Thanks for your service reviewing ZIPs @conradoplg.
I am not sure who should review governance ZIPs if not ZIP editors, but I am sure it’s important we have some people reviewing those. Ultimately, if we succeed at getting token holders to vote every three months or so, we’ll need to provide them with quality options.
Happy to help as needed. It will never be at the cost of accepting any KYC though.
Be me, a long term ZEC holder
seeing extremely biased people telling me my vote for selecting best wallet is bias. but their vote to figure out the way forward for the dev fund, while receiving moneys from dev fund, is perfectly normal
taking double dose antidepressant today
I wanted to send a private message to @outgoing.doze to thank him for his contributions to this discussion, but since I wasn’t able to, I’ll say it here publicly instead: @outgoing.doze — thank you for your thoughtful engagement. I spend most of my time focused on DC activities and don’t often have the opportunity to participate in the forums, but I took some time today to read through this thread and really appreciated your perspective.
I also want to give a special thanks to @ZecMec — your contributions here are truly brilliant.
Despite the contention expressed in this discussion, I still feel that we’re all part of the same family — and like all families, we have our moments of love and frustration 
. I’m not here to weigh in on any specific point of view, just to say thank you. I’m proud to be in this fight with all of you, working toward the bigger picture I know we all care about. 
Thanks a lot for the kind words, it means the world to me coming from someone as dedicated to privacy as yourself.
I don’t know that I deserve that level of praise either; honestly I wish I’d have the eloquence to express my frustration better. @Angst01, a fellow ZEC stakeholder, is absolutely right when he says that I am forceful and abrasive at times.
I don’t overthink it too much though, as the battle is extremely asymmetric and therefore quite challenging. I am certainly looking forward to a restoration of a sane balance of power in this project.
My fortune cookie friend says it best:
ECC Endorsement for the C&C proposal: ECC Endorsement for the Community and Coinholder Funding Model - Electric Coin Company
Shielded Labs endorses the Community & Coinholder (C&C) Funding Model, which allocates 12% of Zcash block rewards to grants selected by coinholders and 8% to Zcash Community Grants (ZCG). We believe this model represents a balanced approach to funding that empowers coinholders, recognizes the value of existing grant infrastructure, and can be implemented without causing major delays to other key ecosystem priorities.
Shielded Labs has no intention of seeking Dev Fund support. We fund our work independently of block rewards and rely on contributions from Zcash holders and supporters. Nevertheless, we believe the continuation of the Dev Fund is important for the ecosystem. It enables ongoing funding for independent development teams and creates a pathway for organizations like the Electric Coin Company (ECC) and the Zcash Foundation (ZF) to apply for additional support when needed. More broadly, the Dev Fund has played an important role in sustaining core protocol development, supporting new initiatives, and bringing long-term contributors into the Zcash ecosystem.
Our decision to support the C&C model was made in collaboration with ECC and ZF. Over the past month, Josh, Alex, and I met regularly to discuss the merits and drawbacks of the various proposals and evaluate the long-term needs of the ecosystem. Through that process, we aligned on the benefits of the C&C model, particularly its potential to further decentralize funding and its feasibility from an implementation standpoint. The spirit of collaboration has been encouraging and gives me hope that we are entering a new phase of cross-org cooperation that recognizes shared goals and open communication.
One of Shielded Labs’ core values is to honor the holders. We believe ZEC holders should have a voice in shaping Zcash’s direction, and this proposal takes an important step toward making that possible. Under the C&C model, projects are approved by coinholder vote, and funds are disbursed by a three-member multisig that includes Shielded Labs. Over time, we hope coinholders will play a larger role in governance and receive a greater share of the Dev Fund allocation. That said, the infrastructure to support coinholder voting is still in its early stages and remains largely experimental. Broader adoption will take time, and we see this proposal as a practical starting point that can evolve as tools and participation improve.
We also support continued funding for ZCG, which has played a critical role in decentralizing the Zcash ecosystem. Over the years, ZCG has funded a wide range of teams and initiatives and helped bring new contributors into the community. Its work has made the ecosystem more diverse, resilient, and globally distributed. The Zcash ecosystem today is far less centralized than it was prior to the grants program, and ZCG has been a major catalyst for that change.
Overall, the C&C model preserves the role of ZCG while giving coinholders a direct voice in funding decisions. It strikes a practical balance between existing grant infrastructure and new governance mechanisms, and provides a foundation for continued evolution over time.
ZF Board endorsement for the Community and Coinholder funding model: Why the Board Endorses the Community and Coinholder Funding Model (C&C)
This date must be a mistake?
fixed [10 char]
Will ECC be voting using tokens acquired through the dev fund?
Likewise, will the Zcash Foundation vote in such a way?
Speaking for myself, I support the zBlock proposal, and hope we follow through with meaningful change.
That’s one of the drawbacks of pure coin holder voting, even if they say Yes or No there is no way to verify or to stop ZF, ECC or any number of friends/proxies from voting. Not to mention flash loans, exchanges, mining pools, etc…
It’s a bit of a paradox, you can’t say absolutely coin holders should have a voice and then pick and choose which large coin holders get to vote.
ZF will not be participating in the coin holder vote. ZF team members have been encouraged to vote for whichever ZIP(s)/outcomes they feel are most beneficial for the future of Zcash.
Wrong. ZF and ECC are currently in a position of trust within the project. If they lie, one way or another, someone will know someday and it would destroy their reputation. I can’t imagine they would do that. I’m asking this question because it matters, because it would be wrong to vote using those tokens for obvious conflict of interest reasons.
Thank you for your answer @Alex_ZF.
Ha! 
And you call me a dreamer!
HUMANS lie, and that will never change. Orgs are run by humans. NOTE: I’m not implying anything beyond human nature 
You never quite understand what I am saying do you @dismad.
They have three choices:
Lying is technically easy, but may have deep consequences for orgs in position of trust; it’s a risk. Likewise, if they express they will vote using funds acquired through dev fund, they display no care for the obvious conflict of interest, which is immediately damaging in itself as well.
There’s only one safe choice and I want them to express it, consequently limiting their options.
edit: my bad, there’s a fourth option: they could also ignore my question. But this as well, may be damaging to reputation. Either way now we know for ZF, and I appreciate their answer.
Risk management is all that matters right? Exciting times 
Since some of my ZEC is from the dev fund, does that make it any less fungible? I cant vote with it right? Because you think the ZEC I earned doesn’t count.
Perhaps YOU should disclose where your funds are from 
Just curious?
Since we cannot know who is voting or the source of funds, we can’t know that you or anyone else isn’t a recipient via grant, etc.
ECC will vote as I want to go through the process and signal our support. We will publicly disclose how we vote and with how much.
If any of these proposals were going to result in ECC directly receiving funds, we would abstain. They do not. If any of these proposals is adopted, they would only give ECC the ability to submit grants, no different than anyone else.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you dislike certain people using their coins to vote… then maybe rethink the whole idea of coinholder voting 
