1-2 month timeline is unacceptable. Also, as I’m sure the ZF and ECC are aware, a delay on making a decision on the dev fund would be greater incentive for miners to vote for proposals containing less than 20% of the miner’s reward–also not in the best interest of the ZF/ECC maximizing dev funds…
1 Like
Exactly. The timeframes in the NUP (in particular, the need to select the feature ZIPs for a particular NU a year in advance of NU activation) were derived from the experiences of the Zcash ecosystem going through the Overwinter and Sapling network upgrades, as well as significant input from ECC engineers such as myself.
The NUP was published back in December 2018, and @Shawn started The future of Zcash in the year 2020 at the beginning of January 2019. There has been ample time for discussing and writing proposals.
4 Likes
We’ll post a response to the proposals later today, then happy to discuss.
1 Like
Come on, that’s pretty cheap.
While Shawn indeed made that thread in January 2018 and ask for:
I’m going to start a new thread here to focus questions/thoughts about the future of Zcash.
there was no mention the first months that people should make proposals, whatever. Questions and thoughts are just that what happened in this thread, questions (of which most left unanswered anyway!) and thoughts.
Leave alone that the ZF and ECC came up with their guidelines literally some days/weeks ago.
IF this is talked about allready since January 2019 where has the ECC and ZF been since than on this thread? Why the guidelines just in August 2019? Why no voting mechanism meanwhile? While no nothing since January for so long time?
3 Likes
This argument is very weak.
The ECC and the Zfnd effectively started the discussion 1-2 months ago, which ofc implies there was no interest to start the discussion earlier.
4 Likes
It seems inconsistent to blame ECC/Zfnd for both directing/forcing the discussion and for not pushing it early enough.
Their approach seems to have been to ensure that the infrastructure for the discussion is in place (the forum, transparency reports, State of the Foundation report, network upgrade pipeline, etc.) and then let the independent community drive the process as much as possible before weighing in. This seems reasonable.
1 Like
It’s not for us on the Forum to start taking down ZIPs, even if one doesn’t seem to have much support. Every ZIP that is submitted should go though the consideration/voting process on it’s own merit.
5 Likes
Sry, but that’s an even weaker argument.
To force/direct the discussion into a particular direction the ECC/Zfnd didn’t push it early enough. That’s the impression the community is getting currently.
2 Likes
There was no real data, there was a report on transparency with many questions, and then an increase in staff and an increase in expenses, because according to the report there were 700 thousand and 1 million 100 thousand were already speaking Zcon1.
There were no proposals and clarifications, as already said there was no infrastructure for voting, all this is being created now, there were no statements and calculations for the remainder of the period.
Once again, I draw attention to the fact that discussions are going to the media about the need to create a fund, and not about the community deciding what to do next, the wording means a lot.
I think that before defending the point of view of one it is necessary to understand the second, as this forum shows, they begin to hear only when general discontent is raised, but in vain.
I have said 100,500 times that everything that the company does is perceived negatively, and the company does not see a problem in it, just because its employees think differently, and what if it really looks like they say it from the outside, and it comes out with proposals that way, the company the fund says that the community decides, the community makes suggestions that are not entirely necessary for continuation, and suddenly an advisory group arises from the ashes, as hidden as the future heading, then they say that the community voted for the lack of interest of the block (or the allocation of a small percentage) and consultants in 20 or more and unnecessarily weighty voice of consultants we take it (I would like to be that this was not, but I believe that it will be)
1 Like
Actually i personally see this reverse. It’s very inconsistent to want to make the community proposals their own and than set all over guidelines, time lines, whatever in the last weeks of it.
Actually that’s why i call the whole dev fund process from start to today an absolute mess.
Shawn made a thread in january with thoughts, that’s it, nothing more, nothing less.
IF the intention was to have the community make proposals and to vote on them than there would have some easy fair ways to do so like for example:
- Announce in January that by August 31st the community must have made proposals and have voted on these.
- Give the community a tool for coming to a consensus. The community governance panel fits best as such in my opinion for such a short time. Revive it allready in January or February 2019.
- Make no guidelines like the current ones and let’s see what the community their own wants.
- Stay absolute neutral meanwhile.
- When the proposals are done let the community vote on the community governance panel for example.
That’s what i call community decision and community approach. What we have right now is some fake/psyeudo community decision as the proposals have to go through a review proccess decided by the ECC alone (at least that is my understanding of the next step).
So actually we can write proposals all day long but if they get vetoed by the ECC review process they won’t go anywhere, or do i miss something?
2 Likes
Sonya has already clearly stated before multiple times that in practice the ZF has veto power. The ECC probably has that power as well behind the scenes. Proposal for the Zcash 2020 Network Upgrade - #36 by sonya
I’am aware of her statement but she later got corrected by daira if i remember right and that the veto power only applies for the final NU4 process, not for anything bevor that. The review process is something bevor the final NU4 process. Can’t find the post but that’s what i remember, i could be wrong of course.
Yes, the company gives you the opportunity to block, and it all acts on an oral agreement, as far as I understand.
So there is no guarantee that the ban may limit something, because there may be a second chance to think about the right action. In our world, only real documents are valid, everything else is just a game for the viewer. And real documents for some reason are not created, perhaps due to financial uncertainty, or maybe the stars have not agreed yet. 
@JamesTodaroMD @boxalex You can read further about the current ZIP workflow (which is designed to balance the influence of the ECC and Foundation when deciding ZIPs) here:
And here: The New ZIP Process and Zcash Governance - zcash foundation
2 Likes
We all know it’s an excuse. (sorry for being so bold about it).
It’s like the ZF grants, the first two rounds have been pretty bad and not as well thought out. Why can’t these parties admit they woke up late? Any rushed decision made now will only crack and seperate more of what is left of the “community”.
Instead of investing so much time on the pipeline process, how about ECC and ZFND tell us what is the “community”, how can someone prove to be part of it and how is the community supposed to comunicate with the entities behind zcash?
I feel so left out, am I the only one? 
2 Likes
The ECC/Zfnd should dictate what the community is? Are you sure?
1 Like
I want to support one sentence, can I do it alone? If not, how many people like me need to do this? This is precisely the concept of community that is still not clear, there are general ideas, but they do not work, because they don’t hear me when I speak. There was a question about dictating? The question I see is to say what a community is and not to dictate.
In my personal opinion, only coin holders can be attributed to the community, that’s why:
There are many interested persons, miners, supporters, investors, fund employees and companies, but only a part of them carries risks, those who bear risks and do not receive current profit are a community.
Miners mine a coin and can mine another without incurring risks.
Supporters do not bear any risks and can support any point of view, even which is obviously dangerous for the project.
Investors in a team (direct investment rather than buying a coin) can sue.
Only the buyers of the coin are not protected in any way, at the same time they are fully financing the project, that is, development and movement forward depend on them, and they can receive profit from the sale, but then they will cease to be supporters.
3 Likes
Is there a particular reason our proposal (Blocktown’s) was not included in the ECC initial assessment of community proposals?
We submitted the main point of the proposal advocating a Dev Fund of 10% nearly 2 weeks ago and also posted a more detailed version a few days ago with active discussion on the zcash forums.
Without inclusion in the document released by the ECC, our proposal will get little exposure. We would appreciate if it were assessed and included in the main document as soon as possible…
2 Likes
Where do you see if it’s included or not? Any reference would be appreciated.
1 Like