Honestly I can’t imagine it’s a good idea to brag about it @joshs 
I have just received a notification that two of my posts were being hidden (I was able to set them back to public, for now):
A single word was used as justification: inappropriate.
Only two people so far are defending the view this thread is promoting, most others it is not clear if they are trolling or just somehow saying non-sense without realizing it.
Nobody was able to provide a half decent point why the current voting (lack of) mechanism is the best way forward for the dev fund. Attack what I say all you want and be public about it so everyone can see it. Just don’t hide posts, it’s not helping anything. I haven’t insulted anyone and do not intend to.
I dream of a day where we will have a dedicated governance coordinator that could help us transition to a dev fund managed by token holders, and keep the governance vibrant and exciting!
I can very much see a successful implementation of this in Zcash. We’d get a dev fund governance that is both fully decentralized, anonymous and Sybil resistant. Worth it! Saving you a click, that’s what such ad looks for Polkadot, and could look quite similarly to us:
With so many DOT holders having a vote, coordination is necessary. This role would involve discussing upcoming governance proposals and changes, providing feedback, and developing plans both at the tactical level (e.g., helping teams with their proposals or determining if a specific proposal is malicious) and the strategic level (e.g. improving the governance process itself and working on initiatives such as Decentralized Voices). This would also involve understanding the governance structure itself at a deep level and communicating this in talks, tutorials, blog posts, and other media. It would also involve interacting with other teams at Web3 Foundation whose work intersects with or depends on on-chain governance activities (e.g. Public Policy and Technical Education), and reporting on the current status of the on-chain governance system.
Love it or hate it, but it’s an amazing example of
-
Fully decentralized dev fund management
-
Outreach to a massive number of people that are outside of the ecosystem.
Closest thing we’ve got is @joshs having fun with Duchovni in a ad seen by 14 people.
I am not saying we should do as they do. I am saying we should accept that they have done something inspiring. And we really suck at that critical bit.
Time for a change of management.
if Zcash does sth similar it would have to be great upcoming creators/artists imo
1 Like
After thinking about this calmly for a while, I just couldn’t combine those two:
-
Dev fund token-holders governance
Sure, the voting part can happen in a way that respects those three items. Where it fails though, is at the stage of determining who gets to decide what to vote on, who are the eligible recipients, etc.
However, I do have a design to suggest, one that imho is very much in line with how Satoshi has designed the governance of Bitcoin:
- ZEC holders with a simple voting majority can pull a lever that suspends the dev fund.
That’s it. It’s simple yet I find it elegant and it keeps a healthy tension between ZEC holders and those managing it. ZEC holders can (and should!) certainly be polled on a regular basis to gather their opinion and have a sense of what matters to them, who would be a best fit to manage various slices of the fund, etc.
Evidently, this should be part of the protocol in a way that would make it impossible to ignore the outcome of a vote. Also, with PoW, it would require a regular vote, at least yearly, while with PoS, I am pretty sure nominators could set a flag that expresses their vote, in a way that keeps the vote always live. The moment a majority of ZEC tokens are backing a suspension, the tokens of the dev fund gets diverted back to nominators. Essentially, people being financed by the dev fund must always convince ZEC holders that the value they bring to the network is worth accepting a 20% cut on earnings (this simplification works best on PoS, but PoW is not that different).
Under this, we can experiment with various dev fund governance strategies.
So indeed, I have found the two points above to be potentially mutually exclusive, but by changing governance to check-point, it seems to click into place.
edit: changed from control to check-point. I am not sure what is the best terminology here, but I feel it is important to find the right one.
1 Like
We’re wasting time not discussing this critical issue. Our competitiveness and reputation is at stake.
I now see Polkadot as a friendly competitor. Friendly because they share many of our values without being anything like us, and competitor because some of their challenges are identical to ours (scalability, governance, etc).
Polkadot governance is often laughed at because it is so immature. To which any decently informed individual will answer that it is immature because it is… ground breaking and new, therefore it’s just part of the normal growth process.
Look at this, they are currently voting on their inflation and dev fund, and there is high participation with constructive and informed debate:
We need (something like) this! I have just made a proposal (just above) that I believe is enabling governance in a way that is aligned with the Zcash/Satoshi governance “mindset”. We need to be breaking ground in governance as well, in our own way.