This draft ZIP updates ZIP 1016 and ZIP 271 to name Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL) in place of the Electric Coin Company as one of the three Key-Holder Organizations for the Coinholder-Directed Retroactive Grants Program, alongside Zcash Foundation and Shielded Labs. Neither ZIP currently defines the Key-Holder Organizations, so this ZIP adds the definition to ZIP 1016.
It follows Bootstrap’s statement from earlier this year, on reaching its agreement with ZODL, that a new ZIP would be submitted to transfer legal authority over the relevant lockbox key.
I just wanted to chime in on why I thought this ZIP was the necessary and proper way to transfer this authority to ZODL.
I wanted to avoid establishing a precedent that Keyholder authority is property that can be sold by an organization. I also think that any substantial discontinuity in a keyholder organization should be addressed through a ZIP, not simply through the org’s internal governance processes. If I had my way, the Keyholder ZIP would specify that substantial changes in any of the keyholder orgs must be communicated by updating the ZIP.
In practice, I think the Zcash community’s trust rests with the specific people in these orgs, not with the orgs themselves. If all of the key people in positions of trust move to different orgs or leave the Zcash community, the ZIP should be updated.
Regardless, I think this ZIP establishes a good precedent for how this matter should be handled in the future. At current prices, this structure will be managing funds for a decade or longer, so this kind of situation will inevitably recur.
If an organisation holds a governance role because the community recognised it through a ZIP, a substantial change in who is exercising that role should come back through the ZIP process. The organisation should not be able to transfer that authority on its own through an internal decision or private agreement.
I also think your point about people is important. A legal entity can remain the same on the outside while the people in positions of trust change completely. That can be just as significant as moving the role to a different organisation.
The difficult part is defining “substantial” without turning ordinary personnel changes into ZIP matters. But I think it is worth making explicit that continuity of the legal entity does not necessarily mean continuity of the governance role.