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

[sonya]

Excellent questions.

@boxalex

About 2: I have my problems naming something opt-in where someone is mandatory forced to do something, no matter what it is.
Definition of opt-in: the fact of choosing to take part in an activity, arrangement, etc. rather than being forced to take part .
Definition of opt-out: a situation in which some members of a group choose not to join or be involved in an activity
Both don’t fit somehow and in my opinion are missleading. Just giving 2 options on a mandatory funding exclude automaticly opt-in/opt-out in my opinion and understanding.

To be clear, ZF has changed its previous stance that an opt-in mechanism is absolutely required. (Yes, Alex, you deduced that in advance!)

Excerpt from the recent guidance statement:

The problem with opting in

We still consider an opt-in, miner-driven dev fund to be acceptable. However, we have concluded that a “miners’ choice” approach entails significant hazards that would be difficult to mitigate.

If most miners only have a short-term interest in Zcash, their incentive could be to burn ZEC every time, in order to decrease the available supply and (theoretically) raise the price via deflation. On the other hand, the effect would be diffused over all coinholders, not just the miner of each block.

Another opt-in approach might be user-driven, where those sending transactions across the Zcash network are able to make the “burn or distribute” choice. However, the technical design of such an approach continues to elude us, and presents a major engineering challenge; too risky to be a viable choice for now. Even a miner-driven approach adds some development complexity, although we believe it to be more manageable.

The Zcash Foundation board and executives realize that our current position has evolved from what was written on the forum two months ago. Since late May, discussions among board members, employees, and others have convinced us that “miners’ choice” is not ideal. We believe that relying on miners’ choice has a greater chance of endangering Zcash and the Foundation’s mission.

I hope that clarifies things.

@boxalex

In 2020, we expect the Foundation to have 10 full-time staff
We expect to spend roughly $3.7mm a year, with the largest cost being $2mm for wages.

If my simple calculation is true this makes an average wage of $16.666 per month, right? As i’am a non US guy i have no idea if this is low or high no matter it sounds more than high to me personally and i guess for most europeans as well. However, wouldn’t it make sense to outsource some tasks to make some economics even within the foundation?

Yes, that translates to an average $200,000 salary. Given the market rate for high-end tech talent in the United States — which is, unfortunately, the deepest talent pool for us — personally, I think it’s quite reasonable.

On the other hand, prospective budget might include the cost of benefits — healthcare, providing a 401k, etc. @acityinohio, can you speak to that?

@boxalex

Is the Community Advisory Panel different from the Community Governance Panel? If yes, who are it’s members?

It’s the same. We’re using a name that describes the panel’s level of power better.

Maybe we could open up applications again? @acityinohio will have to decide that.

@boxalex

What is the definition of overwhelming consensus? 75%, 66%? 51% for example doesn’t sound like overwhelming consensus and in my books overwhelming begins at very least at 66% but that’s just my opinion and view, hence the question, what does the foundation consider as overwhelming.

That’s another question that I hope Josh can respond to!