Moved some chatter over from @boxalex’s proposal thread. Alex, I’m pinging you in case you want to duplicate your comment about stepping away, which was still related to the proposal specifically, back on the original thread.
What are the next steps for the community at this point? convert those proposals to ZIPS? then?
- every proposal has it’s own reasoning, some are better formulated, some less good, but every proposal has a reasoning that supports the idea and rationale behind the proposal. You have just choosen one that fits perfectly your wishes. Hence i call it an unfair advantage for this very exact proposal and an unfair popularization to the wider community/public using social media accounts by the ECC and it’s employeess which followers of course again re-tweet it…
Having in mind the stance for months by the ECC that they do NOT want to make a own proposals, leave everything to the community a sudden such popularization of a favourited proposal which is obviously the best financing proposal for the ECC leaves a lot of room for calling such behavour “Conflict of interest” and giving a proposal a huge advantage over every other.
IF the ECC is indeed interested in a fair process where the wide community can discuss, fine tune, whatever differerent proposals and in gaining a lot of different community voices than the only acceptable, fair and honest method is to use a link to ALL proposals. This should fit the ECC even better if it has honest intentions as the community this way has access to different opinions, different proposals, different thoughts and as a result the community will benefit way more.
IF this is your intention i suggest you:
a.) Remove the link to the very favoured so far proposals on all ECC, ECC employee accounts.
b.) make a tweet for asking the community to participate in reviewing, discussing ALL different proposals.
c.) stay very away from favouring, populrazation, spreading, discussing, whatever any single selected proposal.
I double checked and found 2 tweets/re-tweets going/show-casing 2 proposals by the foundation directly. Both 20% dev funding. This clearly underlines my claim that some proposals get or got a showcase place on various social media accounts, be it ECC, foundation, foundation members or ECC employess or Zooko’s account. Each with a reach to the wider public of course.
Of course there arise concerns when there is a very sensible “competition” with various proposals over the very funding that by the wishes of the foundation & ECC should be made by the community.
When a sudden the foundation and/or ECC is more engaged in proposals that “fit” their wish it’s discouraging every other proposal maker.
I agree the placeholders proposal is an excellent one, well written, professional written and put information supporting their cause well placed into it, no matter other important information is avoided.
I agree as well that each of the concerns i have raised, what you call “read to much into the lines” could be true if it was only a “single signal”, but it’s not, hence i finally raise the question and ask for “fair play”
Let’s again analyze every single signal i personally see that leads FINALLY to a conflict!
Likes. Some proposals get ECC likes, some not. Seriously, if there weren’t other signals i never ever would have mentioned this as it’s indeed a such minor issue that under normal circumstances it’s not worth mentioning. On the other side, each proposal was made by someone that puts a lot of time & thoughts & even ideas into it.
Contribution by officials on various proposals. Shouldn’t each proposal get the help needed to make it a valid one? Some proposals have official ECC/Foundation contribution/discussing/clearing things up, some others are literally ignored by the foundation/ECC. For example in one proposal i see contribution that corrects literally every comma and clears up 10’s of things. On the other side my proposal favouring the foundation as the recepient nobody thinks it’s necessary even to mention that the foundation does not want to be the sole recepient and wouldn’t support such proposal for 20 days.
There are much more examples but i will stick to this one.
Than we have the tweets. Taking for example Placeholders and aristarchus proposals, both favouring a 20% dev fee. These both are the proposals that got the privilege to be in the ECCs/Foundations showcase and not only:
Aristarchus 20% dev fee proposal as well visible at: Foundation (removed now), Andrew Miller, Zooko for example
Placeholders 20% dev fee proposal as well visible at Foundation (removed now), Elise Hamdon (ECC), Josh Swiheart (ECC). Yesterday there have been more official re-twitts, seems several “affilated” Foundation/ECC members removed it by now.
NO other proposal got a showcase!
Now someone of course could say, no big deal at all. It is a big deal if choosen proposals get showcase positions on the ECC 76k follower account. It would be the same if you had elections somewhere and and favoured person for the government gets advertising clusered all over the country and the rival candiates get only exposure in the last abondanded village in alaska.
Hence i mention it so this stops to garantee a fair discussion and proposal process without foreup favoured proposals that manipulate or could manipulate the wider community, especially the part of the community that is not that much involved in details.
All i’am asking is for fair play, fair discussion, fair handling, fair engaging, fair considering, fair help, fair election/polling/voting. IF that’s too much asked than the whole process is nothing more than a farce.
In my opinon asking for fair & equal treatment of the anyway very few proposals isn’t asked too much.
People want money, what’s wrong with that, they will get it because the development of the coin depends only on them and not on the community. I have already written like that in other topics, everything is only getting worse.
Investors (zec buyers) will be poor, coin makers are rich, no one is interested in this coin, see who retweets and likes posts, employees of the Fund and ECC, well, people who somehow depend on zec. All these loud speeches about the right thing are no more than words until there is movement, but it is not there yet, and that, yes, nothing, there is not. Progress of 3 years is under threat because several people against 20% of production in the next 4 years, and who made the team that there would be no threat of lack of finance in the first 4 years, nothing. Now the company for choosing the strategy for the next 4 years, most of all PR for the first 3, why, to continue to spend on subsidies.
There is no detailed analysis of the required amount of funds for the next 4 years. I have already asked that after halving, even if the 20% of the production is observed, there will be enough results, because they were not enough to halve. Silence. It turns out that they would not accept as a result of the funds, all the same would not be enough. Change the conditions, make a pre-100% on the balance and everything, sell little by little.
No one wants to invest in the team and in the coin, but this would save you from financial issues.
I’ll add that I’m not a hater, I’m just an early investor.
Let the current recipients of the founders award invest their capital accumulated with this coin into its development and receive back money in the value of zec in the next 4 years, I don’t mind (I think everyone would not mind), and that they would experience that there’s no PR and the rise in value, that there is no acceptance, that the coin loses the market going lower and lower in the CMC rating and so on. But they donate nothing, and therefore there is no success, and only we see a bright future at the end of the tunnel.
ATM there is no light at the end of the tunnel, its just a freighttrain coming your way.
We are in the wrong tunnel atm. I think, it should be several Zips combined. Then on the other hand my biggest problem occurs, how to combine them, how to vote on what stays and what has no future.
I stilll stand on the voting proces if that gets inplanted, how ?
1 Zec 1 Vote ?
Community wants something, ECC can overrule ?
Only people who are involved here can vote ?
All mentioned above have flaws, I am aware of that, but didnt realy read a proposal that tackles that in a way that will suit everybody.
On the other hand, on a microlevel everybody has different wishes, Miners are different from Hodlers or Traders, but in the long run alll have the same wish I guess, a Coin that grows to his full potential and has profit for all. ( Yes, Profit, some may not like the word, but in the end this is what is important for all groups involved and I think it’s important that all groups feel equaal in this )
The potential to be a top coin still is here ( just read the interview with the Twins, they still believe big time in Zcash ) But time is running out.
And maybe it’s not my call, but at times where a big fundamental change is going on or needed, This should have top prio of the ECC and not retweeting a friendly fork. And once again, not to bash Ycash, but without Zcash or a damaged Zcash, Ycash will be gone too.
I think you’re making a good point, Alex.
Andrew’s proposal was highlighted because he’s a member of our board. @aristarchus was one of the first community members to articulate a proposal, so that was also exciting. Placeholder is the first institution besides ECC or ZF to seriously engage with this emergent governance thing we’re doing, and their submission was especially polished as others have noted.
But, all of that said, my reasoning doesn’t particularly matter, because it still gives the appearance of favoring certain proposals over others, and that’s not appropriate for the Zcash Foundation, at least not at this stage. So today I’m going to do a Twitter thread highlighting each of the proposals individually; hopefully that will be a step toward balance.
@anon75406386 I think we need to discuss a bit more before turning these into ZIPs, although that should certainly be done soon. The list has quite a few proposals — I think we should try to identify common mechanisms or goals, and figure out which proposals can be combined. Today I’m going to read through all of these again and see what commonalities there are — if a suggestion turns up in every proposal, or a majority of them, that’s a strong signal.
I think the way you engage with the community is really good. I understand sometimes it may cause confusion but I would really hate to see your activity stifled because of formalities.
I don’t have much to suggest in the way of a fix, but I do think your conduct and when you are acting as a forum mod, non foundation related person with inside knowledge (like personal posts), and official foundation representative is very clearly distinct. (to me at least)
Creating a separate account for announcements might mean you do not get notified of replies and people might @ that address rather than you.
Something that I have seen you do and I think works very well is if it is an official question you normally ping acityinohio for a formal response.
I think it also helps newbies and me that when something comes up I can @ you, its like you are a centralising force for the foundation on the forum.
Ohh just had a thought, you could have a flag on a post, you know like when a mod tells you off for derailing a thread it goes in orange. Why not something similar which highlights the post as the official stance of the foundation. That way any of the foundation can do it, and I would make it easier for people to spot the official info because it is in green or whatever.
It might mean you double post to a person with an official response to part of their question and a second post with personal opinion. The more I think about this the more I like the idea.
But like I said before I don’t have an issue with distinguishing the difference. I can see how other people might though.
I feel like the easiest thing would be an equivalent of mod color, which the moderators apply to a post when acting in that capacity. If I had something like that for official announcements, it would help to clarify when I’m speaking for ZF versus just me. I’ll think about a good way to do that.
Edit: I just realized that @mistfpga literally suggested this and I basically rephrased the suggestion.
that’s exactly what I was trying to describe, just badly and with more words, lol.
I shared all of the proposals in this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/ZcashFoundation/status/1149472261985845249 @boxalex
Unfortunately it’s a Friday afternoon, and Donald Trump tweeted about bitcoin yesterday, so no one is paying attention right now. I will retweet them all on Monday — just added to my to-do list
@Shawn should I remove your proposal from the list above, since you’re no longer planning to submit it as a ZIP?
Can we have something similar for ECC employees? I think Nathan says it best here.
Would a bounty help get this done? im willing to put up 1 monero towards it. - they don’t have to use it but id like to see the feature.
edit @sonya is the arbiter of who gets the bounty should multiple submissions (doubtful) appear and she is also able to claim the bounty if she implements it.
There is only 1 monero total on offer from me. It might get spilt up. And to be clear, we need mod colour for the foundation official posts and a different mod colour for official ECC posts.
The time limit on this is 3 months.
We’re already marked with our affiliations:
Personally I think it would be an inappropriate special privilege for ECC employees to have something like mod color here.
Yes but that affiliation can cause issues.
I am not saying give them mod powers. Just the power to highlight a post as an official ecc representative rather than as “personal opinion with potential inside knowledge”
I get 100% where you are coming from. My bounty still stands even if it is just for the foundation. and it has to be a separate colour from orange. My bounty is to make your life easier, and that of the community’s easier to sift official info from non official info.
If what gets put in place makes you happy then I am happy and will pay the bounty.
Ah, sorry, I just connected the dots with our conversation upthread. I don’t think a literal equivalent of mod color is a good idea. It would be confusing, since ECC and ZF employees don’t have any special authority on the forum unless they are moderators. I don’t want people to come in here, unfamiliar with the community, and not know which color is which, etc. When the only highlighted posts are mod posts, it’s clear. So a different “I’m speaking in an official capacity” signifier would be better.
Like a quote box that is a different colour and says Official Foundation Position: I like the idea of different colours even if it is just the highlight on the =Topic part of the post.
So a post from a normal person at the ECC would look like
Then a post from you might look like:
But I think bunnies are the real mascot.
that seems easier to implement?
(Thats pretty hilarious! )
Official announcement: No later than August 6, the Zcash Foundation will release a detailed evaluation of community proposals for sustainable Zcash development. @acityinohio will explain the Foundation’s current thinking and plans for structuring community feedback.
(This will be tweeted by the @ZcashFoundation account tomorrow morning, in case anyone is wondering.)
Proposals that I suggest combining before turning them into ZIPs:
“Do nothing, let FR expire” proposals:
- ZIP proposal Keep the block distribution as initaly defined. 90% to miners @mistfpga
- Dev Fund Proposal: No dev dund, let FR expire, market decides @jj6
“Miner’s choice” proposals:
- Dev fund proposal: 20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or "burn" @amiller
- Dev Fund Proposal: opt-out mechanism for sharing block rewards by miners for dev fund @dontbeevil
- ZIP Proposal - A genuine opt-in protocol level, development donation option @mistfpga
- Dev fund proposal: 15% Opt-In only + other sources @boxalex
Proposals that I think could be combined, but the suggestion is more tentative since the overlap isn’t as large:
“Voting / community choice” proposals:
- New Funding Proposal + Community votes @SydneyPete
- ZIP proposal: ZCFS (Zcash Community Funding System) @rex4539
“Allocate directly to ZF or ECC” proposals:
- Dev Fund Proposal: 20% split between the ECC and the Foundation @aristarchus
- Dev fund proposal: modified 20% combination; 40/60 ECC/choice @Autotunafish
- Dev Fund Proposal: Dev Focused , let the Nodes Decide @Shawn
- Placeholder Considerations: Resources, Governance, and Legitimacy in NU4 @cburniske @mlphresearch
Most unique one, IMO: Dev Fund Proposal : Continued from block rewards with a halving schedule @ChileBob
- Funding continues from block rewards at (XXX per block)
- Funding follow a halving schedule (every XXX blocks)
- Funding stops when it reaches block (XXX)
Edit notice / correction: @amiller pointed out that his proposal should have been in the “Miner’s choice” category rather than the “Allocate directly” category. He’s right, so I moved it.
I’ll summarize the main bullet points of mine just to kind of get a better idea of how to compare