Good to see one more candidate with technical background standing. Since you are planning to run for a decision making - community position, it would be good to clarify the following points & any misunderstandings:
Early this year when you joined the forums and shared your technical knowledge on various posts, I reached out to you in April for collaboration before creating the Nighthawk grant & contribute to upstream codebase, which is useable by everyone, but you did not respond. Then, you went your way to build out a PoC wallet for your improved mobile syncing algorithms with Zwallet and Ywallet for Ycash.
Would you consider funding developers who contribute to upstream codebases which can be re-used by the wider Zcash community or fund individual developers working on their own projects(which might not have an immediate impact)?
Do plan to continue building for Ycash?
Zcash has benefitted from kind and helping members from the community, ECC & ZF who have encouraged members wanting to build on Zcash & stick around.
Following your rhetorical questions on my team’s Thorchain grant application, I wanted to connect with you to resolve your comments. But you have refused communication via DM.
Can you describe your plans & process of communication with your peers?
As for vetting grants, it is easy to criticize, but difficult to appreciate the efforts of a grant applicant.
In the past, you have made your comments with your assumptions and without asking questions (although that seems to have improved recently).
Would you be open to work with and encourage grant applicants and improve the proposals VS posting disqualifying comments before ZOMG meets?
What have you learned from your grant of CoinPayments integration failure? The payments till Milestone 2 were released to the total of $76,800. Is it still possible to convince CoinPayments to integrate ZEC support and utilize your code?
Being technically skilled is one thing, but if ZOMG members cannot work with peers or applicants, then there is a risk of endless churn when attracting builders on Zcash, even after ZOMG members dedicate to a 20hr a month workload.
Do you have ideas to attract grant applicants? How does ZOMG attract high quality projects that benefit the Zcash community via adoption & growth?
Both. Developers are interested in different things.
Some want to do original research and don’t want to have to integrate with an existing framework. I would recommend funding it if it brings value to zcash.
Others like to assemble pieces and create something greater than the sum of its parts.
I think zcash can benefit from both kinds of devs and they don’t have to be the same person/team.
As an independent dev, I plan to contribute as much as I can to any project I can. I think other members of ZOMG can if they want. In fact, I don’t see how what they do in their free time is any of my business as long as it does not interfere with their duties.
But I did offer to communicate openly. This goes along with my pledge for more transparency from ZOMG and the grantees.
I have managed teams from 1 (me) to hundreds. Obviously, the approach varies. Since time is limited and 1h / week isn’t much, I intend to communicate mostly through management tools.
For instance, I think project managers could use a project tracking system such as Trello, Jira, Redmine, or Phabricator. We could open read access to the community and it would serve as a reporting tool as well.
This grant came with a track record. As such, my evaluation was not out of context. Besides, I researched similar implementations to better gauge the project.
IMO, the ZOMG does not have the time/resources to do a lot more than vetting. It is the responsibility of the grantees to present their best case. For instance, in the proposal you mention, I think they have to justify why it takes 4 senior devs 6 months to do an email project.
It could have been a major project, i.e. Gmail is way more than 4 devs / 6 months, but also much less. This is related to my pledge of “request more detailed planning and deliverables”.
Sure, but it cuts both ways. For example, originally the Moeda.casa proposal seemed too vague and fuzzy to me. I expressed my concerns. They came back with a more concrete proposal. I think devs appreciate constructive feedback (I do). I support their new proposal.
From my side, the code is written and tested. I didn’t request payment of the remaining 60% of the grant yet - though I feel I would be justified in doing so.
Currently, I’m standing by for NU-5 because I’d like to add Orchard support and UA ( even though the grant was only about sapling ).
Finally, I hope we can savage by integrating with another payment gateway: BTCPay. I think that even if CoinPayments never comes back, we will have a zcash shielded payment option so I wouldn’t call it a failure.
You raise a good point about attracting peers or applicants. I think the ZOMG can help but it is not its primary mandate. It can sponsor videos, documentaries, etc. and it helps. But I think ultimately, we need more involvement from ECC/ZF.
For example, another project I follow, Mina Protocol, has frequent podcasts, explainer videos, live chats, and blogs from their leaders. I think it helps a lot when the author is the CEO, CTO, COO, … vs a less known person. The message could be the same but it has more clout.
My second suggestion is to invest in the documentation. We are in a transition period (NU-5) and the team is under a lot of pressure, so I understand this is not the priority now. For example, an article like
about Halo2 would be great.
Finally, we want to attract high quality projects not just any project. I think we need to be professional but also firm.
I have really liked watching your projects develop on this board. You are doing some great work.
We do need more developers on the zomg with zcash experience imho. (not 5 but 2 maybe 3)
Your pitch is pretty short, I have a few questions.
Given the current comments about how the ZOMG has functioned from @cburniske and @Dodger, how would you address these? What would your ideal resolution look like? How well do you think you will be able to work in Dodgers stated post?
This is not quite true. Yes your private life and free time is yours, however there is a large burden of ethics that comes with taking a position on a grants council. You would need to do more than “not interfere with duties” you would need to adhere to the code of conduct and ethics statements, so no doing stuff that harms zcash.
Continuing to build for another coin i guess is okay. however it could raise conflict of interest issues. two that immediately come to mind are 1 - taking ideas you see and implementing them on other chains or 2 - denying or approving grants that will help other coins rather than on their merit for zcash.
I dont think it should stop you being on the zomg but there are things you will need to make sure you dont do, because a credible accusation is all it would take to make attracting developers near impossible.
Clearly this is a complex issue and I can see both sides arguments. In my opinion, we don’t need a 3rd independent organization. In fact, I find 2 entities already confusing for a late comer. As a separate entity the ZOMG will have a lot of overlap with the other 2.
If we restrict the role of the ZOMG to purely reviewing grants, I believe the workload is acceptable
but only if we expect something like “Shark Tank”.
However, currently, the ZOMG implicitly had to take charge of:
promoting zcash itself in order to attract high quality grants,
work with grantees in order to hone their proposal,
check the quality of the deliverables
All of these fall out of their mandate and should either be the someone else’s job or
the resources and profile of the ZOMG should be readjusted accordingly.
My preference would be to have help from ECC/ZF for marketing and promotional material. I have mentioned another project where their leadership engages frequently with the community.
The ECC/ZF has also cutting-edge research & crypto/security experts.
But if they are understaffed as well, I’m open to grow the ZOMG to fill the gap. I feel that at this point, project management is the most urgent weak link to address.
I think this would clearly fall under interfering with ZOMG duties. I can assure you this is not going to happen.
One is understandable. Joining a team may not be for everyone. For second, haven’t you managed 100s of people. What’s important for Zwallet (awesome eng work you have done) is UX treatment for mass adoption if that’s your plan.
I hope ZWallet becomes the community built wallet for zcash: Based from needs and wishes of the zcash users such as myself. I’d like it to be a contributor to more shielded address adoption.
IMO, shielded wallets can be nearly as fast as transparent wallets.
But until ZWallet core tech (Warp Sync) was designed and implemented, I could not be sure. I think ZWallet will remain part R&D and part regular wallet with some unique extra features (Cold Wallet, P&L, Contact List, etc)
I can help the ZOMG and by extension, the community, evaluate the technical merits of projects. This is only one of the criteria of a successful grant but nonetheless an important one.
Zcash is where most of the cutting-edge crypto comes from. To grow in an area of knowledge, it helps to be around the best in the field.
Hey I have these questions for all ZOMG candidate:
How important is ZEC price appreciation for you ?
To the Zcash investors that buy and hold ZEC and who make the devfund possible, what can you tell them that you will do to make their investment turning into fruition ?
I think we all want the price of ZEC to increase. For the project, it will mean having more resources to attract talent too.
Zcash investors value Zcash for its strong privacy. The grants that the ZOMG will offer are going to be instrumental in making privacy accessible for everyone. Zcash is the gold standard for privacy; it needs to be the gold standard for the speed, accessibility and utility.