I wasn’t arguing anything I was posing a question.
I just posted a related but different thread about how ECC will publish assessments of the proposals: ECC Dev Fund Proposal Assessments.
I request that proposal authors and anyone interested in weighing in on proposals read that post which clarifies a timeline of when ECC will post an assessment of each proposal.
Meanwhile, as a different but related topic I will continue working with proposal advocates and others to help them all through the ZIP process: Proposal authors, please read: Help making ZIPs
Do you ever wonder what might have happened if Satoshi Nakamoto never left Bitcoin, and he demanded 20% of all the miners fees in perpetuity to keep working on it or quit to make a new coin. Well we are sure to find out soon on zcash economic model.
If ZEC price appreciated 10000x+ I don’t think we would be having the same conversation we are having today. It’s ignorant and lazy to judge Zcash’s funding model by Bitcoin’s
I find it amazing that no one complains about ICO’s funding models that raise 100% of funds immediately in exchange for a token representing a “promise to deliver.” People hardly complain about this. But everyone hates on Zcash which arguably has one of the fairest funding models in crypto.
I wonder how many trolls invested in competing projects would love nothing more than to see Zcash’s dev team be defunded? Probably a lot.
I’d like to see this argument framed the other way. Other projects should want to see Zcash funded via this mechanism so they can benefit either directly or indirectly from the funding. Other than the obvious downstream projects, the Zcash Foundation has funded initiatives that are not directly tied to Zcash https://www.zfnd.org/blog/q2-grant-winners/.
I think part of the issue is how the funding is perceived to be going to the ECC, mainly as they are the only ones directly asking for it. In my opinion it’d be nice if funding was further decentralised more inline with the Placeholder proposal where a “Growth” fund or some such could be explicitly purposed for funding entities outside of the ECC/Zcash Foundation.
Thats a very good point, there’s a lot of negative nonsense posted about that in all sorts of places. If continued funding went via ZFnd that would silence some of the trolls.
I think there are a lot of people complaining about ICO’s and lot that are hidding silently after it turned out they made a stupid move while investing into scam or doomed to fail ICO’s. And some of these ICO artists got what they deserved, jail.
My personal opinion and from reading is that a lot of people would have been fine with the Zcash funding model IF most of the funds had been used indeed for the foundation/ECC. Or in other words if the distribution of the founders reward was more toward pure developement. But that’s just my observation and thought.
You are probably right here, but i doubt this will happen. I’am pretty sure the ECC & foundation will find a way for further funding, probably even the 20% they request somehow.
Here is our statement! https://www.zfnd.org/blog/dev-fund-guidance-and-timeline/
Moreover, such funds should not be used to directly enrich investors or founders.
We strongly prefer that any protocol-based dev fund be distributed to nonprofits and the Foundation cannot accept a fully mandatory fund that pays out even partially to a for-profit company. We encourage ECC to convert into a not-for-profit organization.
I couldn’t agree more.
I understand now why ZFnd shouldn’t be the gatekeeper of dev funds - I still think they would be great at it but when you add ‘developing zcash’ to their role it gets awkward.
Excellent statement. I couldn’t agree more to all that was published. If all goes well, this will cancel out enrichment to founders and/or early investors, and will surely provide more transparency and accountability. I wish i could have been part of the voting but sadly i only joined in about 6 weeks ago. Will be reading the statement again and post further thoughts. Great work from the Foundation on this one!
Throughout the following comment, I am speaking only for myself.
Last week, I wrote this in a private conversation:
I feel so conflicted about this dev fund thing. Both sides — no dev fund and some dev fund — have made arguments that I find compelling. Maybe I’d be okay with either outcome. I can see the possibility of Zcash flourishing and fulfilling its purpose in either scenario; I can also see the downfall of Zcash in either scenario.
Maybe if projects like Ycash and PirateChain didn’t exist, or Monero et al, then I’d feel more strongly that there shouldn’t be a dev fund. But if someone is paying attention to Zcash, they have time to exit into an alternative. And I see the path dependence of Zcash, I understand that the creators couldn’t see the future, and numerous decisions were made without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. That’s just life.
Anyway, are we obligated to protect the interests of Zcash holders who aren’t keeping up the project? I don’t know. I think there’s an argument that we aren’t obligated: Zcash has always been a science experiment. An incredibly successful science experiment! But buying ZEC has always been a bet in one sense or another, and if you’re not tracking the conditions of your long-term bet, that’s your prerogative but it might have consequences.
I find myself torn between rigid principles and murky context.
After much deliberation, I’ve decided that I’m okay with instituting a new dev fund — but only if Zcash miners have time to break even (at least!) on their current machines.
Does the October 31 decision deadline give miners enough time to earn out their hardware investments, and switch away from Zcash if they want to? (I’m sure this has been discussed before, and I just don’t remember the answer.)
In general, ZEC owners have plenty of time to sell and choose other options. I’m not worried about them. Like I said above, someone who bought ZEC and then proceeded to ignore the project knew that they were making a risky, speculative choice.
That’s my opinion about the ethics of creating a new dev fund. It boils down to “fine, with a few caveats.” Two remaining concerns:
- Existing Zcash alternatives are not 1:1 clones — different teams, different ecosystems, different technical tradeoffs, etc.
- Creating a new dev fund legitimately would break the original promises about Zcash economics.
But ultimately… I can live with it. I’m still okay with the no-dev-fund option too, although fewer resources = slowing down Zcash progress, at least for a couple of years.
hmmm Are your intentions to crash the price of ZEC to single digits? cuz if that’s the case you’re doing a fine job at it, truly!
Choose other options? Sorry young lady, but wether someone chose to ignore the project or stay updated regularly is irrelevant. Some who stay closely updated to developments and are invested for the long term rarely do any daytrading, and yes You should be worried about them. What if they bought their coins at mid-triple digits because they are beleivers of the proejct and mission of Zcash and held on their coins down to the bottom hoping the price would recover, given the cutting edge technology and the importance of Zcash? But hey! as price is on a freefall, why not fork the damn code and create Ycash…while you’re at it let’s release a major broken promise to the mix for a dev fund renewal of $1m+ per month for at least 4 years. Sorry but those things are not in investors’ control. If anything coin holders should be feeling betrayed by the uncertainty and the incompetence of all of this mess!!! And what do you expect them to do? Sell for Ycash? for Pivx? for fucking XVG? or why not take a bigger loss and invest in the safest of them all Monero which is currently priced at $30 per coin higher than Zcash…Sorry! but your message is in extremely poor taste, and EVERYONE at ECC and ZF should have some sort of moral and fiduciary responsibility to their coin holders and miners and investors. This is shameful im even reading this!
…is it news to you that people can sell their ZEC if they don’t like the direction of the project? I’m not encouraging people to exit, I’m just saying that they’re able to.
Literally everything I wrote was about ethics and project sustainability. If I were oriented toward pumping the price, I’d advocate for slashing the emission rate.
Edit: Anyone who buys a cryptocurrency, including BTC, and then indefinitely ignores the software development and roadmap behind that cryptocurrency, is playing with fire and will get burned.
Another one of my daft ideas… guess the megathread is the place to do that?
The miner signalling really worries me, how about if signalling was moved to transactions?
Adding a byte to transaction data would be enough for the USER to specify which dev fund stream they want to support. This covers a wide spectrum as pools also send transactions, so do exchanges, everyone is a user in some way.
A block reward dev fund payment could then be generated based on the transactions mined in that block.
There are zips that call for a change to transaction data so maybe this could be included. It’d be a cool feature for wallets to integrate with.
Maybe ‘voting transactions’ should only be z2z? That could also help drive adoption.
So if I understand correctly, in this scheme the dev fund is mandatory for miners, but users vote with transactions, and that dictates how the 10% (for example) is allocated?
Yup - there is a mandatory fund but the amounts paid to recipients from a block would depend entirely on the transactions it contained… reward from empty blocks gets burnt.
This is critical for sure. I think the expectation is that the deprecation cycle for mining equipment is about 12 months, which matches this timeline. But I don’t have a citation for that, so hmm
Also worth noting, the timeline requirements would also be the same for any change to the PoW parameters, for example
Sure, it’s so easy to sell your investment when it’s 70 to 80% down. Coin holders are not traders. Theyre long term investors because they beleive in the project and the mission and the direction. But when the project team pivots, or comes up with a major change such as new dev fund, or breaks for a new direction, what are we supposed to do? take the 80% loss and invest in a third tier privacy coin with zero visibility that most likely is a fork off Monero? ECC and ZF should be accountable and to maintain importance to their coin holders, as Zcash should be seen as Way more than just a science experiment.
And no one said pumping the price, but no one asked for crappy strategic moves one after the other that just kept negatively impacting the price day after day…Funny how the first thing one would say is “pumping the price” as if we’re all moonboys. though im sure everyone at ZF and ECC would love it as it would solve a boatload of problems. IF this was nothing but a science experiment there wouldnt be a need to be listing the ZEC asset on public exchanges for the global population to invest in it…plain simple