Funding caps on the dev fund slice

[mistfpga]

Hi @zooko and @joshs ,

Are funding caps on the dev fund slice still an issue for you? on the up coming MGRC candidate live streams, this is one of the major questions. Do I need to prepare an answer for this?

Should the MGRC move a portion of funds into a ‘savings’ account to fund larger unforeseen projects, or to hedge against another bear market? Should MGRC diversify these funds? Should these funds be ‘invested’ somehow?

Or will the ECC still block it with the trademark?

Im pro cap btw, but i thought if we capped one slice we had to cap them all or it wasn’t a level playing field and there wasn’t enough incentive alignment (i might me misremembering what you said here.) Im sure there were other reasons too. @mhluongo I remember you were anti cap, I don’t suppose you remember the finer points?

edit: funding caps were in 1012 and the first iteration of 1014 but removed for final.

New 1014 with caps: - Presenting a Modified ZIP 1012 - zcash foundation

ECC Response: - Dev Funds Should Be in Zcash, Not United States Dollars - Electric Coin Company

Community poll - Polling Community Sentiment on ZIP 1014 - zcash foundation

which give us this:

Using this ZIP as a basis, should there be a US Dollar-denominated Monthly Funding Cap/Volatility Reserve for the shares to ECC, ZF, and Major Grants or should there be no restrictions? Note that ECC has indicated they plan to decline their funding if a US Dollar-denominated funding cap is imposed, while ZF has indicated that they have no issue with a funding cap. We are not measuring your approval of the specific amount of the Monthly Funding Cap in the ZIP; we are interested in your approval of the concept as a whole. The exact cap can be set by processes outlined in the ZIP.

There SHOULD NOT be a Monthly Funding Cap and Volatility Reserve
There SHOULD be a Monthly Funding Cap and Volatility Reserve
Either option is acceptable

There SHOULD NOT be a Monthly Funding Cap and Volatility Reserve

was the option that won the vote. Primarily because the ECC said they would refuse their portion of the slice.

So we dont have a voliatily reseve. I think it is a good idea. Instead, the options we discussed were getting funding from grant recipients, via different methods, primarly some kind of profit share. however, it was though this might encourage greater awards to profit based grants, this is why tromer made the post about “seeking to fund things that dont make a profit.”

[Autotunafish]

Those arguements were about principles and I think the irrevocable accountability requirements concerning how spending the slice funds occours i.e. limited to employee salaries, day2day ops etc. (to the point where the ECC is on par with NP’s) works nicely
Principles are important to have and the expertise the ECC brings to the table was worth grinding out a compromise IMHO

[mistfpga]

@Autotunafish

Principles are important to have and the expertise the ECC brings to the table was worth grinding out a compromise IMHO

I agree. I voted to keep the ECC. its just can we now cap the mgrc slice? I dont see how, and you cant do any form of saving as the mgrc unless the slice is capped. which the zip explicitly forbids… so idk.

[Autotunafish]

I would agree with the rationale of limiting if (the aforementioned ECC things were different and if) the MGRC did not operate under the legal administration (which is to say the authority) of the ZFND

[daira]

(Speaking for myself.)

I’m not sure why there’s any question of reopening this? It was a deal breaker for ECC and it was clearly voted down, for all of the slices.