I think the difference comes from the numbers from the transparency report $750k (current) if i remember right and the $1M announced at Zcon1 (future).
Yes exactly and I was referring to this recent post: https://electriccoin.co/blog/electric-coin-company-statement-on-sustainability/
Is it possible to have future dev funding be rewarded based on USD and not ZEC? What if ZEC price appreciates greatly?
I think there might be a couple of proposals based around that idea. I am not 100% sure though.
If you read through them and don’t find anything you think is what you are getting at I am happy to help write one up with you, that does convey your ideas.
It could be a full proposal or more of a mechanism which can be incorporated into other proposals. I don’t mind. If you are willing to put some effort in, so will I.
PM me or start a thread and @ me and we can go from there.
The more options there is to pick from the more likely the ECC will/can find some that work.
edit: I can see a few problems with your idea, but I also see massive advantages. I would like to discuss it further, can you start a thread? I think a lot of people would have some opinion on it (and I am sure it has been mentioned before)
I am not associated with the ECC/Foundation or any 3rd party. I am a humble community member just like yourself.
Thats a really good point, wether we like it not all the things that need funding operate in the ‘fiat world’ and will do for many years to come.
Starting to believe funding from block rewards really should go via ZF who become the gateway to fiat spends.
It’d need a sunset/expiration because that shouldn’t last forever (same reasons as for the FR) & the 501c3 would have to change etc. Careful thought on governance & use of multisig etc.
See the Placeholder proposal here and specifically: Placeholder Considerations: Resources, Governance, and Legitimacy in NU4
one more observation. i haven’t seen in current funding zips any mentions about possible cut for estabilishing a bug bounty program. maybe its not appropriate decide about spendings above operational level, but since this discussion is about everything related, why not? even monero has its own bug bounty program. i’ve seen questions about possible bug bounties were raised numerous times at zcash github, here and at other resources. so, maybe this time? its relatively not expensive way to bring more security and confidence in zcash. i dont understand why its not obvious, that except money outflows and price action, the main negative impact on zcash by now is lack of confidence in tech. more bugs/rces discovered and fixed in time - more confidence.
ofc if all this funding saga is not an attempt to prolong siphoning of resources to prolong expenditures for endless development for the sake of endless development and donating technology to the third parties.
Initially, if it mattered, it would have already been implemented in the first 4 years, now it is not as well as in principle a report on the work done, you can do nothing at all in principle and still receive money, there is no quality control because there is no goal analyze, therefore, even now this mechanism will not work, even the fact that such a method of discussing renewals was chosen, when a person has to write something, so that his ideas could be discussed is a hidden filter, because not many can do that. For various reasons, only proposals from the fund itself and from the company, perhaps a few more from simple supporters, will be correctly made.
It was necessary to initially set a condition (perhaps several options) for discussion, and then come to a consensus. Everything has been decided long ago, everyone can relax and enjoy the process, the fund will receive at least 20% of the block in the next period, the ECC will be hired, the coin will be developed, because if someone does not support this decision, you will need to take the risk that the coin will die, and the invetora will not be delighted, the rest will not care, the recipients of the reward against exactly will not.
I understand the position of the company and the fund, I just don’t like it, but when they cannot be reproached with this best position, they didn’t promise anything, everything will go on its own way, it’s good that they don’t have any risks, I’m sure that the team has no possibility of losing bonuses in case of failure, of course, this does not mean that they are not trying, I believe that their contribution is the largest in the industry, and as was rightly noted, if not zcash, you will not be without work.
i can articulate this and other state of things in a couple of harsh words, and add a bit more, but i’ll leave this for other media resources. as far as this board is designed for polite mental gymnastics, and involved parties are participating these discussions, why not join a game.
Livestream happening right now, btw:
I haven’t been involved in any Zcash bug bounty discussions, but it’s worth noting that ECC has had the codebase professionally audited. I think multiple times? Having both would be ideal, but there may be constraints that I’m not aware of.
Heres the recent audits
I dont think theres a bounty program but there are starter zips (ill find them)
Here ya go
The community is clearly divided on this decision across a variety of social media outlets.
Let’s reflect back on the historical split of BTC/BCH and compare this to our situation:
- At the time of the split, the size of the community on r/Bitcoin was approximately 300k subscribers. In contrast we have less than 16k subscribers as of this post on r/zec
- During the BTC/BCH fork, there was a disagreement in the community on how to proceed with scaling. In contrast, we have a disagreement on funding. A change with no beneficial impact for the user
My questions regarding this situation to the ECC and Zcash Foundation is as follows:
- Where is the on-going effort to secure funding without fracturing our small community and losing trust among the greater crypto ecosystem?
- If the excuse for funding is “oh we can’t predict the market”, then why do we proceed with a developer tax in which the valuation of the underlying asset can and will only remain speculative?
- Suppose we move forward with developer tax and the price of zcash burns due to loss of trust. Well then where’s the stream of funds for development?
I strongly suggest we move attention towards external sources of funding without impacting the protocol and hitting the reset button on our community
I seriously wonder how many people opposing continued miner rewards for dev funding own any ZEC at all.
This is going to be a long one (sorry)… the livestream chat gave me the urge to write stuff down.
The ‘should continue funding from block rewards’ issue is very clear for me. Things cost money to make, insanely complicated things cost even more and I really want to see layer one scaling happen. Probably not a surprise for anyone who reads my posts
People (the ‘not-nerdy-variety’) underestimate what scaling means, whats required to make it happen and what it provides. Its far more important than just ‘making it bigger & faster’, its an essential thing if you want the project to survive more than a decade.
Without adequate funding scaling wont happen, so yes, we should fund it.
Everything that needs funding has to pay expenses in fiat but the ZECUSD price is completely unpredictable. This guarantees any block reward based scheme will miss its target fiat amount, under or over, probably by a lot, every month, forever.
Funding via a tax on blocks is the cleanest & simplest method but connecting that to the real world needs a gateway, a trusted and transparent organisation which :-
- receives ZEC from blocks
- pays agreed fiat-value amounts in ZEC to approved recipients (ie: ECC dev costs)
- holds a strategic reserve if the ZEC price goes up
- stops paying out if the ZEC price goes down & reserves are depleted
The organisation doing this would have to be focused on governance, have a compatible mission, be accountable, completely transparent, and focused on what the community wants. We already have one…right ?
ZFnd have said (repeatedly) that they don’t want the job, which in my opinion makes them perfect. If they wanted to do it I would be very worried, but if tasked with it they would do an excellent job.
I think its a role ZFnd should accept, one the community (however we measure that!) can give them. It would change their 501c3 status but does that really matter? Shouldn’t they adapt to what the community/project needs?
I don’t think this is a role ZFnd should have forever, but its something they do until ZEC reserves from block funding are depleted and as that wont last forever its not really a problem.
Just my 2 zats worth… sorry for the long post
The 501c3 status is important to me, theyre held to more stringent requirements than private charities (you should read about ot) which in itself is a governing mechanism which goes beyond hoping that future members’ values align with that of the projects but ensures it more because there’s literally nothing else to gain which is isnt always the case for a private charity, it may not appear so but could lead to seriously radical changes and I must oppose (my proposal is dead for this very reason, I hope Prof. Miller is right about the choice thing but the second conflict of interest issue of non nuetrality is cut and dry, not gonna work)
I couldnt agree more on your final statement. I was on Youtube throughout the full 3 hours listening in, and it seems there is a wall being hit at every intersection, sort of speak.
Bascially from what i gather out of the livestream is the irony of “PRICE IS NOT IMPORTANT” nobility everyone seems to preach in crypto LOL. Well there you have it everyone, price is important in this major pickle Zcash finds itself in. I was actually feeling the pain throughout those 3 hours.
A higher ZEC price would solve a mountain of problems. But unfortunately price volatility is unpredictable. If price stays at current levels or goes lower, 1.1million that ECC is requesting will cause huge sell pressure on price and could even exceed the 20% share taken from the miners. But after that, what about the ZF? Will they be funded by the $1.1 million? Doubtful since Zooko choose to go ALL IN and to push forward.
These are my thoughts i gathered from the livestream:
We could grant the 20% to ECC, hoping price will go up and remains at good levels, hoping they will deliver on revolutionary scalable L1 tech, hoping they will be more accountable and more transparent to the community with their spendings and bonuses, hoping there will be a piece of the pie left for ZF, hoping we wont hit major speed bumps down the road due to regulators - at the idea of ‘privacy by default’ on L1.
We keep status-quo and whatever happens happens. The current tech speaks for itself and is remarkable, maybe community members will come in participate in the growth of Zcash. Basically working on donations, similar to Monero and how the Litecoin Foundation operates.
We can take the approach of Decred: 90% to miners - 10% to the Foundation. I understand the Foundation would prefer not to be a single entity supporting Zcash, BUT, for the sake of the Zcash’s future success for generations to come, it is time to grow a pair (sorry). ECC is asking for wayyyy too much money, and indirectly saying “its their way or the highway”. ZF can always employ competent people in various positions, as well as staff from the ECC, as well as focus on a strong marketing team in parallel, and keep working on community grants. This will promote much more decentralization and more community involvement.
ECC could find further funding through external sources. Somehow i dont believe that offers haven’t presented themselves in recent months. Or, they could accept to make compromises on their request, without impacting too much the tech or cutting down on staff, or business growth of Zcash.
In terms of listing on exchanges, marketing, business development they have done great work in the past 3 years. In terms of technology breakthrough, i cannot say given i’m not tech savy, but why keep on shipping code if its clear that Bitcoin core protocol is not scalable? and why not focusing more on z2z txn’s via mobile wallets? it seems like things have been moving quite slowly as if they’re stalling throughout this period of uncertainty.
I am sure in the end all will work out, as it always does. The important thing is for all parties to be well intentioned and to all share the same vision and interests of the project and the community.
I agree that what ZFnd has to do to keep their 501c3 status is very desirable.
Here’s a further thought - ZEC reserves are held in multisig and cannot be spent on ZFnd costs… that could be enough to preserve their status.
EDIT: Doesn’t prevent ZFnd & ECC from colluding (ie: pay me & I pay you) so far from perfect. Transparent & accountable plus appropriate changes to their bylaws might work.
I’d much rather see this scenario as well if we were to continue a block subsidy. There is less of an ulterior motive at play as opposed to directly funding ECC.
I’m talking more about how the money actually gets to them is the tricky part, it cannot be mandated in any way (this refers to that choice thing which isnt exactly clear) and it cannot come from the ECC (no question)
Otherwise they’re on their own basically
The only reason they have any sort of guaranteed funding now is because there is a large group of Trustees who believe in the project
Its complicated because the trust system like now and the trust less system like how we want are completely incompatible