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

I totally agree with this. I cannot see any restrictions about minimum time the coins need to already sit in the t-address for eligibility to vote.

I think the specifications should be stated clearer and the deadline for votes should obviously be extended for longer than five days.
Why do we need to rush things now? This is such an important matter that should be planned carefully and Zcash holders need to be informed about the voting process. Just a few tweets and a forum post are definitely not enough.

It’s been around for a hundred days and it’s advisory

How many more times am I going to have to post this for you?

  • “Advisory? So these decisions are non-binding?” Technically yes; the Foundation Board can’t abdicate responsibility for the Foundation, although we want broad accountability and public input for matters that fall under the Foundation’s purview. That said, other ballot decisions may simply be advisory because we don’t (currently) have the authority to make those decisions—e.g., a ballot to redefine parameters in the Zcash blockchain in a future hard fork. (“the blocks need to be 1 terabyte, etc”) But the fact that the community might be strongly in favor of such a technical change should hold weight for the current maintainers of Zcash and for future work of the Foundation.

Uhm, that’s like how it sounds to me on twitter:

Zooko: Calling all ZEC holders! You can participate in stake-weighted voting to signal to your fellow Zcashers your opinion about the Zcash governance decision

Amiller: Guess what, if you have ZEC, you can use zecwallet-lite to vote on-chain for the NU4 dev fund proposals, and literally no one can stop you

Maybe my English is not good enough to understand it correctly, but after such tweets are even on the ECC twitter page the wording sounds to me like: Vote, it counts.

IF these votes do not count than all ZEC stake holders that particpate in it due these calls are risking unshielding there ZEC just for nothing, hence it’s just another bad move that was done that won’t help Zcash with anything.

hehe, no, those tweets are pretty unambiguous. but they are contrary to the thread. so like I said someone is going to be annoyed. either the coinholders (because their vote didn’t have enough weight) or other people because the coinholders had too much weight.

so, idk. you cant untweet that stuff, and no one has defined a quorum for a stakeholder vote, so it might be okay. depends if people with deep zec pockets get involved or not. (or even people who buy in just to vote.)

I don’t think I am adding much new here.

The die has been cast, lets see what it lands on.

Oh yes there’s privacy implications, you’d be better off just posting your thoughts on the Forum here…

The way I understand it, the stake-weighted poll has not been officially announced or endorsed by the ZF. However, it is available and offers all ZEC holders a permissionless option to express their preferences. But if the results have no impact on how the ZF or ECC will interpret the outcome of the sentiment collection process (because this form of polling was not officially announced, can be relatively easily gamed, etc.), ZEC holders may be better off simply creating a new user on the forum and participating in the forum poll. Their vote will have just as little impact but it might save someone the trouble of keeping track of the stake-weighted votes.

I personally like that the ZEC holder poll exists. It encourages those new to Zcash to learn about this particular way of interacting with the network and could be a stepping stone for developing a full-blown voting mechanism later down the road. Although someone with the appropriate expertise should make very explicit all the related security and privacy concerns.


This is correct. This was never an official Foundation poll, but as stated in our guidance post back in August other sentiment collection from the period can be potentially considered by the board when they present their recommendations. Relevant screenshot here:

I think all the criticism brought up here is valid and as such the short-comings should be considered by the board when they evaluate the results, as much as I appreciate @amiller’s intent and enthusiasm for this approach.


Update on the subthread in here about other people’s perceptions of the Zcash community and governance process:

  • “Zcash has a wonderful community. It’s true! Only caring people could write such a variety of variations about development of the Fund.”—https://twitter.com/RuZcash/status/1199912423869865984 Note that ZcashRu is Russian and probably doesn’t speak English as a first language.

Thanks, that is really interesting.

@elentia I know you are busy, but if maybe you could get someone from the ecc to chime in? (id love to hear zookos take, since he first suggested it) if they think it is still a conflict that is cool. but interpretation of these results will make or break the good discussions people are highlighting that we are having.

My question.

I am still really interested in the dichotomisation of votes into 20% or not 20% I have voted for some that give 20% under special conditions and against those that don’t.

I am happy that I have that choice but still wouldn’t want my votes to be seen as in favour of other 20% proposals I voted against.

Because you (@zooko ) are not directly involved in the sentiment collection, but you have come back to the forums (thanks for that, it does help having you around and whilst you have controversial opinions you do think out of the box and challenge ideas) would you mind sharing your opinion on this? I don’t want to ask the foundation because they are involved.

does anyone at the ecc have an opinion on this and how would they rectify the issue of not all 20% is the same 20%.

thank you.

Indeed. There will be many ways to analyze the results, and “which proposals allocate a total of 20%” is just one (and I don’t even remember anyone except @boxalex mentioning it). There’s nothing special about it. And there’s no reason to conflate the different proposals within the category. Surely people (including you!) will also look at other ways to slice things, like “which proposals put conditions on the use of funds”, or “which proposals require new entities”, or “which proposals require new voting mechanisms”.


I agree. I was more wanting a response to if there had been further insight on this.

Which is a legitimate and open question.

This never got answered. I assume it is because voting is still ongoing. So I thought I’d ask the ECC if they had had any new ideas on how to handle this instead. One persons nuance (A proposers for example) could be seen completely differently or ignored by a person not so involved with the process.

It is why I said I would group by rationale/spirit. idk. just thinking out loud and wondering.

I did do a response to zookos post on this, it might have got lost in the noise I created about the miner signalling.

All 13 ZIPs for active development funding proposals have now been merged. The ZIP numbers are 1000 + the number in the Foundation’s Sentiment Collection Poll.

Note: the merged ZIPs include some changes that are intended to be purely editorial. They supercede both the original pull requests, and the draft proposals on the forum threads. If you are a ZIP author and see a change that doesn’t reflect your intent, please contact me.


Hey friends, I’ve seen several more public comments from industry leaders about what a constructive and well-organised process this has been and I decided I didn’t have time to post all of them in this thread, but this latest one that I just saw had some interesting specific comments that I thought were insightful:

“ Cast my vote in the Zcash Dev Fund sentiment collection pool today - regardless of the particular outcome, I am impressed by the amount of polite debate and constructive deliberation (for background, see https://zfnd.org/blog/community-sentiment-collection-poll/… - a standard for future such discussions.

I am even optimistic that a clear consensus outcome will emerge (perhaps after another round of proposal recombination and sentiment collection) - for a vote by stakeholders with widely differing interests where a lot of money is at stake, that’s quite remarkable.

It’s worth asking the meta-level question - what factors lead to this kind of deliberation, and can they be replicated? Stakeholders in many other blockchains are making or will need to make similar decisions as they determine how best to sustain core development & outreach.

Often decentralised governance designers focus on mechanisms and processes for voting- I think this is often a bit of a red herring, the particular voting processes in use in this case seem to have had little to do with the engagement and constructive debate thus far.

I think one essential factor is the presence of institutional stewards - ZcashFoundation, ElectricCoinCo - and third-party organisations - thesis_co placeholdervc - to set the tone for discussion (primarily held on community-controlled forums) and structure timelines.

Another is the infrequency of the debate - institutions and individuals can spend time to carefully read & author proposals because this discussion is being held to determine the development fund configuration for several years. If this happened every few months it wouldn’t work.

And I suspect a final one is the choice of platforms - discussions have primarily been held on Discourse, supplemented by video calls and statements released by the organisations involved. As compared to social media, these platforms are more conducive to long-form discussion.”

From Christopher Goes

I pretty much agree with this! Way to go, team! :slight_smile::heart:


Decisions of 100 community members did not like and need to re-vote correctly?
In the next vote, 100 votes will not be typed, because it will not change anything. Many will think. Where is the community, where is everything the foundation and company are talking about. They draw attention to journalists and industry leaders, people who need an audience and therefore write articles, this opinion cannot be appreciated in principle, because their interest is not spread to zcash, they do it only for themselves. All that’s left is the last attempt to correct the situation on our own, stop spoiling the rest, start improving (not the program code, but the general situation)
Already there is not enough funding, people do not invest enough money in a coin, a very significant moment. Perhaps this is only a stage in development and everything is going well, but people look from the side and see losses and lack of prospects, and this puts the future of the project in a bad position. Therefore, now you need to do everything so that the coin returns to its previous level of trust.

1 Like

Results from the Community Advisory Panel: https://vote.heliosvoting.org/helios/elections/68dcd8ba-08b5-11ea-95c2-1a34a475f69c/view


Turned out very differently than I thought.

it seems pretty clear cut. thanks @zfnd for doing all of this and thank you @sonya. it has been an experience!

For such a strong conversation where it did seem that there would be a lot of indecisiveness in the final poll, I think it actually worked out okay.

So, I know its early but what next? (please don’t just link me to the roadmap) @mhluongo @tromer @acityinohio @JamesTodaroMD how do you see the next step, now this sentiment has been gathered. (Josh C, I am specifically asking you as a proposal author not in your zfnd capacity)

well done everyone.


48 voters only on the community advisory panel? And more than half of these closely affilated with the ECC/ZF??

Mate, I know you don’t mean to, but you are coming across quite hostile to sonya. I would direct your comments to @acityinohio he is the owner of the poll and the whole process.

sorry if I am being a dick to you @boxalex you sound frustrated - and your point is legitimate, im not trying to say it isn’t.

I am curious as to why some proposers and people who wrote articles about the process didn’t vote at all. even if just to recuse themselves by abstaining on every vote. strange. but it is nothing more than idle curiosity. I have no right to ask anyone why they did or didn’t vote.

I am more than willing to publish what I voted for though if anyone is interested. - Id be happy to give my reasoning too.

1 Like

The top three have plenty in common, nice clear result.

Whats the plan? Merge & compromise, or do the top champions fight to the death ? :thinking:


On my side, I see a lot of flexibility in merging leading proposals, if deemed desirable.

(E.g., the process of minimizing differences between my proposal and @mhluongo’s worked very nicely, and both proposals were improved by it. We can do even better now with the additional input.)

I’d just want clarity on how this plays out. If proposals are modified/merged, then will there be another round of sentiment gathering on the new versions? Or is it just up to the discretion of Zfnd and ECC to judge the new versions in light of the sentiments expressed on the old ones? And if there will be another round of sentiment gathering, can it leave some parameters open to decision, or will it be just a final approval vote? All of this affects what merging/changes we should do.