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

still believe there’s no reason to fund 2 organizations.

Make a proposal with favouring 1 organization.

1 Like

These twitter posts at the end of the statement are “bitconnect” style, seriously. Do the ECC a favour and consider to remove them, these are going to do more harm than good.

Hopefully nobody at the marketing office thinks about to hire Carlos, lol.


I’m not sure what you mean. This has always been a community decision, not an ECC decision. We have been long advocating for and supporting formal proposals with a commitment to respond to each with our thoughts. Also, I’m not sure that the foundation was explicit about a “scheme” per se.

I don’t remember seeing a request addressed to me for feedback on a format. If I missed it, please point me back to it.

Let me know how I can best help you. I’m unclear if some of these questions are directed at me explicitly or are more general questions you are raising to the group.


Thanks Josh for the blog post. Good news is ECC is willing to explore non-profit option. This is amazing on multiple fronts:

  • ECC doesn’t have to deal with their board and investors. Although, retaining talent might be tricky (as long as ZEC is good it should be fine).
  • Two non-profits working towards a common goal of empowering people with financial privacy. Opportunity for more decentralization
    through education and public events.
  • More transparency builds confidence in community for ongoing development.

Another option that ECC may have considered is setting up new non-profit arm focused on zcash. ECC could raise money from traditional VCs and focus on building products and custody solutions on top of Zcash, make money by selling it to exchanges, institutional investors etc.,.
Obviously, there should be clear separation b/n both profit and non-profit arms.


Responding to a bunch of different things at once.

@boxalex @mistfpga, a section from our guidance:

Reviving the Community Advisory Panel

We will revive last year’s Community Advisory Panel and request old members to both:

  • invite one new member of their choosing
  • vote on the proposals (once they have been submitted as ZIPs).

The polls will open September 3 and be due September 17.

Miner signaling

We will invite mining pools to signal their support of a given proposal using the coinbase text of blocks collected between September 3 and September 17.

And a relevant comment from another thread:

We all have until October 31 to discuss and modify ZIPs. Draft ZIPs should be well-considered and fleshed out, which is the goal of discussing them on the forum, but they are not considered to be 100% finalized upon submission.

This doesn’t make sense. ECC wants to be compensated in ZEC, by the Zcash community, for working on ZEC. The whole point of setting it up that way is to align incentives so that ECC benefits by making Zcash more useful.

It was flagged by a user. I reviewed the flag and let it stand because I agreed that the comment was inappropriately antagonistic. You can learn more about how flags work in the Discourse FAQ (the forum software we use).

Remember the Zcash Community Forum rules, everybody! In particular, this section…

Examples of unacceptable behavior include:

  • Using sexualized language or imagery.
  • Personal attacks.
  • Trolling and insulting or derogatory comments.
  • Public or private harassment.
  • Publishing another person’s private information, such as physical or electronic addresses, without explicit permission (AKA doxxing).
  • Other unethical or unprofessional conduct, at the discretion of the moderators.

Be polite. The more heated the discussion, the more passionately that you think someone else is wrong, the more effort you should put into writing a civil response. Take a minute to cool off and reread what you wrote before posting it.

There’s a reason why every single industry still has in-person gatherings. There’s a reason why companies with remote employees hold summits for everyone to get together and talk face-to-face. It facilitates collaboration, not just at the event itself but afterwards, once everyone is back to communicating online.

Thank you, Josh. Both thoughtful and thought-provoking!

It seems safe to assume that ECC considers them informative. The section was titled “Additional Resources.”

Is there a reason why ECC would have to change its board members? ECC having a board is pretty new, by the way.

1 Like

The reason would be them demanding ECC to focus on something that may not help Zcash.


My apologies, only the first part of the message was meant for you. I didn’t meant to @ you. They were there to stop me double posting. As far as I can recall you have always been prompt and helpful.

It has been a community decision with very little feedback from the ECC. The ECC has said it will provide feedback on proposals but it gives very little. (please note: I make a distinction between the ECC and the people that are part of it.) The Foundation on the other hand have been a lot more engaged on the topic.

The post reads more like an advert than a direct response to the foundations statement - I think the post made it seem like their are only two choices. fund the ecc or don’t fund the ecc. - those tweets certainly re-enforced that idea.

which isn’t really what is going on, we don’t really know how much funding they will need. and the protocol changes may be too much or too little. idk. it is why I asked which timeline they were taken from.

I think they really detracted from the wider conversation. I recognise some of the names from the wider community, but this all feels a bit late, now a bit too dichotomised, and lacking the nuance the subject had developed.

Unfortunately I rely on a spell checker a bit to much, it was meant to say schema. (i.e. my proposals relied on the foundation giving the ECC money. Now I need to work out how to change that, so the ECC can get money - Sonya is helping at the moment.)

probably because there wasn’t one. My apologies I didn’t mean to @ you in that second bit.

I will. thank you. I had a bit of a “hard of typing and hard of thinking moment”. My questions were directed at the ECC.

Sorry I cant really write short posts. :confused:

1 Like

To be clear, most of the commenters here have nuanced perspectives informed by a lot of background information. But if you’re a not-very-involved ZEC holder who hasn’t been actively following the debate, it would be easy to conclude, “We already gave you a bunch of money, ECC and ZF, so please just figure it out!” Part of what makes this so hard is that ECC and ZF don’t want to figure it out entirely by ourselves 

Sry, does this really represent ECC’s attitude?
This is not a simplistic conclusion of some one who is not informed. That’s what you’re trying to suggest, right? It’s not an uninformed conclusion, it’s a fact backed up by data. Furtermore, it’s the most mentioned critique and very harming.

Here is a more explicit translation of my previous statement:
There is a huge imbalance in financial risk - financial risk is only! on the side of investors/holders. To be more explicit - they are the only one who lose money in the situation of falling prices. That’s why some members of the ECC staff express their indifference towards the price of Zcash.

Here is one proposal which improves the balance and provides healthy incentive.
The ECC should pay their employees in a fixed amount of Zcash.


Over any expectation I must say and I actually appreciated the words shared with he community.

I personally would’ve bet on the absolute opposite response from the ecc (a big F you to the community) and instead you guys actually educated the community about the possibility of adding non-profit clause to any zip to be presented.

Great job!

I feel bad for acting as such a brat lately, for continuously bashing the ecc with no second thought and for being so disrespectful.
I deeply regret acting so childish and for all it’s worth: I’m sorry


We will be working through the proposals next week and owe the community our thoughts on each on the 26th. I suspect it may be an iterative process. We all have until the October to lock in a decision, whether funding or not.


Full disclosure: a good chunk of my salary is paid in Zcash. I lost a significant amount of money last year as I didn’t sell my ZEC but had to pay taxes at the price it was at the time I received it. By the time I paid them, I owed more than I received.

I had to change things this year by immediately selling the ZEC I need for taxes. Anyway, believe me, I share your pain.

Also, note that ECC has certain legal restrictions that impact what we can and can’t do, and what we can and can’t say. This may be unsatisfying but it’s our reality.


Thank you @johnwisdom.


I believe that yesterday’s response from ECC should contain not only principles, but also visible problems, when addressing people on the other side of the screen, you need to provide your thoughts, and not just clarifications (we will work, write whatever you want in your wishes), it would be better it looked: we want to change this and that in order to achieve the goal faster, as well as our involvement on how much you can indicate (your post here is good from the point of view of the community (yes, I can say for everyone). I wrote about global zec has advantages because I know that only he has a team that works with regulators, you can disclose information on whether this project has a global advantage in this area, it has ECC functions, but I haven’t seen the results anywhere. Thanks for the post.

1 Like

If I understand you correctly, results are in here: https://electriccoin.co/blog/animating-zcash/

As it relates to regulatory work, we wouldn’t be supported by exchanges like Gemini or custody providers like Bitgo without that work. No other privacy preserving tech is supported in places like those. That has also paved the way for our active conversations with regulators in other places like Japan, where Zcash is not currently on any exchanges (trust takes time and presence).


Which exchanges do z transactions work on?
All the same, presence on exchanges does not mean adoption , it is just an exchange or exchange, it is important that users use it in terms of advantages in areas in which the entrance is closed to others (exclusivity).
I understand Japan as an example, but how much time will be required is not known, and after reviewing the policy it is not a fact that only zcash will be issued and not all coins of confidentiality.
You understand my question, I use a translator, so I understand that reading a translation is very difficult. Thank.

1 Like

All support z-t (to the exchange). One supports z-z and z(exchange)-t (the Rock). One large one, that I am aware of because we provided them code recently, is working on t-z. Adding zaddr support is not trivial (especially when other factors such as HSMs are involved) and must be thoroughly tested by exchanges. In some cases there are other non-technical challenges.

In Japan, we have a direction but it’s ultimately not up to us.



Pulling in parts of proposals & threads. I don’t think any single proposal has the final solution but there are some great ideas.

I’m curious how editors feel about their ideas going in a blender with others?

Here goes :-

  1. Where does the money come from?

Active proposals are mostly from block rewards (cleanest IMHO) but there are other ideas. Whatever method it must either generate enough to continue development at an acceptable rate, or roll the dice and hope things work out.

  1. Where does the money go?

ZFnd don’t want to be the guardian/recipient but they should be instrumental in how money gets spent.

I like the idea from sonya, using a multisig where recipients must agree and can veto spends, with their infuence depending on how many participants there are. Incidentally, participants & recipients can be different entities - just a thought.

In keeping with the comments from josh, funding for ZFnd should be approved by all other recipients so they don’t control their income. Maybe ‘all others minus one’ so nobody can hold them hostage.

ZFnd should have a loud voice, maybe tweak it so that all spends must have ZFnd approval plus the required number of other sigs.

Without agreement between parties funds gets stuck as if ‘in escrow’, seems appropriate as we want them to play nicely together.

  1. How much money are we talking about?

There’s all sorts of numbers being suggested but its ZEC & nobody knows the market price.

Sending to a multisig solves some things as ZEC spends can be related to fiat expenses at the time & any (hopefully) remaining balance can accumulate.

If its not enough then recipients have to scale back, that’s just life & planning for hard times. Those involved will have to agree at the time on amounts, timing etc - and are held accountable for their decisions.

I like the NU cycle, complicated things need planning & execution, so dev spends should be connected to that, ie:- ‘these are the things we want to work on & this is how much it will cost’

  1. How long should it last?

The ZEC amount should reduce over time (biased, my suggestion). Prices change, so will needs, recipients, etc… but the project should continue & the price go up (otherwise why bother).

  1. Should ECC be a non-profit?

Gets the prize for ‘interesting suggestion of the week’. It’d silence a lot of critics by removing an obvious difference but is a big ask. My humble opinion, yes, if it doesn’t break existential things.

  1. Who decides ?

ZFnd is doing well on representing the community, miners can signal in ways that don’t use money, the coinholders name vote experiment, there was (is?) a community advisory panel. I’d say that’s evolving nicely, there’s no shortage of ideas and we’re in good hands.

Think this can develop at its own pace which should be slow & careful. As for funding - If the recipients, amounts & multisig rules are defined that encourages progress, ie: ZFnd gets paid provided all other recipients agree they’re doing a good job & they agree on the amount.

There’s actually quite a lot of time to get this part up & running, it can also (and should) continuously evolve and adapt to what the community demands.

Anyway, that’s my 2 zats for today.


The reason I am concerned it because when I was one of the first to post a proposal I got some amazing feedback from Nathan, str4d and others.

Then I posted about the extension and I got some excellent points raised by zooko, especially regarding downstream impact. (But no official word from the ECC - Nathan) This feedback made my proposals drastically change in spirit and format.

even more info has come to light and I will need to adjust them again. (Which is cool) it is just it seemed the ECC was all in on proposals then it just sort of stopped.

just read my edits and the thread to see how well it worked. - ZIP Proposal - Genuine Protocol opt-in/out donation feature updated 28/July

I am worried about running out of time if I have to make a new proposal because one of my old ones is incompatible with the new discussion. the drafts have to be in 5 days or so after the feedback on the 26th. (for example the proposal I linked will fall at the first hurdle, because it relies on the ZF to give money to the ECC. So I might need to put in a new proposal. I am still working on the wording.)

That is my concern, I wont have time to get a new draft in, if it requires a new proposal. because then that would need discussion… I am probably worrying about nothing.

Is there anyway you can make a list of things that cannot be addressed and in what manner? It must be already defined in US law? im from the UK so I can guess, but it would be helpful if you could either make a summary, or point me to the legal documents you are bound by, so I can get an idea myself. It could help alleviate a lot of frustration from the community, especially for the non Americans.


This is an issue for a lot of not native English speakers.
I try to use short sentences to make it easier to translate.
We have to rely on believing the poster is posting in good faith and it is a failing in translation.

Please keep posting. I do read them and I can make sense of what you are trying to get across. I believe others can too.

You have just given me an idea. I will put a proposal to the foundation (who run the forums). I will @ you in the proposal.