And yet his funding and ongoing contributions are in the hands of ZCG. It almost feels like there is more oversight, overhead, and accountability of Hanh then ECC and ZF.
I wonder if this is simply one of the cons of parties working on a milestones based grants system. The incentive for spending time generalising functionality to be used by others isn’t there. Everyone is almost decentivised from doing so as it doesn’t directly contribute to the milestone at hand.
I feel like this is a symptom of Zcash users not being happy with the state of wallets so are eager to fund new ones. I’d really like to explore this more because ZCG have stated they are capping how much they are funding each wallet to be equitable. But doesn’t that just mean we end up with multiple “okay” wallets?
One place I see this a lot is when discussing the memo field. It’s such a powerful feature. We could jam pack that sucker full of wonderful things. Authentication tokens, filecoin links, off-chain tokens, cross-chain links, contracts, all possible within the memo field. None require protocol changes. And yet when the discussion came up the in the form of an RFP it was clearly stated that the changes should include a ZIP proposal for network upgrade. The option for something simpler wasn’t even considered when the RFP was written 
.
The most boring thing to do would be a TLS1.3 handshake either off-chain or on-chain (probably support both). 
The baseline I always apply is “would my mum be interested/care?”. It reminds me of something you said a few weeks ago.