Bootstrap Org / Electric Coin Company

Community Grants Retroactive Grants
21

I urge everyone to support this grant because it is the shortest route for us. For our success. Yes, Zcash will survive in any case. But we must appreciate what we have gained during this period when Josh used all his skills as a benchmark crisis manager. Just think how difficult this is in a decentralized project. You depend on the opinions of a huge number of people. It’s not just a board of directors of an odd dozen or so people; it’s a huge community that demands that tasks be completed. When it’s anonymous, it’s ruthless to you. It’s a damn difficult task that only a few can handle.

Initially, I can’t say I was impressed with Zashi. It was just a nice wallet, that’s all. But so much has happened since then! Today, I topped up my Solana address for the first time in my life to pick up some unexpected airdrop that I caught completely by accident. I’ve never had Solana before, and I would have had to go to an exchange to buy some and deposit it for gas. But I just sent one hundredth of a Sol to that address directly from Zashi, and it took about a minute. No KYC, no visits to exchanges — nothing at all. It’s as if I’m just a beginner and don’t want to dive in too deep. And it all makes an impression — I just saw the execution stage in the wallet itself. And when it was complete, I checked the Sol address, and there it was. It’s so simple! This is the level that everyone needs. And this gap was bridged in less than a year and a half. I appreciate that.

6 Likes
22

Thanks for correcting me, Jason. I may be mistaken, but that’s how it seemed to me.

1 Like
23

Not true, see my comment above. $2.67M (for 7 months) is ~66% of the current value of the lockbox and will be ~55% of the lockbox value at distribution date, assuming ZEC price remains flat.

24

I am referring to the rate of disumbursemnt . The request is greater than the rate at which the lockbox fills up which means it is not sustainable.

1 Like
25

Feel free to start a new thread under Retroactive Grants for conversations to help clarify expectations for retroactive grant applicants.

4 Likes
26

True.

When you really think about it, not that much is needed for a P2P economy: a robust protocol, tokenomics set in stone and good wallets.

2 Likes
27

I’m signalling my social support for this grant here at this time. For the first time in many years Zcash has momentum and we should not stop it.

However, I second @hanh concern’s regarding G&A/Board/etc. expenses - and hope they are clarified and addresses before the next request. I expected it to be much more engineering heavy, and I hope the next one doesn’t lose focus of that. By these metrics, ECC spends more on “others” than in its core business.

I hope the team receives the feedback well, I can’t imagine how tough it is to run a company in this space and have to disclose all these things without context, and all that comes with it. Thank you for your effort.

7 Likes
28

I tend to agree with these. The idea that most of the Lockbox will get wiped out doesnt sit well with me :frowning:

I support the devs getting paid, but as is, seems too high. I guess we will see how “investors” view this, in the end.

Can the community see any more details here? This seems like an important sticky point.

1 Like
29

It would be more or less half of the lockbox at today’s rate. Seems reasonable since Zashi had a big impact in the last year (I really enjoy Zkool too with its frost capabilities).

3 Likes
30

We don’t know the rate when this gets emptied, and that is the concern.

3 Likes
31

Only three days have passed, and the whole picture in terms of percentages has already changed significantly. That’s why it’s better to calculate in ZEC. It may happen that the ECC request will turn into 1% of the emission next year. We cannot rule that out. And will that be a reason for them to increase their expenses? I don’t think so. I think Josh should proceed from the from the regular team that allows him to successfully implement his program so that the price has the potential to grow. Only such a strategy will have a long-term effect.

4 Likes
32

I have seen each and every one of the arguments presented here:

  1. That the request for funds is very high

  2. That it represents a large percentage of the Lockbox

  3. That we remain centralized with ECC management

And as I see it:

  1. The team that Josh has put together and what they have developed are worth it, in my opinion. Zashi’s marketing (which many reject and even argue is an expense that Zcash does not need) has been incredible, well-structured, and unique. Neither Zingo, Nighthawk, nor YWallet have had marketing as high-impact and structured as what they have done with Zashi. That shows, and it’s worth the cost. Tatyana and Andrea’s work has been incredible, as has that of the rest of the team.

  2. As for the Lockbox percentage, it’s all conjecture. The price of ZEC could skyrocket… or not. All I can say here is that those funds are there to be used. And the “probable” shortage of funds in the Lockbox that some people are suggesting is also part of the game, part of the “proposal market” (to call it something): there will be proposals of different sizes and timescales, and the funds will go to those who request them most efficiently and opportunely. It’s tough, but that’s the game. The community will evaluate and vote on that as well.

  3. And regarding dependence or not on the ECC, I think it has been the ECC that has assumed that role, and the community has seen it and allowed it to be so. If the community disagrees, then the community should create a new mechanism that develops and does not depend so much on the ECC… Does it exist? No, so that’s the way it is. When a new community proposal for development and implementation that surpasses the ECC comes along, we’ll see.

I fully support the proposal. Zcash is achieving a very important milestone within the global blockchain ecosystem, and that is thanks to the development of Zashi and the ECC.

2026 will be very interesting and promising. I invite everyone to look at it more favorably.

10 Likes
33

I hope this trend continues, go Zcash!

4 Likes
34

Likewise. ECC has done really good and deserve a lull in the financial pressure they’ve been under for quite a while

Indeed.

4 Likes
35

i personally think this proposal is mostly fair, but not perfect. and ECC really should lead by a perfect example of what a good proposal would look like.

i dont like the part of debt and board of directors. those make up 19%. if those were removed and proposal adjusted it would get my vote.

currently it looks very similar to if the old dev fund of directly funding orgs (just now with coinvote).

the perfect proposal would be more project based imo. for example Zashi wallet development 2025. and/or a separate for Zcash core work proposal.

5 Likes
36

We might need to run away from project-based work for some trustworthy organisations.

The lockbox is currently valued at $10 million. Everyone expects this to be $100M or even $0.5B in a few years. There’s no way to deploy this capital effectively in that manner, and the community will be targeted with scam proposals to drain these funds.

Traditional funds of this size typically have multiple full-time personnel dedicated to deploying this money, and we may need to evolve to a similar structure.

However, returning to the present and this proposal, I don’t think the problem lies in not being project-based: ECC needs to have sufficient confidence in its funds to enter into agreements with its employees for long-term compensation and stability. It’s not sensible to “work” in a place that may or may not have funds next month, all based on a popular vote - we are forcing bad incentives around them.

I don’t even think the allocation of funds is necessarily the problem—and I wouldn’t normally opine on it!

What feels weird to me is the huge amount, especially considering it’s retroactive. I had previously assumed that the retroactive aspect was to award “good Samaritans” who had performed good deeds for the ecosystem, without necessarily expecting compensation and at personal expense. ECC is using this to fund the next six months, based on the previous ones, due to a lack of formal compensation during the period. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong; I made no judgment in my previous statement.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe ECC has established a reputation and deserves to have its operations funded; however, we need to align on a payment plan that provides everyone with stability and predictability. If I were ECC, I would also make separate grants for different areas (e.g., Engineering & Product vs. Government Lobby) so they don’t risk receiving backlash on the “averages”.

I would appreciate understanding the company’s plans for funding for the full year 2025 and 2026 (at least). And I would rather the community vote on those than try to control their monthly/quarterly projects.

Nothing worse than trying to build your vision and create long-term building incentives and having to justify to 7621534 token holders without context in a public forum every other day.

4 Likes
37

I agree w/ the sentiments from hanh and dismad. ECC should definitely be funded, this is an appropriate use of lockbox and even the negotiation process here is totally reasonable. But the Zcash community should push back on using lockbox funds to pay administrative overhead and debt repayment.

7 Likes
38

I might be wrong, but I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how grants work. This is not the same as the old dev fund model.

We provided costs. Perhaps that was a mistake on my part. Most grant applications, even submitted to ZCG, request funding based on milestones. They don’t necessarily share their cost, just what they want in exchange for a deliverable. For example, do we know what Qedit’s actual costs are? No, we do not. But we’ve paid them over $4M.

As for admin and other costs, if we don’t cover them, we will run out of money. Some of our admin costs include insurance, infrastructure, accounting, and other necessities to support the team.

I’m personally part of G&A. Maybe you don’t value my contributions. That’s fine for you to argue. But my point is that I think using a Chinese menu style of assessment is flawed.

The question for the community is whether or not ECC provided the value that we’re asking for. Full stop. We could have increased what we ask for to help us with the staffing gaps we currently have, increase compensation for devs that haven’t had salary increases in over a year, etc. We simply asked you to cover the exact cost we incurred to deliver for the community during those seven months when we had no funding. I think it was well worth it.

14 Likes
Pepper-Sync
39

TADDYINBIO

An error occurred: Body seems unclear, is it a complete sentence?

40

The main issue is that if the ZCG does not fund them, then some big fat whale probably will and their interests may be captured and disaligned as they would no longer be inherently compelled to answer to the Zcash community. Not saying that will happen, but the threat of capture by outside economic interest has and will exist indefinitely.

1 Like