The results of the recent Polling Community Sentiment on ZIP 1014 seem pretty clear, except for one issue: the committee that will decide Major Grants.
Let’s keep the discussion in this dedicated forum topic. I’ll start it off by summarizing the facts so far.
The poll
The poll started with ZIP 1014 (see below) as the basis, and asked the following question:
Do you believe the Foundation should have independent authority in determining Major Grants, or should there be a new Major Grant Review Committee as prescribed in this ZIP?
A. The Foundation should have independent authority in determining Major Grants
B. There should be a new Major Grant Review Committee with near-complete authority
C. Either option is acceptable
The results were a tie: 34 for A, 34 for B, and 20 for C.
ZIP 1014 text
The current text in draft ZIP 1014, which got overwhelming poll support as the basis (77 for, 11 against), is as follows:
ZF-MG slice (Zcash Foundation, for major grants)
This slice of the Dev Fund is intended to fund independent teams entering the Zcash ecosystem, to perform major ongoing development (or other work) for the public good of the Zcash ecosystem, to the extent that such teams are available and effective.
The funds SHALL be received and administered by ZF. ZF MUST disburse them as “Major Grants”, within the framework of ZF’s grant program but subject to the following additional constraints:
- These funds MUST only be used to issue Major Grants to external parties that are independent of ZF. They MUST NOT be used by ZF for its internal operations and direct expenses.
[…]
Major Grants SHOULD be awarded based on ZF’s mission and values, restricted to furthering of the Zcash cryptocurrency and its ecosystem (which is more specific than furthering financial privacy in general).
Major Grants awards are subject to approval by a five-seat Major Grant Review Committee. The Major Grant Review Committee SHALL be selected by the ZF’s Community Panel. The Major Grant Review Committee’s funding decisions will be final, requiring no approval from the ZF Board, but are subject to veto if the Foundation judges them to violate the ZF’s operating documents or U.S. law.
Major Grant Review Committee members SHALL have a one-year term and MAY sit for reelection. The Major Grant Review Committee is subject to the same conflict of interest policy that governs the ZF Board of Directors (i.e. they MUST recuse themselves when voting on proposals where they have a financial interest). Additionally, no one with interest in or association with the ECC may sit on the Major Grant Review Committee — since the ECC can be a beneficiary, this avoids those potential conflicts altogether. The ZF SHALL continue to operate the Community Panel and SHOULD work toward making it more representative and independent (more on that below).
ZF SHALL recognize the ZF-MG slice of the Dev Fund as a Restricted Fund donation under the above constraints (suitably formalized), and keep separate accounting of its balance and usage under its Transparency and Accountability obligations defined below.
From grant proposers’ side, proposals for such grants SHALL be submitted through ZF’s usual grant process, allowing for public discussion and public funding. It is intended that small one-time grants will be funded by drawing on the ZF-GU slice (where they also compete with other ZF activities), whereas large or long-duration grants will be funded from the dedicated ZF-MG slice; though this is at ZF’s discretion (e.g. if there are no Major Grant applications the ZF may opt to direct the ZF-MG to smaller grants).
ZF SHALL strive to define target metrics and key performance indicators, and the Major Grant Review Committee SHOULD utilize these in its funding decisions.
ECC’s response
ECC’s blog-post response did not weigh on this, but @zooko’s subsequent forum post did.
ZF’s response and proposed change
ZF’s posted its ZIP 1014 Poll Results analysis, including the following proposed changes to the Major Grants committee. It replaces sections 6 and 7 above with the following:
- Major Grants awards are subject to approval by a five-seat Major Grant Review Committee. The Major Grant Review Committee’s funding decisions will be final, requiring no approval from the ZF Board, but are subject to veto if the Foundation judges them to violate the ZF’s operating documents or U.S. law.
- Initially the ZF SHALL appoint the members of the Major Grant Review Committee and the ZF SHALL have authority to change or modify the Committee’s membership. To align with the Future Community Governance timeline (more on that below), the terms and election structure for members of the Major Grant Review Committee SHALL be decided in a new ZIP and ratified by the ZF Community Panel (or successor mechanism) no later than the end of 2021.
- The Major Grant Review Committee is subject to the same conflict of interest policy that governs the ZF Board of Directors (i.e. they MUST recuse themselves when voting on proposals where they have a financial interest). Additionally, no one with interest in or association with the ECC may sit on the Major Grant Review Committee — since the ECC can be a beneficiary, this avoids those potential conflicts altogether. The ZF SHALL continue to operate the Community Panel and SHOULD work toward making it more representative and independent (more on that below).
ECC+ZF agreement
ECC and ZF have announced their mutual agreement to approve ZIP 1014, with a few modifications. Briefly, this version:
- Keeps the community-elected and mostly-independent committee, as prescribed by the original ZIP 1014 and option B in the poll.
- Removes ECC’s eligibility to Major Grants.
- Allows up to one ECC associate and one ZF associate to serve on the Major Grants Review Committee.
- Removes language connecting the Major Grants to ZF.
- Implements the removal of the USD cap / volatility reserve mechanism (which is outside the scope of the present thread, but see the poll results and the preceding discussion in this thread).
- Minor clarifications (see the above thread and the associated GitHub pull request discussion).
Finalization of the phrasing is underway, and the discussion below seems to have ened.
I’ll update this top-of-topic post with official announcement or other pertinent news.
As the discussion ensues, I urge everyone to stay practical and realistic. High ideals are easy to call for and sound great, but remember: we need something up and running by the end of 2020, and many feel that the community is already stretched thin in how much attention it can dedicate to new governance experiments.