Greetings Zcash folks. I don’t have a dog in the fight re: google vs zoom vs jitsi vs ip over avian carrier. I appreciate the privacy concerns surrounding Google’s platform, and also understand that usability and privacy are at odds with each other and that we sometimes have to make sacrifices in the name of celerity.
I do, however, have thoughts about my vision for MGRC that I believe are worth sharing here. I believe that we need to zoom out and think about the big picture as we create MGRC. Specifically, I think that we’re taking the name too literally, and should take @tromer up on his suggestion that we rename it as soon as practicable after the inaugural members are selected.
Specifically, I would like the community to weigh in on the following assertion:
“Major Grants” should do more than just write grants. It should also:
- Award prizes. These are funds awarded to people or organizations that deliver important (code | documentation | marketing artifacts | presentations | etc) after the fact
- Set bounties. These are funds awarded for the delivery of specific functionality, products, or other deliverables after delivery. Bounties are different from prizes, because prizes are awarded to people who deliver value spontaneously, whereas bounties are awarded to people who deliver value that is specifically requested by MGRC.
- Invest in projects that directly support, or are adjacent to the Zcash ecosystem. Specifically, MGRC (or the underlying entity, initially the ZF) should be able to take equity positions on the cap tables of these companies, and rather than just “give money away” (as it does with grants), receive a return on these investments. These investments should be used to meaningfully extend the effectiveness of the MGRC beyond the life of the four year dev fund defined in ZIP 1014.
But wait, can a non profit organization make investments? Absolutely. It’s standard operating procedure for non profit foundations to invest a non trivial portion of their assets, and to use this interest income, or return on investment, to continue to write grants and carry out its mission in perpetuity. An example of a non profit organization that uses this strategy to carry out its mission is HHMI, the second wealthiest philanthropic organization in the US. HHMI has an endowment of $22.6B, and spends about $825M per year on biomedical research. An example of this paradigm from the cryptocurrency industry is the Celo Foundation. The Celo Foundation is in the process of expanding its Board of Directors. Notably, the Celo Foundation is itself a limited partner in the Celo Ecosystem Venture Fund. Quoting from the Celo blog:
From time to time, the [Celo] Foundation will directly invest in ventures that align with the Foundation’s mission. The Foundation is also a LP in the Polychain Celo Ecosystem Venture Fund, which provides seed funding to companies in the Celo ecosystem.
My point here is that MGRC needs to think bigger than just grants. The community is trusting MGRC with a material amount of funds over the next four years, and it’s incumbent upon the elected MGRC members to figure out a way not only to allocate those funds near term to benefit Zcash, but also to invest a portion of those funds in such a way that MGRC can continue to provide funding for Zcash long after the dev fund expires.