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.
Actually, the current ZIP is inconsistent with what @kek said here:
The Foundation’s summary seems to have been based on these statements. Therefore, I will remove these requirements:
- 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.
(with an Editor note) since they do not appear to be consistent with the original proposer’s intent.
wanted everything to remain the same for 2 years. that means 20%, not 10%. this was changed on the official ZIP that i didn’t write because i didn’t know how to write an official ZIP back then. when i think of it, was probably changed when i was preparing for a hurricane, and didn’t have the extra time to pay attention.
[Speaking for myself only.]
Well, the Founders’ Reward also, as the name suggests, rewards Founders other than ECC. Some of those rewards then go to the Zcash Foundation. This is very much not the same as giving 20% of the block subsidy to ECC and then having them fund the Foundation. While I cannot speak for either ECC or the Foundation, I’m not sure that either would be happy with that arrangement unless it was further constrained, to avoid an incentive for capture of the ECC.
[Disclosure of interest: I’m a current indirect Founders’ Reward recipient via Least Authority Enterprises (LAE). Due to a decision by LAE, part of my original allocation currently funds the Zcash Foundation. I’m additionally a Founders’ Reward recipient via ECC. These interests in the original Founders’ Reward will end at the first halvening in October 2020.]
We discussed it in this thread - Sorry a little delayed with GitHib proposals
Im pretty sure it is a typo, I was doing a lot of zips at that time. - you said I could set the % to what I wanted.
I saw the pull request to be about governance not actual %. I don’t know if I have screwed this up but 10% was inline with the blocktown proposal.
So no, it should be 10% to the best of my knowledge - I even mention it is actually 5% of the current block reward.
this is what i’d like to see:
20% to ECC (not founders/investors) for 2 more years. i’ll rewrite the ZIP if necessary.
You didn’t say that when I asked you what to put in the GitHub request though.
I am happy to take ownership if I screwed this up though. and you have my deepest apologies.
Also from that thread.
I didn’t hear back, so I took the middle ground and went with 10%.
This to me suggests that the fixed too high or too low makes the 1.1m the important figure. however this completely changes the mechanism of the spirit.
@mistfpga No problem, miscommunications happen. I think that the ZIP has to reflect the original proposer’s intent, especially as that corresponds with the Foundation’s summary. I’m sorry I missed the thread where that was discussed (tbh I find the forum rather hard to keep up with).
Sure, Im happy to take that. but I did flat out ask him what % and he responded with “if you plan on still pushing a form of my proposal - please feel free to use any % you see fit.” (linked a few posts above)
So I though the intent was to push funding for 2 more years to the ECC not the amount of funding, at that time proposals were pushing funding towards zfnd and 3rd entities.
I then messaged everyone that I had done their pull requests and in all that time @kek either didn’t review it or did review it and didn’t see a problem. I am really confused now. It was spoken about on two livestreams too. I will go back and listen to what was said on those to see if that says 10%, 20% or 40%? - I checked and it is not mention in the second hangout. will check the first.
So is it 10%, 20% or 40%? it doesn’t change my vote, but I am a little concerned about something so drastic being changed this late - I do somewhat agree though that what the foundation posted should be what was voted on though.
I feel a bit stupid over this. after all, I was there on those streams and involved in the conversations.
On a broader point to address @zooko, @sgp did a great stream where he went through the proposals and funding levels - I am sure all proposers know that 20% of post 2020 is 10% of today. It was brought up several times.
I did a poll (on the forums) which seemed to indicate people didn’t understand the difference between 20% of total distribution and 20% of the next halving. This was in response to some twitter poll about % of dev funding. I will dig out the link to the poll if needed.
can see where the miscommunication might’ve happened. when i said “pushing a form of my proposal” - didn’t understand you wanted to change my actual proposal. had a lot on my mind at that point because this was supposed to be my cool little florida beach town, but the bahamas got in the way.
about the livestreams - (this isn’t directed at you mist) those streams are multiple hours long (too long), and i was never invited to speak about my 2 proposals. imo, would’ve been more interesting if proposers were “interviewed” on separate streams for 10-30 mins. maybe give a short pitch on how the proposal would improve ZEC followed by Q/A.
That’s a neat idea, akin to ‘defending a thesis’ in grad school.
Not sure it would work with 13 proposals but once we’re down to just a few it would be interesting.