The proposal above is a 23% dev fund but the extra 3% is effectively allocated to the Zcash Sustainability Fund when it exists (but otherwise unallocated to Unissued Reserve until it does exist). This proposal, while indefinite, incentivises the community and organisations to renegotiate the split every ~9 months. This gives the organisations and the community the opportunity to reflect on the more current price of ZEC and the needs of Zcash. For example under this proposal I expect the community will be able to discuss adding QEDIT to the dev fund by NU7 (mid next year) which gives the community the opportunity to reflect on the impact of ZSAs. If you’d like to understand more about how my governance proposal and declining schedule might work you can watch my talk on free2z.
The 20% dev fund allocation should be as iron clad as the 21 Million cap.
I’m all in on @_jon and his team at QEDIT joining forces with Zcash. They’ve proved themselves and have a body of work they should be proud of.
To achieve this and bring them in as part NU7, I think it’s more reasonable and fair if ECC, ZF, and ZCG each sacrificed 1% of their share respectively and for it to be allocated to QEDIT.
Would certainly be a special moment in Zcash history. Not only do we get ZSAs with NU7, but we also get the team that built it (double bubble ).
Over a 12month period my proposal effectively becomes a 20% dev fund, 3% Zcash Sustainability Fund (essentially locked up for years). @ZcashRabbi does this address your concerns or still an issue for you?
I like that you’re thinking outside the box, but I like it even more because you’re trying to bring in @_jon .
The numbers make sense, fair enough. But I don’t like the idea of fidgeting with numbers. Period. It’s hard enough getting people to buy into Zcash, it becomes even harder when they hear about the dev fund, and it’ll become much harder telling them it has !the capacity to change!.
Unlike a few in the community that don’t like the dev fund or think it should be reduced overtime, I have a different take on it. I personally like it and think it’s a major net positive for Zcash and it shouldn’t be reduced (and for sure not increased lol). But I want more out of it in terms of talent, decentralisation, and balance of power. Ideally by way of having more heavyweights/credible organisations at the table and squeezed into that 20%.
Dreamworld scenario: 20% dev fund distributed among 5 organisations proportionate to the size of their projects, responsibilities and community expectations.
. The governance changes in this proposal try to address this by freeing up funds that can be used to fund more entities. Every network upgrade (~9month) will see the community vote on adjusting the slice and adding new dev fund recipients based on needs.
Unfortunately it’s my belief that when issuance declines further the Zcash Sustainability Fund will likely be used to sustain both development and mining. Therefore I believe the burden of saving to the ZSF should be shared by both the devs and miners. In my proposal both miners and devs would effectively contribute 3% of their slice to the dev fund (when averaged over a year).
Please feel free providing any feedback on how I can articulate the proposal better . I’ve been head deep in this stuff for too long so I tend to unintentionally brush over some of the fundamentals at times.
).
maybe one day
. The governance changes in this proposal try to address this by freeing up funds that can be used to fund more entities. Every network upgrade (~9month) will see the community vote on adjusting the slice and adding new dev fund recipients based on needs.
but whatever you do, don’t change that magic 
number 20%. Even if it’s only for 9 months
. I’ve been head deep in this stuff for too long so I tend to unintentionally brush over some of the fundamentals at times.