During a recent Twitter spaces conversation, @zooko and @Dodger expressed their faith in the community to lead the dev fund discussions. Their trust is not only commendable but a testament to the vibrant strength of our community. Yet, with the stakes so high, there’s a pressing need for them to play a more pronounced role. Ignoring the looming risk tied to insufficient funds can imperil Zcash’s future.
To foster an informed dialogue, a few months ago I delved deep into the intricacies of these dev fund discussions, drawing from both data and my experiences. My insights are compiled in this document – initially a personal notebook I now share it to highlight the crucial need for more structured guidance from ECC and ZF.
Time Investment: My research spanned days, poring over the transparency reports and engaging with members of the community. It’s a commitment not everyone might be able to make.
Data Gaps: The reports I accessed were often dated, and while my 15 years of experience guided my estimates, they remain imbued with uncertainties.
Price Fluctuations: Predicting the ZEC price trajectory is challenging. Banking on speculative market highs is a perilous strategy.
Need for Organizational Input: The scant guidance from ECC and ZF compounds the challenges. Clear directives are pivotal for well-informed choices.
The Challenge of Proposals: Crafting a well-rounded funding proposal is intricate, particularly without in-depth insights into ECC and ZF’s operational dynamics.
A Plea for Transparency: For Zcash’s flourishing future, we need well-structured proposals with transparent cost breakdowns. The responsibility squarely rests on ECC and ZF to enlighten the community.
The stark reality? If the dev fund remains at 20%, both entities may be compelled to halve their workforce from current levels – a move ECC may have already unintentionally begun with the most recently staffing changes. But as outsiders, we’re left in the dark. Without access to pivotal data and with ECC and ZF’s silence, we’re forced to make educated guesses about their future trajectory.
Zcash’s path forward is a collective endeavor, yet leaders like @zooko and @dodger wield unparalleled influence. Their guidance, openness, and commitment can profoundly influence our shared destiny.
A heartfelt appeal to @zooko and @dodger: Our community craves more than just numbers. We yearn for direction, optimism, and lucidity. If Zcash’s lifeline – the dev fund – needs bolstering, please champion its cause. Armed with insights and fueled by passion, we stand ready to rally.
The current 20% and extending it now is a weighted balance between continuing the developer fund and not infuriating a wide range of Zcash investors. It’s not worth bringing up the topic of increasing this percentage until ZEC moves into a sustained triple-digit trend.
“Dear Zcash Community, in between my many dedicated hours of deciphering outdated transparency reports and my attempts at predicting the wildly fluctuating ZEC price, I’ve taken a moment to pen this note. It’s clear to me, and hopefully, to you, that while @zooko and @dodger have given us an Oscar-worthy performance of faith in our community leadership abilities (and trust me, I personally love both of you beyond words), we could still use a smidge more guidance from our esteemed leaders. After all, it’s no easy task being Sherlock without a Watson. So, if they can give us just a tad bit more than just their digital pats on our backs, that’d be swell. Just a thought. #YearningForMoreThanJustNumbers”
what’s stopping them from implementing transaction fees to start migrating towards a long term transaction fee based solution? so they could get both block rewards and transaction fees as we move away from block rewards and towards transaction fees.
Transaction fees should always be as low as they can be, to ensure that we are always as competitive as possible against other (privacy in particular) blockchains.
That is not to say that I agree or disagree with how low those fees currently are; I actually do not have a properly educated opinion on that question.
But that is to say it’s not ZEC users that should pay for the development of Zcash, instead it should be ZEC investors / holders.
If anything, I would be for switching to a different token supply model when we switch to PoS, where in a fashion similar to how Ethereum currently operates. Which is, if my understanding is correct, the transaction fees are burnt (decreasing supply) and miners are rewarded only what is necessary to maintain the security of the network (increasing supply).
In the case of Zcash, dev fund would also increase of supply, but “20%” is another magical number that has no meaning. Think about it. If the price of ZEC goes 1 million, why would the Dev Fund still get 20%? Inversely, if the price of ZEC goes to 1, 20% is going to represent peanuts. Every four years, there should be some kind of vote on the budget allocation of the Dev Fund.
Ok this went a bit sideways but indeed, ECC and ZF should voice their opinion on a way forward that is optimal.
it’s not the low fees that make you competitive, it’s the value of the products or services.
by your definition, we should be paying developers minimum wage. but they obviously want more. they don’t charge the lowest rates per hour do they? of course not. they want to get paid based on their value and expertise. zec transactions should be priced based on the value of what is offered.
I don’t think there is any examples of a successful entity or any business that has survived or exists that a) gives away a product for feee and b) subsidizes the customer purchases by taking money from investors while at the same time c) not offering the investors anything in return. This is probably one of the most foolish plans I have ever heard.
ethereum works because there is an intrinsic profit as represented in the burn. it’s equivalent to a share buyback. and the burn results in a decrease in coin supply, we know there is economic value created for eth holders.
zec is operating in the exact opposite economic model as ETH. it won’t end well for zec holders if it continues. clearly no one understands economics that is advising on the economic model of zec.
“My definition” says we should be competitive. That means in order to retain users we need reasonable fees. That also means in order to retain excellent developers, we need competitive compensations for them.
Some of the largest successful modern companies have started with this model, such as Amazon or Uber. Surely it’s not for short term quick buck investors.
you certainly arnt scared to act like you know what you are taking about when comes to spending money or who should be subsiding transactions. if this a a “community” why shouldn’t developers help subsidize the transactions by working for free? it’s a “community” when you want to govern. but it’s losses are privatized and pushed onto the zec holders.
so you socialize the benefits and governance and privatize the losses and funding. that’s fair!
so let’s start to focus more on the making money. zec future depends on a viable model. otherwise you just run it into the ground.
yes. my current thinkng is we need a new L1 token that does this. each zec holder get a new L1 token based on their holdings. then the foundation can “seed” and fund more L2 currencies. more currencies=more transactions=more gas=more development = burn L1. and if it’s done right. we can have a seat at the table for global digital currencies - zec, stsblecoins, UDAs. etc etc
we keep zec as an L2 token. then we get rid of all the fighting over block rewards where zec funding comes from the transaction it generates. zec can charge whatever it wants. they just have to fund their own costs.
and we can have many L2 currencies on the L1 blockchain. zec doesn’t have to change the 21m cap in this scenario.
all L2 tokens pay gas and that pays for blockchain and we eventually can burn the L1 token like ethereum. that’s a viable model.
“tear down that wall” comes to mind. block rewards is a barrier that blocks decentralized development