(Thats pretty hilarious! )
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:
- ZIP proposal Keep the block distribution as initaly defined. 90% to miners @mistfpga
- Dev Fund Proposal: No dev dund, let FR expire, market decides @jj6
“Miner’s choice” proposals:
- Dev fund proposal: 20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or "burn" @amiller
- Dev Fund Proposal: opt-out mechanism for sharing block rewards by miners for dev fund @dontbeevil
- ZIP Proposal - A genuine opt-in protocol level, development donation option @mistfpga
- Dev fund proposal: 15% Opt-In only + other sources @boxalex
Proposals that I think could be combined, but the suggestion is more tentative since the overlap isn’t as large:
“Voting / community choice” proposals:
- New Funding Proposal + Community votes @SydneyPete
- ZIP proposal: ZCFS (Zcash Community Funding System) @anon16456014
“Allocate directly to ZF or ECC” proposals:
- Dev Fund Proposal: 20% split between the ECC and the Foundation @aristarchus
- Dev fund proposal: modified 20% combination; 40/60 ECC/choice @Autotunafish
- Dev Fund Proposal: Dev Focused , let the Nodes Decide @Shawn
- Placeholder Considerations: Resources, Governance, and Legitimacy in NU4 @cburniske @mlphresearch
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
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.
@sonya - These are the differences I see, - Dev Fund Proposal: No dev dund, let FR expire, market decides
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.
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
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…
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.
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%)
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?
I don’t think 501 c 3 Charities exist outside of the United States probably other types but I guess that’s up to the foundation
Maybe someone with more knowledge could help specify but to my understanding this is how it works
It is kind of a new issue, the way it is now as many different contributors donate and it’s not a problem, but the ECC a single entity contributing a large quantity of funding to the ZFND is a new problem
(You know I’m not going to lie the thought did cross my mind about whether or not anybody ever questioned the founders would or were actually paying their promised amounts…
Could be a literal 100% no-op and leave all the founders addresses and just ask them to nicely pay you know half here and half there, they always did before right? It’s either that or we got to go around the tax law and/or allocate a large amount of a choice quantity to ensure that enough people actually choose to donate so that it can receive it’s full of appropriated amount)
This is why I advocate for a 12% choice but am open to suggestions specifying otherwise
The only people that this proposal could even potentially affect negatively, financially are miners, everyone else benefits
(And you know what they probably benefit too because it very much stands to reason that at the having the value of zcash will increase and even though the miners are doing more devfee work their profitability will still be higher)
Zcash miners are the reason we have nice things, they choose to mine zcash and in doing so perform a great service for the community and I don’t believe it a disservice to alot them a choice in the matter of where their fee goes even though it’s asking a greater portion because ultimately it only goes to increase the value of what they mine which is what they want anyways
I hobby mine with a z-9 mini but I would gladly choose to fork🍴 over another couple of minutes every round to ensure the future of Zcash and of the mission
I don’t really understand what the benefit is of funneling through ECC versus funds going directly to ZF from block rewards? (Within the internal logic of this proposal, please no one assume that I’m endorsing rather than asking a question)
Think its because it allows ZF to be ‘defunded’ as they don’t have control of their income - which means they pass the ‘public support test’ required for 501c3 (which seems horribly complicated & daft)