As we witnessed that increasing demand and adoption is mission impossible the last years for Zcash i went for the more doable option in decreasing inflation/issuance. If plan A (increasing demand) doesn’t work than only plan B (decreasing supply/issuance) is left. With decreasing inflation/issuance i have in mind in changing the supply curve and not the 21M total issuance.
In my opinion it’s both. But that’s just how i feelt it.
Actually there are other options but nobody was/is interested in these as the miner dev fund is the most easiest one to receive funds. Even a combination of different funding options was nothing considered, strange enough.
One of the reasons i do not feel comfortable with having founders on the ZF board and/or advisor postitions.
Absolutly agree with this one. Critiques like me towards Zcash taboos have been put into a silenced corner by openly admitting to ignore and not reading/responding to such posts/questions. Such echo chamber approach works temporary of course, but it doesn’t change the result many of us saw and the problems coming long time ago.
There maybe was a debate about 1 year ago which resulted in Simon Lee, one of the lead devs, leaving the ECC and being compensated in an agreement an unknown amount after a law suit was filled. Someone can only guess how many millions have been paid and if it’s being paid from the ECC reserves?!
I see where you are coming from, but decreasing the issuance would be another critical intervention which might lead to an outcome where even less people will trust in Zcash and the ECC.
This would be another broken promise in the track record of ECC and I generally have the conviction that code is law and that it might harm the project if they don’t stick to previously made promises, although I was proven wrong in the past as I have thought ETH will never recover from the blockchain role-back after the DAO disaster.
Anyways, comparing ZEC to ETH is not appropriate either as ETH has brought economic success to investors beforehand and was in a completely different spot than Zcash is.
I totally agree with this. Maybe it is the pride of the ECC management that they do not want to beg for other sources of funding…
True. I also do not understand why there are so many ECC and ZF members and folks who profit from the FR on the community advisory panel. Sure, they are part of the community but at the same time they are claiming that they do not want to influence the dev fund debate. This sounds like a contradiction to me.
Anyways, there is not much of the community left. The engagement on this forum and especially on the polls for dev fund ZIPs strengthen this theory. With 60-70 votes per proposal the ECC and ZF could already gather more than 50% of the total votes. Most of the Zcash holders do not even bother to vote on the future of Zcash funding anymore. This is an evidence that the community is dying. Imagine a similar situation in a sovereign state where politicians present 50% of the total votes. This is not only centralized but also not democratic. It is just a show.
Most people do not have any hope anymore. I do have a broad network of people who are invested in different altcoin projects with serious size. Nobody of them seems to care about Zcash anymore and even if they hold some, they are just waiting to recover their losses. They see their Zcash investment as sunk-cost.
I would really like to know the background of this lawsuit and how they have settled but I am sure nobody is going to disclose this. Not really transparent in my opinion.
At this point I wanna say thank you for still being active in here @boxalex ! Without you there wouldn’t be lots of critiques left on this forum.
Most of them left for a good reason and I might be one of the next one. I was always passive when it comes to discussion because I did not want to distract the team and I also trusted them. They seemed competent all along.
Now this perception is crumbling for me and I will just wait what the outcome of the dev fund debate will be. If the “community” votes for another 20% extension of the miners tax I will just dump all my ZEC and move it to pirate chain or something similar.
ECC is scaring away the last investors of this project with their current strategy and I am so upset about this. It is irrational to me and I wish there would be more people calling this out in public.
You all got good points! My bags are full for now and will also wait for dev fund decision. If this is not sorted out “smart” then you will be able to buy under 20$. Im still all in and lets see what 2020 has to offer.
Hm, reading this makes me realize that this proposal (@acityinohio’s) actually does require the construction of a third entity. However, it is a third entity with a relatively narrow scope of responsibilities.
And thinking about that makes me think of a potential issue in our voting system. Which is: “How shall we evaluate the votes for clusters of similar proposals?”
For example, you know how there are three different proposals that (although they have different rationales and different ideas for how to fund development) would result in no dev fund from the block reward: 1, 2, 3
Imagine if the voting were to come in something like 20% in favor if each of these three, 25% in favor of something completely different, and then the remaining 15% split among all the others? One interpretation is that the one with 25% is the winner, another is that more of the community (60%) wants have to have no block-reward-dev-fund.
This would be a harder judgement call if there were more differences between the proposals in the cluster. For example Aristarchus’s proposal and Gordon Mohr’s specify the same block rewards to the same recipients (10% to ECC, 10% to Zfnd), but one of them includes a mandate. What if Aristarchus’s got 25%, Gordon Mohr’s got 26%, and none of the other proposals got more than 15%? Then we would think that the dev fund split had about 51% support but Aristarchus’s mandate to invent on-chain voting had about only 25% support.
There are five of them, they have had by far the most vigorous discussion, they have the most detail, and there are a variety of specific differences between them about the specific amounts of the funding, the number and composition and legal structure and scope-of-responsibility of the entities, and various mandates and policies that the entities are required to abide by.
Considering that there are five of them and they’ve had so much energy, I wouldn’t be surprised if we get voting results which indicate something like 12% for each of these five proposals, 20% for something entirely different, and small percentages for the rest. That would indicate that the community collectively (60%) prefers some kind of governing body construction, but they are split about the details. And of course some people will feel that the one that got 20% should be the real winner.
I kind of feel like—considering how vigorous the discussion was—that if we’d had a few more weeks before voting that the proponents of these proposals might have compromised on their differences and converged on one unified proposal. I think Arianna/Jacob/Autonomous, Antoinette Marie, and Chris/Mario/Placeholder already retracted their own ideas in order to support someone else’s proposal in this cluster (which means there were originally eight!), and I remember Josh Cincinnati writing that he preferred Matt Luongo’s over his own.
I don’t have a suggestion for how to handle this, but I was just realizing what an interesting setup we’ve got here with clusters. Here’s how I see the clusters. Curious if y’all see it the same way or differently.
I guess my main conclusion is that this really shows the wisdom in The Foundation’s plan that they’re going to deliberate and decide what they think is best instead of just being bound to the results of popular voting. And also the wisdom in having the votes be “Support/Accept/Reject” so that community members can signal they would accept proposals that aren’t their favorite.
Dear @acityinohio, @amiller, or other Zfnd decision-makers, how do you think about this issue of clusters?
Your evaluation is plain wrong in my opinion.
It would be true IF a voter had only 1 choice, but in this case the voter can vote on EVERY proposal with YES, NO and Abstain.
Or as an example a 20% dev fund support can support all dev fund proposals that have 20% and hence expressing his wish not only on 1 proposal but on every he likes.
Hence at the end there should be a clear winner without but and or.
This is could be really a dangerous move. I have asked in the past IF the foundation will accept the result but didn’t get an answer. This wording is a huge concern and might be like dynamite IF the ZF does not accept and bound to the community voting/signalling.
The ZF is seen more than the ECC as a community representer and not following the community wish for a given proposal will for sure hurt the Foundations community image. I even have no doubt here.
I mean IF the foundation doesn’t accept the result why at all have community proposals, signalling, voting, whatever? It would be just a bad show and farce at the end.
And by the way, with so many ECC/ZF near/affilated voters in the advisory panel and forum i would wonder if there is another outcome than the ECC/ZF wished/desired one. IF for example one of the non fund proposals would make it the top voted one, means that nearly the whole unbiased and unaffilated community is supporting it.
The community shall decide whether and how they wanna fund the ECC and ZF. This has been consensus all along. The foundation has to determine what the community wants and decide based on this.
With the low engagement in the forum poll I would suggest to call for a Zcash holder signaling. They have supported the ECC the most. The polls on the forum are not really representative with 58- 75 votes. Let Zcash holders signal with e.g. a memo message and we will see what happens. This is the most realistic way to collect community sentiment.
ASIC mining farms sell their coins instantly on the market anyways. So where is the point in miners signaling over holders signaling? In my opinion the Zcash holders should have the highest weight when it comes to deciding what should happen with a future dev fund!
I agree and disagree. The voting will be strange, because you get to vote on each one. I also think that grouping proposals together via outcome is a slippery slope because it is the rational that makes the proposal.
sure from your business point of view block fund/no fund is the metric you are most interested in, but I don’t think it is constructive for the community to view it like this.
It dichotomises the proposals and there isn’t an even number of each. So if you use that metric and it is an even 50/50 split on the fund/no fund - you will end up with fund because there are more fund proposals than non fund proposals.
I do think that interpretation of the results will be a sticking point if this is the metric used rather than the rationale/spirit. (seriously it will cause a shitstorm)
How does the foundation plan on interpreting the results? @acityinohio?
A mechanism for on-chain stakeholder voting is already set up. Just send a memo from a t-address to the polling address zs1ud5cyusgfsqgkfqlxery0ttyvuvj66wztlqgv8tc4qaukaeaejxj7u70j0qgcctjfvzuzadejxd with your vote, encoded as a memo the same way as miners, like 1Y2Y3N4N5Y6A7A8N9Y10N11N12Y13Y for an example.
I updated the stake polling thread with some more specific NU4 dev fund details: Staked Poll on Zcash Dev Fund Debate It’s not a perfect solution, it basically requires the CLI or Zecwallet or any wallet supporting memos and z addresses, and requires you to unshield your coins to vote, which isn’t encouraged. But, the mechanism is available, so if you want to use it it’s there… and it is truly permissionless and cannot be stopped, since anyone can view the memos sent to the polling address. IMO we should publicize this in case stakeholders want to participate, but the interface is poor enough I’m expecting too much turnout here, but hoping to be proved wrong.
Because amiller, just now and a sudden added it. This should be an absolute NO-GO and i’am shocked that it’s added just some days bevor the voting end without having anybody knowing about it. This leaves all doors open for influencing the community sentiment.
It’s shocking to see what decisions are taken from time to time.
As I said earlier, nothing affects the decision to extend the funding, what the fund and the company will want, and if they don’t vote like that in an open vote, they will vote in a private vote as it should, whether it’s the control panel or just talk to the community and consultants by phone , it doesn’t matter already. Just the news that everything is finally done! Earlier they assured that everything was open and transparent, well, in general, as always.And the most interesting thing is that this poll has already been spread on Twitter, no one agreed or discussed, just as a fact and good news, that now everyone can vote, although at the same time there is a vote on which it is just a negligible attendance (75 votes maximum sentence, those who voted there may be more, of course, but where is the community everyone is talking about)
That’s the same thing. I am sure I saw it quite a while ago. the post is dated the 15th of Nov.
I remember thinking about how overly complex the voting system was. It is also why I pushed the ECC for their results on the NU3 codename because they were using the same mechanism.
I am happy to admit im wrong here, but I remember reading it way before all this was posted. In fact I think I mention it in a PM. admittedly I haven’t been around much recently due to work stuff. but I think I might be going mad if that genuinely only went up yesterday.