Bootstrap Org / Electric Coin Company

[zancas]

@joshs

The question for the community is whether or not ECC provided the value that we’re asking for. Full stop.

In my humble opinion, this is exactly correct.

The amount of capital invested over the asking period is calculated and presented as if we can use those metrics to assess the value of what was produced.

We cannot. To attempt to do so, based on that data, is a fool’s errand.

What we all should agree on, is that the ECC has provided unparalleled value for effort.

What the coinholders’ need to decide is:

How can the lockbox ZEC most effectively increase the value of Zcash?

Will the ZEC in the lockbox be more effective at increasing the value of Zcash if it remains in the lockbox?

OR

Will it more effectively contribute if it’s in the ECC treasury?

I believe that it will more efficiently increase the value of Zcash if it’s in the ECC treasury.

When the ECC originally posted its ask, a commentor on this thread calculated that the ECC ask amounted to around 55% of the lockbox ZEC. That in my view is a perfectly reasonable amount for the coinholders’ to entrust to the ECC.

I argue that the ECC should receive 55% of the ZEC in the lockbox at disbursement, because that allocation of value is likely to efficiently increase the value of Zcash. Of course, the evidence that supports this belief is the work they’ve presented in their proposal.

That’s what that evidence is FOR to inform voters’ beliefs on the relevant issue.

Of course, my own interest in this argument is that I think that Zingo Labs should receive around 10% of the lockbox value, following the exact same line of reasoning.

[zancas]

@tloriato

What feels weird to me is the huge amount, especially considering it’s retroactive.

The only source of scale that seems relevant to me is the “size” of the lockbox at disbursement. In that reference frame, I don’t know a better way to quantify the “size” of the ask than ~ 55%.

Is there another reference frame that’s more relevant for scaling in this conversation?

I don’t understand “huge”?

Is there a concern that the ECC will be unable to manage the funds in an effective way?

I don’t think anyone who’s well versed in the history has that concern, but perhaps it’s implicit, and by virtue of highlighting it I can explicitly disspell it.

All of this to say:

I don’t believe “huge amount” is bringing clarity to the conversation, in the same way 55% of the lockbox funds does.

Oh… one other relevant number:

420_000 ZEC is required to endorse a proposal..

[outgoing.doze]

@Autotunafish

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.

Large stakeholders should listen to who now? “Big fat whales” is certainly one insulting way to name people who get you the price to where it is.

[gigantes]

@zancas

The only source of scale that seems relevant to me is the “size” of the lockbox at disbursement. In that reference frame, I don’t know a better way to quantify the “size” of the ask than ~ 55%.

Is there another reference frame that’s more relevant for scaling in this conversation?

I don’t understand “huge”?

Now it’s even less, roughly 16% of the lockbox in fiat (but of course that can still change both ways depending on the whim of the 12 apostles of the FED ).