I’m not sure I see what difference this all makes. IMO, it’s the direction (i.e., the things being worked on) and the process (i.e., how they get done) that the market has not received well.
2 Likes
Fair opinion. However, having proven a position of 105,000 ZEC and actually having more elsewhere that is not practical to disclose and prove anonymously, but very practical to sell if need be, hopefully I can speak regarding what someone relevant in that market is receiving well, or not.
To some degree, I agree with you. But I’m about fundamentals, as one may want to be when it comes to investments. I believe we can progressively improve the direction as well as the process once we become structurally sound. In other words, it’s not something I see as intractable.
However, talking of fundamentals, the dev fund is fundamentally the “jurisdiction” of ZEC holders, and as far as I am concerned, this is not negotiable. Keep in mind, I have suggested to have ZEC holders only in a position to authorize/refuse proposals that would come from the “ZF/ECC community”, for now. However, it has to be binding and definitely not “sentiment” based. That “sentiment” method would be fine for the protocol, at this point, and excluding the dev fund.
I understand this situation is pressing, but ZF and ECC have put themselves in that position.
A fair bit of difference, I would believe. For me personally, having ZEC holders in control of the dev fund implies that we may regain credibility; it gives me confidence. Conversely, if that sham poll moves forward, it may entail a substantial decrease in the price of Zcash that hopefully ZF and ECC are prepared for.
3 Likes
I find the coercion sections of some parts of this conversation very enlightening.
Thank you very much.
3 Likes
Respect is a two-way street.
2 Likes
Indeed. I very much appreciate the insight you’ve provided.
From all your comments on this subject (on this topic or spread across many other forum topics) I conclude that it is very important that all voting, polling, surveying and other kind of sentiment gathering mechanism to support and drive ecosystem decisions must have a clear Threat Model. I don’t think this has been brought up clearly enough.
It is my impression that we all as ecosystem have assumed that ZCAP, ZAC, Forum polls and coin-holder voting would always bear non-adversarial results. That is definitely not true.
I agree with Mr. Doze that these mechanisms have to be weighed and they should have a proper role in decisions, but probably with other rationale in mind.
4 Likes
Right. Exactly why I’m not here to negotiate. You want to bring down Zcash, I won’t be part of it.
I have watched carefully when Aragon started weighting community members to counter-balance the token holders. It has failed miserably. You will fail miserably.
The only way to success is to stop stealing from ZEC holders.
1 Like
the problem with English is that “you” is both used for plural and singular. Could you be more precise in your accusations? thank you 
. Or maybe just omit them completely, that would be very respectful of you.
2 Likes
I think you might be projecting. Massive wealth or not, I question motives. 
Pacu does so much for our community, if you paid attention you would see that.
8 Likes
You question the motives of someone holding a large amount of ZEC for more than two years.
Right, that makes sense.
Developers are colluding because currently they can, given that miners have no incentive to refuse new releases including code that steals from ZEC holders. This will be completely different once we reach PoS, but we are far from there.
I have no choice. I accept your offer for help if it is still valid.
Having accounts on other platforms (Github, Discord, etc) can risk my anonymity, could we do this over Session?
4 Likes
Yes. Please DM me your Session QR code and I’ll send you a message.
8 Likes
I’m genuinely glad to see the appearance of @outgoing.doze on this forum. Because any system should be subjected to all possible stress tests if it claims to be what Zcash wants to be.
7 Likes
In my opinion there is no contradiction here. No contradiction at all. He’s just rightly demanding a vote. He’s not disputing developer input. But he is saying that when allocation decisions are made only by those who have secured voting access, it is not fair.
While we’re on the subject of the state. It now appears that the people of this state do not vote. Whether it’s a good government or not, what’s their motivation right now-- - that’s not the point. It’s about the fact that this is not a democracy. This way of life contradicts the principles of decentralization that we declare. IMHO
The US have a two-tiered voting system by the way, not a simple majority system. Why is that? Something to think about.
4 Likes
“If you are authorized to vote, it’s only proving what a sham this vote is”
That is an absurd assertion @outgoing.doze . In the world’s centuries old established democracies citizens are all encouraged to excercise the vote that citizenship confers upon them. Be the citizen a President, a Prime Minister an unemployed millionaire sitting at home shouting at the TV, a drunk out of work actor, or a hard working nurse, regardless of a citizen’s occupation, and even if he or she is paid to work for a government agency or administrative department of that democracy, in all cases citizens are welcome, nay, encouraged to vote.
Zcash is not a fully formed network state- not yet anyway- but to deny token-holder individuals who are willing and able to devote the truly finite time of their lives to furthering the goals of our community the right to vote alongside token-holders who can’t be bothered or don’t have time to work for the embryonic network state that zcash may one day become would be a perverse repudiation of long-established democratic norms.
Unless you are the King or Queen, you vote. Doesn’t matter who you work for. And if anything, normally in democratic society we tend to offer deference and gratitude to those who exchange the finite time of their life against paid service for their country in the military or working for the government. That is because it is important work that someone has to do and many people cannot or will not do it.
So let’s remember that while you may have millions of dollars worth of ZEC, money is essentially just a battery for storing surplus time. So good for you, you have either worked hard to save or have inherited this stored time and you have the right to now deploy it and be able to vote in our community as a token holder. However, the stored time in your ZEC money batteries is no different than the time being given by the individuals qualified and willing to work for the zcash community every day for our network states’ governance institutions such as ECC, Shielded Labs, ZF, ZCG or any of the smaller projects and initiatives that are funded out of the devfund.
These people exchange the finite time of their lives for fair payment for a service that they provide or something that they build for the community. Not everything always works and just like in the creation of real world democracies, this is a piecemeal, often trial and error process. But as far as I can see this is not a community plagued by bad actors, corruption or rug pull scams. Quite the contrary. The individuals giving their time and eschewing anonymity have also been prepared to endure the not inconsiderable political/legal risk associate with being seen as zcash community leaders. Therefore it seems that we ought to be thoroughly grateful to the individuals who are willing to swap the finite time of their lives in exchange for ZEC remuneration from a devfund that was designed and intended to develop the zcash ecosystem. And the idea that because these individuals are willing to swap the finite time of their lives for ZEC should somehow exclude them from being allowed to vote alongside tokenholders who are not willing or able to devote the finite time of their lives to the same enterprise is just wrong.
Your stored up time is saved in the money battery you call your bag of 105,000 ZEC. Holding those ZEC gives you the voting rights that come with having stored up all that time and it gives you a voice that you would only otherwise be allowed if you contributed your time to the project. Other people are donating their time in lieu of simply holding 105,000 ZEC. Neither way of participating in this community is bad. Both are necessary. Just as pools of financial capital and pools of human capital are equally necessary parts of the machine that makes any society function.
You seem to think your financial capital gives you more executive rights than the human capital confers upon say ECC or ZF, but this is simply wrongheaded. In fact in the real world it is frequently the case that those individuals wielding the rights that flow from a broad mix of accrued financial capital alongside their own and other people’s high caliber human capital are the ones who get to make the final decisions or shape the frameworks than enable decision making within such complex systems.
If we prioritize token-holding above all else we could slide very quickly towards the pitfall of plutocracy. Financial capital matters. But not at the exclusion of all else. And let’s not make the mistakes of Bitcoin and think that all that matters is diamond-handing tokens until the kingdom comes. Money is a battery to store the proceeds of a person’s time well spent building things that can benefit other members of their community. That means that owning the money battery (as you do) is secondary and subordinate to the building of the battery in the first place.
Devfund recipients are building the money battery. And the rails that they are busy building will, over time allow the current to flow free and fast into the 105,000 ZEC you control. I hope one day when the fruits of their labours accrues assymetrically to your bags of ZEC, turning your USD millions into USD billions, you will remember to thank them just as vocally as you have here besmirched them.
7 Likes
I started to work on the ZIP for 100% coin holder control of the dev fund a few weeks ago, so it was always going to be a part of the final vote. I am not certain it is the best model, but do believe the community should have that option since enough people have mentioned it over the years.
10 Likes
This argument is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. You are right in the fact that without those skilled people who contribute their time developing and improving Zcash, our ZEC as coin holders would be worthless or worth far less, as they are building the “money machine”. But almost everyone arguing in this thread has received funding through the block rewards/dev fund. Without buyers who are willing to convert their fiat (and it does not really matter in this context how they got their fiat) into ZEC, the ZEC coins for miners and dev fund recipients would be worthless as well. Atleast I think so because I am currently not able to buy groceries with ZEC or pay my rent in my country. You need the fiat “fueling” the system as you need the contributors to “power” the system with their time and effort. Both groups deserve a voice in this ecosystem, the question is how do you want to weigh it.
3 Likes
hmmm, isnt the current governance system going to select the governance scheme that put them in place ?
Whales want coin voting
ECC wants zblock
zf wants zcap
pretty clear bias imo
1 Like
If you have one ZEC that should be enough, most people don’t have one BTC I only have 10 ZEC to my name reading the forum every chance I get. Coin weigh is too stressful, and no one should be more in tilted than no one else the team working on ZEC everyday work for ZEC holders. They need the most up respect Zcash is running it’s course the price will go up eventually when the time is right nothing is wrong with the voting. Having too many people involved in a voting mechanism will cause too many problems too many different opinions imagine having 100,000 people voicing their opinion on a topic an imagine half of them don’t fully understand what needs to be done but they’re voicing their opinion.
2 Likes
Some fair points here. However I don’t agree that fiat to ZEC conversion is the route by which ZCASH ultimately succeeds. This route implies an enormous inefficiency by way of the middle man CEX or DEX that is required. For me the key is in the name: Z “Cash”. This tells me that the technology is primarily intended as a medium of exchange and mediums of exchange are designed to be transacted peer to peer. You give me ZEC, I give you a loaf of bread or a pint of beer or one of those bargain Teslas that ought be snapped up at current prices(!)
You are right insomuch as observing the current state of the network being unable to serve its community’s need by way of having insufficient numbers of merchants, points of sale and service providers willing and able to accept ZEC for their wares. But this is something that will change rapidly once the technology is mature enough to support the kinds of peer to peer transactions necessary to deliver fully on the promise first articulated in projects like Chaumian Ecash in the last century and Bitcoin in this one.
The railway barons built the rails that led to exising cities as well as new cities that they built as part of the railway networks’ development plan. Then, when the railway traffic was able to flow smoothly enough to allow commerce to thrive, that was when the shopkeepers, hotelliers, merchants and service providers flocked en masse to utilise the network that facilitated the safe and reliable transactions their businesses required.
The collaborative efforts with projects like Namada and Maya are very exciting as I think this is indicative of a maturing privacy niche within the crypto industry. To go back to the railway metaphor, I think zcash up till now could best be regarded as Stephenson’s Rocket. The first steam engine was a great proof of concept, just as zcash has been. But it took time for Stephenson’s Rocket proof of concept to blossom into the competitive industry that built the transcontinental networks of railways that populations have benefited from for the past 150 years or so.
A lot of the complaints about the devfund are only happening because the zec price is low. Not many people holding 105,000 ZEC would care who was making decisions at ECC if ZEC was priced at $50k a token. And my contention is that the low zec price has more to do with the macro state of the still embryonic global crypto network as well as the infancy of the privacy niche within crypto, than it has to do with any particularly egregious mismanagement of community resources or voting systems.
That’s not to say that we should not be always looking to make things more decentralised and more inclusive; we should. But personally my take is that efforts to improve the current offering are underway and I have only ever seen evidence that within this broad church every single individual is always offered every opportunity to get involved, to make ZiP proposals and other proposals that people think are required.
So that is all reason to be very optimistic about the future IMHO
5 Likes
I just want to chime in and say thank you to everyone for maintaining such professional and respectful discourse with such contentious topics. 
We may not all agree on a best path forward but this kind of environment helps ensure the best ideas can rise to the top.
14 Likes