Hi @MGRC-Candidates,
I am getting a little concerned how this discussion is developing.
Just so everyone is on the same page here, it would be a complete travesty if the people elected to carry out 1014 change the scope or intent of the zip. Specifically investing some portion of the Dev Fund, or not honouring the communities intent with who should get the funding.
The process didn’t just approve a particular zip, it rejected others too.
The discussion we had about 1014 was to allow “full stack” development teams the time and funds to onboard themselves to the project. MG’s are specifically to fill the ECC like role. It is there to get us more ECC’s. More teams that can replace the ECC. That is its number one goal. We need to discuss how we get there.
The dev fund could be argued to already be very light on funding for this purpose, seeing as what was required by the ECC to get them through the first 4 years. We know this has not been financially plain sailing. Remember them posting they were running out of money and might quit if they didn’t get algo based rewards? “All in ZEC”? And that was just 1 team. This fund has to fund multiple teams with the huge up front cost of learning zcash tech. So the funding will pretty much exclusively be spend on tech teams. It wont have the funding to cover other stuff the ECC has done like creating the ZFND, marketing, out reach, etc.
1014 has the provision to give the companies their funding from the algo, reasoning being some incentive alignment from volatility price gains and as a mechanism where they know they are going to getting paid something. This is what the community voted to do with the block rewards. - Which is not free money, someone is paying for that with their electricity. The aim is to get the people paying the dev fund better value for money regarding teams than the people who paid the FR, a very tall expensive order.
Because the funding for applicants is preawarded it means the MGRC will not and cannot gain/lose funds from price swings - only the recipients. This is by design and a non-negotiable part of the zip. I know I tried to negotiate against payments in zec only. (but potential recipients all voiced support for zec based payment.)
The idea of investing monies from the dev fund did come up it was by @ttmariemia in her proposal here:
Which was withdrawn and not voted on. As @dontbeevil has said, is now really the time to be discussing modifications to 1014? - and running on a position that means you will inherently break 1014 is not good.
All this was a long time ago. It might be worth going over the zips again, or even watching the livestreams. (I apologise in advance for my terrible sound) : -
- Zcash Protocol Hangout, Dev Fund Edition - not actually 7hrs long about 3.
Here is the second hangout: (at least check out the timestamped post)
-
Zcash Protocol Hangout, Dev Fund Edition #2 (tromers post and stream link.)
-
Zcash Protocol Hangout, Dev Fund Edition #2 - Timestamps of the stream.
and the most recent one:
I am not against “investment” and might have backed the zip, I certainly would feel a lot more comfortable if it was currently in a zip, preferably 1014.
It might turn out their is a large surplus of funds through a lack of applicants and becoming some kind of venture capital group is a good use of those resources. We will cross that bridge if we get there. Most of the other ideas people have been putting forward seem to be better suited to grants not rewards hardcoded into the blockchain.
Sorry if I come across a bit grumpy/tetchy in this post. I and others put a lot of time, blood, sweat and tears into getting 1014 to where it is and I am genuinely a bit worried. I am posting this with my CAP hat on, not as an applicant.
steve.