Community Sentiment Polling Results (NU4) and draft ZIP 1014

Because they still care about the funds in the volatility reserve and want funds for a rainy day? And if it’s clear that the cap is too low it can always be changed with mutual consent between ZF, ECC, and majority of Community Advisory Panel?

3 Likes

I agree with you about them wanting the volatility reserve, but acting out of fear of losing something is not the same motivation, because there is limited upside. Anyway I’ll just say again that I thought @tromer’s compromise was good because it keeps the valuable idea of a volatility reserve safety net while also giving some upside to the devs.

1 Like

Agree on the importance of narrative. I would like to add that there are accountability and enforcement mechanisms specified in the proposal.

4 Likes

Interesting thread to read through on the current Ethereum and Parity funding issue: https://twitter.com/adrian_brink/status/1206667247772749826

At least we’re not alone in this kind of conversation at the moment. :slightly_smiling_face:

5 Likes

Volatility reserve will allow ECC and others to keep working on Zcash. Does that incentive make ZEC a security?

Again I do not see how there is limited upside for employees in the proposal as it is written, as the ECC can choose to do what I’ve written above:

And if the cap is too low to provide employee upside there is a method to raise it, which requires ZF and community approval.

4 Likes

Funding in USD & the cap/reserve focuses the new fund on ‘paying bills’ rather than ‘rewarding investors’.

Devs ‘doing their thing for ZEC incentives’ can also be seen as ‘investors’ in this context - they’re investing time into a future coin value. I get why this is useful but its just a component, it doesn’t have to shape the whole thing.

Just my 2 zats worth…

2 Likes

I think this whole discussion of employee incentives is a red herring. Nearly all of us employees at ZF and ECC would go do something else professionally if we weren’t paid enough to live comfortably, but I don’t think that any of us chose to work at ZF or ECC primarily for the money. (As always, I’m not a mind-reader so I may be wrong.)

I can’t speak for all of us, but I could go get a $20k raise right now. There have been recruitment attempts. I don’t leave because I care deeply, I love this work, and I love the team I do it with (including colleagues outside of ZF). Those things are way more important to me than financial upside.

12 Likes

:heart:

Perhaps instead of viewing it solely as employee compensation, maybe we should be discussing attracting talented teams? My proposal didn’t cap dev fee recipients for that exact reason – to attract new teams who believe, and want a shot at significant upside.

3 Likes

But your proposal did cap the Foundation.

1 Like

An alternative to monthly funding caps would be to empower the community with the ability to review and change the allocations and any other dev fund governance rules on an annual basis. In other words, reporting/transparency requirements as prescribed by the leading proposal but no monthly caps plus the option to propose and vote for changes every 12 months. The process would be similar to the current one while including more/new community members. Between 2020 and 2024, there would be three options to tweak the system, if necessary: at the end of 2021, 2022, and 2023. All recipients would have 12 months of certainty and incentive alignment in return for maximal flexibility/discretion to react to changing circumstances.

5 Likes

Indeed. At scale, I worried about the chance for a growing bureaucracy and the odd “competition” dynamic between the ZF and other recipients. I figured capping operating costs for the coordinator would help control overhead of the entire system.

Not something we have to worry about today of course – everything I’ve seen has suggested ZF is a lean org

2 Likes

I feel your heart. I feel the same about my work.

It’s not a red herring because its the basis for ECC not accepting the work without finding a solution.

I think (maybe?) you would agree that misaligned incentives create perverse outcomes. As an example, if miners (who receive the lion share) “get rich” while dev teams struggle under an artificial cap, this will lead to a perverse outcome.

Allocations here for reference: Community Sentiment Polling Results (NU4) and draft ZIP 1014 - #77 by joshs

It’s why we believe that ECC employees should be fully aligned with coin holders - all Zcash believers and users. They then experience all the same things - the user experience, the regulation, the access to liquidity, etc. that the coin holders are experiencing. It’s not arms length. Yes, that includes the necessary volatility that comes through price discovery. I think this is good and equitable.

3 Likes

@tromer @acityinohio - I’m curious about your thoughts on this idea?

1 Like

Can you tell me why the solution I suggested above wouldn’t work for aligning ECC employees through vesting/time-locked ZEC while keeping the Funding Target in place?

The cap is as artificial as any of the accountability requirements in any of the proposals…which is to say they’re all there for a purpose but they’re all artificial constraints the community is setting up for reasonable use of funds. I don’t think that’s the right term. Arbitrary maybe? But even then it has basis on past spending.

To take a step back: given that there is a solution to provide ECC employee upside — and based on the modified ZIP the Funding Target can be raised by mutual agreement with the ZF, ECC, and the community — these all seem like solutions to work within the framework of the modified ZIP.

And honestly I think at this point the Foundation should move forward with the Helios poll that describes various starting points for the cap and offer an option that says “no cap at all” in addition to the other questions I supplied above. I suspect that will provide the right guidance for a final ZIP.

5 Likes

Thanks Josh. I have some thoughts - maybe helpful. But I need to get to the gate to catch a flight. It may be a bit before I respond, pending in-flight wifi.

1 Like

Josh, can you take a look at this and share your opinion?

Speaking personally,

I appreciate the suggestion, as well as other suggestions surfaced by @tromer @mlphresearch , @ttmariemia, @aristarchus, and maybe others that I missed. They all have merit. Perhaps we need to press pause and open this back up again for new proposals given all this new information.

I’m puzzled by your and others desires to disconnect developer and Zcash coin holder and user incentives for the sake of a cap that seems to have become a sacred cow. Though, @acityinohio, you had previously expressed you were indifferent to a cap.

We all want to bring economic freedom and opportunity to everyone. Privacy is part of that. Scalability is part of that. Interop is part of that. As is regulatory clarity, 3rd party adoption and demand.

And we have massive hills to climb together. It will not be easy. It will be incredibly hard.

Let’s get real:

Today, the most equipped team is ECC. That may shift over time. But it’s today’s truth. ECC is already cash constrained. We’re under, not over funded today. We’re not hiring engineers we need and we’re underfunding or cutting campaigns and adoption efforts.

We’re “getting by”.

Meanwhile Tezos is sitting on $650M and adopting zkps. (Tezos Foundation Reports - Tezos Foundation)

Tron is adopting zkps.

Ethereum is adopting zkps.

They are building on top of ECC’s work with deeper pockets.

Based on the innovation to date, we have technical superiority.

Technical superiority doesn’t win. We need capital.

Even more … they are piggybacking on our work with regulators and on copyright law and 3rd party adoption.

But our adversary is not really any of them. Their resources are small as compared to the power structures seeking to subdue our fellow humans.

For the time being, ECC is in the unique position to continue to accelerate across all fronts for the benefit of our collective mission.

An arbitrary cap on ECC chokes ECC.

We lose access to world-class talent. We constrain budgets to “get by”. It’s the exact opposite of what we need to collectively do. It makes no sense to me.

Instead, hire us, don’t artificially bind us, and keep us accountable for our work!

These next couple years are critical for our collective mission across tech, regulation, product market fit, zaddr adoption and the colossal battle of freedom tech vs. tyranny tech. This is not hyperbole. We’re on the front lines.

I feel it EVERY DAY. I lost more hair this year than any year prior to this. I remember fondly the day when I had @acityinohio’s lush locks.

So maybe we need to step back from this for some time to work through all these suggestions, give everyone time to digest implications, and then discuss possibilities prior to another community vote.

11 Likes

I used the term “red herring” colloquially, with the intended meaning of “topic that leads us down a rabbit hole and which I think is being overstated in importance.” Just my $0.02 — the discussion will and should proceed regardless.

Sure, I agree with that. I do not agree that ZEC-denominated allotments for dev fund recipients are a prerequisite to ECC employees having skin in the game (specifically, as I understand it, exposure to the price of ZEC).

Edit: To me it looks like @acityinohio’s solution neatly solves ECC’s problem.

5 Likes

Hi @dontbeevil,

Thanks for asking.

I want to look at this carefully before responding in any detail. I’m in NYC for some (potentially exciting) meetings tomorrow and so I won’t have time to get to it until later.

Generally, I favor keeping things simple. For me, making a developer a coin holder is a simple way to align the developer with the coin holder, as they become part of the tribe, with all that comes with being part of the tribe as well as all of the implications of holding and using the coin.

3 Likes