Disagree with this framing. Miners are never taxed once let alone twice. The coin holders are the only ones who lose value as new coins are minted in each block. Changing the mining reward is just changing how much hashpower coinholders pay for.
My words might not have been the best. but they got my point across. Miners paid 20% of distribution that was aimed for them over the lifetime of the coin to the FR in the first 4 years of the coin. Sure tax is not the right word. It was a donation. Now people are talking about forced donations, which is a tax.
Yup, I disagreed strongly with that statement by zooko, and the framing of that argument. Sure there is an inflation aspect, but that is more than cancelled out by the getting closer to 21 million - which is why 23 million is totally crazy.
The coin holders only lose on this scale if their is no total market cap or the market cap is increased. I explain it in the link in my post and im pretty sure in that thread with zooko.
With fixed cap coins mining enriches everyone who holds. I genuinely believe this. I understand there is a crossover point, but I think we disagree where it is. I find it strange I have to keep explaining this concept of fixed issuance.
Why else did zcash go with fixed issuance rather than monero style continual if not for this reason?
we’re not increasing supply, tho. there’s nothing more than a shitpost on the forum from a person that owns no zcash proposing this. show me a ZIP that proposes an increase in supply; that stands a chance of survival (not happening) - i’ll be on my way.
I don’t think the protocol section is the right place for your disregard of someone elses proposals. there are no bad ideas here. Someone has proposed an idea and they have the right to have their voice heard.
Why would I care if you left the community or not? - why does it matter how much zec someone has before their idea can be valid?
You more zcash than me kek?
Arent you on the community governance panel? Are you sure this is appropriate for you to be behaving like this to the community?
here’s how this works: person that owns no zcash starts posting about increasing zcash supply - 2 weeks from now “zcash increasing supply” headline will be spammed all over twitter. i’m just here to make sure people do understand this “increase supply” is nothing more than a shitpost.
Now you are catching on. See, this is abhorrent enough to make you leave but mandatory mining dev fund isn’t? This is partly (not you) why I was planning on doing it for all of the pillars anyway once we found out the legal ramifications.
So, no, despite what you and the “twitter deep thinkers” say or do, it will be a legit proposal.
There is only currently two proposals that do not break any of the foundations of zcash (and possibly a third, depending on what we can hash out) so twitter is going to be a shit show anyway. everyone is already trying to smash the other pillars. just this time they have come for yours.
Remember you cannot veto this.
I only got involved in this thread to calm it down and bring it back to rational discussion, then I start to see the histrionics. For some reason you seem to think I care about twitter or the market price. - the price only bothers me because I want the ECC to keep the doors open.
I used to think the fedora pepe was a joke. it really isn’t is it.
that is in no way an excuse not to be cordial and respectful tho. just letting people know it is an option. I would suggest contacting a moderator first though if you feel you need to block someone for their posts towards you.
I guess every miner as well thinks such like: I’am going to burn every coin if the 90% to miners gets touched. Will be an interesting funding outcome if it happens.
They won’t do it and i will win our bet and some other bets as well. It’s a made game allready. The final outcome will be a 20% mandatory funding no matter how many other proposals there are.
I don’t have to own today Zcash, there is only 1/3 mined and 2/3 are still to come. Hence my philosophic argumentation that the current investors and holders are only 1/3 of all possible future holders.
What if this proposals would come from a VC claiming that they don’t own Zcash but would be willing to buy in with 1,000,000 ZEC?
I agree with this. ZEC won’t lose miners but if the foundation keeps their promise that they will support only opt-in/opt-out there is a good chance they will have not much funding available either IF the miners burn their coins instead of donating them for funding.
Says someone that cares only about his personal profit in every post? Someone that is shitposting only in the “ZEC to the moon” topic? Lol. If you don’t like the propsal, don’t care about it.
Actually NO, there won’t be any headlines. The ECC and it’s affilates only tweet and re-tweet proposals that fit their agendda. This proposal won’t make it into twitter, just be sure! That’s why it got a torpedo allready in the beginning.
How gentle, lol. Seems you don’t have much faith in the average ZEC holder, lol.
As it was said, there are no bad ideas, so far all proposals that differ from “leave 20%” do not find support from the fund and the company (I mean broadcasting to the media), any suggestions on considering zcash as an asset and not just a way of financing with Considering that if there isn’t enough, the project closes as well, they don’t find support, therefore any proposal is good on the one hand and, on the other hand, leads to a lack of finance, provided that “the price does not matter further”. I’m not saying that the project will close in any case, I’m saying that the project will not be closed if that funding is enough and this is possible if the price rises (which the fund will not seek, which means it can or should happen by chance).
Based on the input data, the project will live under favorable circumstances, and they can be in the absence of funding or in the presence of any of the proposed ones. But the proposal to increase the number of coins will put pressure on buyers, which can be used by coin holders or potential buyers, which is good, because it is predictable.
I will closely watch that the foundation sticks to it’s opt-in mechanism promise and support and does NOT support any other proposal that doesn’t have such mechansim.
Bookmark this proposal and just remember my prediction: The opt-in mechanism for miners will not work and ensure enough funds for the ECC and Foundation. I bet from now, over 1 year ahead that miners at best 20% will not burn the coins and 80%+ of the miners will burn them.
I even don’t have to make a calculation for this to see that the result will be a huge disbalance in necessary funding.
About the downvoting. To be honest i did not await any support at all. Sure i had a minimal hope due the governance panel voting than back that made it close, but nothing more.
This proposal was made to show give a different path and to ensure at least a funding that would result in a more secure funding than any other opt-in/opt-out proposal.
I was well aware that it will get huge resistance upfront, but that’s how things should work. There had to be such proposal so later nobody can say there wasn’t a single one that suggested this option. Especially after it could turn out at a later time, in 2-3 years that again the funding isn’t sufficient enough.
Seems i’am understanding some previous stated principles wrong than:
I guess the answer here will be: things changed …
That’s why i did it. But i’am still concerned. On one side we hear all day long that the ECC for example accepts every community decision, on the other side, as you mention it above, such proposals have go through ECC/ZF zip editors which literally will veto it. Something doesn’t fit up.
Wait, or did you mean the community can choose out of these proposals that the ECC & ZF approved allready to fit their wishes? If that’s the case i again advice that the foundation and the ECC make a proposal and than zip and discuss it, you don’t need the community show in such case.
Actually both applies. With setting such tropedo at the very beginning of the discussing i think you made it clear that supporting such proposal is going nowhere. And yes, second, people will think, as i do for longer allready, that proposals that don’t fit the wishes of the ECC and ZF have 0 chance and aren’t worth even commenting/discussing further.
You can replace the word torpedo with handbrake, fits maybe better
IF you guys and girls really would care about the community opinion you would allready upfront test the different proposals with the governance panel to see where the community sentiment is going. But that’s not planned either from what i can see, hence i stick to my previous comments that both, the ECC and ZF and favouring and intervention strongly into different proposals. There is no such thing as neutrality even at the beginning of a proposals discussion. Some get the handbrake immediatly, some get showcased 24/7 on twitter day by day to influence the wider community. Influence can be replaced with manipulate actually, wouldn’t be wrong either. That’s how it looks from outside.
Than the formulation on the homepages seems to be wrong or we talk about different things:
Monetary Base and Founders’ Reward
The Founders’ Reward is the cornerstone of our funding and developer incentives model, and allocates 10% of all tokens created to a Founders’ Reward fund, with the remaining 90% allocated to miners eventually.
IF you lower the 90% to something else, be it 70%, or 80& or 75% you lower the tokens allocated to the miners. I call this taxing them. What else would describe it better? Sure you can word it “take away”, “re-allocate” and whatever not, but it’s still some form of tax in my opinion.
Changing the monetary supply creates huge uncertainty for users, holders and miners. Nobody is able to predict future supply changes once you start doing it for the first time. This is very harmful for all participants.
True, but such argumentation could apply to the different dev rewards, first a founders reward, now a dev reward … sounds as well as doing it again and again …
Actually in this proposal the miners would be best served. They wouldn’t lose 10% or 20% of their mining rewards but would be compensated for being able to mine these.
Just and again some other thoughts:
it would only change something for the current holders, these are 1/3 of all holders with 2/3 still to come and buy in.
Doesn’t change/break a promise anyway create uncertainity?
IF increasing the supply chain by “only” 10% creates uncertainity and is harmfull how can other projects like Ethereum, Grin, Monero have an infinite supply chain and be successfull?
Couldn’t be an increase by 10% monetary base and the resulting development that is funded with this increase outweight the negative impact it has? For example and as a simple calculation: Price drops by 10% due the increasement but due the development possible price raises 100%. IF someone thinks that development doesn’t improve price soon or late we shouldn’t consider any funding at all.
Just to remind some. This proposal and only the few other fully mandatory ones would ensure with some high garantee that funding is secured. All other opt-in/opt-out are pure speculation and be on miners mercy and hope that they don’t burn everything. The foundation doesn’t support a mandatory dev fee either, nor this one. This makes automaticlly the no dev fee and opt-in/opt-out the only possible solutions.
Just out of curiousity and for polling. If we had only 2 options, either no dev fee founders reward expires and everything stays like intended with no further funds or a monetary increasment. Would the reaction still be the same by the community?
And guys/girls, don’t get me wrong. I made this proposal as i see it as an valid option. This doesn’t mean i think it should go through at all cost. But it’s worth discussing and weighten it to other possible options and solutions as every proposal as it’s up- and downsides, none can be perfect and none will serve everybody. Take my role here more as playing devils advocate than reflecting this on my me personally.