I think to remember that there have been as well suggestion’s that the MG comittee members will get compensation.
Other than that i fully agree that the members of the MG comittee should be fully independent.
Technically me as i predicted perfectly the major general condidtions, but with the introduction of a MG fund which none of us has forseen i think it’s fair to say the bet is void
I could be wrong here, but i think what the ZF said is that they do not want to be the soley control the money. As the ECC gets a slice automaticly this isn’t any longer the case. That’s of course just how i understand the ZF’s statement and i could be totally wrong.
Some interpretation was needed as to what to say about dev funds that are not immediately used or disbursed. From the discussion it did not seem as though there was any dispute that maintaining rainy-day reserves is desirable to mitigate volatility, even though the consensus is not to force participants to do so via the funding cap. To that end I’ve adapted some wording that was already in the Motivation and the Monthly Funding Cap and Volatility Reserve sections and is still relevant, and moved it to the Transparency and Accountability section:
Dev Fund ZEC that has been received and has not yet been used or disbursed SHALL be kept by the corresponding party (as ZEC, or sold and invested) for later use under the terms of the corresponding slice. The parties are each responsible for applying internal governance mechanisms (such as their Operating Agreements) to ensure prudent use of funds, including creating rainy-day reserves to mitigate the effects of market volatility and eventual halvings.
I wavered about whether to make the second sentence a SHOULD, and decided not to because of the inherent ambiguity of what constitutes prudent use of funds or sufficient reserves.
I hope this is not controversial! Comments on this interpretation and the rest of the PR are welcome.
Great idea! I merged the following modified version into my no-cap branch, that proposes a similar change (along with other minor updates):
Dev Fund ZEC that has been received by ECC or ZF, and has not yet been used or disbursed, SHALL be kept by the corresponding party (as ZEC, or sold and invested) for later use under the terms of the corresponding slice. The parties are each responsible for devising, reporting and applying internal mechanisms to ensure financially-prudent use of funds, including maintenance of rainy-day reserves to mitigate the effects of market volatility and eventual halvings.
I like that wording. The existing PR 319 has been force-pushed with the commits on @tromer’s branch. The relevant changes are here, and the resulting ZIP 1024 is rendered here.
Note that it creates a new ZIP 1024 (as @tromer’s branch did), rather than editing ZIP 1014 in-place.
I find it really hard to track non code based stuff on github and i am a little confused as to bootstrap/ecc obligations. they seem to be removed, not sure if this is me not reading it properly or an oversight.
Happy to have you review it, I’ll follow up in DM to see if there’s a different format instead of github to look in the diffs. The intent isn’t to weaken any obligations but to make sure ZF and BP both treat the funding as non-profit donations in a consistent way and was drafted w/ input from our attorneys to clarify this
I will hold off on the rest until i know if I am reading it correctly or not.
but this sticks out:
Is this meant to reference the ecc and/or bootstrap? Which slice is being talked about? the dev fund in total or a specific dev fund slice? (it sounds like the zf slice)
is the 501c meant to apply to the mgrc some how? I am confused by the wording. I think the intent is to say you can give major grants to charitable things, but doesnt it also limit mgs from going to for profits?
the addition of “research, development” rather than “research & development”
Is the intention the same? or does it mean something different? (this kinda hinges on if I am reading the bootstrap slice properly though.)
I would guess the greater leeway is because the stipulations of their legal accountability will change and enforcing the funds be spent on improving Zcash seems like a serious conflict of interest where a 501c3 is concerned though it seems to make much more sense for a for-profit entity.
Please note that comments like this may be missed if they’re not made on GitHub (especially since I won’t be monitoring the forums, as explained here).
In any case, my understanding is that the MGRC was always subject to 501(c)(3) requirements, because it’s funded via the Zcash Foundation as the “financial recipient”.
ty for the additional questions (and reminded me i forgot to reply)
We want to make this language as clear and consistent as possible, and make it clear that both ZF and BP are treating their slices as charitable contributions. A ZIP cannot constrain what ZF and BP are “allowed” to do (they have to use their funds for the charitable purposes outlined in their mission statements), but the intent of the contribution is still clear (that the contributions are intended to be used for Zcash, which is compatible with our mission statement)"
As both are non-profits, this sentence is applicable to both ZF and BP slices.
Yes, exempt as in compatible with guidelines for 501c3 tax exempt organizations.
Since ZF is disbursing the grants the MGRC decides on, it still has to be compatible with our mission per 501c3. The major grants themselves can go to for-profits though that carry it out though.
thanks for clearing this up. A lot of it is 501c stuff, which i have no clue about. so sorry for the ignorant questions.
1014 did have that stipulation for the ECC though. Specifically because of the pivot option the ECC was floating. The community very strongly did not want the ECC to use the dev fund for anything but zcash.
This change lets them do what they want with the money, this is not the intent behind 1014.
Hmm. I don’t see a reason ECC couldn’t add language like that back in, leaving Bootstrap as it is. Someone from ECC could probably comment here too. Do you have some particular text you’d like to try? I could help you make a pull request
