There is a thin line between having a dev fund that is good or having a dev money printer (60% of a block!).
Then we can discuss about inflation, cap, fee market… etc…
2 Likes
now your taking.
- cut wasted spending and bloated overhead
- 90% plus goes to core blockchain development. the people that are coding
- 10% for everything else.
stop all the small grants and marketing which looks more like vanity videos. live to fight another day. implement a viable economic model.
1 Like
we are in a live or die situation. let the local communities fund their own projects, that is what i mean by wasting money at the edges. zcash should not be trying to pick the winners and losers. focus on the core blockchain.
1 Like
No. No. And No. Been here since October 2016 and that’s a game over scenario for folks like me. If the 21M cap was scrapped, I’m out. For me, ZEC is a Swiss Bank Account without the Swiss Bank. It’s a scarce commodity which is why folks like myself hold it and invest in it. I can use a stablecoin to buy coffee thank you.
2 Likes
so now you want to copy and promote polkadot and ethereum?
ethereum looks like the right model. but rather than use zec as the L1. make zec an L2 and create a new token that is ethereum like and reduce zec cap from 21m to 15m. zec cap should never go above 21m and make it lower if possible
so we have agreement. now just come around to the concept of creating a new L1 token and moving zec to become an L2 on the zcash blockchain.l while at same time reducing zec to something like 15m because funding will be done on the new L1 token
we need developers to chime in to let us know if this is feasible
we have agreement that the blockchain should have a new L1 token that is ethereum like.
zec should never go above 21m cap. and i think it should be reduced
1 Like
You lost me on a new L1 token but I agree with much of your points on ZEC is a private SoV.
we have a funding problem. so if it’s possible move zec to become a L2 and create a new L1 token to handle the funding. create a gas model the same as ethereum with a burn mechanism. this way we a protected from people who are increasingly going to want to inflate away zec by increasing the 21m cap. ethereum has many L2s. so i’m speculating we zcash could become a blockchain of money with private based stable coins and other UDAs work and use the new L1 to pay gas. we charge gas/ fees and burn coins like ethereum.
otherwise things stay the same and we have to fight to keep 21m cap and implements a fee structure because the ecosystem is on a track to be insolvent.
1 Like
correct. my solution maintains the integrity of zec and creates a platform for a private decentralized ecosystem. it paves the way to decentralize the edge which is very costly, hard to manage, and too big. it’s
not an insult to say zcash is not capable of managing the edge. no one can do it with a global platform. not even microsoft, google and everyone else. the world is to big and diverse. so we need a framework to fully decentralize the edge as ethereum has figured out.
2 Likes
At $30 after the halving:
- $7,889,400 for Miner’s reward;
- $3,944,700 for “Major Grants”;
- $3,352,995 for the Bootstrap Project;
- $2,366,820 for the Zcash Foundation;
- $986,175 for QEDIT;
- $986,175 for Shielded Labs;
- $197,235 for Zenate.
How about we all have a little experiment. From now on when quoting dev funding proposal we discuss in terms of USD and not %?
I believe the calculation for 1% is 60×60×24×365.25÷75×1.5625×30×0.01. Correct me if I’m wrong.
1 Like
dev fund allocations
- ECC - 8% core blockchain, POS and programmability - create fee structure 90% requirement for core blockchain development only
- foundation - 4% - blockchain - 50% requirements for core blockchain work. create a community crowdsourcing platform.
- Qedit 6% - privacy based fully collateralized stable coins and ZSAs, privacy prodicts 100% requirement for development spending.
- ZGC -2% - seed and co fund small projects where transaction fees will take over after products developed. wallet SDKs. if ecc/foundation/qedit want to offer their share to ZGC they can also divert from their share as they desire.
- dev fund may need to have managerial responsibility independent of the organizations.
Create an objective framework to manage development with milestones. the dev fund allocates based
on the groups meeting their development timelines and budgets.
Zooko’s previous statements would suggest he’s not interested in ECC working on programmability.
Regarding your percentages @Jgx7. At $30 after halving these are approximately the funding levels (correct me if you think they are wrong):
ECC - 8% - $1,577,880
foundation - 4% - $788,940
Qedit 6% - 5% - $1,183,410
ZGC -2% - $394,470
Feedback:
- ECC - Maybe, but barely, this could be enough to continue POS work and core maintenance. But timeframe for POS would be extended past 4years imo. I don’t believe they could fund anything else including Zashi and/or programmability.
- ZF - this could fund ZCON but wouldn’t be enough to continue maintaining Zebra.
- QEDIT - This is less then what they receive now but QEDIT have mentioned being interesting in becoming recipients. Could work.
- ZCG - This is barely enough to fund a single wallet and ambassador program. Nothing else could be funded.
Based on my feedback above I would be very worried about Zcash’s ability to make any major improvements to Zcash within the next 4 years under this funding model. I don’t believe this is a good development fund option.
1 Like
they should be trying to figure out how to incentivize third parties to fund their own development to earn gas/fees. i think that might require programmability. downsize and decentralize. Zcon looked empty to me; but i was just watching youtube.
if programmability is required for decentralized development,gas/fees and privacy stablecoins, it seems pretty important
Questions:
- If you want programmability I believe our best option so far is inversed tech. You didn’t allocate ZCG any substantial funds. Who would fund them?
- If we stop funding all wallets I don’t think any of the ZCG funded wallets will stick around. Atleast now in a form capable of adding new feature (e.g. ZSA and programmability features). How would we ensure these wallets stick around and new features are developed for wallets?
- gas + fees are a good idea but would require 1000s of transactions per block to be viable. Currently we are averaging well below 10. How do we scale 1000s of transactions per block while slashing the USD funding post halving?
Details about research done so far on programmability https://youtu.be/PBE0YAeiMa4?si=_Lq_O7gc6sgr2JWw
1 Like
i think you are now seeing the problem that needs to be solved for. it’s why block rewards are so dangerous. reliance on block rewards allows developers to pretend things are ok and they are not. i think 10 txns per
block means 10,000 txns per day? if so, that means the cost per txn is around $9. zcash probably can’t generate the volume needed to support development on its own. the economic engine can’t be issue more coins to infinity to build things people don’t want to use. a fee model gets development focused on what’s important and that’s transactions.
block rewards pushes the problem into the future and also centralizes development and it takes focus away from solving the major problems.
By not having the right model, development is not focused on solving the problems needed to make cash successful. some good tech was created.
but it’s benefiting other projects and not zcash.
a fee structure is needed so third parties can fund themselves. if zcash can’t get off block rewards as a funding mechanism i think it will fail
how do we scale? we need more coins to leverage the blockchain. more innovation from third parties. but there is no way for third parties to make money so it ends up being a closed and centralized ecosystem as far as i can see.
1 Like
I appreciate you advocating for this but I have concerns it’s too soon.
Agreed. But there are 2 possible outcomes when you cut funding.
- Zcash developers hang around finds a ways to innovate
- Zcash developers leave and very little innovation happens
I’m afraid the 2nd will happen. I hope you are now seeing the problem that needs to be solved for. 
1 Like
i’d be more worried about the people buying zec leaving.
if zcash can decentralize development and show developers how they can make money without begging for grants. you might find you get more developers and more innovation. create a platform developers can build on without permission.
my reading is you don’t believe zcash blockchain can be used to generate transactions and scale. so that’s is why there is so much focus on issuance. i hope that’s wrong.
There is some truth to this 
.
Assuming ZK tech is hard, I also assume implementing things like ZSAs are hard. The thing we must remember is adding “assets” to other crypto project is relatively “easy”. Just add more state to the transparent transaction. Therefore, no matter how you word it, new feature on Zcash are necessarily going to be hard and require full time commitments from developers for over a year. I’m yet to see any crypto projects anywhere near the size of crypto get close to implementing that without some kind of grant or concrete funding model. Even monero fails to fund project bigger then $30,000…
@Jgx7 I agree with a lot of what your saying and happy to see people advocating for it. I’m just concerned it’s way too soon to move to a funding model we know won’t fully fund any of the big ideas this community has .