I have asked the questions about the keys to the lockbox and the procedures that follow if this is the “winning” option because we have discussed this in the Spanish community, and there are doubts about it.
No doubt you have to read all the details to understand and assimilate the information correctly and then digest it and download it to the members of the community who do not understand much of this process.
Thank you all for your response.
Sorry to inject a bit of comedy 
Here is an old explanation of a “lockbox”
fwiw for accuracy, it was a proposal from @peacemonger and @aquietinvestor. And @aquietinvestor did reach out to me to talk through my feedback after it was posted and I withdrew the ECC proposal and provided some thoughts here on the forum.
@joshs it seems a bit insane to me that we don’t have a fleshed out direction other than lets still keep Zec to ourselves and figure out how to distribute later.
We literally don’t have a framework for the lockbox at all. How to distribute. Who are the owners. How are the owners picked.
We are rushing into a decision because we don’t have any better ideas.
Why must we replace the dev fund in any way? Why not just let the miners get the rewards like most protocols. See if that works for zcash and if it doesn’t then we flesh out a very detailed plan.
This all seems rushed because for some reason we are dead set on replacing the dev fund in some way shape or form.
I propose we have another plan but being extremely clear that we do not have a framework for the lockbox. And see how the community reacts to that vs giving the miners the rewards.
I meant to say we have another poll * not plan.
These discussions have been happening for a year now. There has not been a rush. Perhaps you perceive a rush, if you’ve gotten involved late in the process.
Why replace the Dev Fund?
Because there is fairly obvious community support to do so; in the form of a lockbox/ mandated NDFM.
If community consensus wanted nothing to happen, then the Dev Fund would end and nothing would happen.
There are two things here, not only one.
The lockbox: A place where ZEC reside for future distribution
The NDFM: A system designed for multi-voters to distribute ZEC decentrally from the lockbox
Right why must we have a distribution system to fund things? We have done that from inception and all it has gotten us is being the worst lagging crypto in the space.
We are not closer to adoption than doge coin. Am I the only one who sees this?
Instead of directly funding through the dev fund we have added one complex layer as a middle man. A complex layer we have not fleshed out in detail.
But its still direct funding of projects which has not worked out at all.
Market absolutely hates the lock box. News came out an hour ago and price is tanking.
I keep telling you all this. Lock box is just the dev fund with an extra layer.
Why must we keep making the same mistakes we have made since inception? Do you all really think the market price of zec is irrelevant to the success of the project?
Must zec go to 0 so everyone wakes up and stops doing the same thing that has not worked ever?
This is so frustrating.
Market loves the end of direct funding and the start of the lockbox. NDFM is nothing like direct funding in the protocol.
Read the motivations please for a description of how different it is.
https://zips.z.cash/draft-nuttycom-funding-allocation#motivations-for-alternative-1
See also: coin weighted voting results:
hybrid deferred with 12% lockbox and 20% lockbox were the top choices:
It doesnt tell us much honestly. But, at least one large investor likes the lockbox.
Trying to link specific events to price graphs is mostly wishful thinking. The poll results were released yesterday. The price drop you mentioned happened today and is already being reverted. So does the market love the lock box in the end?
Rumor of the lockbox might be part of the aggressive run-up off the recent ATL. Speculation of causality can go either way, i agree.
To build on what @noamchom has said here, I think that while it has taken more time than I would have liked to reach the point that we’re at now, I think that both of the finalist proposals that @joshs notes in the OP are strong candidates on which to build the future of Zcash development funding. Both proposals incentivize builders in the community to build upon the momentum that we now have to work on a disbursement mechanism for the lockbox that serves the community’s interests. My hope is that this work of crafting proposals and subjecting them to community discussion will essentially start now; if the community can reach consensus in the next few months, a suitable disbursement mechanism could be a candidate for a network upgrade early next year (likely NU8, following on after the ZSA release planned for NU7).
This was made very clear. Here is the entire abstract of the ZIP draft defining four alternative proposals that all involved the lockbox:
This ZIP proposes several options for the allocation of a percentage of the Zcash block subsidy, post-November 2024 halving, to an in-protocol “lockbox.” The “lockbox” will be a separate pool of issued funds tracked by the protocol, as described in ZIP TBD: Lockbox Funding Streams 4. No disbursement mechanism is currently defined for this “lockbox”; the Zcash community will need to decide upon and specify a suitable decentralized mechanism for permitting withdrawals from this lockbox in a future ZIP in order to make these funds available for funding grants to ecosystem participants.
The proposed lockbox addresses significant issues observed with ZIP 1014 3, such as regulatory risks, inefficiencies due to funding of organizations instead of projects, and centralization. While the exact disbursement mechanism for the lockbox funds is yet to be determined and will be addressed in a future ZIP, the goal is to employ a decentralized mechanism that ensures community involvement and efficient, project-specific funding. This approach is intended to potentially improve regulatory compliance, reduce inefficiencies, and enhance the decentralization of Zcash’s funding structure.
Personally, I think this is what I would want moving forward. The community most decide, no one gets hard-coded.
Yes, it doesn’t carve out any exception (to ZCG), the Nutty 20% proposal is also ideal because its perpetual until the NDFM is complete (i.e. doesn’t force another What to do next? debate in another year or two)
Unlike Skylar’s 50% proposal, Kris’s 20% proposal does have a 2 year limit.
I’m not happy with performance of the ZCG, especially the decision to spend $600,000 on creating backdoors for ZSAs. That’s why I support sending all of the 20% into the lockbox, and I hope the future disbursement mechanism will require approval from coinholders.
Pure lockbox 
- 20% for 2 years - there have been too many contentious large grants from ZCG IMO - it’s too much responsibility to put on 5 people elected from the ZCAP mailing list. The future disbursement mechanism should better incorporate community sentiment and consensus.
I also want to add that Josh’s feedback was in line with my original vision for that proposal. Ultimately, the additional input didn’t have a significant influence on the final version of the ZCG+Lockbox proposal. It was always going to be one of the options.