Zcash is alive for the same reason dogecoin is alive. There is a market of traders who still trade the token.
It is not about utility because no one is using it.
This is why its so frustrating having a discussion here.
Everyone talks like zec is pioneering xyz. It is just a tool no one uses right now. For it to grow it needs money. The way they get money is by selling the token and using the usd to fund different projects.
Guess what that has not worked because the value of the token is almost at all time lows.
zclassic has nothing to do with zec. Why are you comingling them together ?
BTC doesnt have a dev fund. Monero doesnt have a dev fund. Other privacy coins dont have dev funds and they are performing better than zcash.
The perfomance of the token is directly correlated with the health of the project. IF the token goes to 0 the project dies. Its how every startup that has ever existed works. No money = startup disappears.
Why did you buy Zcash and want to turn it into BTC, Monero or other? Just buy BTC, I donāt understand your problem.
You have the right to make your choice on the market and buy whatever you want, but youāre going the hard way and trying to change the inner workings of a project that āno one usesā although there are others āperforming better than zcashā. For what? Turn on common sense and take the easy way out.
Bitcoin has a company of developers funding and performing bitcoin core development. Itās not money collected from mining but it is money allocated to ongoing development of bitcoin core.
. + Monero had a pre-main for two years (about 30% of Bitmonero issuance) when only a few dozen people knew about it. Zcash was a public project long before its launch and always had to find sources of funding.
So the project can survive. How does this escape you?
If the token doesnāt perform the project dies. Why is this so hard to understand for you? No money = project dead. The way to no money is an underperforming token.
Also who said anything about turning zec to monero or bitcoin?
My friend from investor point of view, why I to give my money for some people that underperform for such a long timeā¦ Ok you will say but it is gonna get better or some objects are working and must be finnished in next period and without fund all project will colapsā¦
Ok but investors understand that and for that they say ok let is fund but not guranteed. When they will finish the work then they can be paid so they deservedā¦ because when they are paid automatic, that looks like goverment, we dont care motoā¦ and you and me when we are paid ahead we dont care so much fo work to be done that si human natureā¦
Thatās the right approach. And thatās the way things work at ZCG, for example. No one pays in advance. The work is divided into several milestones and payment is made upon completion.
If youāre following Zcash, itās assumed that you know about it. Josh is trying to extend this approach to all recipients.
Iāve never seen anyone at ZF or ECC drag their feet because their funding is āguaranteedā (an aside: people tend to forget that if ZEC tanks, their funding also tanks, so itās not really guaranteed). You can disagree with priorities, what is being worked on, and so on, but these insinuations that they donāt care are pretty ignorant.
A grants model also has its flaws. It happened multiple times in Zcash history. A grant is not renewed for whatever reason and then the project just vanishes: ZecWallet, Nighthawk, zcashblockexplorer, Trezor support. Or a grant didnāt cover getting the thing actually deployed, like Ywallet Ledger support. In the meantime zebrad and zcashd keep getting supported.
Over all picture for Zcash is 95% blackā¦ on a forums, sites and talking with peopleā¦how to bring we new investors when for the average trader best market is shorting zecbtc. The main problem as I can see is wrong desicions made and in small procent programers mistakeā¦ when I say to a guy with money to move in crypto ZCASH investingā¦ he will sayā¦ hey you know I read yesterday for Xmr or other token when picture is on more brightā¦for speculative point Zcash is more interesting than other tokensā¦we know market is manipulated and at the and tommorow Zec can be 1000 everything is possibleā¦ only the picture witn no guarantres funding will bring more peopleā¦also is the best tech than othersā¦
The very latest night Hawk update allows for switching to a custom server so you should be able to sync. However, due to the mempool attack kicking up again recently you may have trouble transacting with nighthawk as it does not support a custom or dynamic fee. Otherwise yes, itās in parking lot mode.
Ywallet will restore the sapling and transparent addresses provided by nighthawk (Zingo will as well but currently only supports the new base fee and not the required dynamic fee).
People love to hate on the dev fund but the Founderās Reward was twice as much. Did most of those people leave and dump on retail? Are they still dumping without contributing to the success of Zcash? Serious question. I dont know much about where the Founderās Reward went. It doesnāt seem to have served the intended purpose of keeping high calibre people engaged and working on the success of ZEC? I could be wrong.
Miners have taken about 12 times as much as the DF. Have miners been 12 times more important to Zcash than all of the dev fund recipients put together?
Founderās Reward < Dev Fund < new funding mechanism in November
I think the Dev Fund probably did more with less compared to the Founderās Reward and there can be a more efficient mechanism coming soon.
I have some questions for organizations seeking part of a future dev fund:
Looking back on Zcash since it launched, what were the biggest factors (positive and negative) that impacted adoption? What should we have done more of? What should we have done differently?
What are the biggest roadblocks to adoption you see in Zcashās future? How do you think we can overcome them?
The value of a network (like Zcash) is proportional to the number of connections between users, which can be proportional to the number of users squared. This implies that we can grow the value of the Zcash networkāwithout necessarily adding usersāby better-connecting existing users to each other. How can we achieve this?
I hold the opinion that the current dev fund model is ineffective, since organizations receiving funds have not been held accountable to specific outcomes, like measurably increasing adoption, despite generally executing well on their own roadmaps.
How should we measure the positive impact that dev fund recipients have on Zcash, and how should they be held accountable?
How should we balance accountability at the organization level with individual engineersā needs to have a predictable salary?
How should we balance accountability with the fact that luck is involvedāi.e. even when everything is done as best as possible, external factors can mean that we still donāt achieve our goals? How can we distinguish bad luck from bad strategy?
Related to the previous question, which specific metrics are the most important for the community to watch over the next ~years to evaluate the performance of funding recipients?
How can we do better at completing the ālast mileā of getting Zcash into the hands of users and developer-users? My stance on Zcash adoption has been that while we have great technology, we havenāt made the necessary efforts to make it easy to use and work with. This is reflected in what @skyl recently wrote about how itās important for projects to make themselves accessible to newbie developers. Do you agree that Zcash has been lacking in that area, and if so, how can we address it? How should we balance the cost of developing new protocol features with the cost of building usable libraries and writing excellent documentation for existing or in-the-works features?
How can we make the community more cohesive, optimistically working towards a common goal, with less political division, more eagerness to collaborate, and more interoperability between distinct projects?
Iām also interested in the general communityās answers to these questions.
When I vote for who to give funding to, Iām looking for (a) an honest understanding of what has gone well and what has gone wrong, (b) an understanding of the current challenges and plans to address them, (c) leadership that inspires togetherness and optimism within the community, and (d) ensuring that we retain the talent we need to ensure the security of the network.
(edit: whoops, I just noticed I posted this in the wrong threadā¦ there are so many of them!)
Starting to think this dev fund discussion is less about what weāre funding and more about whoā¦ based on the current state of things, it sounds like ECC doesnāt want to go the direct funded route but ZF doesā¦ the idea of ājoin the board and raise a motion to fire meā reads like a passive aggressive way to say weāre keeping the model so the board/org structure can continue. Maybe itās time to really evaluate if the current board/org structure needs to go.