Community sentiment collection: Poll on NU4 dev fund ZIPs!

Anyone with a forum account older than March 2019 is eligible to vote in the following poll, which will remain open until Saturday, November 30.

Technically, the website will allow younger accounts to vote, but their answers will be discarded. Please note that this may affect the results displayed on this forum after the polls have closed — the automatic count may not reflect the official count.

CRUCIAL BACKGROUND INFO ON THE POLL:


Proposal 1: “Keep the block distribution as initaly defined. 90% to miners”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 2: “A genuine opt-in protocol level, development donation option”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 3: “20% split between the ECC and the Foundation”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 4: “20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or ‘burn’”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 5: “ZCFS (Zcash Community Funding System”)

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 6: “Blocktown Development Fund Proposal: 10% to a 2-of-3 multisig with community involved Third Entity”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 7: “Dev Fund Supplemental Proposal: enforce devfund commitments with legal charter”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 8: “Kek’s proposal: fund ECC for 2 more years”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 9: “Dev Fund Strategic Council Approach”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 10: “A Grand Compromise/Synthesis ZIP Proposal”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 11: “Decentralizing the Dev Fee”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 12: “Dev Fund Proposal: Dev Fund to ECC + Zfnd + Major Grants”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

Proposal 13: “Keep It Simple, Zcashers (KISZ): 10% to ECC, 10% to Zfnd”

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters

31 Likes

Good read.:heart_eyes::heart_eyes:

2 Likes

keep real, man
1st, proposal 1

Reminder: Discourse software (this forum) will allow anyone with an account to vote in this poll.

However, once polling is closed any accounts that placed a vote that don’t meet the voting criteria (ie new accounts) will have thier votes discarded.

5 Likes

Voted. 10% doesn’t seem remotely viable at current prices.

2 years at 20%, and then revisit.

2 Likes

Voted, no change is needed .
its an Open source, community driven project . price was not a factor at start . is not a factor now . will not be a factor in future .
we work of what we have . some things might be delayed , other things postponed but surely things will be done, as long as its open source enthusiast driven and community based on TRUST.
simple donate button on the foundations website can do wonders .
as it did for 100s of other much bigger open source community driven projects . starting from linux all the way down to blender .

3 Likes

Why discarded? As an zec holder,he or she can have the right to vote. Besides, i was an old account, but my account was deleted.

It is to prevent stuffing the ballot box by someone or a group of people registering a bunch of new accounts.

Where in Italy is it defined:-?

4 Likes

yeah, that would be my mistake. I routinely misspell words. I guess I didn’t look to spell check the title. its not @sonya’s fault.

It was meant to say “initially” (even typing it then it got autocorrected for me) it genuinely makes me sad, but my brain just doesn’t work like that. I have tried various things over the years to fix it, all to no avail.

ah well. I hope people still understand what I meant.

2 Likes

@mistfpga Of course we know what you meant ; )

3 Likes

Don’t worry about it. I can fix the spelling if you like, but it’s not important. In a way, having a small spelling error is good, because it shows the messy reality: The more decentralized your governance, the less corporate polish. People should know that’s what they are signing up for.

2 Likes

3 days to go.

As i like predictions i will make a prediction on this one too, lol

Forum Poll:

Majority votes for “No Dev Fund” (Proposal 1) and Blocktowns 10% (Proposal 6). No sure which of these both will lead but i’am sure these are the top 2 proposals people will vote on the forum.

Community Advisory Panel:

Majority for “A Grand Compromise” (Proposal 10) and another 20% proposal, mostly 20% slit (proposal 4) followed by Blocktowns 10% proposal. Pretty sure that with a over 50% closely affilated people to the ECC and ZF and reduced Community Advisory Panel that the result will look like that.

Miner Signalling:

No results as there is no miner signaling possible.

Combined results:

As i got no information how the polling and results are later combined i can only guess that 1 vote is just 1 vote no matter where it’s given and i think it will be a head to head race btw. 3 proposals:

No dev fund (Proposal 1), Blocktowns 10% (Proposal 6) and 20% Grand Compromise (Proposal 10). If i had to bad i would set my bet on Blocktowns 10% to have the most votes combined, but we will see in 3 days anway :slight_smile:

Grand compromise feels too messy. Some of the best development work (lite wallet) has come in the last few months/last year, suggesting that it’s healthy to keep ECC/ZF grounded in the real world (else they’re at risk of turning into an academic research department!) – just blindly continuing the Founder’s Reward won’t do that. The ECC/ZF do need funding however. Most of the in-between options seem workable.

1 Like

Hi,

@sonya @gtank

Can we please have another call after this on a retrospective on this whole process. There are a number of lessons we can learn from.

Some are zip related, some community and some on the actual voting process itself.

it can be a private call with the proposers and the CGP with the summary published, or it can be a hangout that gets published.

Yeah, I was wrong. still there are some things that it would be good to do a retrospective.

I promise to have a better mic next time if this does happen.

3 Likes

[ZIP Editor hat on]

There was an ambiguity in ZIP 1008 that may have affected the polling results for that proposal. Briefly, there were requirements added to the ZIP in the editing process that didn’t reflect the proposer @kek’s intent. See the discussion at Kek’s proposal: fund ECC for 2 more years for further details.

1 Like

I set those requirements when I wrote the pull request.

I have addressed this in the thread daira linked to above. If I messed up I messed up. however I am not sure if I did or not. I would advise everyone to read that thread before making a decision on what to do.

1 Like

“Decentralizing the Dev Fee” seems to be a good idea

1 Like

Just a reminder that when the polls close the results shown may not reflect the official count due to the account age requirement

No later than Tuesday, December 3rd, the Foundation will post its summary of the results.

Further details:

2 Likes