Dev Fund Proposal: 5-Entity Strategic Council Approach

I echo @avichal’s points. The ZF would struggle to effectively oversee its own funding.

1 Like

I personally fully agree with this argumentation. I expect a lot of open and hidden resistance as i guess that neither the ZF nor the ECC wants to loss power and influence and of course funds allocated to them.

Me personally would even add a point, but that could be only my impression why a big part of the community likes the addition of a 3rd entity or an additional council. I think it’s because the community doesn’t feel enough represented and involved by the ECC and ZF.

One of the main differences would be that every year, or even in shorter intervals, the council/board would be elected/choosen. If i remember right the foundations board is for a full 4 year period and despite some voices in the past for shorter election intervals the foundation wasn’t really responsive on this one.

Further, right now it’s a bit like in a parliament, where representatives choose their own wage/income. I fully agree with avichal that there should be seperation on who does the work and who distributes the funds. The whole founders reward distribution so far shows that it was badly choosen for development, accountability and even transparency. A council or 3rd entity would hopefully change this, finally.

Why so much power for a single entity? If the community wanted that all power is at a single entity we could leave it all at the ECC. It’s interesting to see that there seems a power “rope pulling” going on, at least i have that impression by now after the trademark disaster.

The panel was a good attempt and i liked it, until the foundation made it invite only. Another concern with the advisory panel is the presence again of the same ECC and ZF members/employees/founders that make allready decisions within the ECC and ZF. But that’s just my opinion of course.

poor ecc. in this market, crooked since inception and extremely competitive as it is now, any transparency and open track record and/or search for external advisory is huge if not deadly disadvantage.
imagine being “guard down” at gunpoint from all the competitors, rigorously seeking how to exploit any clumsy move of yours. while each of them have cloaked (most of) their internal proceedings.
imagine seeking for broad community advisory, while many of active participants could probably have at least conflict of interests. and the most dangerous participants are not the ones who are screaming “scam scam” in cryptotwitter.
this can end well only by a miracle or in ideal crypto world.))

You misremember, it’s a 3 year term, which you can view on our bylaws. And not to speak for the board, but I know @amiller has expressed interest in the past for either shortening the board term and/or creating community mechanisms that are binding in our bylaws. (so I think you are mischaracterizing this)

This proposal creates a new single entity where all future funding power rests, which is why the selection criteria is so critical and a rather large potential downside to this and proposals like it. I don’t view the current trademark “disaster” as a disaster at all, but rather the Foundation operating as it should as a check on the ECC’s power.

I’m not at all personally opposed to diversifying the streams of funding and adding significantly more accountability to the ECC/ZF, but I am worried about any new structures that are created without prior precedent that could control all possible funding, as it seems such a thing is ripe to be gamed.


just curious. if under some probable pressure ecc and/or zfnd will decide to cease their efforts and resign. who do you whink will step in charge for zcash? unstructured “community”, monero foundation, blockstream, sic grayscale? or maybe new productive entity will emerge from ranks of critics and proponents? i highly doubt so.

Ok, 3 years and not 4 years. I remember that i ask so far at least once for shorter election intervals (about 1 year ago) and you answered that it’s not for discussion and don’t plan to change this. (I have to dig it out which could take some time having in mind my huge post count).

And than i made Proposal & Possible Changes in the Foundation Governance as i think it’s more than not optimal, to say it diplomaticly, that ZF board members are as well share holders in the ECC, same goes now for ZF advisors and/or now/future employees/advisors. The connection is too tight in my opinion, hence a 3rd entity with no ties would be structural very different from the ZF.

Now see it from a point of view outside the ECC and ZF, for example my point of view:

What do we have right now?
The ECC, with unclear shareholders, a for profit company with limited accountability and transparency. At the same time a ZF close tied with the ECC as ZF board members are shareholders at the ECC. Both are the ZIP editors and ZIP voters. Both, at least for my taste are discussing, approving and allocating their own funds/wages/whatever.

Means in short, if we talk about “ripe to be gamed” you should as well, at least in my opinion, have in mind that the ECC and ZF “inter-connections” could be seen as such as well. But in this case the community would/is be gamed.

I have no doubt that with a multi million yearly budget there would be a queue and devs/organisations/interested people will stand in a line to continue on Zcash. Actually i have no doubt that the ZF will continue, even if funds are less while the main “funding problem” seems to be the ECC.

I as well have no doubts that some kind of dev funding must be there as i fully agree that voluntary funding, donations, full community driven won’t work out.

As an open suggestion for how this issue could be resolved if this is still a concern on the ZF side: if this winds up being the proposal with the most community support, I think it makes the most sense for the Foundation be this body even if it means giving up any/all claim to future dev fund rewards:

1 Like

This sounds like a slightly changed Founders Reward design.

Instead of having the founders (which are ECC share holders) having the ZF sponsored (current) it could be directly the ECC that donates to the ZF (future) in such case.

Out of curiousity. Do you really think you could get about $300-500k funding monthly from donations without donations from the ECC/founders?

you know why i underlined productive ?
zcash not a pawn shop. it’s a bit more complicated case…))
of course there would be (and it probably is) an enormous queue of people/orgs. everyone love funds, especially in sic crypto. problem is, i dont see any adequate possibility of replacement as of now.
p.s.: sorry for offtopic. mod can move my posts in any suitable branch.

As an economist i’am a huge believer that productivity and efficiency is achieved best within competition. I think that fully answers your concern, but i should have added it in my last response.

i agree with this. so far, i think i just have a slightly different view on what cryptocurrencies are. what for, on what fields and by which measures real competition here is going on. and how interests of involved parties in any crypto and in market in general are intersected.

1 Like

don’t think we’ll get this properly figured out anytime soon. exactly why i think it would be a good idea to kick the can down the road. gives two extra years to iron all this out. imo, the best ideas on ways to move forward haven’t even been hatched yet.

1 Like

I was able to dig out your response than back from January.

These comments left the impression on my end that the foundation is not very responsive in having shorter election intervals at all or are open for shorter community elections at all.

After you corrected me that the board member ship is 3 years and not 4 years (thx a lot!), it seems the period expires in March 2020. IF i remember correctly the ZF board was created in Martch 2017, or?

As there are only 6 months left until than it might be a good idea to prepare some election/voting tool that fits these elections as well IF the ZF board members are elected of course.

You’re confusing “board” with “board membership”. The creation date of the board only has relevance for the terms of its founding members (some of whom have already departed). The members who joined the board around Zcon0 will be on the board until around Zcon3.


Sorry for the bit off topic. But didn’t the new/changed members replace old departing members for “just” the rest/vacant of time for a given position?

My reasoning here is that i see in the “Board minutes” that on 3rd February 2017 the “Initial Board Meeting” was held and in my understanding a board meeting can only be held if there are board members, not?

From 5th April 2017 Board Minutes:

  1. Need a new fifth Board Member
  • Board discussed potential candidates but did not reach a decision

Doesn’t this allready mean the board and board members worked latest in first April week, mostly as said allready in March or even sooner?

Additionally i wasn’t able to find any special rules for board members, but isn’t “for the unexpired term in respect of which such vacancy occurred or until the next election” the most common definition in such cases?

I’am sorry if i miss something, but my understanding is that the 3 years expire after the first 3 years the first board was created. I could be wrong and would appreciate in such case a link to the approciate documentation or document/protocol/

Anyway, how will the 2nd ZF board members elected anyway. As there have not been any elections so far i think this fits somehow even into the discussion and no matter what date it is, it’s coming more soon than late anyway, even bevor end of the founders reward, or?

Edit: After reading the

i think i’am right with the assumption that vacant/replaced positions are for the remaining period.

If the office of a Director becomes vacant for any reason, other than by removal of the Director in the manner described in paragraph 1 hereof, the Members shall choose a successor or successors which successor(s) shall hold office for the unexpired term in respect of which such vacancy occurred or until the next election of Directors.

1 Like

You can look through the history of ZF’s board here:

Edit: The board members who have directed ZF since 2017 (the beginning) are Andrew, Peter, and Matt.

1 Like

The process by which the new members joined the board around Zcon0 was an election, thus the new members have their own term and are not holding office of prior members.


In case that’s right and it was an election it’s correct for 2 of 5 board members which still leaves the question when are the elections for the remaining 3 board members?

If my assumption is correct than new elections for 3 board members should be held in early 2020, which is just in some months from now, not?

About the “election” of the 2 board members by the community governance panel. For me it seems the community governance panel voted/elected/suggested/advised symbolic the 2 new members. By law and technicaly formal the remaining board members replaced the vacant places:


Prior to the meeting, Yan Zhu and Naval Ravikant resigned over email. The remaining Board members unanmiously voted for Amber Baldet and Ian Miers to take the open Board seats.

which in my understanding of the Foundations Bylaws fullifies: If the office of a Director becomes vacant for any reason the Members shall choose a successor or successors which successor(s) shall hold office for the unexpired term in respect of which such vacancy occurred. But as said, i could be wrong here and even if i’am wrong it still leaves the question when and how are the elections soon for the remaining 3 board members be done/hold?

1 Like

This is correct. The legal process is that existing ZF board members approve new ZF board members — in the case of Amber and Ian, their election by the Community Governance Panel was then approved by the board.