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

We’re already marked with our affiliations:


Personally I think it would be an inappropriate special privilege for ECC employees to have something like mod color here.

Yes but that affiliation can cause issues.

I am not saying give them mod powers. Just the power to highlight a post as an official ecc representative rather than as “personal opinion with potential inside knowledge”

I get 100% where you are coming from. My bounty still stands even if it is just for the foundation. and it has to be a separate colour from orange. My bounty is to make your life easier, and that of the community’s easier to sift official info from non official info.

If what gets put in place makes you happy then I am happy and will pay the bounty.

1 Like

Ah, sorry, I just connected the dots with our conversation upthread. I don’t think a literal equivalent of mod color is a good idea. It would be confusing, since ECC and ZF employees don’t have any special authority on the forum unless they are moderators. I don’t want people to come in here, unfamiliar with the community, and not know which color is which, etc. When the only highlighted posts are mod posts, it’s clear. So a different “I’m speaking in an official capacity” signifier would be better.


Like a quote box that is a different colour and says Official Foundation Position: I like the idea of different colours even if it is just the highlight on the =Topic part of the post.

So a post from a normal person at the ECC would look like

Really, Tardigrades.

Then a post from you might look like:

But I think bunnies are the real mascot.

that seems easier to implement?


(Thats pretty hilarious! :rofl:)


Official announcement: No later than August 6, the Zcash Foundation will release a detailed evaluation of community proposals for sustainable Zcash development. @acityinohio will explain the Foundation’s current thinking and plans for structuring community feedback.

(This will be tweeted by the @ZcashFoundation account tomorrow morning, in case anyone is wondering.)


Proposals that I suggest combining before turning them into ZIPs:

“Do nothing, let FR expire” proposals:

(Note: Since this is the default course, see @daira’s note on ZIPs that don’t require protocol changes.)

“Miner’s choice” proposals:

Proposals that I think could be combined, but the suggestion is more tentative since the overlap isn’t as large:

“Voting / community choice” proposals:

“Allocate directly to ZF or ECC” proposals:

Most unique one, IMO: Dev Fund Proposal : Continued from block rewards with a halving schedule @ChileBob

  • Funding continues from block rewards at (XXX per block)
  • Funding follow a halving schedule (every XXX blocks)
  • Funding stops when it reaches block (XXX)

Edit notice / correction: @amiller pointed out that his proposal should have been in the “Miner’s choice” category rather than the “Allocate directly” category. He’s right, so I moved it.


I’ll summarize the main bullet points of mine just to kind of get a better idea of how to compare

1 Like

Nathan’s quick-and-dirty guide to the ZIP process: Proposal authors, please read: Help making ZIPs

@mistfpga @jj6 @amiller @dontbeevil @boxalex @SydneyPete @anon16456014 @aristarchus @Autotunafish @Shawn @cburniske @mlphresearch @ChileBob: You don’t strictly have to decide right now, but the sooner you make a decision about whether you’re going to steward your proposal toward becoming a ZIP, either on your own or in collaboration with others, the more time there will be to make it a strong ZIP and work on getting buy-in.


I will do mine, but as pointed out by Daira, I don’t think @jj6 uses the forums much. Can this be message be replicated on GitHub please.

We might be able to come to consensus on what each one of us is trying to get across, that being said. I have noted some potential differences in a response to Nathan. I will edit my zips and then edit this with either the link to the thread about mine and @jj6’s proposals.

If people want help with their zips, or feel they want someone to follow through on their zip, message me and we can sort something out. I will champion zips I disagree with to the best of my ability.

Basically anything I can do to make this happen, I will. just ask.

EDIT: Done.
@sonya - These are the differences I see, - Dev Fund Proposal: No dev dund, let FR expire, market decides

1 Like

I think my proposal fits better as a component of others. Its not even close to a complete proposal, its just an attempt to add time based parameters for block funding that others may find useful.

If anyone would like to merge my idea I’d be happy to explain it further.


Do you think it fits with my ideas? I am open to all suggestions. but core values cannot be broken.

1 Like

Not really.

Mine assumes a continued funding stream from block rewards (with some extra parameters), whereas yours are the ‘status quo’ or on a ‘voluntary’ basis.

Differing ‘core values’, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree :wink:


Sure, but I will try to work it in either as an objection or maybe as a mechanism for getting that funding from transaction fees.

constructive disagreement is the way forward. but probably not in this thread. when I have typed up my proposals I will ping you if that’s okay, and see what objections or adjustments I can do.


Any selection/voting/polling process defined yet?
I mean bevor we all put more efford, time & thoughts into proposals wouldn’t it make sense to have first a decision on what the process is and how a the final proposal gets decided/elected/voted/whatever?

Or what’s the deal with having 10 proposals but not final decision design? Or do i miss something somewhere? Just asking bevor i even consider any further work on the proposal…

1 Like

Do you mind pinging @jj6 on GitHub yourself, to see if they’re interested in working with you on a ZIP?

I want to do targeted outreach beyond the forum in general — for example, what does Grayscale think? can we get Bitmain to weigh in on how they’d react to various scenarios? — but I’m worried that y’all would see it as a conflict of interest, or an attempt to push institutional interests over other Zcash stakeholders’ interests.

What if I drafted an outreach message, used the same one on every recipient, and told all of you exactly who I contacted? We could even crowdsource a list of people and organizations to contact. I’d love to know what @__tm3k (very active Zcash enthusiast on Twitter) thinks, for example.

I’m not sure about sharing people’s answers, though. Maybe give them several options, like 1) public answer with attribution, 2) public answer without attribution, 3) shared privately with the Zcash Foundation, etc.? I’m open to suggestions, and I’ll run ideas by Josh C.

@acityinohio is working on it. Ultimately the decision will come down to the ZIP process, as defined in ZIP 0. The open question is how to synthesize and interpret what the Zcash community wants, in a legible and reasonably accurate way. Especially since the community is not restricted to the set of people who speak up publicly, either on this forum or elsewhere. This is particularly hard because there’s no unanimous position.

A reason to push on turning these proposals into ZIPs is that willingness to do so = skin in the game via time investment. Which proposals gain champions is a signal in-and-of itself.

1 Like

I decided, based on feedback, that my proposal was not secure enough to be used as a voting mechanism. So I won’t be putting it forward for a ZIP.

But I still think a 9-10% development fund (from mining rewards) for a set period of time (not indefinite) is worth looking at. I will have to re-read the proposals to see if any of them are close to that, that I could help support.


I agree. Somewhere between 5-10% I would support for the next 4 years.


-20% dev fee
-Mandatory 8% dev fee to ECC and about half of which goes to the ZFND depending on the public support test (4%/4%)
-Choice/burn 12%
The only part of the specification where I believe that I’m flexible is the 12% choice and in the thread I asked for input on whether or not that is an appropriate amount and received no feedback so nows your chance
(The large Choice portion complements the public support test because receiving a large portion of funds from a single entity could cause the ZFND to lose its 501 c 3 status, this is also why it is about half, the amount must be adjustable to accommodate this requirement)

  • 4 year timeline with
  • the choice recipients being decided in the same manner as these proposals (will be decided like the ones before)
  • the timeline for selecting these recipients should be an increment of 6 months to coincide with regular upgrades (as an upgrade may be required)

The rest was technical aspects of the choice Dev fee for the individual Miner but that’s it

This proposal will be proclaimed in a zip “as is” unless input necessitates it changing

It seems slightly absurd to me that any future changes to the Zcash protocol should be concerned with the vagaries of US tax law. Surely if this is an issue then change the structure or simply move the Foundation to a different jurisdiction?