I like user voting in theory, but it wouldn’t be sybil-resistant unless we incorporated staking or something.
My favorite specific proposal (personally! again, just speaking for myself!) is @amiller’s: [ZIP 1004] Dev fund proposal: Miner Directed Dev Fund (was: 20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or "burn")
With a side of your progressive halving suggestion, Bob: Dev Fund Proposal : Continued from block rewards with a halving schedule
What do y’all think of combining them like this?
-
10% obligatory Zcash dev fund, to be allocated to a multisig transparent address controlled by N recipient organizations (each with a corresponding ZIP editor), and distributed equally between them
-
This arrangement should be backed up by a legal agreement
-
When N=2 each organization has a disbursement veto (2-of-2 multisig), when N=3 switch to 2-of-3 multisig, and when N≥4 use .75N-of-N multisig with conventional rounding
- For example, if N=7, the formula dictates 5.25-of-7 multisig. Round that down to 5-of-7.
-
ZIP editor decisions should require a quorum that follows the same ratios as the multisig setup, and then >50% approval among the ZIP editors who are present
-
-
Additional 10% optional dev fund that miners can either burn or send directly to any of the N recipient organizations
That hedges the risk of miners burning every time, while maintaining a partial opt-in and allowing miners to signal. After halving, it sets a floor of .625 ZEC per block going to Zcash development funding, and a ceiling of 1.25 ZEC per block.
Then increment the percentage downward by 1 with every successive halving. In 2024, the floor of Zcash development funding should be 9% of block rewards (through the obligatory fund) and the ceiling should be 18%. In 2028, 8% and 16%.