It’s good how to protect yourself from the situation when the development of the protocol and the company’s work goes on indefinitely, that is, the project exists for 12 years and nothing works, the programmers work, the adoption is in full swing, but the project is not interesting to anyone in principle, and financing is only growing, this project is possible do you think in our world? Would you buy coins through which it is financed, provided that their price drops daily? Because if you stop buying a project, financing will not go and it just closes, and it is in this situation that we are now where it’s small and where I don’t know. What is worse is that I wrote or what is actually happening, I do not know.
1 Like
i’ve seen far worse project management. where investor’s funds were siphoned really for years with only imitation of dev. yes, its hard personal choice for any investor when things go wrong or not as expected. evaluate chances of zcash future yourself and decide. sometimes its better to admit mistake and write off. sometimes to give another chance. depends.
3 Likes
I’ve already decided everything, the question is what to support during the voting, and for this I personally do not have enough information, I’m trying to find out what you say the employees of the company and the fund have already said, if you don’t like it and go ahead, which I they wish, if they don’t like the situation, they can go to another company, where it’s better (if financing is lacking for whatever reasons). You understand what you just wrote and what I wrote about salary in zec is the same thing, too, faith in the project let it turn out now not a lot of the dollar equivalent, but you need to evaluate the chances and make a choice, right? But as soon as the question is swinging about money, everyone says that it doesn’t need to be programmed by programmers, but wait a minute, why don’t you take a different line of reasoning, maybe I shouldn’t think about it, let them get real money in the future, why is this a bad buyer that the risk was assessed incorrectly
and not by the employee who agreed to such conditions? I am for equality, there is no good and bad, there are partners, everyone does his own thing for the common good.
4 Likes
Current reactions are very understandable - aren’t they?
To make it short:
“ECC staff is getting richer (significantly richer, judging by the transparency report) - investors/holders - i.e. people who are paying the ECC staff - are getting significantly poorer.”
5 Likes
Hi all. We’ve posted our thoughts on the Zcash Foundation guidance published last week: A Blank Slate: The Community to Decide its Future - Electric Coin Company
6 Likes
Yes, I agree that such a reaction is understandable, although simplistic.
To be clear, most of the commenters here have nuanced perspectives informed by a lot of background information. But if you’re a not-very-involved ZEC holder who hasn’t been actively following the debate, it would be easy to conclude, “We already gave you a bunch of money, ECC and ZF, so please just figure it out!” Part of what makes this so hard is that ECC and ZF don’t want to figure it out entirely by ourselves 
Establishing community consensus, or an approximation thereof, is very difficult and time-consuming. Especially when you can’t rely on an anonymous, sybil-resistant voting system. Such a thing does not exist in a form that we could use, as far as I know. There are tools for keeping who voted what anonymous, but not who voted at all. Unless we sacrifice sybil-resistance, but then what’s the point.
This is why there’s so much interest in stake-weighted polling as a source of information. Weighting answers or preferences by staking amount makes it expensive to subvert the vote, but the downside is that no one wants to cede Zcash community decisions to whales. It’s useful to know what they think or want, but they shouldn’t be in charge.
2 Likes
I know I am taking up your valuable time, but could you please let me know what account those tweets were selected from? (some seem to be from before the foundations statement. so, why are they in the response to the foundations statement? - seems an odd choice to me)
Was it zooko’s or someone that doesn’t “use the block button liberally”, also why did it take 8 months to say this statement? there is nothing new in it. Except now I have to adjust my proposals to fit with the foundations scheme (was going to do that anyway, but wanted to hear what the ECC had to say first)
You have given 7 working days maybe, at best, to announce now people need to air their voice?
Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but why couldn’t the ECC have started the “have your voice” campaign and given more noise to it when the Foundation (@shawn) first brought it up?
@sonya please let people know that if they put in the minimum engagement with me then I will help them get their voice heard. It might help, it might not. at least I tried.
I will need to ask them a few questions, but I will type it all up. I now even have a flow diagram and a web template I can follow and get something good enough (assuming my format is good enough?) within 20 minutes or so.
@joshs @zooko @nathan-at-least - I have been asking you for feedback on my format for long enough, time has run out. Now I need to know if that is acceptable for the ECC to work with or what I need to do to change it. - (correct me if I am wrong but are you not getting paid to answer these questions? I am not being paid to ask them, nor help people, which my questions to you are to help me to help others. more fool me I guess)
or you win. I give up, I will change my proposals to not include any form of distribution of funding. Others will care about this though. Or maybe they wont. people have left it this long maybe nobody in the wider community cares, or even knows.
Is this being discussed in china? Where are the Chinese zips? they are the biggest users and miners.
Any pool owners on this forum with an opinion? Hardware manufacturers? this heavily impacts you and your clients. Id have no idea who to @ for that.
I really hope this “who blinks first” game works, because it is bloody dangerous. - What happens if the proposals fail at technical review at the end of October? hard ECC exit? No new proposals can be put forward because @nathan-at-least ignored my plea’s for a formal response to an extension to this one specific part of the NU4 selection process.
Now there is no time and im going to have to lose yet another bet with @boxalex, this is getting tiresome.
Yes I understand we are where we are now. And my post doesn’t change the past, yet we have no feedback or time to negotiate with the ECC. Foundation has been there every step of the way.
Thank you for respecting my time. Sorry if this is wasting yours.
Maybe the ECC should have had a stance earlier in the process, or at least given it more attention and publicity. I cannot fault the zcash foundation in this regard.
1 Like
still believe there’s no reason to fund 2 organizations.
Make a proposal with favouring 1 organization.
1 Like
These twitter posts at the end of the statement are “bitconnect” style, seriously. Do the ECC a favour and consider to remove them, these are going to do more harm than good.
Hopefully nobody at the marketing office thinks about to hire Carlos, lol.
4 Likes
I’m not sure what you mean. This has always been a community decision, not an ECC decision. We have been long advocating for and supporting formal proposals with a commitment to respond to each with our thoughts. Also, I’m not sure that the foundation was explicit about a “scheme” per se.
I don’t remember seeing a request addressed to me for feedback on a format. If I missed it, please point me back to it.
Let me know how I can best help you. I’m unclear if some of these questions are directed at me explicitly or are more general questions you are raising to the group.
2 Likes
Thanks Josh for the blog post. Good news is ECC is willing to explore non-profit option. This is amazing on multiple fronts:
- ECC doesn’t have to deal with their board and investors. Although, retaining talent might be tricky (as long as ZEC is good it should be fine).
- Two non-profits working towards a common goal of empowering people with financial privacy. Opportunity for more decentralization
through education and public events. - More transparency builds confidence in community for ongoing development.
Another option that ECC may have considered is setting up new non-profit arm focused on zcash. ECC could raise money from traditional VCs and focus on building products and custody solutions on top of Zcash, make money by selling it to exchanges, institutional investors etc.,.
Obviously, there should be clear separation b/n both profit and non-profit arms.
2 Likes
Responding to a bunch of different things at once.
@boxalex @mistfpga, a section from our guidance:
Reviving the Community Advisory Panel
We will revive last year’s Community Advisory Panel and request old members to both:
- invite one new member of their choosing
- vote on the proposals (once they have been submitted as ZIPs).
The polls will open September 3 and be due September 17.
Miner signaling
We will invite mining pools to signal their support of a given proposal using the coinbase text of blocks collected between September 3 and September 17.
And a relevant comment from another thread:
We all have until October 31 to discuss and modify ZIPs. Draft ZIPs should be well-considered and fleshed out, which is the goal of discussing them on the forum, but they are not considered to be 100% finalized upon submission.
This doesn’t make sense. ECC wants to be compensated in ZEC, by the Zcash community, for working on ZEC. The whole point of setting it up that way is to align incentives so that ECC benefits by making Zcash more useful.
It was flagged by a user. I reviewed the flag and let it stand because I agreed that the comment was inappropriately antagonistic. You can learn more about how flags work in the Discourse FAQ (the forum software we use).
Remember the Zcash Community Forum rules, everybody! In particular, this section…
Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
- Using sexualized language or imagery.
- Personal attacks.
- Trolling and insulting or derogatory comments.
- Public or private harassment.
- Publishing another person’s private information, such as physical or electronic addresses, without explicit permission (AKA doxxing).
- Other unethical or unprofessional conduct, at the discretion of the moderators.
Be polite. The more heated the discussion, the more passionately that you think someone else is wrong, the more effort you should put into writing a civil response. Take a minute to cool off and reread what you wrote before posting it.
There’s a reason why every single industry still has in-person gatherings. There’s a reason why companies with remote employees hold summits for everyone to get together and talk face-to-face. It facilitates collaboration, not just at the event itself but afterwards, once everyone is back to communicating online.
Thank you, Josh. Both thoughtful and thought-provoking!
It seems safe to assume that ECC considers them informative. The section was titled “Additional Resources.”
Is there a reason why ECC would have to change its board members? ECC having a board is pretty new, by the way.
1 Like
The reason would be them demanding ECC to focus on something that may not help Zcash.
Hi,
My apologies, only the first part of the message was meant for you. I didn’t meant to @ you. They were there to stop me double posting. As far as I can recall you have always been prompt and helpful.
It has been a community decision with very little feedback from the ECC. The ECC has said it will provide feedback on proposals but it gives very little. (please note: I make a distinction between the ECC and the people that are part of it.) The Foundation on the other hand have been a lot more engaged on the topic.
The post reads more like an advert than a direct response to the foundations statement - I think the post made it seem like their are only two choices. fund the ecc or don’t fund the ecc. - those tweets certainly re-enforced that idea.
which isn’t really what is going on, we don’t really know how much funding they will need. and the protocol changes may be too much or too little. idk. it is why I asked which timeline they were taken from.
I think they really detracted from the wider conversation. I recognise some of the names from the wider community, but this all feels a bit late, now a bit too dichotomised, and lacking the nuance the subject had developed.
Unfortunately I rely on a spell checker a bit to much, it was meant to say schema. (i.e. my proposals relied on the foundation giving the ECC money. Now I need to work out how to change that, so the ECC can get money - Sonya is helping at the moment.)
probably because there wasn’t one. My apologies I didn’t mean to @ you in that second bit.
I will. thank you. I had a bit of a “hard of typing and hard of thinking moment”. My questions were directed at the ECC.
Sorry I cant really write short posts. 
1 Like
Blockquote
To be clear, most of the commenters here have nuanced perspectives informed by a lot of background information. But if you’re a not-very-involved ZEC holder who hasn’t been actively following the debate, it would be easy to conclude, “We already gave you a bunch of money, ECC and ZF, so please just figure it out!” Part of what makes this so hard is that ECC and ZF don’t want to figure it out entirely by ourselves 
Sry, does this really represent ECC’s attitude?
This is not a simplistic conclusion of some one who is not informed. That’s what you’re trying to suggest, right? It’s not an uninformed conclusion, it’s a fact backed up by data. Furtermore, it’s the most mentioned critique and very harming.
Here is a more explicit translation of my previous statement:
There is a huge imbalance in financial risk - financial risk is only! on the side of investors/holders. To be more explicit - they are the only one who lose money in the situation of falling prices. That’s why some members of the ECC staff express their indifference towards the price of Zcash.
Here is one proposal which improves the balance and provides healthy incentive.
The ECC should pay their employees in a fixed amount of Zcash.
3 Likes
Over any expectation I must say and I actually appreciated the words shared with he community.
I personally would’ve bet on the absolute opposite response from the ecc (a big F you to the community) and instead you guys actually educated the community about the possibility of adding non-profit clause to any zip to be presented.
Great job!
OFF TOPIC
############
I feel bad for acting as such a brat lately, for continuously bashing the ecc with no second thought and for being so disrespectful.
I deeply regret acting so childish and for all it’s worth: I’m sorry
2 Likes
We will be working through the proposals next week and owe the community our thoughts on each on the 26th. I suspect it may be an iterative process. We all have until the October to lock in a decision, whether funding or not.
2 Likes
Full disclosure: a good chunk of my salary is paid in Zcash. I lost a significant amount of money last year as I didn’t sell my ZEC but had to pay taxes at the price it was at the time I received it. By the time I paid them, I owed more than I received.
I had to change things this year by immediately selling the ZEC I need for taxes. Anyway, believe me, I share your pain.
Also, note that ECC has certain legal restrictions that impact what we can and can’t do, and what we can and can’t say. This may be unsatisfying but it’s our reality.
4 Likes
Thank you @johnwisdom.
2 Likes