I’d like to say something on my personal role here. People have been writing to me privately, about why don’t I offer ECC this, or how dare I offer ZF that, and suchlike. Sorry, wrong address.
I’m mediating, not negotiating. I’ve been listening to what everyone here has to say, and trying to distill that to a consensus. So I synthesized the ZIP that I thought can garner the most support, and am now trying to figure out what would satisfy newly-raised considerations with minimum disruption.
It’s not up to me to make offers or changes. To the extent that I had to nail down parameters and mechanisms to make my ZIP concrete, they reflected my best read of the community, with a dose of logic and engineering. Now that the framework is out there, it’s up to the community to re-negotiate and solidify these parameters as needed, aided by ZF’s ballot.
When I argue with people in the current discussion, it’s not to promote a position. It’s because I think they’re saying something incorrect that derails the consensus-seeking. I particularly pay attention if people say that “x must be done”, where their rationale is faulty and x contradicts others’ opinions, so this risks a deadlock. But it doesn’t mean that I personally object to x, or could relent and grant x.
So just this once, let me deviate and state my personal opinion: I think we’re in a region of design-space where all the remaining variants on the table are acceptable to me. Yes, I think ECC can survive and thrive with a $700k/month Funding Target for its slice (and more from Major Grants if it wins them), given the simple mechanism for increasing the Funding Target when needed. But I also think it’s OK to increase the Funding Target significantly, because I do trust ECC and ZF to use their potential riches prudently, in the same spirit of the Volatility Reserve, even without a mandate. I’m also fine with exempting some (or all!) coins from the Funding Target, in favor of an immediate uncapped “upside”. And I don’t really care whether the Major Grants committee is independent and binding by mandate, given that ZF does that anyway.
I personally consider all of these variants acceptable and would vote “approve” on any of them. My overriding concern is to achieve community decision rapidly, establish clear legitimacy, know that the future of financial privacy is funded, and get back to BUIDL.
Thanks for your attention. We may now resume our regularly-scheduled arguments.