Founders should only receive 10% of the first halving and beyond

@Voluntary

I can’t tell you how concerned you should be, but perhaps you would be about half as concerned if the investor’s reward was halved in the first four years?

I’m not concerned at all because I can attempt to think the situation through from the investor’s and administrative / devoloper’s point of view.

To put it another way, if I was one of the investors I can see the appeal of a quantifiable return delivered in a fixed time frame. I can see how that might appeal to the developers as well.

а кто девы? Э"з(еленая зеленая T)рава

I’m not sure any ultimately-fixed-quantity coin is capable of NOT ultimately being a Ponzi scheme. Why not make a hash of our DNA our public key, then we start a coin that allows us to give away 100 coins to the public keys of others? It’s not fixed quantity, it’s fixed quantity per person using the coin, and the most loved people get the most power to control social resources. Smart contracts would be needed to enable payment to businesses where each purchase is ultimately transferred back to a DNA account, helping to prevent our machines from taking over.

@abromide Getting back to your focus: I do not know if they could have pulled enough resources together by going so long with so little. But I agree with you that if the scientists and engineers believed from the beginning it will go to $10 per coin in 4 years, they have been paid handsomely, like $1.5 million each. But maybe they want to see it through to $100 and have no desire to sell out in 4 years. Or they may like the privacy and would like to keep it as an asset, and keep working to ensure their investment.

Poramin Insom, Gary Le. Ранее о ребятах ничего не было слышно. Но Роджер Вер профинансировал их на 500 000$

Ponzi schemes reward existing investors with the inputs of new investors and are destined to fail because they are mathematically unsupportable. How does that describe a fixed quantity currency?

1 Like

хм вот это поворот. Странно, что тут zcoin не обсуждается совсем. Если все тоже самое, только без отчислений, то какой смысл участвовать в zcash :confused:

@razdva @Fss Zcoin is not related to Zcash, they do not use the same technology. PSA Zcoin is not Zcash

about Zcoin speech and was not conducted

кстати там тоже 10% инвесторам

pysiek [3:39 PM]
Gary mining distribution spec?

pooh [3:43 PM]
joined #chat. Also, @manugbr93 joined.

gary [4:02 PM]
exact same as ZCash distribution

[4:03]
10% founder reward, distributed over first 4 years

Razda I think the issue discussed on this thread is not the 10% total distributed to investors but instead WHEN it is being distributed (First halving versus last halving). I agree that this question I believe should definitely be answered by someone from the core team of developers because I searched the docs and was not able to find a specific reason for the reward being distributed for the first halving. In my opinion if they are taking such a large total cut of all coins the incentive for developers to work on Z-cash should last past four years.

3 Likes

yeah, i know. No specific reason. Of course it’s not fair and your variant looks better. My opinion they plan not pump/dump. They want pump up to bitcoin price
10% + ,as i think, cheap “early four years botnets coins” It’s looks like ±40% in tight hand and after - full mining control) This is conspiracy theory “Bushido how to get rid of Chinese guy” :expressionless:

1 Like

@squarenapkin has hit the nail on the head. The blog post “Funding, Incentives, and Governance” is extremely uninformative. The post expects those of us devoted to Zcash to goose step into mining and investment while nodding our heads in agreement without any explanation of the 20%.

@zooko

How can such a high-powered team afford to devote years of our lives to this project when everything we’re producing is public, open, and permissionless?

How about a little bit of openness and transparency about the cost of running the Zcash team? Or maybe some honesty about how much of the 20% is going towards scientists/engineers versus investors?

1 Like

Does any other open source project have such obligations to expose its financial details?

Maybe I’m reading it wrong but there seems to be some objection to the involvement of investors. If the developers had been able to colaborate on their own, without the influence of investors, and had made the same or similar decision to pay themselves from a portion of the first four years of block rewards, would this objection still exist?

The coins will be moved relatively quickly to z-addresses. They have to be for security reasons: to leave them unspent would be to create high-value keys as targets for compromise. For the same reason, it is very likely that the Founders’ Reward will be sent to 48 distinct transparent addresses starting from beta 2 (see https://github.com/zcash/zcash/pull/1398 ).

Spends from coinbases, including the Founders’ Reward UTXOs, are required as a consensus rule to have no transparent outputs other than fees. The rationale for this was to improve the systemic privacy and fungibility properties by ensuring that all non-coinbase UTXOs trace back to JoinSplits along all paths, rather than some to a JoinSplit and some to a coinbase. In any case, this will mean that it is not possible to trace when the Founders’ Reward is further spent. [Edit: unless some of the Founders’ choose to prove that their share is unspent, which is technically possible but they are under no obligation to do.]

I make no comment on non-technical issues, except to note as I have done elsewhere that the term “pump and dump” refers to illegal activity that is classed as securities fraud in the US. Full disclosure: as a Zcash developer and indirect shareholder in ZECC, I will receive a share of the Founders’ Reward.

2 Likes

Thanks for the info.

1 Like

@daira

As usual, thank you for your detailed response. Do you have any comment on the distribution model?

My comment on that is: I need to eat (and do many other things that unfortunately require money under capitalism). So does my family, and so do the other developers and their families. I think the funding model we have has been remarkably successful in actually getting Zcash built, which may well not otherwise have happened. Also, I don’t understand the amount of effort that is being spent advocating that we change something bound by contractual obligations, in investor contracts that were finalised long ago.

8 Likes

I’d like to point out that I, as a miner of Zcash with a lot on the line, don’t view the 20% (or 10%, however you want to view it) cut as a loss in efficiency. This provides incentives for the Zcash team to hire great talent, keep great talent, push the coin into markets with speed, keep improving features, and generally contribute to it’s long term success.

I have seen cryptocurrencies with innovation become stagnant due to the main developers not having time to develop or financial leverage to break into new markets. To date the Zcash team has done nothing but impress me with their ability to successfully reach goals, perform in depth analysis on subjects important to the coin, and confront difficult challenges.

Would the coin be 20% worse off without the full team they have working full time? Almost certainly so. We’re already seeing futures at $50.

They do have to continue to prove this worth for us and the community, but it is an undertaking that’s well within their grasp, and so far I believe they have delivered.

I do not believe the Zcash team should have any obligation to reveal the breakdown of funds. Although it would be nice (and I am curious), I don’t expect it.

A clear example is Ripple. While I don’t particularly like Ripple, their total premine used for investors has greatly boosted the coin, fueled it’s integration into a number of banks, and it’s future looks bright. ZCash is infinitely more fair than Ripple, but basically with the same benefits - a “fast track” to development and adoption.

5 Likes

@daira

Once again, we are not focusing on the issue of why the entire 10% is distributed over the course of the first four years instead of an extended period. This keeps happening. We are looking for an answer to a “why” question not a “what” question.

Also, I don’t understand the amount of effort that is being spent advocating that we change something bound by contractual obligations, in investor contracts that were finalised long ago.

The amount of effort put into this is too little. Whenever this question of “why” is brought up, there has been a remarkably impressive success when it comes to deviating from the question. Contracts can be changed, and going long may be a change which would be in both the community’s and investor’s best interest.

I need to eat

I think I will order a pizza. Thanks for the reminder. Easy to get lost in these forums.

@5a1t

I do not believe the Zcash team should have any obligation to reveal the breakdown of funds. Although it would be nice (and I am curious), I don’t expect it.

I agree. Most teams don’t have an obligation to reveal any information about their project, but making some information can be beneficial to all parties. That is why we get access to a white paper, forums for Q&A, etc. It offers benefits to everybody, and transparency on small bits of information on finances (at least the question of Why 20% now?) could be another case of mutually beneficial transparency.

futures at $50.

That’s awesome. Where can I find more information on that?

1 Like