Here’s my 2c: until ZEC is trading on highly liquid DEXES, it should keep t-adds and try to play the compliance game (within reason! eg. @hanh proposal seems reasonable to me) so as to stay listed on as many regulated CEXES as possible.
If/when this happens, then we can and should think about depreciating t-adds, and not be too concerned with compliance requests from CEXES.
Zcash needs “fu liquidity” in the form of DEXES.
We’re be pedantic at this point…
The Zcash blockchain - it’s transactions and coins are dominantly transparent (and it’s been that way since Day 1)
But we also provide world-class privacy features.
This is different from Monero etc blockchains that are entirely private.
Not to derail but last I checked (was a while ago) Mina was fully transparent, but had privacy on the roadmap.
Edited for correctness
it is in my self interest to know these things.
2024 is going to be lit.
APAC, South America, middle east, and Africa markets are primed.
Universal wallet initiatives are in full swing,
browser support for web3 is here (in canary builds)
plonky3 starks may bring new life to gpu miners
We are entering the middle game. I don’t advocate giving the finger to exchanges, rather indifference. Same indifference as a protocol would take to any other dapp building on the platform. zcash is private peer to peer private cash, take it or leave it.
Question: are the Super-T address semi private? Are we simply allowing the user to unmask their own private transaction history because they voluntarily want access to the CEX? If so, this seems like it is very much in the user control and choose to decide if they want liquidity or not. Also, as others have already pointed out, 90% of transactions are already transparent. So, its not really affecting them in a negative way at all. And the 10% who dont want this option can simply not opt in and find liquidity somewhere else.
It seems like Qedit should also chime in as well as this may have implications for ZSAs and stablecoins if those are also going to be offered on exchanges? To me the big upside for Zcash is the application of the technology beyond ZEC. It seems inconceivable at this point in time that ZEC can reach billions (or even millions) of people without on and off ramps as well as operating within the regulatory frameworks of many legal jurisdictions. So, if we offer people the choice to opt in, that makes a lot of sense. Then, we can have privacey by default for everything else.
I consider it a ‘badge of honor’ - and, privacy is what this project is all about.
Edit: Won’t use Binance for anything should they delist - “bird flipped”
Let’s not bend the knee just to be listed on exchanges. If there’s a will; there’s a way – people will find Zcash if they choose to.
Zcash is already pretty hard to use (wallet sync issues, multiple transactions types, several addresses, etc).
I don’t think it is a good idea to make it also harder to get.
This sort of attitude makes no logical sense.
Do we want to empower people to get and use Zcash or not?
Flipping the bird to all of the CEXes (and by implication, to all of the liberal democratic governing bodies) is the fast track to becoming an irrelevant after thought.
As Josh has said and done for years, working Zcash into maximized compliance is a cold part of the game.
It would be an injustice to all of the work that has been put into Zcash for so many years, if we get to this junction and collectively say fuck it let’s burn all of the bridges.
How we respond to Binance now, sets the ultimate precedence for how we’ll end up responding to all other CEXes which are inevitably going to bring forward the same regulatory requests.
One and Done: Super Transparent addresses/ transactions
Im trying to understand your logic, it seems like the price of the coin is your primary concern.
super transparent transactions which are traceable from genisis to deposit and never shielded does not improve zcash adoption. It creates another useless pool only good for transfering between exchanges. there are thousands of chans listed that do this faster, more sustainably, and with bridges to other chains.
Zcash IS privacy. That is the brand.
Super transparent addresses are not traceable from genesis. They just “enforce” that the inputs are transparent.
Except that exchange transparent addresses make little to no impact on your privacy.
A wallet can deshield opportunistically like @nuttycom described.
No one is asking for anything else. I think that we should start pushing back when/if that time comes.
It should be everyone’s concern. The price of ZEC and its ability to retain and hold value is just as important as privacey.
We need to take Zcash out of the beta test for the benefit of other projects and make it useful for a vibrant and far reaching ecosystem built around the Zcash blockchain. We need a pragmatic approach that makes ZEC (and future UDA/Stablecoin assets), easy to use, accessible, interchangeable with fiat, and legal while at the same time preserving a person’s privacy. The opt-in approach to some version of enabling accessibility and interchangeability using a Super-T address, does not seem like a bad thing nor difficult and it does not impair the person who just wants to hold ZEC and interact only privately.
Binance Delisting Zcash is an existential threat, unfortunately we haven’t got the luxury (different from Monero for example) of being able to show them our middle fingers.
The main reason I am against implementing super transparent addresses is because it will not prevent delisting, it will merely delay it. We have no guarantee this delay will be long enough to justify the costs of a protocol change. I am not trying to give the middle finger to Binance. I just think that practically speaking it would probably be a waste of time and resources, because the concept of super transparent doesn’t address the fundamental issue. The regulators will undoubtedly soon realize that this feature does nothing to prevent illicit money, and they will require that Binance do extensive KYC or delist ZEC, meaning all this super transparent stuff was for naught. It is so obvious that this feature won’t achieve their goals that I think it will only buy us a few extra months.
If they accept @hanh’s solution and it can be implemented in a few days, then sure go for it. I am just warning against spending significant resources on this.
I’d like to say this is exactly the type of community engagement on an important matter that makes me love this community. This is the Zcash community at its best. There are so many good points being made on this issue, even I keep going back and forth.
With all due respect, who gives a shit about ANY exchange? It’s literally a car dealership. A middleman. With ZSAs, I predict we will have an open source decentralized exchange built with privacy first.
This shows that the future of crypto wants it to be on the way to the control of institutions.
I tend to support the opinion of the person with the most experience building on Zcash (@hanh). His suggestion has four dimensions. Resource allocation, UX, privacy, and feasibility.
If an “exchange t-address” is facile to make and implement, then resource allocation seems like a minimal concern.
If users can be stopped from losing their ZEC by accidentally sending shielded ZEC to an exchange address (is this a risk?), than UX seems like a minimal concern.
Also, using a transparent go-between for shielded private usage and transparent exchange usage has little effect on privacy. It still has pretty much the same assumption of trust in the exchange to keep our info confidential.
If Binance affirms an “exchange address” allows them to be compliant, then feasibility seems like a minimal concern. Sounds like Jason would have to ask them before we can know for sure on this point.
If resource allocation, UX, and privacy concerns are kept to a minimum, I don’t really see this as a litmus test for Zcash. More like an annoying jumping through hoops situation than a full-fledged identity crisis. Of course, there is a limit to how much Zcash can bend before it “breaks”. I don’t think @hanh’s proposal is close to that. Plus no one would force anyone to use the exchange address if they don’t want to.
Obviously, in the long-term, we can’t build an alternative to government and corporate surveillance and be reliant on government/corporate good graces at the same time. They’ll stamp us out if they want to. So other solutions to enhance access should be worked on in parallel. This was supposed to be things like Thorchain or other eventual DEX/bridging options. Coming up with a stopgap measure for Binance doesn’t diminish the priority of those efforts tho.
Edit: I do realize that taking the appeasement route is not satisfying. No one wants to be Neville Chamberlain when they could be Churchill. The best solution would be to pressure Binance to keep things as they are, but Binance might be thinking they can’t afford more regulatory threats to their business model. But testing the waters with some modest appeasement seems low risk… I think?
