The draft’s Rationale says the amount is “about 55% of ZCG’s ZEC” and that ZCG keeps the rest. That describes the number. It doesn’t derive it. Nothing in the ZIP says why 55% is right rather than 30% or 80%.
What has happened in the thread is textbook anchoring. A week ago the default was that ZCG keeps 100% of what it holds. Then “abolish ZCG, send everything to the NSM” went on the table. Now 45% kept reads as moderate, and a “middle of the road compromise”.
A midpoint between two positions isn’t a justification. That’s the argument to moderation. I’m not claiming anyone planned this sequence, but that is its effect, and we should notice it before voting on a number nobody has defended.
The draft’s own math hints at the real target: at $1,300 and $9.4M/yr, 50,000 ZEC leaves about 6.4 years of runway. But a fixed ZEC amount can’t encode a runway target. With the draft’s inputs, six years of runway means donating about 53,000 ZEC at $1,300, about 29,000 at $800, and nothing at $429, June’s price, where ZCG would still be 25,000 ZEC short. Same goal, anywhere from zero to 53,000. It’s a price bet taken at a local high, which is @strahncryptography 's “what if it depreciates?” question.
My position: end the stream, and ZCG keeps what it already holds. Apply the same rule to the coinholder fund: end its 12% stream too, and it keeps what it holds. There’s no reason one grants pot stops accumulating while the other keeps going. That is how the Ethereum Foundation works. Funded once, no issuance, and the pot managed under a published treasury policy in dollar terms rather than given away (EF policy). If the authors want either fund smaller, they should state the goal and derive the number from it. Then there’s something to debate.
(I work at zodl and these are my own opinions)