$2.6M equals 44,827.59 ZEC at $58/ZEC.
As a share of total mining rewards: $2.6M / $19,022,515.20 = 13.67%.
Compared to the old 7%, the $2.6M ask is about 95% more (roughly 1.95Ă bigger).
Under the new âlockboxâ (12% of rewards), the 6-month lockbox would be:
12% Ă $19,022,515.20 = $2,282,701.82 (â 39,356.93 ZEC).
The $2.6M ask is ~$317,298 (â14%) above that 12% lockbox amount.
So: relative to the previous 7% allocation, the ask is moreânearly double. It also slightly exceeds what a 12% lockbox would have accumulated over the same 6-month period with your inputs.
Looks like ECC is asking the double they were receiving under the dev fund. Also, how hahn pointed out, their ask is more than the lockbox accumulated in the same period.
(Assuming 6 months of work).
edit
My point is, why not ask for the equivalent of the 7% ECC was receiving? That way no one can say itâs unfair or something âŚ
I deeply appreciate ECCâs work, specially with Zashi, that made Zcash eay to use for a large amount of new user. I hope they got their deserved retro grant.
Iâm 100% fully behind this grant.
ECC is not a ânice-to-haveâ. Itâs the main engine behind the core protocol, the best wallet, the audits, and ecosystem growth/engagement that we all rely upon. If we starve it, we throw a huge wrench of uncertainty into the ecosystem.
Yes, $2.67M in six months is a heavy ask â but ECC has, to this point, done impressively heavy work. If ECC underdelivers, let them be taken to task for it publicly. But if they overdeliver and all signs and precedent point to that being more than possible, likely even, if properly resourced â the upside is astronomical.
ECC doesnât just do engineering work and we shouldnât hold the grant to consisting predominately of that. Community, compliance, partnerships, audits â you canât build cutting-edge, potentially revolutionary tech in a vacuum and expect it to thrive.
This isnât forever. Iâm thinking of this grant as a bridge. As Zcash grows, we can build decentralized grant infrastructure, coinholder voting, multisig funding. The end result can and should be ECCâs direct chain funding coming to an end. But that future will be brought about todayâs investment and development, not austerity.
You are basing your argument on price, and that is a logical fallacy. Letâs convert it to ZEC, since we donât know what the price will be, and try to consider different scenarios based on different prices.
60Ń
60Ń
24=86400 seconds/day
/75 = 1152 blocks/day
x 0.1875 ZEC = 216 ZEC/day
x 365 = 78,840 ZEC/year
/ 12 x 7 = 45990 ZEC (âDecember 2024 - June 2025â)
âTotal Budget (USD) $2,673,974â
2673974 / 45990 = 58,14$
Thus, at a price of $58.14, ECC will receive 100% of the current Lockbox, i.e., 12% of the current total block reward.
$58.14 / 7 x 12 = 99,42 - at this price, it will be 7% of the block reward, as it was previously.
To be fair, the term retroactive does not define a specific time period, so payment could be made as soon as possible or delayed. But I think it makes sense to provide funding timely after approval. Jason also posted this timeline a few weeks ago:
Timeline for Q4 Coinholder Grants Program
Wed, Sept 3 â Polling to ratify the retroactive grants program ends
Mon, Sept 8 â Call for proposals / proposal submission opens
Sun, Oct 12 â Proposal submission deadline
Mon, Oct 13 â Wed, Nov 12 â Mandatory 30-day review period
Mon, Oct 27 â Mon, Nov 10 â Registration period to vote on Q4 grant proposals
Thurs, Nov 13 â Mon, Nov 24 â Coinholder poll to vote on proposals
Week of Nov 24 â NU6.1 activates
Dec 1 â Funds disbursed (on or around this date)
I like the quality of the grant application including the attached presentation. Other future applicants should follow this example.
The amount requested is high when you consider how much is in the lockbox (at current prices). But it may well be fair for the amount of work involved. I donât know. I would be interested to hear the opinions of more coin holders on this.
I think there are a few simple facts we need to start from:
ECC, investors, and the entire community are critically dissatisfied with the price of ZEC below $100. Because now itâs a matter of survival.
In the worst-case scenario, ECC will not be able to obtain more funds than Lockbox provides.
Without ECCâs participation, mass adoption of Zcash is impossible in principle, and therefore so is the growth of ZECâs capitalization.
We should proceed from these realities and make a decision.
Lockbox currently has 66,500 ZEC in it which is ~$4M at todayâs prices. At distribution date (roughly December 1st), there will be ~80,500 ZEC in the lockbox. We do not know what the price of ZEC will be in the future, but if the price remains flat there will be $4.8M in the lockbox at distribution date. $2.67M is roughly 55% of that total - this will fluctuate up or down based on price movement over the next 2+ months of course.
Of course, I take that into account. And I have it right in front of my eyes, in my resource (https://pro.zcash.ru/lockbox). But once those reserves are exhausted, we will have no choice but to live within our means based on reality.
The old dev fund expired in Nov 2024 with the last halving. Our application covers the period Dec 2024 - June 2025 which is 7 months.
By the way, I urge you to speak frankly. This is not some kind of profit. ECC had reserves, which allowed it to conduct its operations in December 2024 - June 2025. Right now, judging by the transparency reports (the last one was in July, but there will be a new one soon), I understand that the economy is already at its limit. ECC has to spend its investment assets (other projects, the names of which I will not mention) at sad prices. This money is needed to continue operations â yes, it is absolutely not profit. It is needed to hold out for the next period (I donât know how long), but I assume that LockBox will accumulate as much as it can. And that is why ECC is against NSM, for example â because NSM reduces LockBoxâs future savings.
But we must not close our eyes to all this as if there were no future. There will be a future â and there will be problems that will arise if we do not speak as frankly as possible today.
This is not correct. ECC is not against the NSM. Historically, theyâve been neutral or supportive, and some core team members are enthusiastic about its potential applications.
Also, the NSM, as outlined in our proposal, has no impact on the lockbox or the development fund.
I think the grant is missing a lot of details of what ECC has done over the past months and thatâs not helping people put the amount into perspective.
I believe this is mostly because of the nature of âorganizationalâ kind of grants. Unlike Product-based grants that are tracked in terms of completing a specific artifact, it takes a lot of work to track every item worked on as an âorganizationâ and then condense it into a report. Then it comes the level of detail that is suitable to report and how much overhead it taxes to teams needing to report their doings.
I expect that retroactive grant applications will improve over time so as Zcash Community Grants applications did.
It would be good that coin holders express themselves on this regard so that grant applicants can be more effective when it comes to crafting their applications. What level of detail would you like to see in âorganizationâ grants. Shall organizations instead break their grants in terms of their different products or areas of focus? @Shawn shall a thread be open for that? whereâs the right place to do it?