Thanks @avichal! Going point by point here
I agree we need many developers, but it’s hard for me to imagine teams that aren’t already working in crypto jumping into action and learning all this stuff. If we don’t require exclusivity, we can bring in teams from Ethereum, Bitcoin, etc.
Running a candidate team myself, I couldn’t divest us of all other projects… but I could stop any work on competitors.
Other benefits – in the case where the ECC can’t fit into the allocation here due to the market, they could split and take part in this proposal as two arms-length entities, one with say in governance, one without.
Agreed, this one is tricky. I think if we took the full “strategic council” approach, where a strategy is set by a single trust or other entity, the ZF isn’t a good candidate. On the other hand, if the ZF is doing community engagement and diligence for dev fee candidates – and letting them set the direction, together – it makes more sense, and I believe it’s more resilient to future regulatory issues (if the ZF dies, the teams can continue work).
Very interested in feedback here. I don’t want to make the process onerous, but hoping for some level of “professionally run org” here. Note that the CFO req is just the principal dev, not all recipients, as I figure we need some longer-term survival guarantees from the principal dev.
Agreed.