This proposal describes a modification of the existing Zcash Development Fund (ZIP 1014) which is set to expire in November of 2024. The goal is to provide a one-year extension for the creation of a non-direct funding model for Zcash development. If a non-direct funding model can be established and approved by the community at any point within this one-year extension period, that model will supersede and terminate the one-year extension.
This version is a modification to ZIP 1014 with changes marked in red. ZIP_ 1014 Extension.pdf (87.8 KB)
Next steps:
We’d appreciate thoughts and feedback, either here or directly.
I understand that various people and organizations have plans for surveys. I would appreciate considering the inclusion of this ZIP in your surveys. We also intend to survey the community.
We will vet this with our regulatory council.
If there is clear community support (through surveys and acknowledgment by other Zcash community groups) before the end of June, we will:
Implement the change to be activated at the next halving in November
Begin hosting conversations with the community on possible options for a non-direct funding model, including the Funding Bloc proposed here with an FAQ here.
If there is not clear community support, or if there is clear support for another path, we will adjust our plans accordingly.
I spotted a minor nit after my previous review of the draft:
should be
This is consistent with the wording in the “Dev Fund allocation” section. The change is needed because NU6 won’t necessarily activate exactly at the halving; it could activate before.
That’s basically what ECC is proposing. Josh has said that he would rather have a grant based funding program than the direct funding model that we have now.
The one year period is supposed to be a maximum/worst-case scenario, ideally something would be implemented well before a year:
at any point within this one-year extension period, that model will supersede and terminate the one-year extension.
The first step is figuring out if the community supports the grants based model, if that’s the case then a temporary extension to design a new system makes sense.
If there’s not enough support for a grants style system then the extension is moot, a block-reward slice system doesn’t need a year to design.
ECC already said they will NOT be accepting funds from the direct funding model.
In that light, we have decided not to accept funds directly from the protocol under a new development fund. Our wallet address will no longer be codified in the protocol. ECC’s position on the Zcash Dev Fund
Which is a great signal, almost no one in the community wants the direct funding model and now it also includes ECC.
How about instead of extending the current Dev Fund, we redirect the funds into an unallocated reserve that can be paid out later when the decentralized Funding Bloc mechanism is ready? I think this would align incentives and create some urgency and austerity that could propel the teams in a positive way. I’m writing up this proposal now and am here doing my homework.
Why we should NOT extend the Dev Fund by one yearâť“
1- Erosion of Credibility: Extending the Zcash dev fund will send a negative signal to the wider cryptocurrency market, undermining the perception of Zcash’s ability to meet deadlines and honour its commitments. This could diminish confidence in Zcash and harm the project’s reputation.
2- Promotion of Complacency: By ensuring continued funding for an additional year, the initiative may inadvertently foster a culture of complacency within the development team and community. The absence of immediate financial pressures could reduce the urgency to innovate and meet critical milestones promptly.
3- Undermining Consistency and Stability: Introducing changes to funding mechanisms sets a precedent that could destabilise the perceived reliability of the project’s governance. If modifications to critical frameworks are perceived as easily achievable, it could lead to recurring adjustments, undermining long-term strategic planning.
4- Recency Bias and Future Implications: Implementing an extension now due to immediate challenges may establish a pattern of reactionary decision-making. This recency bias could become problematic, as people that may be interested in Zcash/or even community members might anticipate further extensions or alterations whenever challenges arise, leading to inconsistent governance practices.
5- Market Confidence: The extension could be perceived as a lack of preparedness and foresight by the project’s leadership. This perception might discourage potential investors and collaborators who value punctuality and strategic foresight in project management.
i can’t decide what is better, very complex situation…
i hope some strong group comes and just takes over Zcash, i always hoped for it.
it seemed that ECC under Zooko and The Foundation, always fought back against any ambitious groups.
to stop the dev fund now is a big gamble, because Zcash is not interesting as before, they have Mina and many other ZK projects to invest in.
anyway, extend for another year and give a chance to the new ECC may be the least risky decision.
I read there days everything on Reddit and elsewhere I can find Zcash… the problem is 99% of the comments are negative like price, here atmosfere is so not fluent. Here I can only support @noamchom, I think he suggest best of all. Also for Zcash utility and this conversation here… we can see here is big underperformance from this two groups… All looks like goverment, tax the people and only promeses… you must see the community what is best for Zcash, we see neutral and all your underperformace… you can make suggestion but for that selling Zec with Btc… the worst job you can do… all the community is saing differente…I came with that conclusion…
