I come before you to share an update regarding the compensation of the Zcash Community Grants (ZCG) Committee, which concurrently serves as the Major Grants Review Committee as referenced in ZIP1014.
In light of recent changes by the Zcash Foundation (ZF) to reduce the compensation rate for ZCG members, we have drafted an amendment to ZIP1014 to maintain the existing compensation structure. The proposed amendment enables the continuation of the established rate of $115 per hour based on an estimated 15 hours per month, equating to a monthly stipend of $1725, sourced directly from the ZCG funds. This initiative is aimed at preserving the consistency and stability of the committee’s operations.
We firmly believe that the stipend is essential for acknowledging the significant contributions and dedicated time of the ZCG Committee members. It serves not only as a recognition of their hard work but also as an investment in the sustained excellence and professional commitment required to guide our community. To move forward with this amendment, we are actively seeking the community’s consensus. Your input is crucial, as it will shape the decision-making process and influence the adoption of this amendment by the ZF and ECC.
We invite each one of you to join the conversation, express your opinions, and cast your votes on this matter. It is our collective effort and unity in decision-making that will continue to drive Zcash forward.
Looking forward to your active participation and support.
A portion of the Discretionary Budget MAY be allocated to provide reasonable compensation to members of the Major Grant Review Committee. Committee member compensation SHALL be limited to the hours needed to successfully perform their positions and MUST align with the scope and responsibilities of their roles. The allocation and distribution of compensation to committee members SHALL be administered by the ZF. The committee members will receive compensation at a rate of $115 per hour, based on an estimated 15 hours each month, amounting to a monthly sum of $1725. Changes to the hours or rate SHALL be determined by the ZF’s Community Advisory Panel or successor process.
ZF has no objection to amending ZIP 1014 to allow for ZCG Committee members’ stipends to be paid from the Major Grants Slice of the Dev Fund. We will include this question in the upcoming December ZCAP poll.
We just need to make sure that we don’t fall afoul of the rules that prohibit private inurement and excess benefit. An example of how that might happen would be if someone were receiving the full $1725 per month but was spending less than 15 hours on ZCG-related work.
A straightforward way to mitigate that risk is for ZCG Committee members to formally account for the hours they spend on ZCG-related work each month (i.e. timesheets), and be compensated for that time, up to a cap of 15 hours per month.
I haven’t been tracking my ZCG hours, but just looking at my calendar from the past two months, that would have left me 15-30 minutes per month outside of scheduled meetings to read the forum and grants and prepare for meetings, unless I added wrong (which is possible).
I’m happy to put that in a spreadsheet going forward.
Edit to add: by which I mean I had 14.5-14.75 hours of scheduled meetings on the calendar for the month.
It would be cinical from me to support this defunding. I’m a capitalist person. Do I love Zcash and believe that privacy is a human right? yes. But I’m also as professional software developer. I get paid for what I do. For the value the community perceives I bring to the Zcash Ecosystem.
People with the responsibilities that running the ZCG entails should be compensated. It is my personal belief that Pro-Bono Apex roles only fosters plutocracies and oligarchies. I’m against those ideas that “politicians and goverment officials shouldn’t get paid”.
If government officials didn’t get paid, the only people who would run for those seats are the ones who have the money (or the sponsorships) to compensate for their unpaid work and maybe a few altruists. Average Janes and Joes that work 9 to 9 (yeah, nobody works 8h gigs in this economy anymore) can’t afford the luxury of altruism.
Also defunding current ZCG members will bring totally unproductive and vicious discussions.
Two seconds after that decision is made and executed, if ZCG members stay, many will see that as an act of humbleness and solidarity with the project, but also someone will post something like “people stopped getting paid as much and continued to be part and ran for re-election, that means that they didn’t need the money and took it anyway even when the prize of ZEC tanked! That’s outrageous!”
If some ZCG members step down on their candidacy or their current chair, some would appreciate it as a grand gesture of transparency and openness, but other people will say: “SEE THAT??? I was right!! they are MERCENARIES! They were only here FOR THE MONEY!!”
The optics in Public Relations don’t look good either. “oh look at that Zcash lousy project, they can’t even pay a minimum wage to people on their treasury. Pathetic”
Everybody loses.
I don’t know the financial situation of people here and I don’t want to know. I want to judge ZCG members for the work they do for Zcash’s benefit. How they fill their pantry it’s not of my incumbence. That’s why I support they get paid so we can discuss other (more) important things.
The following question has been included in the latest ZCAP poll:
Do you support amending ZIP 1014 to provide a stipend of $115 USD per hour (up to a monthly maximum of $1,725 USD) to be paid in ZEC to ZCG Committee members from the Major Grants slice of the Dev Fund?
Why is the discussion about increasing compensation rather than optimizing the work flow?
Is zcash getting roi operating open ended grants evaluations in this market?
I see time and money as interchangeable here. The zcg process is tedious and requires diligence. It is made more tedious because it is a constant slow trickle of projects.
5 full time employees has a fixed cost. Pretending they are volunteering for a token sum belittles everyone involved. If the community cannot afford 5 full time grant reviewers, change the model.
Moving to a quarterly grants review process would improve the grants the community gets. Projects for similar work can be evaluated apples to apples.
ZCGs time can be used more productively
ZF could filter out low effort, ineligible, and small grants candidates prior to the ZCG convening
The results are in, and ZCAP has voted in favour of amending ZIP 1014 to pay a stipend of up to $1,725 USD per month (i.e. up to 15 hours per month at $115 per hour) from the Major Grants slice of the Dev Fund.
We will therefore draft an appropriately-worded amendment to ZIP 1014 to formalize this change.
A portion of the Discretionary Budget MAY be allocated to provide reasonable
compensation to members of the Major Grant Review Committee. The time for which
each Committee member is compensated SHALL be limited to the hours needed to
successfully perform their positions, up to a maximum of 15 hours in each month,
and MUST align with the scope and responsibilities of that member’s role. The
compensation rate for each Committee member SHALL be $115 per hour (and therefore
the maximum compensation for a Committee member is $1725 per month). The
allocation and distribution of compensation to committee members SHALL be
administered by the ZF. Changes to the hours or rate SHALL be determined by
the ZF’s Community Advisory Panel or successor process.
Cool. The ambiguities resolved by the suggested wording are:
That the constraints “limited to the hours needed to successfully perform their positions”, “up to a maximum of 15 hours in each month”, and “MUST align with the scope and responsibilities of that member’s role” apply specifically to the time for which the members are compensated.
That they are compensated at $115 per hour for exactly that time, and therefore the maximum compensation for a Committee member is $1725 per month. The previous wording was ambiguous in that it could be read as saying the monthly compensation would always be $1725 because the estimated time was 15 hours per month; but that is not consistent with the question asked in the poll.
,