Okay that works. I’ll update the thread title — let me know if you don’t like something about it.
good luck in making it zip ready
@mistfpga has a detailed guide to writing a ZIP in the works
Just fixing a few typos and changing the wording to be consistent. will have it up very soon.
(in the mean time if you look at the headers of one of my zips it links to the 2 generation old version which has changed but will give you a good start, it hasn’t changed that significantly.)
Let me know if you would like some help.
imo, until some of these unknowns are more clear; exactly why we should keep the funding model as close to current model as possible.
Cool, will highlight that. Sorry had some firefighting to do at work today. will upload the probably already outdated template in 10 mins or so.
this is exactly why we should kick the can down the road. we don’t need to be doing this to ourselves. ZEC is already filled with self inflicted wounds. 3 years time we’ll have a well thought out plan. markets will like some clarity.
might have an idea to lower ECC % payouts but possibly increasing price for ZEC by lowering inflation… problem is these ideas take time to iron out, and not sure about legal issues.
kick the can down the road - imo, should forget about the exotic proposals for now. give the market some clarity.
kick the can down the road
Got one small problem, it is a nice an simple proposal so, and to be fair it has its merits (in my humble opinion) can you clarify what happens at the halving, does the fund continue at 10% of total issuance or do you mean it drops to 5% of total issuance?
Is that 20% of the current reward, so 40% of the next. I don’t think it is, but does this allow enough distance to kick the can? I assume you mean 5% of total issuance - the ecc stated this might not be enough. but I think it should be for a two year delay.
disclaimer, this was proposed by KEK, they are unable to continue with this proposal so they have asked me to act as advocate I am pushing this zip forward unless @kek kek gets time and would like to come back and take over
1 - Header
Title: Delay the choice until more information can be ascertained.
Advocate: @mistfpga (zcash forums)
ZIP Status: Draft
Community Status: Final : @ Kek’s proposal: fund ECC for 2 more years
License: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0) 
2 - Terminology
To understand this ZIP it is critical that people understand the right terminology so their requirements can be quickly checked.
The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and "OPTIONAL"
Have special meaning and people should familiarise themselves with it. - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
For clarity in this zip I define these terms:
- Spirit is defined as what is the intended outcome of the zip.
3 - Out of Scope for this proposal:
- Everything except moving the development fund end date.
4 - Abstract/Spirit
To keep to the current structure of the ECC receiving funding from the block distribution for 2 year worth of blocks after the halving (im too tired to get the exact block numbers will put it in the pull request)
5 - Motivation
To give more time to work out the full ramifications.
6 - Requirements
- Nothing about distribution recipients changes.
7 - Specification
- The ECC’s percentage is capped at their projected 1.1m USD costs a month.
- This number MUST not be greater than 10% of total block distribution of any one block.
- This MUST end 2 years after the halving (will add block numbers) at block number xyz.
Raised objections and issues so far:
- This is just kicking the can down the road.
- The zfnd has raised objections to a single point of failure
Implications to other users.
- The knock on impact of this zip to exchanges and wallet developers maybe non trivial.
 - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ <-I like this one best, dont know which the ECC prefers.
 - If there is contradiction between Spirit and any other part of the proposal that needs to be addressed. in the even it is not addressed Spirit is assumed to overrule all.
Pull request done:
could this be short named “kek the can”?
note this post is not a reflection on kek or his username, it is context
I was thinking of doing that, or similar. But due to things like this and over reactionary people. we cannot have nice things:
Note: before you read that article the word kek has nothing, nothing to do with white identarian politics.
I thought the fairest I could be with the proposal is to make it acceptable to as many people as possible. I didn’t want to be seen as non impartial on a proposal I didn’t make.
Boring I know. but hey, that is what I decided would be best.
For reference: kek is lol in Warcraft (hoard to alliance) and kekekekeke is lololololol in korea. - mainly from starcraft I think, but I have seen it in quite a few games -
It is now mainly used by people who are “shit posters” (something kek said he does and there is nothing wrong with it. It is just people having fun - I remember where he said writing his proposals would interfere with his shit posting. I laughed, which was the intent of his post. turns out high winds stopped him in the end, heh).
It was a forced meme by shit posters that the mainstream media ran with and grabbed their torches and pitchforks. - the whole time that was the intent of the shit posters. They did the same thing with the OK hand gesture.
some people might not know this, but good ole kek was director of the kekistani bureau of economics before normies ruined kekistan.
kek is actually an ancient egyptian deity. the “god of chaos” …praise kek!
also, kek means lol
See 100% shit poster
what do you think of sargon?
This is also true but found out after. and it just so happened kek is represented as a frog in ancient Egypt which coincided with pepe, people went crazy. and the rest is history. but a lot of people still seem to think it is something to do with fascism - it is not and never was.
It did peak around the time of HWNDU. at which point the normies took it over. Is big man Tyrone still around?
imo, sargon was one of the people that ruined kekistan by popularizing it. tyrone, peace be upon him, is probably wondering the earth lost with no place to go now that kekistan has been destroyed.
This proposal has been published as ZIP 1008.
Hey folks, due to reading about the initial results of the stake-weighted petition, I looked more closely at ZIP 1008, since it was one of the ZIPs that the stake-weighted petitions supported.
The Zfnd.org blog post describes ZIP 1008 as “Percentage of block rewards to ECC: 20%”, but when I read the newly posted version on https://zips.z.cash, I saw that one of the rules is “The ECC’s portion of block subsidy MUST NOT be greater than 10% of total block subsidy of any one block.”
This seems inconsistent with the Zfnd.org blog post, but on the other hand, it seems like ZIP 1008 contradicts itself because it also says “Out of Scope for this Proposal — Everything except moving the development fund end date.”, which would seem to imply keeping the 20% slice.
Also, by the way, it doesn’t seem to specify whether ECC as a company would be required, allowed, or forbidden from redistributing the ZEC to its founders and owners (as opposed to using all of it to fund core support functions in the service of all Zcashers). Everything else that I’ve ever read about possible Dev Funds has started by specifying that no further funds should be distributed to founders/owners/former-contributors/passive-participants, and ECC itself has stated this as the first one of our four principles for any new Dev Fund, so I hope that ZIP 1008 is not being interpreted by the voters as allowing or requiring those ZEC to be redistributed in that way.
But anyway, perhaps the Zfnd.org blog post should be updated to clarify that the percentage is 10%, or else to state that the ZIP is inconsistent about this.
[ZIP Editor hat on.]
Thanks for raising this. When I merged the ZIP I added the following note:
[Editor note: The current distribution of the Founders’ Reward is dependent on arrangements between the participants that will, if not explicitly renewed, expire at the first halving. There are currently direct and indirect recipients other than the ECC and Zcash Foundation. It is unclear whether funding of the ECC and Foundation is intended to continue at the current absolute ZEC rate, or at the same rate relative to the block subsidy which halves in October 2020. Further specification would be needed in order to fulfil and clarify the spirit of the proposal.]
However, I hadn’t noticed the discrepancy between the GitHub version of the ZIP and the Foundation summary. The requirement that the ECC’s portion “not be greater than 10% of total block distribution of any one block” is present in the original GitHub PR 272.
There was an editorial change as follows:
-* The ECC’s percentage is capped at their projected 1.1m USD costs a month.
-* This number MUST not be greater than 10% of total block distribution of any one block.
+* The ECC’s portion of block subsidy MUST be capped at their projected 1.1m USD
costs a month.
+* The ECC’s portion of block subsidy MUST NOT be greater than 10% of total block
subsidy of any one block.
but I don’t think that change substantially affects this issue.
Note that the ZIP as it stands is not necessarily internally inconsistent — that depends on the resolution of the Editor note quoted above. If, for example, we interpret “Nothing about distribution recipients changes” as meaning that the proportion of the block subsidy that ECC and the Foundation actually receive does not change, then ECC’s current proportion is less than 10%. According to the Electric Coin Company Q3 2019 Transparency Report published on August 29, 2019, the ECC’s portion (“Electric Coin Co.” plus “Additional ECC Employee Compensation”) is currently 4.2%.
[Aside with ZIP Editor hat off: I wish that this statistic had been made much clearer throughout the process. I also wish it had been made clearer that 10% of the block subsidy after the first halvening in October 2020 is an equivalent amount in ZEC to 5% now. (Edit: @mistfpga did point that out above, but it’s relevant to all the other dev fund ZIPs as well.)]
In any case, I agree that the discrepancy with the summary in the Community Sentiment Collection poll blog post is a serious issue, that may have affected people’s votes. If we were to just change the blog post now, then it wouldn’t be clear to what extent people had already voted based on the previous summary. I will add another Editor note to the draft ZIP to point this out.