I agree and disagree. The voting will be strange, because you get to vote on each one. I also think that grouping proposals together via outcome is a slippery slope because it is the rational that makes the proposal.
sure from your business point of view block fund/no fund is the metric you are most interested in, but I don’t think it is constructive for the community to view it like this.
It dichotomises the proposals and there isn’t an even number of each. So if you use that metric and it is an even 50/50 split on the fund/no fund - you will end up with fund because there are more fund proposals than non fund proposals.
I do think that interpretation of the results will be a sticking point if this is the metric used rather than the rationale/spirit. (seriously it will cause a shitstorm)
How does the foundation plan on interpreting the results? @acityinohio?
A mechanism for on-chain stakeholder voting is already set up. Just send a memo from a t-address to the polling address zs1ud5cyusgfsqgkfqlxery0ttyvuvj66wztlqgv8tc4qaukaeaejxj7u70j0qgcctjfvzuzadejxd with your vote, encoded as a memo the same way as miners, like 1Y2Y3N4N5Y6A7A8N9Y10N11N12Y13Y for an example.
I updated the stake polling thread with some more specific NU4 dev fund details: Staked Poll on Zcash Dev Fund Debate - #28 by amiller It’s not a perfect solution, it basically requires the CLI or Zecwallet or any wallet supporting memos and z addresses, and requires you to unshield your coins to vote, which isn’t encouraged. But, the mechanism is available, so if you want to use it it’s there… and it is truly permissionless and cannot be stopped, since anyone can view the memos sent to the polling address. IMO we should publicize this in case stakeholders want to participate, but the interface is poor enough I’m expecting too much turnout here, but hoping to be proved wrong.
Because amiller, just now and a sudden added it. This should be an absolute NO-GO and i’am shocked that it’s added just some days bevor the voting end without having anybody knowing about it. This leaves all doors open for influencing the community sentiment.
It’s shocking to see what decisions are taken from time to time.
As I said earlier, nothing affects the decision to extend the funding, what the fund and the company will want, and if they don’t vote like that in an open vote, they will vote in a private vote as it should, whether it’s the control panel or just talk to the community and consultants by phone , it doesn’t matter already. Just the news that everything is finally done! Earlier they assured that everything was open and transparent, well, in general, as always.And the most interesting thing is that this poll has already been spread on Twitter, no one agreed or discussed, just as a fact and good news, that now everyone can vote, although at the same time there is a vote on which it is just a negligible attendance (75 votes maximum sentence, those who voted there may be more, of course, but where is the community everyone is talking about)
Are you talking about the staked poll being spread on twitter? By ECC and or ZF accounts? Links?
Edit, never mind, i allready saw Zooko and the ECC animate people to join the staked poll on twitter now, so i guess other officials are doing the same:
I am pretty sure that is has been up as long as that page has been up. it was linked in he foundation newsletter (check your spam folder) which I got on the 21st.
I think it was up before that though. Not having a go at you box, im only saying it wasn’t “just added”. amiller did nothing wrong.
That’s the same thing. I am sure I saw it quite a while ago. the post is dated the 15th of Nov.
I remember thinking about how overly complex the voting system was. It is also why I pushed the ECC for their results on the NU3 codename because they were using the same mechanism.
I am happy to admit im wrong here, but I remember reading it way before all this was posted. In fact I think I mention it in a PM. admittedly I haven’t been around much recently due to work stuff. but I think I might be going mad if that genuinely only went up yesterday.
It’s absurd to add a voting mechanism a sudden out of nothing that was not announcend, nobody is aware of, with only some days left for voting and polling and which obviously opens all doors for manipulation, influence, abuse and whatever not.
To make it even better even the limitations, restrictions, whatever are not clear! For how long is this stake holder polling active? How long does the voter need to hold the ZEC and so on…
Additionally ZEC holders are mostly as well present in the forum and have for sure represented allready in the Advisory Community Panel, hence this would give a lot of voters another vote. For the miner signalling this at least is not that much common as i’am not aware of a single miner facility being on the forum and/or on the advisory panel. The miners anyway are not able to signal without a mining pool, so we can remove by today miner signalling in my opinion as no mining pool is participating.
To make it short, if that stake holder polling is accepted for whatever reason the reputation of the ZF and ECC will get another big hit and shitstorm for sure that may last weeks, months and years.
So the issue I see here is that people might think their staked votes count for more than they do OR the same people think their vote isn’t being counted. (because its a straw poll)
With that in mind if you read the response by amiller and sonya’s post on doing it, it seems it is an endeavour done by a community member rather than the foundation. I know you already know this - you are tagged in the initial post.
Im glad I don’t have to sort this mess out. although it was done with the best intentions and to give those who “lurk but don’t post” a voice.
look at the stats on my introduction to randomx thread. last time I looked it had like 4k views and virtually no responses or likes. so the people reading it do not have forum accounts.
Reaching out to these people is a good idea. not sure if this was the right way to do it. but hey lets see where the dice roll. Cant really put the cat back in the bag.
I totally agree with this. I cannot see any restrictions about minimum time the coins need to already sit in the t-address for eligibility to vote.
I think the specifications should be stated clearer and the deadline for votes should obviously be extended for longer than five days.
Why do we need to rush things now? This is such an important matter that should be planned carefully and Zcash holders need to be informed about the voting process. Just a few tweets and a forum post are definitely not enough.
It’s been around for a hundred days and it’s advisory
How many more times am I going to have to post this for you?
“Advisory? So these decisions are non-binding?” Technically yes; the Foundation Board can’t abdicate responsibility for the Foundation, although we want broad accountability and public input for matters that fall under the Foundation’s purview. That said, other ballot decisions may simply be advisory because we don’t (currently) have the authority to make those decisions—e.g., a ballot to redefine parameters in the Zcash blockchain in a future hard fork. (“the blocks need to be 1 terabyte, etc”) But the fact that the community might be strongly in favor of such a technical change should hold weight for the current maintainers of Zcash and for future work of the Foundation.
Zooko: Calling all ZEC holders! You can participate in stake-weighted voting to signal to your fellow Zcashers your opinion about the Zcash governance decision
Amiller: Guess what, if you have ZEC, you can use zecwallet-lite to vote on-chain for the NU4 dev fund proposals, and literally no one can stop you
Maybe my English is not good enough to understand it correctly, but after such tweets are even on the ECC twitter page the wording sounds to me like: Vote, it counts.
IF these votes do not count than all ZEC stake holders that particpate in it due these calls are risking unshielding there ZEC just for nothing, hence it’s just another bad move that was done that won’t help Zcash with anything.
hehe, no, those tweets are pretty unambiguous. but they are contrary to the thread. so like I said someone is going to be annoyed. either the coinholders (because their vote didn’t have enough weight) or other people because the coinholders had too much weight.
so, idk. you cant untweet that stuff, and no one has defined a quorum for a stakeholder vote, so it might be okay. depends if people with deep zec pockets get involved or not. (or even people who buy in just to vote.)
