How to hire ECC

Offtopic: Did i miss that Zcash Foundation sign bevor? I know you are one of the founders and somehow i think i didn’t see the foundation sign bevor to your name, but i could be wrong of course.

Very attentive of you. :grinning: I’m a Founding Scientist of ECC, but am not at its employ; and I have recently joined the Zcash Foundation as a technical advisor, so the latter tag seems more appropriate. It was updated recently.

1 Like

Nevertheless, these points should be implemented within the first four years, especially since work on some has already begun and is ongoing. It’s not for me to judge, but for the first four years there was nothing interesting (updating the network was not something fantastic but was necessary for working with shielded addresses), this could change my mind.
This opinion is also based on the latest ECC statement on the new protocol, what is the point in the new protocol or the current one if no work has been completed, either end the current coin to a viable option and hire a company to completely upgrade the network or hire to make changes to improve the current one, but not an option to complete the current option. As I suppose, the new protocol will not be fully compatible with the current one, and all the same work needs to be done again again, which will take the next 4 years, as a result, there will be no benefit from this, because over the next 4 years there will already be an option with Internet money another coin and team. If the work does not go here and now, then this work does not go at all.

I know, it’s more like an employer at the ECC.

Just out of curiousity as i have yet no idea how advisors are handled the the foundation wage wise. So the logical question. Is there a wage involved with being an advisor?

1 Like

I know, it’s more like an employer at the ECC.

No, I have no managerial authority at ECC either.

Just out of curiousity as i have yet no idea how advisors are handled the the foundation wage wise. So the logical question. Is there a wage involved with being an advisor?

Zcash Foundation’s major compensation is publicly disclosed in its Form 990 filings. If you deem additional information to be germane to the conversation, please contact the Foundation.

This is the last I’ll say on the matter; it is derailing the conversation in this forum topic.

1 Like

Strange, i thought founders are share holders at the ECC which makes them automaticlly employers, no matter if they have managerial authority or funcitions or not. But maybe i’am wrong with my assumption.

P.S.: I’am still trying to find out how what is conntect to get some day a full picture how things are organized, hence the questions and get some transparency in such matters.

1 Like

If indeed the top priority goal is shielded usability+adoption, then how about baking a corresponding incentive into the Dev Fund?

Proposal “10%+10% weighed by shielded adoption”:
Of each block reward,
X% to ECC + X% to the Zcash Foundation
where X = 10% × [fraction of total issued ZEC that’s shielded at the beginning of the block],
and the rest of the 20% get burned (or deferred for later),
for 4 years.

This incentives successful delivery of feature-complete and usable shielded transactions, and converges to 20% split between the ECC and the Foundation when t-addresses have been phased out.

There are some obvious issues:

  • The quantitative incentive is tilted towards migrating big ZEC holders to shielded, rather than focusing on small and “retail” holders (who may have different needs). So to some extent this can be skewed or gamed. Still, regardless of what fraction of the ZEC are held by “whales”, there always remains an incentive to help the remaining users migrate.
  • The initial funding levels may be very low due to slow adoption outside the control of ECC and the Foundation. They may have to subsist on their reserves until shielded adoption picks up pace.
  • Some essential aspects are not reflected by the fraction of ZEC that is shielded, such as security and salability. However, to the extent that these aspects affect the coins’ market value, they are still incentivized.
  • It does not differentiate the contributions of ECC vs. Zcash Foundation to shielded adoption (how could it?..), so in principle there’s a free rider problem. None the less, regardless of what one party does, the other is still incentivized to help the effort, until the last user is migrated.

A nice property is that it creates the focused incentives on increasing shielded adoption right away, even before the dev fund kicks in.


Interestingly, in this proposal, the community can defund ECC and the Foundation by unshielding ZEC holdings en masse. Basically saying, “we don’t like what you do and we don’t want your stinkin’ privacy”.

So this gives the community two ways to express discontent before the 4 years have elapsed: hardfork (weighted by the ecosystem at large, flexible, the cost is ecosystem disruption), and deshielding (weighted by ZEC holding, inflexible, nondisruptive but costs future privacy).

1 Like

I like the algorithmic policy enforcement, a (maybe obvious?) benefit is that by removing human judgement uncertainty is reduced.

  • What happens after 100% of transactions are shielded? Well earned flexibility, until year 4?
  • What if a “whale” is run over by a train, before they can shield?
  • Is it worth reiterating that it disincentivises transferring into the transparent pool?

If The ECC were to have the option of focusing its capital on either:
(a) restructuring to conform to a definition of not-for-profit/nonprofit


(b) increasing shielded usability+adoption

I think I would be happier if they chose “b”.

1 Like

Great questions. Let’s see…

Yes. I feel it’s too early to fix goals for more than a couple of years ahead (and also I don’t have many more tricks for algorithmic incentivication that cannot be easily gamed).

Then the corresponding fraction of the Dev Fund is lost (or delayed) as well, until the time (if any) that t-addresses are completely removed from the protocol.

I’m not stressing this feature, because it affects only the Dev Fund recipients (which BTW one would hope are anyway avid adopters of shielded storage…).

1 Like

There’s another issue:

One can claim that it’s fine if the bulk of ZEC are kept in t-address cold-wallets (for simplicity and stability), as long as the bulk of transactions between users are fully shielded, and the deposits/withdrawals to the cold wallets are done in a linkability-conscious way.

That’s incompatible with the above algorithmic incentive.

I don’t know if the claim is tenable privacy-wise, and haven’t seen it properly analyzed. It may be premature to rule it out.

1 Like

Recall that the NU3 ZIP which ECC has committed to implementing is ZIP 213: Shielded Coinbase. This will mean that NU4 dev-fund ZIPs can be written to target Sapling addresses directly, assuming that they are compatible with the available degree of encumbrance (and by NU4, multisig Sapling addresses should ideally be available).


I think Monero is cool and I admire the project’s lively ecosystem. Monero’s ethos and preferred tradeoffs are different, but as long as people are honest about that, I don’t mind. Competition strengthens all of us.

The fact remains that z2z transactions are substantially more private due to the implementation of zk-SNARKs.


@joshs given enough funding, what are the top (dev) goals for ECC for next 4 years? Would like to know ECC perspective and vision for 2020-2024.


Nathan spoke to them at Zcon0 ( - predominately L1 scalability and cross chain interop. I also believe we need to spend time on consensus mechanisms (POS / Hybrid) and UX improvements to help drive z2z adoption.


@joshs, Nathan indeed spoke at length in the above Zcon1 presentation about scalably goals, and Daira subsequently spoke of possible approaches. That was an excellent initial discussion of ECC’s stance on scalability.

Where can the community find similarly detailed goals, data and plans about

cross chain interop


consensus mechanisms (POS / Hybrid)


UX improvements to help drive z2z adoption



Great question! We haven’t formally published much of that, we should, but perhaps only when we have something to recommend to the community. It’s one of the challenges of fine grained funding mechanisms. Some of this will take the space to research.

Some interop work is active in conjunction with other 3rd parties, ex. Flyclient/MMRs, BLAKE2. Getting our work and engagement documented on interop is in my backlog.


Please do publish this stuff! :slight_smile:

1 Like

Hold on, no one here is looking for “fine grained” funding mechanisms, in the sense of, as you put it:

A fine-grained allocation of funds can be expressed as: “ We will build x function for $y in z weeks

Again, let’s take the aforementioned Scalability discussion by @nathan-at-least and @daira as the example. It made a case that Scalability is important and plausible. That’s very mucn on the “coarse grain” end of the spectrum, but it conveys deep thinking on the subject, and is appropriate for the phase we’re in.

In my opinion, ECC should convey at least that much information to the community, about each of the main directions it intends to pursue using a Dev Fun.

In the case of complex goals like “UX improvements to help drive z2z adoption”, I would also expect this to be unpacked into the many technical + nontechnical components this entails.


Thanks for the clarification. I intended to communicate is that some of these activities are directional but the future gets more blurry the farther out you try to see. From what I understand, more work has been been done on scaling research than on working through consensus mechanisms, for example. L1 scalability is the big ticket item (which actually may necessitate other things which may also require other R&D and market activities, as Daira highlighted iirc). If you have specific mandates like a roadmap or specific items, it’d be nice to have those as a condition within a proposal so that we can respond in one place.

1 Like

@joshs, yes, community members could create a detailed roadmap instructing ECC how to drive fully-shielded adoption. The community can also attempt to cook up algorithmic incentives to encourage ECC to follow such a roadmap in the absence of other accountability mechanisms. Still, ECC has spent a ton of effort thinking about this, and is so probably in the best position to draw a roadmap that’s effective, comprehensive and matches its expertise.

So it’a s shame that ECC has not shared such a roadmap to date, and I don’t think that ECC can meaningfully claim that it will use the Dev Fund to drive shieled adoption, until it does so.