Just want to point out while this is true, we still have to vote for any change. So balance is only achieved after consensus is found, and that is where many disagree it seems.
Please share your deep insights then, calling a group of folks retarded because your perspective is different is madness. Are we here to debate, or to call folks names?
This is what I thought, you donât seem to really believe it works. Point taken.
I think the idea that democracy only works in person works is too simplistic. Case in point, the problem then shifts to who enters/exits ⌠just like crypto, ⌠just like TOR ⌠, and so on.
Appreciate your time, I know youâre busy.
Which governance decisions have been derailed by ZF defining how things get decided?
1 Like
Itâs one thing to believe that coin voting should have the final say on governance decisions, itâs another to say that ZF is âderailing the processâ. Not explicitly supporting coin voting is not âderailingâ. People and orgs are entitled to their positions.
Itâs also baffling how people expect the orgs to do everything, while also complaining about centralization. Why do you need ZFâs blessing to do coin voting? In fact itâs already happening without ZF involvement, which is a great thing.
4 Likes
1 Like
One of the main problems of coin weighting is that the biggest holders can vote for themselves and their cronies to get all the funding. There might be some market game theory that suggests they wonât want to do something detrimental to the value of their holdings. But, itâs a problem to think about. I like the coin-weighted veto idea though.
2 Likes
Ideally, the coin holders should be able to veto funding to specific address or, even better, that they have the ability to open and close the valve of lockbox.
Say, âstop funding until PoS is deliveredâ etc.
1 Like
This is hyperbole, with some true opinion, Zcash would become particularly Cypherpunk if its funding model was perceived as a ransom/ hostage scenario.
Deliver it or else
1 Like
The problem with this viewpoint, is that someone has to decide what educated is, what values are. Surely you see this.
How is this feasible if we donât even have shielded hardware wallets? I question why
2 Likes
Speaking of tired arguments, this has been known for a while. The ECC, ZF, and ZCG have fiscal strategies in place (for years) where they sell ZEC to derisk. Have a look at ZEC-USD and you can see that strategy in action 
With the NDFM, Halving, and Lockbox approaching in the next year or two, there will finally be a significant shift in the economics of ZEC. Until then weâve just got to relax and let time pass.
(Even with a hypothetically universal, simple ZEC holder voting system, where all coin types/ all ZEC holders were participating)
This doesnât make any sense because it is asserting that (generally speaking) non-technical investors would be dictating technical work coordination, planning, and implementation.
Iâve worked in the software industry long enough to know with certainty that investors are absolutely incapable of effectively driving a business through that sort of complex product model.
ZEC coin voting needs to be one major input to the decision making process, but it absolutely shouldnât be the only input.
4 Likes
Iâm using âZEC holdersâ and âgenerally speaking, non-technical investorsâ as the same term.
What Iâm saying here is that under your hypothetical ZEC coin only vote model, an unsophisticated son of a billionaire could buy half of the circulating ZEC and then vote for the project to eliminate the shielded pools. That would not be good because it breaks the long known vision for Zcash.
Rarely. They create vision for the business, but typically have near-zero technical awareness of how work needs coordinated, planned for, and technically implemented.
1 Like
So you donât actually believe that a âZEC holder onlyâ governance model is a long term solution.
What would we do?
Perpetually fork the chain until every hopeful son of a billionaire has been looted from along the way?
Surprising to reuse yesterdayâs meme so quickly!
Bro what?
You literally said someone has to be educated and with values for this to work then say it is all subjective.
Do you realize you just said âwe need these 2 essential components for this to workâ then cannot define those components.
You see how that cannot work?
Just hilarious to me that a month ago I said we had not fleshed out this process.
Got told of course we did and sent copies of all the proposals and here we are a month later not able to figure out how the whole thing will work.
I mean this is why our coin is in the hole. We need better leadership/communication all around.
From the start of the lockbox idea some months ago we knew: the lockbox is easy to start and implement but it will be challenging to implement the disbursement mechanism(s). Now, we are all set for the November halving: 8% to ZCG and 12% to the lockbox. We have known that the design of the disbursement mechanism will be time-consuming and at times contentious and maybe even emotional. So, here we are having a discussion about different tradeoffs as planned. We have all the time in the world to implement the disbursement mechanism. We must argue about it. We can implement pilots to test different theories. This was always part of the plan.
I think this crazy lockbox idea brings a lot of interest to Zcash, adds fun and excitement to the space. I daresay that people are stoked about the move into the decentralized unknown and that the market loves it.
Lulz, well, realistically I think a good target for putting something into practice will be November 2025 and we should probably argue and hypothesize constantly between now and about March 2025. I really doubt anyone led you to believe that things were going to be concrete by now. No one ever believed that. We are at the stage of âeveryone give it some thought and maybe read the Onchain Capital Allocation Handbook and come up with some designs.â Furthermore, if anything gets to mainnet by EoY it would be surprising. But, if something does land by EoY, it will likely just be a first iteration or even a small pilot. I think the âfinal formâ (I donât think it will ever be fully final as there is always something to learn and change) may incorporate governance tokens and badges on ZSAs which wonât be on main for some time.
In short, expect years of iterative improvement not a final answer in a week.
5 Likes
Yes years of iterative process and that is my point.
Only in zcash land is this ok for some reason.
Imagine any other startup/business says
"hey guys lets completely revamp the way we fund things.
So lets all agree to put millions aside to fund things for the next few years. But lets not figure out how that money will actually be used or who controls it for the next few years as well. âWe will eventually figure it outâ."
Wtf is that? How are you all ok with that?
Right well you should care as zcash has the least adoption of most of the old dinosaur coins and worst price action. Which all correlate to the health of the project.
Which correlates to adoption.
I think that we should be significantly more ambitious than this. I think we should aim to have a first iteration of a disbursement mechanism implemented and released by end of Q1, 2025. The reason for this is simply that we need feedback from actually using the mechanism in order to decide what should be done when the Hybrid Deferred Dev Fund comes to its end in November 2025. If the experiment is to continue beyond accruing these 12 months of funding to the lockbox, in order to activate in November those changes will need to be fully implemented by the beginning of August, 2025, in order to allow the normal 4-month window for audits and activation across the network.
Given the need to deprecate Zcashd and get ZSAs activated in NU7, and given the audit and activation lead times required, I doubt that there will be time to get a disbursement mechanism active before end of Q1. But it canât go on much longer than that.
Whenever anyone talks about upgrades to the consensus protocol, realize that implementation of those upgrades must be complete 4 months prior to when those consensus changes are actually intended to be active on the network, in order to ensure that we donât encounter a consensus fork. Zcash has managed to do hard-forking network upgrades for 8 years now without significant issues; letâs make sure that track record continues.
10 Likes
Everything you said is spot on. Finally someone who is thinking 5 steps ahead. Thank you!