My interest in running is to support the following limited ideas:
1 - community based information and news in the zcash ecosystem. This project would be responsible for putting together media and reports detailing informational and investigative updates of ongoings at ZOMG, ECC, the Foundation, and bootstrap through interviews and document requests from officers and developers, and then disseminating that information to the community and online.
2 - providing assistance with development of the ycash ecosystem.
I prefer those two projects find founders and funding through ZOMG without me, or someone else take up these issues. If not, happy to serve next term with these limited goals in mind.
Yes. I believe there are multiple benefits to zcashers should zomg support ycash, especially as zcash undergoes transition to proof of stake. Most zcashers who have been around also likely hold some ycash at this point. I could support further this proposition, but I think a lot has already been said about the benefits of a different encampment also growing the shielded ecosystem with a slightly different set of values benefits both chains.
I still would like to see a shielded zec to shielded yec swap/service/bridge, but I’ll leave this aside as well.
No problem. I wouldn’t run if I didn’t believe that there were hard issues that are not being well appreciated by ecosystem. During the 1st MGRC, I highlighted how the zip was being misinterpreted.
Today, accepting how things have changed, I think zcash still needs a check on governance, (also serves as promotion of radical transparency) which is reason for the first call for action, and a safety valve should things go wrong, which is reason for the support for ycash.
I have more thoughts on both proposals, but as a candidate for zomg (and not expecting to be elected) I really just want to highlight these ideas that I believe will benefit zcash in the long run.
What “hostility” are you referring to? There are some outliers but overall Ycash has a good group of passionate folks. Kinda like Zcash… the behavior of some is out of line but doesn’t make sense to label the whole community. Especially given that there is overlap.
The reasons for Ycash forking seemed legit and I support them doing their thing; the team of contributors is hard-working and good intentioned. But I do agree that ZOMG funds should be for Zcash.
It’s just unfortunate than more folks from the Zcash community don’t recognize that Ycash is a real project (with a lot of the same tech). Frankly, that’s probably why folks are bringing this up.
YecDev is a 100% volunteer-based effort focused on Ycash-related software development. No funds from the Ycash Development Fund are used during the development of YecDev projects.
To fork because of the original 90% promise and then hope that funds derived from a Zcash community consensus that extends development funding beyond that promise be used for Ycash is absurd.
I get that zip-1014 says SHOULD and not MUST:
Major Grants SHOULD be restricted to furthering the Zcash cryptocurrency and its ecosystem (which is more specific than furthering financial privacy in general) as permitted under Section 501(c)(3).
I do wish them all the best, but given the history of these two projects and the reasons for them parting ways I do not support MGRC funds going to projects that benefit Ycash.
That’s a good point. But I’m sure there are expenses aside from the labor hours being performed by active community members here over at ycash is a better spend than some of the other projects that have been funded.
The ycash proposal spend would be far less than the independent governance check proposal.
That guy is a little nutty and obviously disrespectful, but again that is one guy spamming an anonymous board… that’s not representative of the Ycash community or contributors in my experience. (I think that same guy was spamming exchange chats too).
Edit: also keep in mind that it could be someone from the Zcash community or some other crypto community to make Ycash look really bad. That’s the double edge sword of an anonymous board like zecpages.
Ycash is a fork… it is a chain & code fork… so as one of the people who owned ZEC before the fork I’d say yes there should be some recognition. Early Zcashers have a vested interest, but you’re correct Ycash is a separate chain/project now. So, funding separate makes sense, but I’d think those with stake would care.
IMO, good idea except the Ycash part.
Nothing against Ycash. However Ycash !=Zcash, if they wish to promote their project, they should spend their resources.
Have you asked the Ycash community if they even want funding from ZOMG? My guess is they don’t. From my understanding that project was set up to avoid governance such as ZOMG.
Thanks for asking that question. I wouldn’t support giving ZEC to ycash, but would award grants to developers who want to strengthen relationship between ycash and zcash. I think there is fertile ground for symbiosis.
Sorry guysm but what’s up with Ycash again ? If Zcash aims to be a top player, we should collaborate with top players, instead some obscure community that nobody cares about.
Big red flag to mention Ycash imho… what value this will bring for Zcash ? I’ll wait.
There have been plenty of Ycash people helping/testing Zwallet…which is the fastest ZEC mobile wallet yet…so there’s that…and it hasn’t cost the Zcash Community anything.
Sorry I’m talking macro scale, not little hands doing testing. I’m thinking Moonshot collaboration (like the one between ECC and the ETH foundation granting funds for Halo2 interop between ETH and Zcash)
