Our written answers to the “Above the fold” MGRC questions below.
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?
This first round of elections is particularly important exactly because it will determine the core principles and procedures that the original ZIP does not specify. In our view, the MGRC should not unilaterally implement anything that ZIP-1014 explicitly forbids but should also have the freedom and flexibility to introduce policies that are required for it to succeed in its mission. This includes compensating members or contractors who are taking on most of the administrative responsibilities, as well as allowing for other types of funding in addition to grants - such as bounties, prizes, and investments - to ensure that the MGRC can contribute to Zcash not only in the next four years but, ideally, for decades to come. For anyone interested to learn more about funding innovation via grants vs. prizes, we’ve summarized the relative merits of each here.
We believe the MGRC should always remain transparent and communicative to ensure that highly contentious decisions receive the necessary scrutiny prior to implementation. To date, controversial issues in Zcash governance have been resolved through Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and forum votes. Moving forward, we think the MGRC should support establishing a more decentralized governance/voting system that would give the broader Zcash community a secure and legitimate channel to express their preferences.
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)?
During its first year of operation, we think the MGRC should prioritize establishing robust procedures for sourcing high-quality applications, allocating funds, oversight, and review. The need to add additional functions should be assessed based on experience, not assumed, although we could certainly see the MGRC taking on a more active role in areas that are important for Zcash but, for some reason, aren’t receiving sufficient attention.
With regard to bureaucracy vs. adhocracy, we’d point out that some bureaucratic formality is baked into the MGRC by default because its procedures will be based on written rules (ZIP-1014, reporting requirements). However, to the extent that it’s possible, the MGRC should try to minimize its administrative overhead, and certainly avoid setting up excessive barriers to entry for future MGRC members, potential applicants, and grant recipients.
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?
Our written answers to these questions are available here.
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?
Our written answer to the first question is available here.
While standard COI policies must apply to all MGRC members, we don’t think involvement in another cryptocurrency project should exclude someone from serving in the MGRC. We consider knowledge and experience in other projects as a strength. More important than previous affiliations are the intentions and integrity of the person, and the unique perspective and skills they bring to the table.