Just wanted to chime here again on the prospect of including holdings in transparent Zcash as part of coin-weighted polling. I think there are a lot of arguments in favor of it and there is a substantial amount of voting power there, that for a variety of legitimate reasons can’t or would rather not move into the Shielded Pool for voting purposes. I don’t think it makes sense to ignore the preferences of larger holders (probably most of them) because of regulatory and accounting frictions.
Not looking for an argument about getting coins into the shielded pool - I agree that is the long-term objective but coinholder preferences need to be gauged posthaste.
@aquietinvestor - any plans to include non-shielded holdings in this round of polling?
Hi @Angst01. The purpose of the practice vote we’re currently organizing is to test Hanh’s new Coin Voting 2.0 application. The app is designed to work only with ZEC held in the Orchard pool, so it doesn’t support transparent holdings or ZEC held in older shielded pools. Users who want to participate in that vote will need to transfer their funds to Orchard.
That said, future coinholder votes could include transparent holdings if someone chooses to organize those elections separately. Transparent coinholder voting has been used in the past, such as during the ZIP 1014 discussions.
Excellent. I don’t have the skill to replicate the previous transparent coinholder voting, is there someone motivated and with the skills to do this for this vote?
A simple alternative way to do this could be to simply sign our votes with our wallets, easily proving that we have had our tokens for a while. I’m sure it’s not the best approach, but it’s one we could do if needed.
I looked into the history of transparent coinholder voting, and it appears the last time it was used was in mid-2021 to gauge sentiment on issues related to NU5 and proposed changes to ZCG (then called ZOMG).
At that time, there was no mechanism to support shielded coinholder voting. Shielded voting functionality wasn’t introduced until last year, when Hanh integrated it into YWallet. Most participants in that 2021 transparent vote used ZecWallet to move their ZEC from the shielded pool to a transparent address in order to participate.
I’ve shared a few resources below. One important thing to note is that transparent voting did not allow users holding ZEC on centralized exchanges to participate, since most CEXs use co-mingled wallets, even though they provide unique deposit addresses. That said, users with self-custodied wallets that only support transparent addresses, such as Guarda, Trust Wallet, and possibly Ledger and Trezor, may still be able to take part in transparent voting. I believe this is the strongest argument for including transparent holdings.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the bandwidth to organize a transparent poll alongside the Coin Voting 2.0 test vote, but I’d be happy to collaborate with anyone interested in running one, particularly on aligning the questions and timing. If anyone is interested, feel free to reach out to me.
I want to discuss this with a couple people first in case there’s something I’m missing, but I’m inclined to say that we should establish a process to ensure transparent voting is included alongside shielded voting if coinholders are going to have a greater role in governance and funding decisions. If a proposal like the Community & Coinholder (C&C) model is implemented, we should aim to maximize participation by allowing users of wallets like Trust Wallet and Trezor to take part, even if exchange-held ZEC is out of scope for now.
Note: If someone gets this rolling, don’t use autoshielding/optimistically shielding wallets with this method if there are any at that time (for example some fork of ZecWallet lite) because if you do, you may inadvertently withdraw yourself from the election and link your funds in the process
I’ll add that on-chain voting is literally useless right now because there is no on-chain governance enforcement, so it’s just a poll that we can certainly do off-chain without any disadvantages.
There are only five days left before @joshs deadline, would you mind sharing an update on where we are with this? Thank you @peacemonger for your work on this.
I love voluntary funding models. I think if there were a precedent of whales in our community being charitable towards the major entities improving Zcash, proposals like this would be easier to stomach.
I propose that outgoing.doze sends 50% of their publicly-disclosed wallet to a wallet managed by ZCG. When zcashd deprecation is complete, as determined by ZCG, 50% of that wallet will be sent to ECC and 50% will be sent to ZF.
Our community is in the middle of some very complex software projects that must not stall. Zcashd must be deprecated, ZSAs must be released.
I’ve been to all major Zcash dev meetups over the past 18 months. We have an extremely talented team of contributors with huge amounts of work on their shoulders. We need to be hiring, not defunding.
I’m not the biggest fan of the Dev Fund and would love to see us move towards opt-in donation/fundraising process eventually. But now is not the time. We don’t have profitable businesses in our space that can pledge support, and I am not aware of a precedent of ZEC whales being generous on a regular basis.
I am a grant recipient who does not love the Dev Fund, but I do not believe the time to end it is now. Zec.rocks is not seeking funding because there are much more urgent financial needs around us.
Here’s another proposal: ECC could publish a contribution ZEC address and view key, with a fundraising goal amount. If the goal is not met within 30 days, the Dev Fund covers the rest.
If some whales want the Dev Fund to end, show us that you will put your money where your mouth is.
ZEC holders have nothing to prove to dev fund recipients.
Not to you, not to ECC, not to anyone.
The dev fund is literally our (ZEC stakeholders) money, that has been stolen from us from year 4 after ZEC inception until the year 8. That’s 4 years of stolen money.
I’m not asking you to prove anything. I’m testing your hypothesis that whales would voluntarily fund Zcash development.
Mistakes have been made in the past but you need to stop repeating yourself.
Zcash’s brightest time is actually now. Incredible progress is being made, and it will continue with or without you. For your sake I hope you hold. But your attitude around here would not be missed if you decide to sell.
Price action will not go up if our core teams lose their jobs. You want the Dev Fund gone, you assert that whales will voluntarily donate. So, show up for this community that you’re so passionate about. Donate.
Evidently, some people really want to repeat the same mistakes as evidenced by the proposals included in the op.
ZEC stakeholders do not owe anyone a single cent. Maybe Zcash will be better without dev fund. Better is subjective, we may not see better as the same thing. Just don’t steal the inflation money of ZEC stakeholders.
It was yours as agreed, until 2020. Past that date, you stole it and you want to do it again.
I will be voting for this proposal. It has been great to know the opinion of people receiving money from the dev fund, but I am now particularly curious to know the opinion of people keeping our token price afloat.
Coinholders will vote on grant applications every three months.
Looking forward to reporting for duty, and for the community and stakeholders to work together instead of against each others. This proposal is a great way to achieve this.
The Community and Coinholder Funding Model (C&C), Zcash Governance Bloc (zBloc), and Deferred Dev Fund Lockbox Disbursement mechanism (LD) ZIPs at the top of this thread have all been updated based on feedback received and ideas generated through conversations within ECC and with other organizations referenced (or with the potential to be referenced) within those ZIPs.
Notably,
For C&C:
The ZCG cap and Coinholder thresholds were removed to allow grant submissions to either or both decision-making bodies. This allows the community to allocate grants from their fund independently from coinholder polling results and vice-versa.
To reduce an administrative burden and foster more active participation, coinholders would be polled on a batch of grants once per quarter.
For the LD: The number of signers to release coinholder-determined funding has been reduced to 2 of 3 (ECC, Shielded Labs, ZF) until other trusted organizations are able and willing to participate.
Also of note, preliminary legal reviews have been conducted on these proposals and have been favorable. More information will be provided soon.
I will consolidate all the ZIPs received through today for your review and discussion.
@Alex_ZF, @aquietinvestor, and I all agreed to push the timeline out a little bit to account for the delay in coinholder testing and ensure there is enough time for review before polling. I’ll share those details tomorrow.
