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.
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.
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 :-
- 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.
- 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.
- 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’
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
We are a legally compliant entity that builds open source software as part of an ecosystem of developers. We also support that software, educate various parties on how it works, and drive the adoption of the software within 3rd party software such wallets, exchanges, etc. We also provide education on topics related to privacy, encryption and implications for its use on people, businesses and governments. We have no ability or authority to do anything with Zcash fiat value. Additionally we occasionally sign NDAs and keep 3rd party information private, in good faith, unless they agree to let us make it public or they make it public.
Blocktown Capital made a proposal: https://medium.com/blocktown/proposal-for-the-zcash-2020-network-upgrade-fcd320a5d6f5
Perhaps more accurately a position statement? There’s no mention of the ZIP process. I’m not sure whether it’d be appropriate for me to ask Blocktown Capital for clarification
I did RT from the Foundation account, just to get the news out there, but I’m already worried about that being interpreted as endorsement. I don’t want people to think that I’m recruiting for a particular position, but I do want to know whether to put this proposal (?) on the list in the top post.
Edit: See comment below, facepalming at myself right now.
I added @Autotunafish’s new proposal to the list. Here’s a link for anyone who hasn’t seen it: Dev fund proposal: fixed 20%, opt in/out measure, minimal disrupt
Mea culpa, I was entirely wrong about all of that. I’ll leave my comment up for posterity’s sake. Here’s Blocktown Capital’s post: Proposal for the Zcash 2020 Network Upgrade
@sonya and chance you can add this proposal as well to the list of all proposals:
Is the ECC or the ZF working, has been or will be working on their own ZIP/ZIPS targeting the development fund?
No, i asked several times for this and it wa allways commented that it should be a community decision to make proposals. At least that’s why i got out of the answers than back, i could be wrong of course.
Will any ZIPS targeting the development fund be accepted which haven’t been extensively discussed on this forum?
ZF has not, although it’s still a possibility. We’d prefer to work with proposals originated by the community.
Anyone can submit to the ZIP process, and any draft ZIP submitted by August 31 will be eligible for NU4, in theory. We’ll evaluate proposals on their specific merits regardless of where they came from.
That said, ZF’s bet is that proposals workshopped by the community will be stronger than others. Personally, I’ve been impressed by the thoughtfulness and creativity that y’all have brought to the table.
yes and no. The ECC and ZF as organisations have not put things forward directly for community feedback via the zip process. The ECC did recuse themselves from the proposals but not the conversation.
Nathan explains more here, and also explains that NU4 funding deadline is a little bit more flexible (just get something in for the 31st. I would be happy to help if you have an idea you want to put forward.)
The Foundation has come out with statements on what proposals they will and wont support. The ECC pointed out that the Foundation is not in a place to veto suggestions for this selection process, 2 - 2 will not be in place for “dev fund” selection (please correct me if that is wrong) but should be for NU4. EDIT: I have been corrected, whilst not legally binding, its binding. see Sonya’s post here - Future of Zcash dev funding — megathread / everything in one place
The ECC has pledged to try to get first round feedback for the proposals before the 31st deadline so we should know where we stand and can write better proposals and see which matches up and what doesn’t, etc.
The foundation as an entity hasnt made proposals, but its members have. This is a really positive move imo.
As for proposals, this one sprung to mind. It is by @amiller he is part of the foundation. So this is not a direct proposal by the foundation, it is them engaging in the topic - this is amillers personal opinion not a proposal by the foundation - so it does not directly help with your question.
I am not sure if the foundation as an entity should put proposals forward, im 50/50 on the idea. They have given a list of what is acceptable to them and the ECC said it would implement whatever the community decides - I am not sure which community and how they come to a decision.
I think it will take the form of "the community has given these propsals, we think these work, together, this needs too much to change, etc. idk it is all pretty new to all of us and the information changes as new questions arise and are answered. I will edit this and put in the definitive statement on what the Foundation will and wont support. (there are 3 i need to see which is the latest, heh)
Really good question. I dont think so, see nathans post I linked earlier in this thread and the ECC committing to do what the community wants. I dont think we get to make the decision I think we get to chose what decisions they can make - via submitting zips.
I hope this helps.
ECC has already committed to the 2-of-2 multisig model for the ZIP process, which applies to everything in NU4, including dev-fund proposals. Legally the Foundation does not have a veto, but ECC would be going back on its word, which would be a huge reputational blow.
More depth here: https://www.zfnd.org/blog/multisig-governance/
Thoughts from James Prestwich: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eHpO_L7yncGy_K4BslzTzDG1uAE7PSzz2eeM6dqhHEI/edit
2 posts were split to a new topic: James Prestwich thoughts on a Dev Fund