Community Sentiment Polling Results (NU4) and draft ZIP 1014

I can move it to the original topic: Staked Poll on Zcash Dev Fund Debate


(With moderator hat.) A few comments on this topic are fine, IMHO; if it turns into an extended discussion then it should be moved.


Okay, head over to the Stake-Weighted Poll thread for instructions on how to petition using your coins.


The Zfnd blog post says close of polls is January 27, so I put Monday, January 27 in the instructions.

This is a valid concern. This is the sort of reason why I wrote why this is overwhelmingly important to me despite the drawbacks, so that you could know what my reason is (mainly just “Reason 4”), whether or not you agree with it.


Yes, we do. But critically the Foundation is not seeking unilateral power over Zcash. As I wrote in the conclusion to last year’s State of the Foundation:

Looking beyond the Foundation, I think it’s critical to reflect on where power — and expertise — sits in the Zcash ecosystem today. As I’ve said above, the central issue that faces our community today is centralization of power in the Company. But it’s a necessary centralization… for now. The Company employs many of the world’s top experts in zero-knowledge systems, and their contributions are critical to the development of the protocol.

If the Company were to disappear today, that would be a tragedy for the ecosystem. It would set us back by years if not decades. And that’s a fundamental problem for a protocol that’s meant to be robust as currency, that’s meant to protect privacy and adapt to the unforeseen privacy challenges of tomorrow. For the Foundation — and the ecosystem at large — it’s imperative that we encourage Company contributions to Zcash while paradoxically (and amicably) reducing their burden as stewards of the protocol.

Or as I wrote in June in Zcash Governance: A Step Toward Decentralization:

In my report on the Foundation’s 2018 progress and 2019 plans, I explained why and how the Zcash Foundation must counterbalance the Electric Coin Company’s power over the Zcash ecosystem. My concern is not that the Electric Coin Company does subvert Zcash to serve its own interests; my concern is that the ECC would be able to do so.

Unilateral power in either the ZF or the ECC would be a terrible outcome, and I for one think the project would suffer greatly if either group managed to exert undue influence on Zcash in the long term.

[takes Foundation hat off, puts personal Zcash community member hat on]

The ECC has made it clear that they would not accept funding if it included a cap. After a lot of thought and consideration, I’m personally voting against the cap because I very much want them to continue to be involved in this project.

Honestly though, this was a hard decision for me to make; it doesn’t change my opinion that the ECC’s official explanation leaves much to be desired. (the personal, unofficial ones on the other hand — that the ECC prefers having flexibility to spend more than the cap without having to go through a potentially onerous ZF, ECC, CAP process to up their limit — make much more sense to me)

When presented with a choice between Zcash with the ECC’s involvement with or without the ECC…well, I still think it would be a tragedy if the ECC walked away from the project, even if they do so for reasons that are still not rigorously explained officially.

[puts Foundation hat back on]

Regardless of my personal opinion, the Foundation will honor the results from our final Helios poll:


29 posts were merged into an existing topic: Staked Poll on Zcash Dev Fund Debate

Indeed, I was for capping the ECC and leaving the MG slice uncapped, and have since mostly come around to an uncapped ECC slice.

As a potential MG recipient who will ultimately be making a bet on the future of the coin, it better aligns interests and gives me a chance for asymmetric upside. I need that to choose something like Zcash dev as an MG recipient over other ecosystem opportunities.

I mean I’m really interested now! I think making any sort of coin vote mech recognized by the ZF for sentiment collection this time around would be dangerous (for the above reasons)… that said, the last petition not “appearing to matter” is why I didn’t take the time to vote myself.

Anyway, weighing in further in the other thread to not pollute this one too much.


This is the proposal I believe would be most beneficial to the longevity of the project.

ECC 50 /SR 25 /ZF 25 MG would fall under SR.

There are community members who are for the cap. Knowing that funds are being allocated specifically for long term development/adoption etc would help change minds to favor uncapped proposals.The community having a fund slice under their control (at a min 3/4 majority control via voting) would all so help with external optics as this would decentralize control of the project while preparing for the day when(if) ecc/zfd decide to part ways. ECC and ZFD would continue their work so long as the community sees fit. MG slice would fall under Strategic Reserve and should be majority controlled by the community (not any other party ecc or zfd) for the specific purpose of community approved Projects/Major Grants/external marketing etc. No burns coin burn.

Wording plays an important role in external optics. Major Grant in my view should be changed to Strategic Reserve (Major Grants would then fall under SR) and majority control should be the community and custody (only) by the zfd until a better method comes to light. These funds to remain locked and shall only move with community approval.

Clearly i do not have all the answer however these ideas i believe have merit and should be strongly consider by the community. Always open to ideas.

Keep up the good work Daira.

1 Like

At first look a cap seems a responsible thing to have, but it causes other problems. Voted against it.


Excellent choice, how are things shaping up so far. Where is the majority sentiment at this point?

This cant be true.

Given these facts:

Your statement:

Actual Spend vs Budget
 	    Budgeted	    Actual
Total	$2.4mm	        $935k
Zcon0	$357k	        $363k
Grants	$250k	        $139k
Wages	$873k	        $312k
Other	$920k	        $121k

Wages: We really wanted to expand headcount, but hiring in the cryptocurrency industry is hard (particularly for a nonprofit that can’t offer early equity)…

ECC’s official explanation:

The company would not be able to use rights to future monthly Zcash coins as part of a package to attract and retain top talent.

Ironically, the sentence starts with “Honestly”

1 Like

I voted for a hardcap. I would have voted for no cap if the ECC in time would have agreed to fully convert to a non profit organisation.

Main reasons why i voted for a hardcap:

  • ECC’s accountability and transparency so far is no way satisfying and far from detailed.
  • ECC’s owners and shareholders are unknown, i do not want that any money flow is used other than for direct development.
  • I’am a believer that budget restrictions will lead to better and more focused work with limited funds than with unlimited funds as things have to be planned much better and more efficient.
  • ECC did not provide any detailed information/plans for what exactly excessive funds would be used.

As pointed out by @zooko, it is legally impossible for ECC to commit to becoming a non-profit unless and until all the owners approve it:


I’am aware of zooko’s statement, but it’s my reasoning for voting for a cap, even more the community does NOT know who the owners are.
IF the ECC really wanted to go this path there was more than enough time to elaborate this path and communicate with the owners meanwhile in the last months.

I have said and written it many months ago that the best move by the ECC would have been to transform somehow in time to a non profit. I’am still pretty sure that this would have made the community more generous towards the ECC. The ECC might of course still get what they want, but not that easyly and not with such high community support.

However, i just described/argumented why i personally voted for a cap.


I don’t think a cap is a good idea. To put it bluntly, if you want to get very good people to work long term on your project in a start up environment, you need to give them the possibility of very high pay off in the scenario the project does very well. (Sidenote: you could perhaps cap the company’s monthly budget in USD, while allowing employess to get FR-style predefined bonuses/dividends in ZEC, but that might be even more complicated to implement than just a cap).
Ironically, if you cap in USD and don’t allow for the possibility of large pay off in case of success, you might end up needing to pay much more to retain good people.


According to the proposal, the company still has the ability to get 100% of all the coins allocated for them, it’s just not done by default, but by additional request. Therefore, do not confuse the restriction with the limit.
In addition, why are you sure that ECC owners will support the project endlessly, they can also benefit and harm success, just like being 100% for the project. This limitation promotes transparency by default, because transparency reports are made by the company itself, and no one else can verify this (errors and secret games are possible anywhere)

So, forgive me for not knowing the details, but in this proposition, where does the ZEC initially go, and who do you make the request to?

Zec does not disappear, and the process of extracting from the reserve requires study separately, this is not a problem in my opinion. In the same way, you also do not know where the ECC itself will store its coins, and you cannot limit their spending either, and suddenly all the balances will be paid in the form of bonuses, and it will not be enough to continue. Many questions relate to control, it is not our business to look behind the scenes, but in fact only the public awareness mechanism is changing, for example, if an employee is hired then payments are made monthly for him, bonuses or projects are also announced, at least 2 parties will know about it. What is bad here? Now the process can be completely hidden, is that good in your opinion?
Let me remind you that for three and a half years the project did not find popularity, and spent the resource only on future successes that have not yet been achieved. If you think that the next four years should be spent in the same way, then I have nothing to object to, but to promise success and achieve it while receiving excellent wages in the market is not exactly what the masses are waiting for. Having a backup plan is important for holders (like me), but they hope that ECC did everything right and in 2020 it is waiting for full adoption (or in the near future), it’s just silly. Ask yourself the question, what if they made a mistake and the project is on the verge precisely because all these resources were spent in the wrong direction.

Zec does not disappear, and the process of extracting from the reserve requires study separately, this is not a problem in my opinion

The devil is in the details, you’re talking about setting up a new organization that has the legal and technical ability to store and distribute this zec, and is better than ECC in deciding how to spend ZEC by a large enough factor to justify its own cost. Perhaps this can be achieved, but just sayin it’s far from trivial.

Here’s a specific point I’m wondering about: say the ECC wants to give an employee a certain amount of ZEC per year. In this setup do they have to make that amount public?


Changes in wages can also take place within the company, this issue also affects the future, and again this information does not become public. These are all points for discussion, but what do you think will be managed by a company that will have all zcash? It is possible that shareholders and owners will receive good dividends and there will be no opportunity to hire employees, I remind you that this is not a classic company scheme with a turnover, it all depends on the price of a coin. You can spend everything and there will be no opportunity to make up for the loss and not pay motivation and dividends are not possible, because you need to keep the best. My idea is that there is no better approach, so what should work just the same, it’s just not what ECC wants for some reason
(I don’t agree with the arguments, because the minuses there are also obvious, paying the rest in zec is then there will be no money to go through the market decline, if people see the future they will work, otherwise why only buyers should see the future?)