I’m glad you brought this up, I also found this appalling. Hesitance to hire and be independent due to the cost, when you’re managing $70mil? They need to reconsider this decision.
These numbers are already out of date with the massive increase in grant requests and associated grant and ZCG administration. As has been said over and over on this Forum and elsewhere, circumstances have materially changed in the last few months and that applies to this analysis as well. A quick review of the May 18 recommendation shows that since the report was drafted the administrative burden for FPF/ZCG has increased exponentially and continues to do so with record numbers of grants submitted and an associated increase in support required.
Depending on the ultimate outcome of the various ZIPS/proposals/etc we plan to re-analyze in 2027 and we’ll share those findings with the community. FPF is very clear on our role as administrators of ZCG and we take that role very seriously.
6 Likes
What does the process for this getting passed look like? How does it happen? It seems there is broad community agreement. Coinholders would pass it. What are the next steps? Does the debate simply stay open ended for another x period of time?
1 Like
Administrators stamp of stamp
F for fiduciaries, correct?
I think Zooko raises a very valid concern here.
When ZEC was trading at much lower prices, the financial situation was very different. Now, with 1 ZEC worth around $1,200, we’re talking about enormous amounts of money. 50,000 ZEC alone represents roughly $60 million.
I believe ZCG should become much more selective about which projects receive funding.
Rather than funding projects simply because they submit a proposal, grants should be evaluated based on what Zcash actually needs, their potential contribution to the ecosystem and measurable long-term results.
Education, adoption and development are all important, but funding should go to projects that can demonstrate real value.
The goal shouldn’t be to spend the available funds. It should be to use them wisely for Zcash’s future.
1 Like
I can understand why you’re concerned, Zooko. The amount of money involved is huge now, and I agree that something needs to change.
But I wonder if stopping the funding stream is the best solution. Couldn’t we first make the grant process more selective and focus on projects that Zcash actually needs?
I think protecting the treasury is important, but so is helping Zcash reach more people.
Maybe there’s a middle ground here. We don’t have to choose between responsible spending and growing the ecosystem.
1 Like
Hey, so, this isn’t really a fair way to characterize the ZCG grant application process. I read the meeting minutes pretty consistently–the Committee doesn’t rubber stamp applications and there’s a history of applicants getting rejected or not receiving the full amount they’re requesting.
I’d be curious to understand how you define what Zcash actually needs. Would you be able to elaborate? Assuming this ZIP passes, we’ll still need to develop criteria and a mechanism for withdrawing funds from the lockbox, so it’d be helpful to have a framework and metrics we can stand up around the process, and I’d love to better understand how you’re approaching this.
How are you defining real value? I’d argue that education/adoption and development provide a lot of value because it expands the user base and funds important development work. This is honesly me just not knowing–where else could funds be deployed if not for adoption or development?
Absolutely agree there’s no urgency around draining the available funds, but I don’t think anyone is arguing for that. Everything still requires a process. For example, even if you had 100 new applications filed on a weekly basis, the ZCG Committee would still need to review, ecosystem stakeholders would have an opportunity to comment and raise questions, and the Committee would then need to deliberate and vote, with meeting minutes being circulated after.
I think there are two questions here: What does the process look like, and what are the next steps?
Zcash governance relies on public discussion and polling to gauge sentiment and assess whether there’s rough consensus.
Anyone can submit a proposal through the ZIP process, and the community discusses it publicly. We’re at that stage now: people are putting forward ideas about what should happen to ZCG, and the community is discussing the benefits and drawbacks of each.
Next, we’ll work with the development organizations (Project Tachyon, Shielded Labs, Valar Group, the Zcash Foundation, and ZODL) to define the poll questions and possible answers, then share them publicly for feedback. Community panels (including ZCAP, the Engineering Caucus, ZecHub, and regional groups) and coinholders will then participate in the polls.
Afterward, the development organizations will publish and interpret the results to assess whether there’s rough consensus. If there isn’t, none of the proposals will move forward, and the protocol will remain unchanged. If rough consensus does emerge, engineering teams will coordinate implementation in the Zebra and Zakura node software, and the development organizations will work together to determine when to target a network upgrade.
Ultimately, the change takes effect as network participants adopt the updated software. That includes miners, exchanges, node operators, and users choosing which wallet software to run. If they choose different software, the network could fork.
I’ll reach out to the development organizations now to move this process forward and determine the timeline for polling.
2 Likes
I believe the RCG vote will take place next month anyways, so why not couple them?