Community sentiment collection: Poll on NU4 dev fund ZIPs!

@mistfpga Of course we know what you meant ; )


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.


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


@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.


[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:


Interesting, the unofficial result without having non eligable voters removed would be:

53% Proposal 12: “Dev Fund Proposal: Dev Fund to ECC + Zfnd + Major Grants”
52% Proposal 13: “Keep It Simple, Zcashers (KISZ): 10% to ECC, 10% to Zfnd”
38% Proposal 3: “20% split between the ECC and the Foundation”
33% Proposal 10: “A Grand Compromise/Synthesis ZIP Proposal”
32% Proposal 8: “Kek’s proposal: fund ECC for 2 more years”
31% Proposal 11: “Decentralizing the Dev Fee”
30% Proposal 1: “Keep the block distribution as initaly defined. 90% to miners”
26% Proposal 6: “Blocktown Development Fund Proposal: 10% to a 2-of-3 multisig with community involved Third Entity”
24% Proposal 2: “A genuine opt-in protocol level, development donation option”
21% Proposal 5: “ZCFS (Zcash Community Funding System”)
20% Proposal 9: “Dev Fund Strategic Council Approach”
20% Proposal 4: “20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or ‘burn’”
15% Proposal 7: “Dev Fund Supplemental Proposal: enforce devfund commitments with legal charter”

I’am missing the ability to see who voted or are these going to be listed later with a list of non elegible voters. Or will it be kept in secret without any transparency? :thinking::roll_eyes:

Isn’t a vote supposed to be private? As far as I understand from my little experience voting in my country, they know I voted but not for whom… which is quite nice I believe…

Nobody is asking for posting who voted for what. But who was eligable and who not to vote, quiete different in my opinion.

Edit: Right now we do not know who was eligable, who will be removed from the count or anything. Asking just for something similar to the community advistory panel. We know who is there, who will vote but not what, that’s how it should be in my opinion.

Well I think we should let the voters choose whether they want to divulge their identities and I think the ZFND and ECC should reveal how they voted, if they voted.

Notably, this also doesn’t consider contention of proposal (% “no”) – relevant with an abstain option.

I assumed they would be made public. So I voted abstain on all of them, only to realise what I did after I clicked the buttons and had to message shawn to let him know that my abstains would skew the vote slightly.

I am pretty confident @shawn is on top of this.

I am simply calculating the results based on the account age voting limitation and will present my findings to the Foundation for audit/review.

I will leave the question of what is presented to the public/how it is presented for the Foundation to decide. @acityinohio @sonya


Would also be good to compare the total number of ‘yes’ votes and not just the percentages, since not all proposals have the same number of total votes. Some people abstained by voting ‘abstain’ and some abstained by just not voting for a particular proposal.


Only the final tally should be published, and exposure to the raw votes should be minimized and done under strict confidence.

The instructions for forum-based voting did not say anything about revealing information beyond total tally of eligible votes. Likewise, the forum poll was set up to publish only the final tally, so the system did not indicate that voter identities are public. This created expectations of confidentiality that should be not be changed retroactively.

It would not have been unreasonable to publish forum voter identities, had it been clearly said in advance. And I’d be in favor of that.

@acityinohio, evidently there was some confusion about this (see @mistfpga above too), and also I’m not sure how many people realized that the community advisory panel’s Helios voting system does publicly reveal when they have voted. This can be more clearly communicated next time. #DevFundRetrospective


Aye. And we indeed see that the total number of votes differs between proposals, so clearly some people “abstained” from specific proposals by just not voting on them. So I think the only meaningful numbers are yes-count and no-count, disregarding the abstains.

Another point to clarify next time. #DevFundRetrospective