Lockbox Distribution Proposal: Let ZCAP Decide

Governance
1

It has been said (most famously by Winston Churchill) that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…

I feel the same way about ZCAP. It’s a long way from perfect but we have yet to see a better solution for decision-making in Zcash. If we had, one of the major organisations would be using it.

Like charity, governance and accountability start at home. In product management, the term “dogfooding” refers to the practise of using one’s own products (in fact, the wallet we now know as Zashi was originally dubbed the “Dogfood Wallet” when it was first developed in 2020). The acid test of any governance proposal is whether the proposer is comfortable being governed – and held accountable – by it themselves.

ZF has been dogfooding ZCAP by using it to appoint board members since 2018. Zcash Community Grants committee members have been elected by ZCAP since late 2020, and ZCAP has been used to decide which grant applications were accepted across two Minor Grants rounds (demonstrating how well ZCAP can make funding decisions).

ZCAP members are drawn from across the Zcash community, and all constituencies are represented – core developers, grant recipients, ZEC whales, ecosystem partners, community cheerleaders – ensuring that a broad spectrum of voices are represented. Most are ZEC holders, and many are critical of ZF, demonstrating ZCAP’s independence.

ZCAP allows us to tap into the wisdom of the Zcash crowd, instead of concentrating power in the hands of a tiny group of ZEC whales or a handful of organisations (which effectively means a handful of CEOs and EDs). Its size means that it is effectively immune to conflicts of interest and coercive influence (which hampers open and honest discourse in the Zcash ecosystem today).

It may not be a perfect solution but it is the best option we have today, by far.

Therefore, I propose that ZCAP polling is used to determine how the Lockbox funds should be distributed, using the same protocol that was previously used for Minor Grants.

Hopefully goes without saying but, for the record, this proposal and the opinions expressed herein are my own, not ZF’s.

1 Like
2

Yes, ZCAP should decide the use of the lockbox.

Standardize:
a) how to become a member
b) cut off date for membership prior any vote
c) how individuals membership can be deleted
d) membership must be an individual person

3

ZCAP is not a democracy, that comparison doesn’t work.

“Democracy is a form of government in which state power is vested in the people or the general population of a state.” — wikipedia

Assuming all Zcash users are “the general population” of the “state” of Zcash, you would need for them all to be able to easily vote, with one verified human, one vote. Instead, it’s a bunch of KYC’d people selected I have no idea how really. One has basically nothing to do with the other.

ZCAP can suggest. ZEC holders decide and control.

2 Likes
4

It’s kind of true to be honest.
Also ZCAP censorship resistance seems to be close to 0, nothing can be more easily coerced than a group of known individuals.

5

Burn all coins in the lockbox, it only contributes to zcash inflation. Its good enough to have a wallet that can do the shield.

6

Burn all coins is diabolical.

7

KYC is not a requirement to join ZCAP, for example I got recommended by tm3k (another ZCAP member) and all I had to do was to provide an email and a name (which can be pseudonymous). Other than that I fully agree with your points.

In theory I could be a Monero supporter with 0 ZEC trying to vote with the intent to get the worst possible outcome for Zcash. What I want to say is that there is no proof that I am a ZEC supporter. On the other hand in a coin holder voting system I am (atleast) financially incentivized to vote in a way which benefits the price of ZEC and therefore the long term stability of the network.

8

Interesting. That means that a nefarious entity could gain control of Zcap by some kind of social engineering, basically at no costs. But with coin voting, the same entity would have to take financial risks and buy coins on the market to try to reach the same outcome.

9

Zcash is in decline ever since. It needs a radical change.

10

Once proof of state gets implemented. If ever Zec hodler stake we should see less of a decline due to lock tokens. Plus, an unlocking period of 21 days will help with the sell pressure.

11

borderline off-topic but important clarification.

This is technically inaccurate. The Dogfooding wallet Kevin and I created which @NighthawkApps firstly deployed publicly in the respective android and iOS stores was not Zashi. the “black and yellow keypad themed” app known as the “reference wallet” was not designed for production deployment. It used experimental techs from Android and iOS which were kotlin, co-routines for Android and SwiftUI for iOS (which was a beta framework at the time) which proved that these technological bets were correct (kotling MP and co-routines, SwiftUI and swift async became mainstream tech)

Zashi, was architected initially by Kevin and myself (codename secant), and then continued by Carter Jernigan and myself which are codebases specifically designed for production deployment, prioritizing resilience, high availability, rapid iteration, modularity and versalitility which was tremendously improved by @Lukas, @Honza and Milan after ECC restructuring who are making those initial blueprints into the great wallets we see today.

Zashi users need to rest assured that are not being “dogfed” an app that’s all.

5 Likes