Recording of today’s meeting/call/debate/panel discussion:
6 Likes
I don’t think I’ve said that. I have said things to the effect that:
- a large proportion of the work done for Zashi (in particular by the ECC Core team) is actually work on librustzcash that is also used by other wallets; and
- it is highly beneficial to have a team working on an actual wallet in-house so that there is a shorter feedback loop back to librustzcash.
The second of these points could potentially also be achieved by closer working relationships between the ECC core team and third-party wallet developers, but I think there is a limit to how close those relationships could be relative to the ones we currently have with the Zashi team.
Please do not paraphrase positions to the point of inaccuracy, and please attribute them correctly. @nuttycom was clear that he is speaking for himself in the position statement above, in which he said:
This is not a statement of the ECC Core team. The ECC Core team (or ECC in general) hasn’t expressed a position on how anyone should vote in this poll.
Speaking for myself (and also not for ECC or the other members of Core team), I agree that development of “these and other ideas” for decentralized funding is likely to proceed rapidly. I slightly differ in that I think that the development is likely to proceed rapidly regardless of which option is chosen in this run-off poll. This is not the same as making a prediction about when any such decentralized funding mechanism(s) will be implemented and deployed, and I think that most of the Zcash community has persistently underestimated the necessary lead time of network upgrades. However, in this particular case I agree that it’s likely that some decentralized funding mechanism(s) will be implemented and deployed in less than a year.
It was severely underestimated, for which I take full responsibility.
Yes. However it wasn’t the ECC Wallet team that misestimated in this case. The wallet team is currently proceeding quickly with the integration and testing of SDK updates in Zashi.
It was Core team that misestimated this, and yes we also get paid when our estimates are off. To the extent that there’s a valid critique (it’s complicated: we wouldn’t be able to retain people with the experience of the current Core team members without some degree of job security and guaranteed salary), it is part of what the decentralized funding mechanism is intended to improve. Personally I think that will happen regardless of the choice in this poll.
13 Likes
their can be low adoption due to price too but it’s not a major factor main factor of low adoption is the overall utility of coin
a z-2-z only zcash makes sense in terms of security and total anon set + investment + MOE
and half anon privacy coin not so much
overall t-address t-pool will always harm zcash
I have yet to see a clear idea of what “adoption” means. That’s a fundamental problem Zcash has faced for years. If you go shielded only, your adoption scope changes significantly as does the overall utility for certain use cases and applications.
1 Like
With this theory in mind, how do you explain valuation of memecoins like Dogecoin (19 billion market cap) or Pepecoin (5 billion market cap), which explicitly have no utility (beyond speculation of making investment gains) and whose adoption metrics are a total afterthought?
1 Like
market cap of memecoin is high but not coins base price
you can say gambling or massive speculation with low utility
but you have to look at the Original Dogecoin it had infinite supply due to which it even surpass its merge-mining Litecoin in terms of hash-rate & security once and more events came again
then they lower the price of transaction fee from 1 doge to normal fees like others crypto
due to it’s use as MOE
you also have to include the fun element and ease of memecoin creation in eth and others
so Zcash with ZSA can easily capture non-interactive shielded memecoin market
depends if and only if Zcash Community Removes t-address and t-pool completely from Zcash to make it a optimal product for everyone
I’ve read many of your comments over weeks and months and I still don’t really mind t-addresses. It’s really the OG “swap” in Zcash? The existence of the transparent pool doesn’t reduce what can be done in other pools?
To the contrary, there are use cases where transparent liquidity could be desirable?
4 Likes
I see your point that it was unreasonable to generalize @nuttycom 's position to the ECC’s position.
I appreciate your thoughtful response to all the points in this post.
2 Likes
Shielded can also involve selective disclosure and allow viewing for parties you authorize. So it’s not a complete lack of transparency but just a controlled transparency.
1 Like
@skyl it not about minding t-address
zcash will not get the optimal results with “selective disclosure” already present with shielded coins
zcash can only get positive results if t-address is removed for good
as for use cases where transparent liquidity is desirable their are already 10000+ surveillance coins no need to put zcash among them
just swap and let actual DEX survive with valid use case
Based on what actual user research are you making these statements? That’s been a big issue with Zcash - build it and they will come - guess what - they haven’t come.
you can say all the twitter drama and dev & podcast talks as engagement
but all indicators show that everyone interest came from halo 2 orchard development and majority of them don’t like either the t-address implementation or the dev fund
now even if dev fund can be understood as governance system
not removing t-address will always be seen as a total anon set disaster