Dev tax? 10char
Most likely.
But… right now would also be a good time for those insisting on discussions around “caring about ZEC holders and looking into ways to appreciate ZEC value” to stop doing so. These types of conversations can very quickly skew how ZEC is perceived, and I’m seeing them happen very publicly including on Twitter.
Other. projects. don’t. do. this. for. a. reason.
Yes they do, lol.
What’s the fine? $24 million?* Tap into that dev fund!
*SEC.gov | SEC Orders Blockchain Company to Pay $24 Million Penalty for Unregistered ICO
If this project can’t sustain heat from a US organization, I’m out.
One of the key pieces of legal advice I ever received when I started working in crypto 7 years ago was to avoid discussions revolving around price appreciation if I’m part of a team with a native asset. This is to protect myself as well as the organization from various kinds of accusations that I won’t go into in here.
It’s far from best practice to have price appreciation discussions without tying that to increased utility/functionality. So yeah, just because there’s some people doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.
(P.S I’m not referring to discussing/engineering a coin’s tokenomics. That’s different)
For example, you don’t see Charles Hoskinson tweeting about incorporating ADA holders into Cardano’s long term strategy. He focuses on the tech and the increased value for ADA is implied.
Come to think of it, I recall how r/Ethereum from the beginning strictly enforced a rule of no price discussions and directed people over to r/ethtrader or other forums. Then the majority of the community including devs could discuss the project on r/Ethereum without any mention of price or speculation. I’m guilty of having discussed price here on this forum but if it’s to the detriment of growth and adoption, then I’m willing to forgo it.
No no, it’s perfectly fine if community members speculate on price 
. What is absolutely not okay… is members of core teams publicly advocating for strategies to push price up.
Comments like “we need to include ZEC holders in the long term strategy of Zcash because no one will buy Zcash if they think its price will depreciate” implies a plan to drive price up. That together with the strong push for marketing from some of the prominent leaders could easily come off as “Zcash is an investment instrument that promises investors profits”. And that is one interpretation of what a security is.
I don’t mean to be negative here but I believe that as a community we’re overlooking so many important factors, with the goal of driving adoption. I just hope it doesn’t come back to bite Zcash in the behind.
The reason ETH created an ETH trader channel for price discussions is exactly for this reason btw. To separate those discussions and protect contributors. It’s standard practice for basically all cryptocurrencies on Telegram as well. There’s a community discussion channel and then there’s a trading channel where key contributors and leaders refrain from participating.
This is the most boring bore . Is Grayscale signaling Sec will move against ZEC ? Because it is one of the biggest holder of it spreading this FUD . So could the Foundation sue Coindesk or Grayscale ? In the meanwhile include Sec into it and get an answer if it is a security. If it MIGHT be security , could they please dissolve their fund first thing tomorrow like they did with xrp . It’s not making any sense for anyone constantly having this brought up against every now and then on a regular Sunday . Let’s get an answer please .
Why is Grayscale receiving super secret memos about ZECs status from Sec ? Are you kidding?
I don’t think this makes sense too . What if someone from the “Core team” or the Foundation uses A WORD by mistake or in bad faith for a personal trade, magically Sec appears and years of everyone’s work then suddenly becomes a security ?
Most people avoid zcash like the plague already in crypto since the chart is terrible and the price action has been dookie since its inception. They just want some assurance that they won’t continually get reamed by investing in a project that doesn’t give a shit about them, vs. holding what’s unironically more decentralized, less volatile, and more secure: cash.
Plus if the community isn’t involved, Steven Spielberg isn’t going to make a documentary good enough to attract anyone.
EDIT:
This is what I thought you were implying from your previous comment which I didn’t address in this reply.
Yeah I totally get this and relate to it as well. I just think the approach needs to be sensitive and very tactful. Most orgs relay this kind of info in a super indirect way.
Accordingly, the Howey four-prong test to be used in determining whether an “investment contract” exists is: (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with the expectation of profit and (4) to be derived from the efforts of others
The less talk core funding organizations make about ZEC, the better & less scrutiny from SEC.
Replace ZEC with Zcash (network, protocol, wallets etc) in all the sentences. End result is the same.
How does the founders reward, dev tax, and BOSL licensing play into that investment contract assessment?
I thought some folks were fairly explicit during the BOSL discussions that, when compared to the MIT license, a more restrictive license was used for points 2, 3, 4.
Zcash isnt a security. It doesnt pass the Howey Test. Grayscale needs to provide answers why they sent that memo to the SEC.
I’m not so sure that it is a certainty that ZEC doesn’t pass the Howey test:
“With the majority of investors more interested in the coin than in the company”
Thoughts on this?
Can we get a response from the team?