This is a reductive take. I agree that finding PMF should come first, but the interplay between market and R&D is also important. I have my share of startup experience. Our best successes were when we were able to get user-focused products out there with [sometimes ugly / prototype] innovative and game-changing tech. MVP, prove, iterate, grow.
1 Like
Nicely played ECC. Again successfully deviating the conversation away from the fundamental flaws of the dev fund governance.
Want to see a change or something different? Here is the process. https://zips.z.cash/
2 Likes
What ZIP are you following for this vote? 
1 Like
If I do the same as you and repeat what I just said I’ll be moderated.
Is that how you’re going to play this?
Sorry @joshs but this question is rather fundamental, so as an organizer, I’d appreciate you answering it.
You are telling me I should create a ZIP if I want to “see a change or something different”, so hopefully this poll itself is following one of those ZIPs, right? How would I be able to change something that is undefined.
That’s a good question!
I would create the ZIP anyway. Writing ZIPs is hard but but not impossible 
there are a lot of things that are not in ZIPs that should be. Why? Because Zcash doesn’t have enough people. There should be more people collaborating. Why ? Probably a lot of reasons why.
Trust in the project, is one of them for sure as I’ve been following your posts, I deduce that you are a strong believer in that. Did I get that wrong?
In any case, folks already being part of the project are the best candidates to take a lead and start contributing. You are very invested in the project and noticeably a very good writer. So, why not putting that skill into materializing your processes and ideas for a better Zcash there? I bet that there are a lot of people that see an emerging leader in you and will support it.
Happy Zip writing!
Why bother if ZIPs are optional.
Good. Please answer the question anytime @joshs. Show us that you’re not just about to wing the result of this poll and instead you are following what you have just preached me, to use the ZIP process.
The benefit of writing a ZIP is that a ZIP specifies exactly how you think things should work. Instead of saying “don’t do X”, a zip should say “do exactly Y.”
This kind of clarity is very helpful. One problem with forum discussions is that objections to how things are often don’t do much to articulate a specific alternative, and so they go round and round in an endless spiral without achieving anything. People may have an idea of what “do exactly Y” should look like in their heads, but they spend so much time on “don’t do X” that exactly what Y is can be unclear.
I will give an example: quite a while ago I wrote a post proposing a mechanism for market-based determination for dev fund allocation: Loan-Directed Retroactive Grants. I still think it’s a good idea; it’s a possibility that’s downstream of figuring out a mechanism for disbursement of the dev fund. I do wish that the community had been able to think about disbursement independent of governance questions, because muddling the two makes it harder for people to make informed choices.
For the current polling, I did at least try to “factor out” the mechanism proposals from the governance ZIPs, but I don’t know whether people have even read that bit: Draft ecc-lockbox-disbursement: Deferred Dev Fund Lockbox Disbursement
2 Likes
I find your message similar to the one of @pacu. High quality, relevant in many regards, but not really addressing my point.
Sure. But why would I bother if it’s optional to use them? Why would I bother if random people get to decide if they get activated?
Currently, dev fund is locked, right? Well, I’m ok with that, why would I need to write a ZIP?
You guys want to make changes? Write a ZIP. 
Let’s be honest, ZF and ECC have created the situation we are in now, burden on them to fix it so we can all move forward from their mess.
1 Like
I’m cross posting this here to help address confusion about Zcash governance and polling.
This is a crucial moment for Zcash, and the different communities have an important role to play: translating each of these models into their respective native languages, and fostering discussions to explain and analyze each of the proposals, their impact and significance.
This will encourage more members of the communities to participate, whichever model is chosen.
4 Likes
You go to production with the contributors you have, not the contributors you might want or wish to have at a later time. - Donald Rumsfeld
I haven’t been around much lately. But, I’ve sort of been around since before, before the beginning… and, obviously, there are things that I wish were done differently over the past 10 years; and, I’ve complained loudly about a few things … I even started the draft OG lockbox ZIP … but, Zcash is freaking awesome and a lot of amazing people have worked a lot on it for a long time… I’m not sure what “mess” you’re referring to exactly … I actually think that Zcash is working, the lockbox is working, cool stuff is happening, community is growing. Zcash is in a fantastic position from my perspective. It’s useful.
Could the devfund have been more efficient? Did some decisions suck in hindsight? Yes, I agree with those. I still think that all devfund output should go into a monorepo 
Zcash 
tho. Use it.
3 Likes
Honestly if you are curious you can just read a bit above, this thread is a bit long but it certainly goes into the details of the problem. The TL;DR is basically ZF & ECC have no legitimacy over the current dev fund; they had 0.1% stakeholder support, it should not have proceeded forward but they forced their way. The last few messages of that thread are also worth checking out.
Values & principles are what is most precious in humans imho. Sure, ZF & ECC did some magic math, but one needs more than that to gain my respect.
As @joshs previously stated above, ECC is disclosing how we voted and with how much voting power. Note that we are not obligated to do so, but are choosing to disclose this information in the interest of full transparency. That being said, we voted for the Community and Coinholder Funding Model (C&C) with voting power of 16,000 ZEC - a fraction of our total ZEC holdings. As noted here, we had some hiccups during the process but ultimately we were able to vote successfully.
1 Like
So roughly 6% of coins have voted, and unsurprisingly the unfathomable wisdom of the coin holders again matches the biased illegitimate views of ZCAP and ZAC and whatnot. Who would have thought?
So my question is: is 6% enough? Or will people move goalposts and keep forever arguing about the legitimacy of Zcash governance?
3 Likes
Nah, illegitimate.
You are smart. You understand any legitimate vote has a due process, right? right??
I know plenty of people who’ve held ZEC on their Ledgers for years without ever participating in a single vote. Honestly, I’ve never voted myself not even on this one. I tend to avoid moving my coins unless absolutely necessary, and the outcomes usually align with how I would’ve voted anyway. To be honest, the average non-technical person is simply focused on making a return. They buy ZEC and hold it, but don’t bother engaging in polls or governance. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality.
3 Likes