Not sure what that sarcastic post aims to accomplish. IMO we should not dismiss this first coinholder (2.0) voting round, despite its flaws such as the Orchard pool registration barrier and the necessity to disclose the seed phrase. Also, did you know that there are countries like Germany where you would potentially be disadvantaged financially if you move your coins around (e.g. taxes and regulatory)? Coinholder voting is still a step toward empowering ZEC holders with financial skin in the game — something the subjectively curated ZCAP/ZAC cannot fully claim. The 1m ZEC turnout is not high, sure, but it is a leap from the first transparent voting round years ago. Governance is not static and we are already gathering feedback to simplify voting and boost participation. Let us try to be positive please.
The alignment between ZEC holders and ZCAP/ZAC is not proof of bias — it could also reflect genuine consensus on how funding should work in the future. ZCAP’s and ZAC´s overlapping ~200-300 members bring expertise, but its opaque selection by ZF/ECC is neither decentralized nor 100% fair. Coinholder voting is open to all ZEC holders and is broadening input.
I agree that these legitimacy debates are annoying. That is why we should try to improve: streamline voting, amplify outreach on other platforms and wallets. Be more transparent in the ZCAP/ZAC selection process. Who disagrees and why?
That raises a good point. Let’s take the example of a referendum again. If say you have 100 million voters, the system is designed to make sure all those voters are alive. We do not know how much of the network are tokens lost for any reason.
We’re still a young network so it’s not too much of a problem, but it’s something to keep in mind. Assuming turnstile & newer shielded pools happen at least every 10 years, we could use the number of tokens in that latest shielded pool as the base metric to calculate participation percentage. For transparent tokens, there’s probably a way to list all addresses having transacted once in the past 10 years as well.
Sorry, sarcasm is indeed difficult to parse. My points are:
Turn out seems high enough (as pointed out, many people don’t even know about the poll, or can’t or aren’t willing to move their funds… So 6% seems very high in this context)
Results being aligned with ZCAP and ZAC show that they can be just as legitimate. Note how the majority of ZCAP rejected making the funds managed by ZCAP! I If they were the sham that people paint them out to be, that would never happen
People will keep moving goalposts and won’t be ever happy with whatever is decided
I also have opinions on the results themselves but I’ll post them later, I’m old and hate typing on the phone
Some quick clarification about the selection transparency of the Zcash Community Advisory Panel. ZCAP is open to any individual who completes the ZCAP membership form and meets at least one of the following criteria:
Contributors to Zcash through grants or software development, including those who have:
made a meaningful contribution to one of the Zcash node projects (zcashd and Zebra)
authored or co-authored a ZIP (including ZIPs 1001-1013), or
led development of a significant Zcash software application, library, tool or similar
Grant recipients who have successfully completed more than 50% of their grant, measured by the USD value of grant milestones that have been completed and paid out
Zcash Community Grants Committee members, both past and present
Zcash Community Forum members who have recently visited the forum for 100 consecutive days and earned the “Aficionado” badge
Zcash Community Forum members who have earned the “Regular” badge by being a regular part of the Zcash community over a period of months
ZCAP operates under a “use it or lose it” policy, where members must actively participate in polls to maintain their membership. Members who do not participate in three consecutive ZCAP polls may be removed, unless they have valid reasons for not voting.
In the next few weeks we will post an updated ZCAP list reflecting removals and additions following the most recent poll.
To be clear: individuals who meet one of the above criteria can complete the ZCAP membership form at any time for immediate consideration. New members are added to ZCAP in small batches during the intervals between polls.
We invite you to reach out to us via DM @zcashfoundation or via email at zcap@zfnd.org with questions or suggestions.
You’ll have to concede that posts of that matter are spread all across the forum
Regardless of posts, it’s been several times that I’ve heard comments about ZCAP being seeded with Zcash FUDders, monero trolls and so on. I guess that @conradoplg has heard of those critics to ZCAP too. In fact the ZAC is some kind of ECC curated ZCAP. Non-surprisingly to me the results of different polls among both corpuses of advisory don’t seem to differ much on the bold traces. They end up creating the same landscape with minor differences.
Now that I see Conrados’s post, I too think that I would have expected that when polled, any corpus that seeked to establish an “autocracy” would have self-voted to run governance, yet they haven’t.
Fair enough, but it’s all kind of weak points, honestly.
As if, it was ever only about the amount of stakeholders participating. No! And that’s not moving the goalposts at all. Yes, I have said that for the creation of the dev fund 0.1% was evidently way too low to be legitimate. So now, we have something a lot more legitimate. But have I not spend most of my messaging criticizing the process, or lack thereof?
Regarding ZCAP, either way, I feel like the post above is a step in a very good direction. They can adjust their internal governance as they see fit, but from the outside it’s looking rather legit. Ultimately I hope those types of groups can help stakeholders take the best possible decisions, and will maybe provide unbias executive summaries so that eventually stakeholders may, at least in part, rely on their expertly informed opinions.
I wonder if the people who voted for prioritizing the dev fund extension over NU7 realized the actual implications: there will be another network upgrade before NU7. And due to the way the Zcash protocol works, almost everything breaks everytime there is a network upgrade - wallets, exchanges, etc. (and yes, they can avoid that by preparing beforehand, but they don’t). So there will be two whole breakages in row - NU 6.1 and NU 7
Come on @conradoplg… Looks like my vote represent the majority of the voice asking not to prioritize the dev fund extension over NU7, and I have to thank @aquietinvestor for taking the time to explain that aspect.
Has ZF published something somewhere that could help stakeholders decide what is best? Currently stakeholders have no guidance from the legacy powers that be in here.
Listen, stakeholders are like shareholders. If they are not told anything, they are blind, yet it’s still their role to decide the direction. So, please don’t expect stakeholders to read all forum posts in here. Instead, before votes are set to begin, let’s all make sure someone at each org expresses (edit: on their respective official websites / wallets) their views on what would be the best way, the best vote, forward.
I was surprised as well that I was the largest voice against prioritizing the dev fund extension tbh.
I didn’t understand this outcome in question 2 either. I thought most people would prioritize NU7 (given the complaints in the past years about delays of network upgrades etc.). As a ZEC holder and ZCAP member, I did not vote for prioritizing the dev fund over NU7.
Obviously there were many voters who saw urgency in the dwindling funding. As you can see, ZEC price performance has a significant impact on development. Who would have thought.
