Would love to, thank you!
I support all the nominations. Thanks @David_Heisenberg for bringing them forward
I would like to nominate the below individuals from The Equilibrium Group & Eiger to be added to ZCAP. All have either been ZCG grant recipients, are currently working with Shielded Labs on the Zcash Sustainability Fund, or are active members of the Zcash community.
I would also like to nominate the below individuals to be added to ZCAP. They are all active members of the Zcash community.
Spanish / Venezuela Community Members
its a honor added on Zcap team, all community can talk to me to solve all we need from community!
I’m not sure it is ethical for you to be nominating 17 additional people to join ZCAP (over 10% of total current members) when you have made it more than clear that your goal is to plug Shielded Labs, your organisation, directly into the dev fund when ZCAP votes on it next year:
But hey, unlikely that that would be the least ethical thing that has ever happened in relation to Zcash governance or the Zcash dev fund so why not, just go for it I guess.
I was under the impression that anyone could nominate members for ZCAP. The 16 individuals I nominated are all active members of the Zcash community and, imo, all deserve a spot on ZCAP. I’ll leave it up to ZF to decide whether me (a ZCG member and director of Shielded Labs) nominating them is unethical or presents a conflict of interest. If so, I hope other ZCAP members will step up to nominate them and other active community members because I think ZCAP should be expanded to better reflect the community.
Sure mate, there’s now way what you did could come across as an obvious attempt to facilitate building a winning coalition in ZCAP for when the community votes whether to plug your organisation directly to the dev fund, or not.
I mean, is not like the 17 people you nominated, if added, would represent 10% of the ZCAP votes.
It’s just hard for me to grasp what kind of behaviours are ethical and which aren’t, so totally my bad, clearly.
I think it’s a fair point that you’re raising. Not many community members are nominating new ZCAP members, and expanding ZCAP should be a priority. If ZF, for example, played a more active role in adding people to ZCAP, one could potentially argue that they’re “building a winning coalition in ZCAP” since they’re also dev fund recipients. So what’s the solution? Any ideas @Chammy?
Get rid of the dev fund.
It would be an honor to share our experience and discuss the best for the ecosystem. If I am asked by ZCAP, voting or not, it will be done and will continue to be done.
What are the criteria for becoming a ZCAP member? Whatever those criteria are, I think these names meet them, regardless of who’s nominating them. They’re all active community members who care about Zcash, and those facts can be independently verified by anyone. The arguments for their inclusion should (and I believe do) stand on their own, regardless of who’s doing the nominating. Perhaps you could suggest some more people to nominate?
I second the notion that adding devfund recipient to the zcap is dubious when their members will likely decide on the future of the devfund.
I think having clear baseline eligibility criteria like @Dodger posted near the beginning of this thread is a good start. The formal criteria make sense to me (invite open to forum members longer than a certain period, speakers at ZCONs, grant recipients with completed milestones, etc.). When additional candidates are nominated that don’t quite meet those criteria or it’s during a random time when there is not an official ZCAP expansion period, an open discussion can be had for why they should be included (like I did and Jason has done recently and further back with opening up the discussion for TG member inclusion).
One area where things get murkier is when ZCAP is used to decide on pan-Zcash issues (like the Dev Fund) versus for community input to ZF matters. While there doesn’t seem to be any conflict of interest if DF recipients are on ZCAP when advising on ZF-only issues, if a majority of ZCAP were DF recipients, polls dealing with the Dev Fund could be seen as less legitimate in this case since the majority of people would be voting to keep their own funding.
One possible solution is to make two voting bodies - one for ZF issues and one for pan-Zcash issues. The latter should be self-administering similar to a parliament or congress and perhaps contain certain rules to cap the percentage of members who are DF recipients to <50%.
As I previously acknowledged, you make a fair point, and I formally withdraw all nominations. My only intention was to get active members of the community participating in governance, but I agree that the optics are bad since I am both a ZCG member and director of Shielded Labs.
ZCAP should be further expanded to better reflect the community, and I hope other community members will step up to nominate well-deserving, qualified members.
How is this not a conflict of interest? You should be resigning from ZCG if you are actively trying to create an organization that will be funded by ZEC holders. I see corporate fraud all the time. And these types of “related party” transactions are one of the major red flags.
And ZCG governance is non existent if they knowingly allow this. What’s the point of governance if its just a free for all.
The criteria for eligibility is made clear in the OP:
I was just nominating these individuals, not adding them to ZCAP. It is for ZF to decide if they are eligible to serve (and if I am eligible to nominate). Also, nominations are done publicly on the forum to give community members an opportunity to object.
Why are my posts being hidden?
Did I say anything that was a lie or that is wrong?
Why does the people running Zcash hate it so much when they are called on on their blatant mismanagement of the project?
If you zodlers don’t take all of this as an enormous red flag, then you deserve what’s certainly coming to you.
I hope you wise up in time.
As I informed you in a private message, your posts have been hidden because they constitute a personal attack on Jason. Edit them if you don’t want them to be deleted.
Don’t ascribe malintent to others’ actions without evidence.
A post was split to a new topic: Moderation feedback