Until now, the only means to gather community sentiment was through ZF’s ZCAP, which was demonstrably flawed.
The community, including ECC, for the first time came together to offer alternative polling of different constituency groups. You seem to discount those voices as invalid. I don’t.
Coin-holder polling has not been possible. Hahn built one, which, although flawed, was consistent with the other sentiment polls.
Pure coin-holder voting has not proven successful due to risks of capture, plutocracy, crowding out, coordination problems, and general apathy and/or the inability of coin-holders to keep up with everything. Switching to a pure coin-holder vote system is extremely risky.
What I proposed increases and formalizes coin-holder voice without the same inherent risks, allowing us time to get it right while creating competition and accountability, while increasing the participation of other vested constituents in the ecosystem beyond ECC and ZF.
See this and this for other governance experiments.
Thank you for the kind words, and I appreciate the dialog.
I see the two things as highly correlated, thought not always. Smaller grant funding is often not related to protocol governance. However, funding work for consensus changes is, including the decision on if any block reward based funding pools are available, and how decisions will be made on allocating funds.
First, how is this different from the subsidy that is given to miners?
Second, do you propose instead that issuance be stopped entirely, so that there is no more “inflation”?
I think that your premise is incorrect. This is not to discount your proposition that ZEC holders have it in their interest to govern in a way that increases or maintains the value of their holdings, but I will point out that the timescale and durability of such changes in ZEC value are also relevant here. We don’t want a governance process that is susceptible to being exploited for pump-and-dump purposes.
28 days ago. These are exciting times, are they not? The lockbox over direct funding is a game-changer for potential investors. This should be obvious in hindsight?
Practical use cases for FROST and ZSAs? Potential dogfood explosion! (in a good way)
I’ve been off of the forum here for a few weeks, and am trying to catch up on what the outcome of the “Dev Fund Debates” resolved to.
What was the winning proposal?
Have efforts kicked off to deliver it’s features?
Are there any status/ coordination/ etc sites available (outside of observing github)?
The “Hybrid Deferred” proposal won, which sends 12% to a lockbox and 8% to ZCG via FPF, for an year.
zcashd and zebrad teams are working on the implementation, we expect to run a first private testnet test soon and then we will set testnet activation heights for NU6. Audits will follow.
How to use the lockbox is still up for debate, there are some discussions going on which you should find easily here in the board.
We’re making daily progress on the many, many tasks related to the move. All good so far, nothing specific to report. Working closely with ZCG and everything is progressing as planned.
We can always burn the lockbox later.