Future of Zcash dev funding — megathread / everything in one place

You are correct, it wasn’t in the original plan for the FR.

Remember, doing nothing and funding expiring is the default and will happen unless members of the community rally support for some sort of change to the codebase. And even after a change has been proposed, it’s still up to the node operators/miners to choose if they want to run the software. The ECC or Foundation can’t force users to run anything.

Don’t feel frustrated, we all know this is a polarizing issue and different opinions are bound to cause some friction. I would suggest posting your thoughts on the proposal (as @boxalex has) in that thread so new users just visiting can see both sides of the story.


I think you may be thinking of a post by @acityinohio Josh where he said the Foundation does not want to be only receiver of a potential developers fund.

I don’t think that means they would refuse partial custody/responsibility for distribution of a fund. Perhaps @amiller could clarify

Edit: here is the post from Josh I was thinking of:

There is nothing bad about having different views, different opinions and even having a lot of friction. The thing i don’t agree is how different proposals are differently traited. Unpopolar for the ECC below 20% reward proposals don’t get a a tweet by ECC and as it seems a lot of employess of the ECC and for some strange reason even from the Foundation.

Maybe we have different visions on what a fair discussion, fair election/voting means or should mean. Hence why i wrote this is getting a farce. IF only favoured by the ECC/Foundations/its employees/it’s stake holders proposals get “advertised” and made available to the wide public than i consider this an absolutly unfair process.

I quoted the text autotunafish has linked as he referred to this.

Ok, that post from May 29th makes his statement clear:

Fine, still leaves the question why nobody from the foundation commented this for 20 days to find a possible solution for this?

We can change this proposal to make the foundation 75% receiver and the ECC 25% and it would fit into point a.) he made.

Now i’am more than curious what happened with point c.). From what i can see the proposal the foundation favours doesn’t have such opt-in mechanism while this proposal here has one. Seems point c.) doesn’t matter much…

I appreciate your efford shawn, but something is not right …

Perhaps for fairness, the ECC could agree to also tweet each proposal? Or tweet all ZIPs after they have been submitted for consideration?

What do you think @joshs

1 Like

This proposal has been updated and been edit:

Changes made:

Edit: This proposals has been updated after i got aware that the foundation does NOT want to be the sole recepient. The change consists of 75% opt-in or mandatory dev fee go directly to the foundation, 25% go to the ECC.

With these changes ALL 3 main points of the Foundations "to be supported requrements are meat!

The Foundation would only support proposals that:

a) don’t rely on the Foundation being a single gatekeeper of funds
b) don’t change the upper bound of ZEC supply
c) have some kind of opt in mechanism for choosing to disburse funds (from miners and/or users)

Yes, we will gladly tweet a link to a summary with links to all the ZIPs when they have been submitted.

Box, why not 75% foundation 25% block distribution? its cool, this is a non issue. I got it covered already in my proposal.

I bet this is not going to happen. Only proposals with a 20% continued founders reward will get a show case place on the offical twitter accounts…

This should have been the solution from beginning without favouring publicy any proposal.

And meanwhile continue to popularize ECC’s favourite proposals on twitter and/or other social media?

Hi, sorry, I didn’t realize this was going to be a point of confusion but I should have. There are two reasons why the Zcash Foundation doesn’t want to be the sole recipient or steward of dev funding. One is that would negate the decentralizing effect of having multiple institutions, which was among the reasons to create the Foundation. The other is that it could raise legal risks, but we held this stance [edit: on being a single point of failure for dev fund distribution] before starting to examine the specifics of how that might play out.

I’m pulling the tweets from @ZcashFoundation about dev funding proposals and will report back here soon. It may take a little while. But then we can all review them together.

1 Like

Yesm, it caused confusion, even more the 100% to foundation proposal stays here over 20 days without any response by the foundation why this is still not a prefered solution for the foundation and a clear NO, we won’t support a pure “foundation funding proposal” would have given time to change the proposal way more in-time and fine tune it better. However, i edited the proposal anyay due the foundation stance and now it’s 75% foundation and 25% which should be fine with the foundations requirement NOT to be the sole recepient.

Thx, i think this is the only way to garantee a fair voting/polling/election for given prosposals without favouring in advance any given one.

1 Like

I understand that concern. I made that call because the level of research in that post is exceptional and I thought the research would be beneficial for the community as they consider funding options. We will happily surface ZIP submissions on company social media accounts per my previous note, but we also reserve the right to elevate thoughtful information and research for the benefit of the community.

1 Like

Okay here ya go. I am personally accountable for all of these because I run the Foundation Twitter account. I scrolled back to April 23 (unfortunately couldn’t just use search). Hopefully didn’t miss anything, but others should feel free to double-check. Listing direct tweets first, then RTs.


I could have sworn that we also retweeted Andrew’s own tweet about this, but I couldn’t find it. Ran some searches on his tweets for “funding” but that didn’t turn it up either. Possibly I’m just misremembering.





And the retweets:





That said, @boxalex you’ve also mentioned concerns about engagement on the forum.

That’s sort of a grey area, IMO. For example, I use this account to make announcements on behalf of the Foundation and answer questions about our work, but I also use it to generally participate in the conversation. It hasn’t seemed to cause problems so far, but maybe I should make a separate @ZcashFoundation account for announcements? Or be really clear with disclaimers about whether I’m speaking for the Foundation or myself. I try to do that informally through phrasing (“Personally, I think…”) but perhaps it isn’t enough :thinking:

Think people are reading way too much into what a ‘like’ or a ‘tweet’ means…

I don’t tweet but I did ‘like’ a funny cat video this morning - doesn’t mean I think the cat has the answer for dev funding.

Placeholder’s contribution was really excellent, not sure I agree with all of it but they’ve certainly raised the standard for these proposals.


Moved some chatter over from @boxalex’s proposal thread. Alex, I’m pinging you in case you want to duplicate your comment about stepping away, which was still related to the proposal specifically, back on the original thread.

What are the next steps for the community at this point? convert those proposals to ZIPS? then?

  • every proposal has it’s own reasoning, some are better formulated, some less good, but every proposal has a reasoning that supports the idea and rationale behind the proposal. You have just choosen one that fits perfectly your wishes. Hence i call it an unfair advantage for this very exact proposal and an unfair popularization to the wider community/public using social media accounts by the ECC and it’s employeess which followers of course again re-tweet it…

Having in mind the stance for months by the ECC that they do NOT want to make a own proposals, leave everything to the community a sudden such popularization of a favourited proposal which is obviously the best financing proposal for the ECC leaves a lot of room for calling such behavour “Conflict of interest” and giving a proposal a huge advantage over every other.

IF the ECC is indeed interested in a fair process where the wide community can discuss, fine tune, whatever differerent proposals and in gaining a lot of different community voices than the only acceptable, fair and honest method is to use a link to ALL proposals. This should fit the ECC even better if it has honest intentions as the community this way has access to different opinions, different proposals, different thoughts and as a result the community will benefit way more.

IF this is your intention i suggest you:
a.) Remove the link to the very favoured so far proposals on all ECC, ECC employee accounts.
b.) make a tweet for asking the community to participate in reviewing, discussing ALL different proposals.
c.) stay very away from favouring, populrazation, spreading, discussing, whatever any single selected proposal.

I double checked and found 2 tweets/re-tweets going/show-casing 2 proposals by the foundation directly. Both 20% dev funding. This clearly underlines my claim that some proposals get or got a showcase place on various social media accounts, be it ECC, foundation, foundation members or ECC employess or Zooko’s account. Each with a reach to the wider public of course.

Of course there arise concerns when there is a very sensible “competition” with various proposals over the very funding that by the wishes of the foundation & ECC should be made by the community.
When a sudden the foundation and/or ECC is more engaged in proposals that “fit” their wish it’s discouraging every other proposal maker.

I agree the placeholders proposal is an excellent one, well written, professional written and put information supporting their cause well placed into it, no matter other important information is avoided.

I agree as well that each of the concerns i have raised, what you call “read to much into the lines” could be true if it was only a “single signal”, but it’s not, hence i finally raise the question and ask for “fair play”

Let’s again analyze every single signal i personally see that leads FINALLY to a conflict!

  • Likes. Some proposals get ECC likes, some not. Seriously, if there weren’t other signals i never ever would have mentioned this as it’s indeed a such minor issue that under normal circumstances it’s not worth mentioning. On the other side, each proposal was made by someone that puts a lot of time & thoughts & even ideas into it.

  • Contribution by officials on various proposals. Shouldn’t each proposal get the help needed to make it a valid one? Some proposals have official ECC/Foundation contribution/discussing/clearing things up, some others are literally ignored by the foundation/ECC. For example in one proposal i see contribution that corrects literally every comma and clears up 10’s of things. On the other side my proposal favouring the foundation as the recepient nobody thinks it’s necessary even to mention that the foundation does not want to be the sole recepient and wouldn’t support such proposal for 20 days.
    There are much more examples but i will stick to this one.

  • Than we have the tweets. Taking for example Placeholders and aristarchus proposals, both favouring a 20% dev fee. These both are the proposals that got the privilege to be in the ECCs/Foundations showcase and not only:

  • Aristarchus 20% dev fee proposal as well visible at: Foundation (removed now), Andrew Miller, Zooko for example

  • Placeholders 20% dev fee proposal as well visible at Foundation (removed now), Elise Hamdon (ECC), Josh Swiheart (ECC). Yesterday there have been more official re-twitts, seems several “affilated” Foundation/ECC members removed it by now.

  • NO other proposal got a showcase!

Now someone of course could say, no big deal at all. It is a big deal if choosen proposals get showcase positions on the ECC 76k follower account. It would be the same if you had elections somewhere and and favoured person for the government gets advertising clusered all over the country and the rival candiates get only exposure in the last abondanded village in alaska.
Hence i mention it so this stops to garantee a fair discussion and proposal process without foreup favoured proposals that manipulate or could manipulate the wider community, especially the part of the community that is not that much involved in details.

All i’am asking is for fair play, fair discussion, fair handling, fair engaging, fair considering, fair help, fair election/polling/voting. IF that’s too much asked than the whole process is nothing more than a farce.
In my opinon asking for fair & equal treatment of the anyway very few proposals isn’t asked too much.


People want money, what’s wrong with that, they will get it because the development of the coin depends only on them and not on the community. I have already written like that in other topics, everything is only getting worse.
Investors (zec buyers) will be poor, coin makers are rich, no one is interested in this coin, see who retweets and likes posts, employees of the Fund and ECC, well, people who somehow depend on zec. All these loud speeches about the right thing are no more than words until there is movement, but it is not there yet, and that, yes, nothing, there is not. Progress of 3 years is under threat because several people against 20% of production in the next 4 years, and who made the team that there would be no threat of lack of finance in the first 4 years, nothing. Now the company for choosing the strategy for the next 4 years, most of all PR for the first 3, why, to continue to spend on subsidies.
There is no detailed analysis of the required amount of funds for the next 4 years. I have already asked that after halving, even if the 20% of the production is observed, there will be enough results, because they were not enough to halve. Silence. It turns out that they would not accept as a result of the funds, all the same would not be enough. Change the conditions, make a pre-100% on the balance and everything, sell little by little.
No one wants to invest in the team and in the coin, but this would save you from financial issues.
I’ll add that I’m not a hater, I’m just an early investor.
Let the current recipients of the founders award invest their capital accumulated with this coin into its development and receive back money in the value of zec in the next 4 years, I don’t mind (I think everyone would not mind), and that they would experience that there’s no PR and the rise in value, that there is no acceptance, that the coin loses the market going lower and lower in the CMC rating and so on. But they donate nothing, and therefore there is no success, and only we see a bright future at the end of the tunnel.


ATM there is no light at the end of the tunnel, its just a freighttrain coming your way.

We are in the wrong tunnel atm. I think, it should be several Zips combined. Then on the other hand my biggest problem occurs, how to combine them, how to vote on what stays and what has no future.
I stilll stand on the voting proces if that gets inplanted, how ?
1 Zec 1 Vote ?
Community wants something, ECC can overrule ?
Only people who are involved here can vote ?

All mentioned above have flaws, I am aware of that, but didnt realy read a proposal that tackles that in a way that will suit everybody.
On the other hand, on a microlevel everybody has different wishes, Miners are different from Hodlers or Traders, but in the long run alll have the same wish I guess, a Coin that grows to his full potential and has profit for all. ( Yes, Profit, some may not like the word, but in the end this is what is important for all groups involved and I think it’s important that all groups feel equaal in this )

The potential to be a top coin still is here ( just read the interview with the Twins, they still believe big time in Zcash ) But time is running out.
And maybe it’s not my call, but at times where a big fundamental change is going on or needed, This should have top prio of the ECC and not retweeting a friendly fork. And once again, not to bash Ycash, but without Zcash or a damaged Zcash, Ycash will be gone too.

1 Like