Major Grants committee

Just out of curiousity, how did/do the founders handle the funding currently?
I mean i see some similarities btw founders and a MG comittee/board. Did the founders register an entity?
Maybe it helps if we are aware how the current founders reward is setuped/registered/handled to see if there is something that could be used for a MG comittee or reverse, something that should not be used there.

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Perhaps confused by joshs post about transitioning to an independant 3rd party… its been a long day, sorry.

2 Likes

Why did suddenly the interest in decentralization, prevention of abuse, resolution of conflicts of interest disappeared?

No, but the vote gives them free reign to do what they think is best. the community said they would back either proposal with a majority.

I think this really is a case of let them decide. Im pretty sure they want to decentralise it and have it more resistant to attack and abuse, however, pratically speaking we don’t have the time to implement it.

If the foundation thinks they can set up an independent council and everything that entails, including getting some kind of community approval, before NU4 then lets do it.

If there is an inclining of doubt, don’t risk it.

The “im fine” votes mean whatever is decided is the majority. The ECC said they would do what the community wants, so the decision is left with the ZFND. I am not trying to shut down conversation of this but what is left to be talked about? The who, how and what makes up the council is a fair discussion, im not sure that is the discussion we are having here though.

Once the foundation releases their statement we should be in a better position to know.

2 Likes

The FR is not even remotely similar to a Major Grants Committee. FRs put cash into the ECC and got promised coins in return for thier investment. The Major Grants Committee has to be far more accountable and transparent to the community about where funds go, there is no expectation of committee members somehow making a profit. Let’s not dive further off topic.

1 Like

Eran, forgive me if I’m misreading any details — I’m typing this hastily on my phone before this airplane takes off and I lose internet service.

I don’t think anyone is calling for unnecessary bureaucracy. What I interpret the vote as is a question of power. Shall the ZF have power over that money, or shall there be a way to manage that money which is independent of ZF.

If the community requires the latter, I believe there are simple and efficient ways to do that. We just have to ensure that ZF cannot appoint or fire or defund or control the people or processes that govern those funds.

I don’t think “that would be hard to implement” is an adequate reason to push back. If the community is okay with the ZF having control (even indirect control) over those funds, that’s fine. ECC advises against that, but if the community supports it, we’ll support it.

However if the community wants governance of the MG funds to be independent of ZF’s control, they can have that. It’s not that difficult, and the principle of separation of power and of honoring the will of the community is worth it.

8 Likes

I think it is important to recognize that while the coinholders who chose to anonymously petition largely agreed with the Community Governance Panel, they diverged sharply on this question alone:

I know that this is controversial, but I do not see a justification for the Foundation ignoring that petition as though it didn’t happen, or for assuming without evidence that those millions of dollars worth of Zcash were somehow being used falsely. This is especially true if — as is the case — the petitioners are expressing a preference for decentralizing power away from the Foundation.

5 Likes

If you remove the profit factor i see several similarities or better said, possible similarities.

Totally agree with this!

Actually i was more interested how the founders reward was registered? As an entity? That’s everything but not off topic in my opinion after we have/should discuss how a MG comittee should/could be setuped, organized.
Hence why i would like to know how the FR was handled. Was it IRS registered and a registered entity as you/others stated that it must be?
Why not collecting some info that might maybe be usefull in a decision how a MG comittee should be “designed” like.

As a side note, i like that you are calling for more accountability and transparency than we had with the FR.

The FR wasn’t/isn’t a single entity, it is different agreements with over 50 different people so trying to compare them to a committee is pointless.

2 Likes

@zooko: is ECC planning on applying for funding from major grants? Because if it is, I think you should be very clear about that. You are making arguments for structuring a committee you intended to ask for funding. The conflict of interest is inherent and very large.

Note, ZFND is ineligible for funding from major grants. This is intentional.

Finally, why are you bring up the coin holder vote? Your own engineers described it as"
so obviously flawed and biased that you’ll have a dozen or more reasons (that have already been mentioned) to reject those results and many more reasons to prefer the Helios vote"

4 Likes

We haven’t made plans to apply for funding from the major grants, and in fact I’m inclined to think that we shouldn’t because of this reason. I think it is important that the receipt of funds be decentralized (for one thing in order to avoid crowding-out — other companies not bothering to apply for the funding because they assume ECC has the inside track). But it is more important for the control of funds to be decentralized, because that is where political power concentrates.

5 Likes

I stated this in the message to which you are responding, as well as several times before (1, 2, 3, 4).

It’s because coinholders are an important part of our community, because they are necessary to the long-term success of our mission, and because ECC and ZF have an obligation as stewards of the Zcash trademark to listen to and honor the community’s voices.

6 Likes

Yes, they are. However, what about the individuals who did not participate in the coin holder vote due to its flaws? I (and several others) did not take part because of this. Not only that, the process to participate was too complex/inconvenient.

I personally do not think those results are an accurate representation of the community’s will.

5 Likes

Also, it’s been established that the coin pollvoteprocess could be gamed for a shockingly low amount of money. So I think that “we should listen to coinholders” and “we should listen to the coin pollvoteprocess” are not even remotely equivalent.

6 Likes

Personally, based on my reading of the forums and interactions with people from the community I have no doubt that everyone is acting in good faith. However, I agree with @zooko it’s a question of balance and power.

If the foundation holds the power of this funding then it creates a very awkward situation if you are interested in building the ecosystem (for which a grant, as principal or seed funding, is critical) but are critical of the foundation, now but especially later on. That’s what we should architect for: that later on moment where ZCash becomes bigger than its builders.

It’s not sufficient to have a 2-2. We should also try to work toward preserving that balance of power between ECC and ZF. Being able to make-or-break new teams or projects is a powerful mantle that doesn’t need to be misused to create some imbalance. I’m trying to brainstorm a solution that streamlines the bureaucratic aspects as much as possible but it’s a challenge. The first idea that comes to mind is that ECC should be involved in that decision process but not allowed from applying (nor the foundation as the ZIP says).

And for the record, I don’t think ZF did a bad job with the current grant funding process but IMHO @tromer the situation is different since the foundation has been invested with much more power and influence. The checks and balances must work both way. Ideally with the least wasting of resources/time possible. I agree it’s not an easy problem.

6 Likes

That has not been established. The claim that it could be gamed for a shockingly low amount of money was speculation. Exactly the same sort of speculation could have been leveled against the forum vote and the Community Advisory Panel but thankfully no-one went there.

1 Like

Hurm, your last posts seem at odds with this comment. Would you please elaborate?

What happens to the ECC’s 35%?

Why wasn’t this raise as a showstopper to the ECC applying for MG’s before? The question was asked many times and directly answered by the ECC that only caps would cause the ECC not to apply for funding.

4 Likes

How is the advisory panel vote subject to the same concerns?

(Edit to add) I am implicitly ignoring the idea that a panel member’s vote could be purchased. If you assume this is a concern, then we fundamentally differ on our assumptions.

4 Likes

Observe also one inherent bias of the poll: people who largely ignored vocal opposition of the coinholder petition from community members associated with the Zcash Foundation seem less likely to want them to be stewards of the major grants. In fact even assuming the vote was not gamed this seems like the most obvious explanation for the difference between the two vote tallies.

I think the solution here is pretty simple; Zfnd should just refuse to be in charge of the grants, a decision completely within its control. It’s the “safe bet” considering Zfnd would have likely set up an independent committee to manage the funds indirectly anyway.

10 Likes

I’m not going to go there. That’s irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is resolving the split vote on governance of the Major Grants.