Miners are not an organization. I personally don’t want any of the mining reward to go to organizations. Did you do your job as advertised? I think so. Maybe retroactive should be a part of the futured deferred dev fund disbursement mechanism.
Hash rate is related to the dollar value of the block reward, not the number of ZEC. Counter argument would be that scarcity could make the remaining portion of the block reward worth more, not less. How can you be sure of what will happen?
The plan is to use it for engineering, security, and what the community wants to fund. The idea is that we have a lot of work we want done. If I was dictator, almost all of the funds would pay for pull requests and actual contributions to the software that runs on main. Protocol, nodes, and wallets. I still think we have a long way to go.
The world’s greatest blockchain, the ultimate codebase, the greatest nodes and wallets, the awesomest SDKs to build on. Private internet cash. Scalability, devops, …
Do you think we’re already done or that it’s hopeless or … how do these improvements get funded in your 100% miner block reward scenario?
Btw, this is such a good, thorough post. Super reasonable, straightforward, and without the politics. The community needs this. The self-serving biases and distractions emanating from a handful of sources have become such a drag. Let’s get to real work already! I’m glad to see a real discussion about the future we want to see, instead of being dragged into fruitless debates about options that most of us don’t want.
The reason why I’m so vocal about the N-DFM (non-direct funding model) is because the data shows that this is what the community wants. It also happens to be what I want, but if the community wanted the DFM (direct funding model) and ZF was blocking it, I would still fight that block, even though I personally don’t support the DFM. The community must be onboard with the next steps. I really mean it when I say that our early adopters are crucial to the future of Zcash right now. We should all be curious about what the community wants, so that we can actually give it to them. It is plain dumb to push for changes that will alienate this group’s majority.
We have the data that shows that the active majority wants the N-DFM; we don’t have the data that shows which N-DFM proposal they want yet. To get that data, the community simply needs to be well-informed about their options; not pushed or persuaded, but simply presented with the information. It also needs a path to vote for what they want, instead of being limited to voting against what they don’t want.
Again, I love this post because it’s a step towards that. Our community needs to be able to show us what their true values and needs are. We need this data to drive adoption.
It does feel like there’s only a handful of individuals capable of building on Zcash. Is this a real problem? if so, how can we fix it?
I’m curious to know how accessible Zcash will be for builders with the release of ZSAs. Are we developing the tools necessary for builders to thrive on Zcash?
I don’t think we understand the economics of POW the same way.
ZEC price goes down → the cost of mining exceeds the rewards → some miners shutdown their equipment → hash rate goes down → difficulty adjusts → the remaining miners can find blocks even with a lower hash rate → equilibrium reestablished at a lower HR.
However, the lower HR means that it is less expensive to carry a 51% attack, thus the network security is lower.
IMO, this is not a budget. There needs to be a business plan. Imagine going in front of investors and trying to raise funding. This is not adequate.
Honestly, I wouldn’t say this is the greatest blockchain, etc. That sounds overly positive.
Let’s be realistic. It is extremely difficult to work with zcash. This can be seen in the low number of core devs.
Anyway, this is the sales pitch from years ago.
I am talking about how you would convince investors to buy a coin that dropped by 90%, with a plan to take 50% of the mining reward and put it in a lockbox.
I really don’t understand why you keep thinking this is unimaginable when the vast majority of coins redistribute 100% of the mining reward. Look around, the devfund is the exception to the rule, and it has not worked.
This is what the distribution of funding received by operational entities in the Zcash ecosystem from the Dev Fund looks like. The ZEC received from the Dev Fund by ECC and ZF is valued using the average ZEC price since the start of the Dev Fund.
No, it’s hardly even workable at all. That’s the point. We don’t need funds for engineering because everything is already good. We have a ton of work left todo to get to these goals. That’s a big part of the plan - improve the situation, the software, the SDKs, etc.
After careful consideration I don’t believe the ECC and ZF restriction has to be encoded in the ZIP. I can, as a ZCG member, make a statement and do some expectation setting that I am unlikely to consider approving an ECC and ZF grant proposal before the lockbox has been resolved but would evaluate any proposals on a case-by-case basis. It’s my belief that other ZCG members may also take the outstanding lockbox funds into account when making their decisions.
I will begin the process of collaborating on the Hybrid Deferred Development Fund to ensure the Zcash community has the strongest path forward towards grant based distribution of funds into the future with the intention of withdrawing my proposal. I will keep everyone updated. (cc @aquietinvestor)
I believe my proposal closely aligns with the Hybrid Deferred Development Fund, with the primary difference being a larger allocation to ZCG. This adjustment primarily aims to lift the funding restrictions on ECC and ZF. Removing these restrictions, while still providing ZCG with less than $1 million USD per year, and considering the overhead and administrative costs of becoming independent under FPF, would place an impossible strain on the ZCG budget. A $500k grant request from ECC or ZF, coupled with the new overhead costs of becoming independent, would almost completely consume the ZCG issuance for 2025 (at current prices).
Therefore, we face a choice: * Increase the issuance to ZCG within the Hybrid Deferred Development Fund: This would ensure sufficient funds to remove the restrictions on ZF and ECC. * Maintain the ZF and ECC restrictions: Considering it’s likely that lockbox funds would eventually flow to ECC and/or ZF through some grants based model in the future this seems like a reasonable compromise.
If we can agree on a middle ground, I would consider withdrawing my ZIP in support of the Hybrid Deferred Dev Fund ZIP. This approach could help simplify the NU6 upgrade path and focus on what I believe is in the best interest of the community.
4.2 million ZEC was issued to miners between 2020 and 2024. How much has the network security and prevention of 51% attacks been worth over that time? What should 1 ZEC be worth?
Between 2024 and 2028, the total block reward is scheduled to be 2.625 million ZEC.
If ZEC is at $20, 100% will be worth $52.5 million.
50% of the block reward is 1.3125 million ZEC. If ZEC is at $100, this 50% will be worth $131.25 million.
Miners don’t care about how many ZEC they mine, they care about the fiat value of the ZEC they mine.
The 50% lockbox idea reduces the supply of ZEC across the board. Given how much was already put into circulation through miners and the Founder’s Reward in particular, maybe a move towards greater scarcity is too little too late. The 50% lockbox should have been tried much earlier ;9.
Maybe the devfund orgs should liquidate all their non-ZEC assests and buy ASICs ;9 I estimate there are about 20,000 individual ASIC machines mining ZEC right now. Someone check my estimate?
Agree . Allowing ASICs to takeover was probably the biggest mistake in the first 8 years. I’d love to see the block reward for CPU and/or GPU dialed up over time and the ASIC reward reduced to 0 gradually over time. I don’t have the bandwidth to work on it much myself. But, that question should be revisited. A lot of people point to the difference in adoption and price of Monero versus Zcash with various theories. I would point to ASIC-resistance as a top contender.
1 year grace period for ASIC miners then we go to Hybrid CPU/GPU mining & POS
50% cpu/gpu mining
30% pos staking
20% lock-box (if this remains as per community consensus)
in future it can be
50% cpu/gpu mining
50% pos staking
no t-address t-pool sapling pool TEX-address
ta ra zcash becomes true cypher punk project
and post-quantum protected coin-voting ZSA wrapped coins stable-coins meme coins smart contracts inheritances can solve the 21 mil zcash security budget with on-chain fees
Are there any websites or apps already trying to build with Zcash who we might be able to work with to build a proof of concept and get early feedback?
. Allowing ASICs to takeover was probably the biggest mistake in the first 8 years. I’d love to see the block reward for CPU and/or GPU dialed up over time and the ASIC reward reduced to 0 gradually over time. I don’t have the bandwidth to work on it much myself. But, that question should be revisited. A lot of people point to the difference in adoption and price of Monero versus Zcash with various theories. I would point to ASIC-resistance as a top contender.