# Decentralization and Alignment

**URL:** https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/decentralization-and-alignment/44517
**Category:** Governance
**Created:** [May 3, 2023, 6:17pm UTC](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/decentralization-and-alignment/44517 "2023-05-03T18:17:45Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![GGuy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/zcash/user_avatar/forum.zcashcommunity.com/gguy/32/19036_2.png) [@GGuy](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/u/GGuy)
#### Post date: [May 4, 2023, 1:34pm UTC](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/decentralization-and-alignment/44517/4 "2023-05-04T13:34:43Z")

</div>

> [@earthrise](#):
>
> @hanh has single-handedly kept Zcash usable through the spam attack and is now getting the Ledger wallet working.

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.

* * *

> [@earthrise](#):
>
> Something I’ve noticed as I’ve been auditing community projects is that not many of them work together. This is true in the literal sense of interoperability (e.g. ZGo’s functionality could be built into wallets) and I think also in the sense of collaborating together for common goals.

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.

* * *

> [@earthrise](#):
>
> multiple different but functionally-equivalent wallets

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?

* * *

> [@earthrise](#):
>
> We’ve built a lot of flashy and amazing cryptography, but we’re lacking the basics like super-easy-to-use libraries and all-around usability of most Zcash-related projects.

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 🤦.

> [@RFP - Zcash Memo Field Secure Messaging Extension](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/rfp-zcash-memo-field-secure-messaging-extension/44069/1):
>
> The project will address these issues by developing a reference implementation of a secure messaging application built on top of the extended memo field and a ZIP proposal to support the inclusion of these changes in a future Zcash network upgrade.

The most boring thing to do would be a TLS1.3 handshake either off-chain or on-chain (probably support both). 🤷

* * *

> [@earthrise](#):
>
> make it more attractive to users.

The baseline I always apply is “would my mum be interested/care?”. It reminds me of something you said a few weeks ago.

> [@Anti-fud Campaign; T Addresses](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/anti-fud-campaign-t-addresses/43771/22):
>
> Everything else like getting rid of the trusted setup, ZSAs, PoS—while valuable—are opportunity costs we can’t afford when we need to be 100% aligned on making the technology eminently usable and establishing solid niches of adoption.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/decentralization-and-alignment/44517)._