Maybe i miss something or i don’t understand something but i see your proposal as #9
edit: sorry, didn’t read further:
Proposal 9
Proposal for the Zcash 2020 Network Upgrade
Advocate: Blocktown Capital
Comment: The author has indicated they are submitting a revision. We cannot evaluate the proposal at this time.
But this proposal wasn’t included, i guess 10 days have not been enough to include it:
We spent considerable time going through all the proposals last week. We had asked for them to be submitted by the 16th for this round of assessment and yours wasn’t submitted until late last week, iirc. We said that we’d come back and review updates in September.
Here the link to the ECC response to all proposals expect the Blocktown Capital one and mine i mentioned in the last post.
Somehow strange that 2 proposals are not included/commented coming from opposers of a 20% dev fund. Coincidence or Carelessness?
Just some thoughts on the ECC to proposals that had the “luck” to get reviewed at all:
-
As predicted months ago, only the 20% ones seem to be acceptable for the ECC.
-
The opt-out/opt-in requirement is not accepted by the ECC and not an option as far as i can see.
-
About the foundations requirement opt-out & burn suggestion. IF the ECC comment (see below) it leaves the foundation literally only with an opt-in & no-burn option. I was pretty sure that the opt-out & burn option would cause problems, but didn’t think it had such impact. Wasn’t there any argumentation around this upfront btw. the ECC and Foundation that burn would result in being Zcash a security?
FinHub has indicated that “limiting supply or ensuring scarcity [of a cryptocurrency], through, for example, buybacks, ‘burning,’ or other activities,” is a factor in determining that the cryptocurrency is subject to securities regulations.
-
With only 2 somehow acceptable proposals for the ECC it seems the ECC is pretty picky and it seems it’s indeed All-in, or better ALL-or-nothing.
-
What i miss in the ECC answers/comments is any comment on proposed governance and transparency changes proposed in many proposals. But that’s just me of course. Maybe the focus is just right now indeed only on financial matters.
Just some thoughts, like always.
The way I’m looking at this currently is that we’re narrowing down the solution space. Nailing the incentives of governance and accountability is tricky though, so it does feel a bit like we’re rehashing the same pros and cons over and over again. Still, I think we’re making progress — the discussion has gotten more specific, delving into practical mechanisms as well as overall philosophy.
I also gathered from the assessment that @mlphresearch / Placeholder’s proposal and @aristarchus’ proposal are the ones that ECC considers most promising.
Come on, Blocktowns proposal is in place since at least 14th. Just because they reserved the right to fine tune it, collect more feedback doesn’t mean it wasn’t in place.
Damn, you included even a proposal that isn’t supported anymore ( Proposal 4)
And than my proposal that wasn’t included. It was submitted right on 16th if remember right. 10 days time for you guys/girls to comment it with 2 sentences?
On the other side, doesn’t matter much at all, as none of these both is a 20% one they would be declined anyway, lol.
Yes. Apologies if I didn’t state this clearly — the mutual veto is on feature selection, not on draft ZIPs being submitted.
There are two ZIP editors, one representing ECC and one representing ZF. It would fundamentally break the ZIP process — which specifies that consensus changes can only go forward by unanimous decision — if ZF didn’t have a veto.
From ZIP 0:
The current ZIP Editors are Daira Hopwood, representing the Electric Coin Company, and George Tankersley, representing the Zcash Foundation. Both can be reached at zips@z.cash. The current design of the ZIP Process dictates that there are always at least two ZIP Editors: one from the Electric Coin Company and one from the Zcash Foundation. Additional Editors may be selected by consensus among the current Editors.
Also:
A ZIP may only change status from Draft (or Rejected) to Proposed, when the Owner deems it is complete and there is rough consensus on the forums, validated by both the Electric Coin Company and Zcash Foundation Editors. One Editor will not suffice – there needs to be consensus among the Editors. If it’s a Standards Track ZIP, upon changing status to Proposed the Editors will add the optional
Network Upgradeheader to the preamble, indicating the intent for the ZIP to be implemented in the specified network upgrade. (AllNetwork Upgradeschedules will be distributed via the Zcash Community Forum by the Editors.)
Does everyone understand now? @JamesTodaroMD
Looking at the forum timestamp, it was posted on August 17 in UTC.
The way i’'am looking at this currently is that none of the proposals is accepted by both, the ECC or Foundation. Nothing left from the community proposals at all.
Seriously? For me it looks more that all the community proposals have to go towards the ECC or ZF guidelines/whishes/desires. What kind of community decisions/proposals are these where you are told nonstop not this and not that by the ZF/ECC. Or is it just my wrong understanding what a community decision/proposal should be? Possible, in that case sorry that i have a fundamental and totally different opinion on what community means.
Possible it missed some hours due time difference or whatever. As said, doesn’t matter, it would be declined anyway by the ECC, it’s not a 20% one, even less a soley to ECC one.
Out of curiousity, what’s the Blocktowns’ timestamp of their initial proposal?
Havent the ECC effectively given up their veto right by stating they will implement “what the community wants”? - Their responses I feel are a little simplistic. however their response is not really that surprising.
One thing I am not sure about is when a “pivot” happens, what are they going to do with the funds from the initial FR? Would this go towards something other than zcash?
Also, im surprised that they didn’t take parts from the proposals and show how they might be adjusted. Could an amalgam of a few proposals keep everyone happy?
Our time stamp for our proposal was August 14th. I think it deserves comment on the 10% that we proposed well before the August 16th deadline.
As I was afraid would happen, the ECC is ignoring our proposal because of technicalities as opposed to commenting on the main point of it…Would the ECC pivot if offered 10%? Not hard to do one sentence on that in that proposal review document, is it? It’s not like you had hundreds of formal proposals to review.
missed most of discussion of last week, now had some time to read.
in my opinion, this process is starting to go nowhere. well, this is not unexpected in such format, i’ve rarely seen effective governance decisions that were elaborated by any abstract community. its normal. i want to add some assumptions/questions, that, in case of obtaining answers, may clear this all a bit
- do we realize, that participants of current discussion and proposal submitters represent minority of coinholders or just interested persons without any stake. so there’s no need to be upset about any backfire on such proposals. no need to fight. its just an individual proposals. yet.
- every interested/participating person can or already did research, what stage zcash is now at, what is demand for coins, what are the main problems or disadvatages zcash have among competitors. personally i dont like much current position of ecc like “we’re doing our job as we plan, and we accept or reject proposal as we like. we have no liability about our coin appreciacion, and thats all”. what i would like to see from them, is some feedback, like propositions what can be done better and solved from their side in order to make zcash more attractive for users, market. now it can be seen like “we do what we do, if you dont like it - move along”. well, its not the way how continuation of funding can be attracted. or everyone agrees that this is some kind of polite extortion or demand for bailout? i think some clarification needed.
- do we realise that main source of coin buyers, that will hold coin’s price and impact funding - is external. existing holders/users/community are full. maybe some will leave, who will be not happy with outcome. maybe some will increase their stake, who will be happy. so, i dont understand, why main accents from ecc side are pointed along the vector “what we can do better to make zcash experience better”, but towards “we need a bailout to continue”. currently it can be seen like this. and this is a dead end. once again. there’s no point of acceptance/rejection of 10-20-50% miner’s cut in funding if there will be no clear zcash ux improvement measures/incentives. 20% of avg(50,10,0) is less then 10% of ath. you are “for profit” part of zcash, and expect usd budget, not zcash one. ok. that’s fine. bring some additional value. or some clear plans to implement to make zcash better. no i dont mean “just pump it”. and i dont mean “here, take a look at our yesterday’s expectations”. ofc if you position yourself somehow accountable to community/holders/users. if not, then why all this was raised at first?
my appologies, if this is offtopic.
As I wrote earlier, now the company will conditionally make a choice for the community, or we are financing for it, but because the price is not a priority, how long we work out is enough and enough, or the project is abandoned and all coin holders will reset their capital in it.
I wrote this more than a month ago, and I remember someone saying that this will not happen, that a solution other than this will be proposed, but in fact we see what did not happen.
Therefore, I repeat for all people who are trying, all proposals that do not suit the company are not viable, and which ones are suitable for those that involve funding 1.1 million per month only for ECC, and taking into account the fund, 20% will not be enough at current prices, there is time to review your offers a percentage greater (I think 50% will be enough for the first time for the next price reduction). Where am I wrong? In any case, if the community still chooses, then the fund needs to offer 1 or 2 companies that will develop the protocol if there is not enough money for ECC, why is this not done yet? I also assume that all arrangements with major exchanges will be canceled if the community does not support ECC. Therefore, coin holders will have the choice to either put up with the situation or reduce the value of the asset. Where is the discussion of prospects for each proposed option? To choose, you need to understand the consequences, transparency and openness.
You picked wrong number so no discussion.
If you agree 20%, you are community.
ECC/Zfnd said
I am concerned about the health of this forum. I believe that members of this forum are using it for reasons that are unclear, but are certainly unhealthy for Zcash.
This forum includes unknown people with language and a type of engagement that I generally only see from a few bad actors in the Monero community, as well as some Bitcoin maximalists and their followers on CT. I don’t see these people contributing to Zcash more broadly, or even with other projects in other forums.
I do not believe the community in this forum represents the Zcash community at large — the community I meet at the Zcons, working on related projects, or even other projects, at crypto companies in the space, in meetups, and at events.
The Zcash community is a community of builders, inventors, holders, advocates, champions and idealists. https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/the-forum-that-could-be/
based on what?
do you have any ZEC holdings?
what is your story and when did you first started holding zcash?
I know, i just wanted to hear it from @str4d after he could check within seconds my timestamp , but as allways with unfomfortable questions only silence follows …
He made an ironical comment, at least i get it that way…
haha oopsies! sorry @brian