The Placeholder & Blocktown Poll, even it’s just a non binding poll, is quiet interesting.
So far 290 people voted and the 20% dev fund option is the least liked by people that voted.
If we don’t count the no dev fund which in my opinion is one that is mostly voted by outside people it seems the the 10% dev fund option has the strongest support.
Edit: IF this was an official result the 10% option would clearly win in my opinion because in case the voters had to choose at the end btw 10% or 20% the no dev fund voters would for sure choose 10% and the Linear voters that voted for 10% - 20% would mostly evenly split to 10% and 20%.
And the worst case scenario would be 10% versus no dev fund where there would be a possible that none of them gets a clear majority.
An alternative reading is 64% in favor of a dev fund (in spite of all the twitter trolls), and 50% of those in favor of a dev fund favor at least 20% at the outset. I think the point raised by Andre in that thread related to framing hashrate vs. dev funding is important.
If the poll doesn’t show what you want it to, then it is trolls? okay. cool. I will keep that in mind in future.
edit: after a follow up post from joshs, this is him clearly misrepresenting data for humour, he states this below. I missed this when he initially posted this. Just adding this clarification.
This mental gymnastics assumes every single vote for “no dev fund” is a troll. If this is really your assumption, then I question your knowledge of the Zcash community. Furthermore, I question just how unbiased the method/criteria will be to gauge “community sentiment.”
Given how easily gamed a Twitter poll is I don’t think anybody should consider it an accurate judgement of sentiment
( Zcash Foundation is supportive of the 20%, ECC won’t function on less than what they get now so what are we talkin about here?)
You all are too much. It was tongue in cheek. It looks like I failed in communicating through the effective use of smiley-faced emoticons.
But seriously, no, I don’t believe an anonymous public twitter poll is a reasonable reflection of Zcash Community sentiment. It’s interesting, but it is what it is.
In my opinion, it’s not difficult to choose financing against hashrate, I think people are dissatisfied with the situation and the connection with excess funding in the first 3 years, when the team does not need to do anything to solve future problems, but just focus on development, we got this situation, as far as I remember talked about her back in 2018. Now there is an uncomfortable question about the lack of any chosen financing in the future, if the price changes, it cannot fall below enough to cover costs, the team does not see a problem in this, so the question is why give this team chances if it is better and more correct to put in conditions when actions should be directed to change the situation, and of course all the work that needs to be done will be done perfectly.
In other words, everyone expects what will happen to be what was originally intended.
What kind of mathematics did you use to come to that conclusion?
In an ideal favouring of your conclusion which would assume that all the 10-20% would be 20% proposal likers as well the 20% option would get 32% (10% + 22%) are 32% in my book and not 50%+.
But be sure that 10-20% voters are divided for sure btw the 10% and 20% option, which in theory will split them more or less evenly.
But that’s actually even not the point? You guys/girls in ECC should think why only every 10th of voters would vote for the ECC desired 20%.?
I’am pretty sure you guys there make that up to other reasons, that people don’t understand this and that, are trolls, believe in myths, have no idea and and and.
My theory and why i personally voted is 10%, and i’am pretty sure many others did for the very same reason is that the previous founders reward was distributed in a very bad way, that the current ECC has a very bad track on using the funds it has, that people are disapointed on many fronts on wht the ECC did so far despite having on of the best (if not the best) cryptography teams. That the ECC is not transparent enough, that it’s not enough community driven and not enough decentralized.
As the community we have no other option that making it clear in votes and polls as on the forum nobody from the ECC gives 2 cent about such opinions, even worse, we are called weed and FUD’ers.
Me personally voted for 10% on this one and whatever vote/poll is coming i again will vote for 10% as long as the ECC doesn’t get way more transparent, accountable, goes non profit and outside developers and the community gets more involved. Or in other short words, if the ECC admits it’s mistakes and finds a way to correct them for future than i’am pretty sure a lot more people would be even fine with a 20% dev fee. But instead of analysing things, you guys/girls make one step after another that just … backfires again and again…
Don’t be fooled, while i would agree that a portion there are trolls, i’am sure not all are trolls. This poll isn’t held on an anarchy site but by placeholder and blocktown which should indicate that people that have financial interest are their followers.
If you think there are no dev fund supporters within the community you are simply too far away from the community to realize that there is actually support for that option, especially by miners.
You might think that the no dev fund option has no support because there is not much of discussion about it, but that’s naturally as a no dev fund no anything doesn’t need a discussion at all as it’s not a protocol change.
And again, instead of commenting if the 37% no dev funds are trolls you should sit together and discuss why only 10% are in favour of 20%!
Totally agree, i mentioned several times that it seems that the ECC lost connection with the community, that they live in a total different world where price and everything else has no place.
I’am not sure, but this could be the outcome that the ECC/someone gets his paychecks no matter how good they perform, no matter what they deliver and no matter how good everything is managed.
No idea, it’s a miracle for me how so many wrong decisions and statements are made in such short time.
So is the foundation supportive for no protocol change and no dev fee or 10% or 5% or whatever.
They function right now with $500k, why shouldn’t they function if they don’t get $1M is out of my understanding. If a company at some point has less funds than there must be made some economical changes and adjustments and that’s actually a good thing to become more effective with less funds.
As i don’t get any info about the wages structure within the ECC (despite asking several times for such!) i could imagine that a good amount are paid as bonuses, to advisors, bonuses to shareholders and such like. With less funds i agree that they can’t make estiminated million dollar investments into Sharks or Agority, but that’s not a must at all.
It’s amazing that there are people definding the current spending/expenses/funding without even knowing where these funds go exactly. We only have a vague idea, nothing else.
I agree, it’s not a 100% reflection of the Zcash Community sentiment, but it’s at least the best indicator so far outside your guys/girls echo chamber and i personally would take it more serious.
And by the way, this forum with it’s 10 posters isn’t a reflection either.
Yeah man, it happens. The reason it happened now is that you normally post so seriously (see your response to me doing a similar thing to numbers in the blackpill thread, a thread designed for your sort of post.) - Because I normally make serious posts too, I have to heavily mark when I am joking or deliberately misrepresenting numbers, this is actually because of you getting me wrong and I could see the distress it caused you and the wasted time in responding to me.
I took your message seriously, as did a lot of others. Just put at the end something like (this is a joke, these numbers are obviously wrong, etc, etc.) - sorry about that.
I am going to leave my reply up, but will edit it with your joking info. - joking about is cool, everyone loves it. just please make it a bit clearer (even if that kind of ruins the joke)
@Autotunafish it wasn’t about the legitimacy of the poll, it was this one option is the troll option, just so happens that was the most popular. if you are going to use a poll that is easily gamed like that you have to call all votes troll votes or no votes are troll votes. appearing to deliberately misread information to fit a narrative is not cool. - a forum poll will be interesting. Will set one up in a bit. (I hate polls btw, for this very reason)
It doesn’t matter, I’ve already explained the responsibility for deciding on what proposal is supported Falls solely on the foundation board of directors (that’s why the selection process for them is so important)
They’re the ones who face the legal ramifications should the foundation do something illegal
(They can’t say the community voted on this, nope you’re still going to jail)
So ultimately it is their responsibility to make sound decisions that best serve the zcash community and Mission regardless of what the zcash community appears to think, thats their function
Just some neutral general thoughts about the upcoming Foundation voting/polling. As i thought a bit about it the way the voting is hold is extremely important for the outcome. This might not be obvious but if you give the below added examples some attention it will get obvious that a lot is up on how the process is hold.
Examples on Voting on all proposals at once (like planned to my knowledge):
As there are many different proposals splitted into various proposals just with slight or bigger changes there is a chance that the no dev fund proposal (again) will get the most votes simple because it has not to share votes like the “for-dev-fund” proposals". For example there are different 20% proposals which will have the votes split, but the no-dev fund proposal has nothing to split with any other proposal.
This is an interesting fact because it would result, as shown in the Placeholder/Blocktown poll, that the general community wish of a (new) dev fund is given but there is a chance that the no-dev fund proposal gets the most votes which will result in a strange situation.
IF a Britisch Voting system is choosen (i just call it like that) it would lead to a different result at the end, but would need more voting tours.
For example in each voting/polling tour the proposal with the least votes gets rejected and the remaining proposals are up for voting/polling again, just this one less.
This would force the voters of the rejected proposal to choose another one of the remaining proposals until only 2 proposals are up for a final vote. This would definatly lead to a situation where both, the proposal and community wish is represented in the final tour as there is no longer a chance that the general sentiment is different from the proposal that “wins”, but as said, it would need several tours for such voting.
Just some thoughts on what, with a good chance, could happen at a direct vote on all proposals!
K, you only get one go at this, I think. have left it an open poll but people shouldn’t be able to see how you voted. it doesn’t matter anyway. I just wanted to phrase the poll differently to highlight it depends on the question being asked. (I picked the I hate polls option. - this poll automatically arranges itself so the most voted for is at the top. that would seem less than ideal. don’t know why.)
Everyone always selects the first option to be the most reasonable presented, i hate polls.
5% of total zec 21m but to be issued over the next 4 years
10% of total zec 21m but to be issued over the next 4 years
Linear decline from 10% to 5% zec 21m but to be issued over the next 4 years.
I get your idea and the psychology and wording plays a role, even your example is a very poor one, lol.
But my argument still holds that in general your poll could have a general sentiment for a dev fund but the most people actually voted on Everyone selects the first option or no dev fund which would leave your poll in a strange situation as well having a general community sentiment on one hand and a clear voting result for a given proposal that might not covered by the community sentiment on the other hand.
Edit: If your poll was as an answer to my theory your poll should contain about 10+ questions to visualize as my whole post is based on a voting with 10+ proposals.
The Foundation’s proposed poll is an approve/disapprove ballot on each proposal. So there’s no “splitting the vote” problem.
Of course people can just count the approval votes and say that the one with the most votes “won”, but as far as I understood, that’s not the intent, and it’s not how it will be decided which proposal (or combination of proposals) gets adopted. That is governed by the process for adopting consensus changes, which until further notice/agreement, is a 2-of-2 process between the ECC and Foundation. (In the case of deadlock between the ECC and Foundation, then the status quo defined by the current consensus rules prevails, which would be no issuance-based funding after the first halving.)
Thx for the clarification and that’s exactly how i thought it would be, expect that there is no splitting actually (i assumed it’s a vote for 1 which obviously isn’t the case!)
Uhmmm, what is the intend than? What do i miss here? If it’s not to check the sentiment and what proposal the larger community wants, what other thing can it be?
Maybe i explained it bad due my bad English. But let’s assume absolutly neutral the following:
Proposal X gets let’s say 51% but gets’ rejected for whatever reason in the later 2:2 process.
Proposal Y get’s as the next best let’s say 25% but gets approved in the later 2:2 process.
Wouldn’t this lead to some strange situation that a community choosen/preferred proposal has a chance to be rejected and another not by the majority of the community choosen proposal could be choosen finally?
@mistfpga, I’m confused by your poll. Are the options
5% of total zec 21m but to be issuedover the next 4 years
10% of total zec 21m but to be issuedover the next 4 years
…
meant to be a rephrasing of
What’s your preference for % allocation to Zcash dev funds from 2020-2024
10%
20%
…
from Burniske’s Twitter poll?
But there’s a factor of 2 difference between these. During years 5-8, just a quarter of the total 21M supply will be issued, so a “10%” Dev Fund is just 2.5% of the total supply spread over the 4 years, and similarly, a “20%” Dev Fund is just 5%.
Darn, ousted before the experiment can finish. ah well
It was not meant to mean the same thing as the twitter poll. as outlined in the options. - your maths are right.
It is meant to look like cburnske but it is not the same. yes, mine give a lot more money to the dev fund. currently the most popular is to continue at the same rate we are currently going at (10% of total block distribution as a development fund.)
It was meant to look similar, yet different enough. I thought the ‘I hate polls’ option would win.
I didn’t realise the poll self rearranged so that messed up my original experiment. (I wanted an option that matched the most popular on twitter, but messed up the maths on the 5% one.)
I think the point raised by Andre in that thread related to framing hashrate vs. dev funding is important.
