First time posting here, I love this discussion and wanted to give my 2 cents.
My core thesis is that in modern finance, MoE and SoV are not, and realistically cannot be, the same thing. ZCash’s design choices effectively force it into the SoV bucket, whether we as a community explicitly acknowledge that or not. If that framing is correct, it has important implications for roadmap decisions and project prioritization.
Historically, MoE and SoV were the same, but largely in an era where financial complexity and credit intermediation were limited. As commerce became more prominent, the financial system separated these roles.
A functioning MoE currency moved to a ledger-based system that allows for supply elasticity (primarily through credit expansion and contraction) which is crucial for an MoE as it dampens demand shocks. A SoV on the other hand benefits from inelasticity, as scarcity is the point. But because of this lack of elasticity, volatility becomes the adjustment mechanism, thus it is not just early-stage noise, but structural of the design.
The global MoE today is not the USD but the elastic credit system built on top of it. The Eurodollar system: repos, bank balance sheets, FX, etc. The unit of account becomes stable because supply is allowed to expand and contract. While SoV in the current system include real estate, stocks, treasuries, etc.
From a business operation point of view, MoE is more important that SoV. Why? Credit is unavoidable at scale (CapEx, inventory, payroll) and managing it requires matching cashflows with liabilities and assets. If the two sides of the book are denominated in different units and one side can fluctuate 20-30% per quarter, then the business becomes a trading desk and stops focusing on its original core activity.
Now I’m going to focus on the SoV case. Given that we have a limited supply and enough participants, ZCash is a viable SoV. This comes with a set of properties: it is highly reflexive and sentiment-driven, which means that it will be driven-by macro shocks rather than smoothing them.
As an SoV, the usage is more episodic than operational. What I mean by this is that most individuals and companies will not use it on a daily basis but rather as part of their long-term investment portfolios and capital allocations.
If ZCash keeps an inelastic supply by design, then it has already chosen the SoV path and many MoE-oriented proposals are internally inconsistent with that choice.
The reason I bring this up is because there was a discussion about roadmap in the thread that is relevant. Understanding the situation is the foundation to make better decisions. If SoV is the path, then certain themes become less critical (everyday UX, TX throughput, etc) than others (on/off ramps).
If ZCash does not become a MoE, then acquiring ZCash must be done through exchanges rather than direct payment for goods and services. Thus, on/off ramp availability and their liquidity become central.
With that framing in mind, I favor keeping transparent addresses in ZCash as a pragmatic requirement for a SoV that relies on exchange-based access. Like it or not, most large exchanges are regulated entities and forcing privacy increases compliance risk, increasing the risk of delisting and decreasing liquidity. Liquidity is critical for the SoV use-case. My point of view on this matter can be summarized as:
If Zcash positions itself as a SoV, liquidity and access matter more than transactional privacy for every user, all the time.
From that perspective, investment in DEX infrastructure and deep liquidity might be a higher ROI than trying to optimize ZCash for daily use. I would even put emphasis on DEXes between privacy-first coins.
