Hi Zooko,
EDIT: I started off on the wrong foot. My apologies. I would like to thank the ECC for their feedback so far, it has been invaluable. Over all I like the post and that you are stating how this impacts the ECC. I assume str4d and daira’s responses came out of those meetings.
I was wondering why my second proposal - [ZIP 1002] FINAL: ZIP Proposal - Genuine Protocol opt-in/out donation feature updated 02/sept
Got this response:
It does need some adjustments but the whole purpose of the zip is it specifies that funding needs to happen, but it cannot be mandatory. Does the ECC think only mandatory donations (is that even a donation?) is the only mechanism that will allow the company to survive?
It doesn’t say their cannot be 50% block distribution going to the ECC, just that is an unsustainable model and the “user” decides if they donate at all. (I have to clarify some terms still from str4d and daira’s feedback.)
but it does not disallow any funding for the ECC. It just does not provide what the mechanism should be, it says what it shouldn’t be. (with the intent that the funding can be worked out later or those better at finace stuff than me. I was assuming that this would be used as part of another zip or have another zip added to it that has a mechanism for polling and/or funding)
edit: on reflection, this is the only zip that doesn’t break the core values and allows for indefinite funding of the ECC.
Please note: I am asking this off the ECC not questioning the employees specifically. if that makes sense.
EDIT3: you could have shown some love on @Blocktown’s original proposal. They were late to the party, but they did come in, get a bit roasted then come back with something pretty solid. I know you have deadlines, etc. I personally would really like to have seen it included.
Thanks,
steve