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

It can be ambiguous if users didn’t vote, which is why the votes on the Forum were counted as “abstain” if a user voted on any of the proposals then the ones not voted on are equivalent to abstain.

If an account voted on any of the 13 proposals, their response for the proposals they didn’t vote on is counted as abstain.

On that post from Josh ^ you can see the difference leaving out abstains makes, pushing one well above 50%.

Either way, with the abstains in or out, the results still strongly favor proposals 12 & 13.


I don’t believe opinions people choose to withhold are up for conjecture in any sort of applicable fashion

(If it is up for conjecture then there probably shouldn’t have been a yes option because it’s synonymous with abstain i.e yes = i can live with this?
Abstain = withold my opinion but that doesn’t mean you can make it up for me either )


Given the total number of people who voted, it is not worth focusing on this, the post does not bear any serious meaning, just an entertaining task for the mind.
To abstain also means to vote “no” because “yes” did not vote, everything is simple, if a certain amount of “yes” is necessary for acceptance, then any excellent votes do not give the opportunity to accept any proposal. But of course, the ECC CEO can interpret as he wants (no).

1 Like

Yes, at best it’s just the negative half of the turnout

1 Like

Abstain means “formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion.”

  1. There is a typo in the post.
    “However ZIP 2013 differs with regards to account” Please fix the ZIP number shown to ZIP 1013.

  2. “A small number of issues need to be resolved between the two leading proposals.” The post starts with saying there are only two leading proposals but there are actually three.

This is such an important piece, worth doing proof reading with other board members?


I agree the meaning of abstain is unclear, especially since voters could abstain by clicking abstain or by just not voting, and some voters did abstain by not voting on particular proposals since the total votes are not equal across proposals.

I would have guessed the opposite, i.e. if someone can’t live with a proposal they would always vote no, and abstain on proposals that they could live with but don’t love.

Anyway its good to try to mine as much insight as possible. I think the fact that the ‘keep it simple’ proposal did so well is significant and yet the foundation seemed to not give it too much consideration in their recent statement.


Abstain is not unclear to me
Allocating absent votes to anything other than “absent” is
I understand it’s all advisory and sentiment collection but putting nonexistent vote (even though it was an option) in the same category as vote is ridiculous
The problem here is that voting mechanisms like this are usually final decision makers where this support stack is taller than that stack it wins end of discussion, since the discussion continues and there’s also an anti support stack and a null stack to consider then yeah I shouldn’t be quite so owly, I’m sorry


Me either. I abstained on most of the proposals I helped write or wrote myself. It is not an indication of if I can live with something or not. It is me refusing to take a stance on that particular proposal. Nothing more, nothing less.

One interesting side effect of counting absent votes as abstaining is there is a lot more forum accounts that were eligible but didn’t vote. so we cant really use that parallel, same with zec holders.


Hey Matt (Green), here’s an updated image with colors where you can more easily see the difference between Approve and Abstain. Remember, the seven ZIPs not shown here all had >50% “Reject” in all of the three polls we looked at. (See https://electriccoin.co/blog/ecc-response-to-zcash-community-polling-results/ for details.)


Fixed, thank you for alerting me!

We proofread everything, but we’re still only human. This particular post was written by Josh Cincinnati based on board discussion, with extensive board feedback on the draft. I wish that board involvement reduced typos and such… but the more people involved, the more chaos, that’s just how life is. The ideal setup for polished text is one author and one editor.


Regarding abstain votes: Abstains should be interpreted exactly as @dontbeevil said; the voter declined to either endorse or reject. Abstaining means that you decline both. Isn’t that the whole point of abstain votes?


Folks, please be aware of what I previously wrote in Decentralizing the Dev Fee. We’re currently working on analyzing what the consequences would be of the current draft ZIP (including with lawyers on analyzing legal issues). It’s going to take us at least a few days to determine what impacts the current ZIP would have on ECC and write a post explaining that. Please give us time. We’re working hard on this.


Very interesting article from Ben DiFrancesco. He has been one of the most level-headed analysts of the cybercoins space for years.

“At the time of this writing, it seems that the community is coalescing around the 35/25/40 proposal, or at least some version of it. The final answer, of course, won’t come until the hardfork actually takes place. Only then will we see who runs the updated software. Regardless of what happens, the whole process has been fascinating to follow.”


I am no longer updating the top post in this thread, and left an edit to that effect.

Open to feedback on whether this giant thread should be closed in favor of Community Sentiment Polling Results (NU4) and future focused threads, or left open for general chatter re: dev funding.


In my opinion, more focused threads would be much easier to follow; not to mention avoiding some significant usability/accessibility issues in Discourse for a thread this size.


Concur. Since no one else has chimed in about it, I’ll close this thread.


There’s a new proposal up on Github - 1014, owner E. Tromer
Link here: https://github.com/zcash/zips/pull/308/files?short_path=1a6b09f#diff-1a6b09f5224cd37433fd21d0d92223ce

Edit by @daira: this has now been published as Draft ZIP 1014.


Thanks Elena!

Ongoing discussion can be found here: Community Sentiment Polling Results (NU4) and draft ZIP 1014

Closing the thread again now.