Major Grants Review Committee Candidates MEGATHREAD

Hello! How many people can I support for voting?


Hi @UMEDA welcome to the forums!

The Community Advisory Panel (CAP) is currently voting for the MGRC members. Unless you were invited to join the CAP last round or are already on the CAP you won’t be able to vote for the MGRC this time.

Stick around and join in the many interesting discussions happening here on the forums and next time the CAP opens up you can request an invite :slightly_smiling_face:


I’m just back from the polls! I’ve spent the last few days reading the threads and watching the videos on YouTube etc.

I’d like to thank all of the applicants for putting themselves forward, I know it’s not easy to put yourself “out there”. The quality of candidate has been very high and we’ll have a strong MGRC regardless of the result.

It has been great to see so many people interested in securing the long term success of Zcash, the community really seems to be getting stronger, the future is bright.


I argue that the MGRC must generate input from the broader Zcash ecosystem. Big difference.

We are the Red Arrows

I would appreciate your thoughts on “Inside-Out Grant Reviews using Anonymous Zcash Petitions”

how do you reconcile the gameablity of this? as has been shown in polls before.

from 1014

Emphasis mine

These badges are not just images people can use, they signnify that they have gone through compliance and compaibilty testing. Whilst the MGRC can set what they think the tests should be, the actual work will have to be carried out by professional, accredited auditors. - like NCC.

I think we should have seals like this, however it will take a lot of time and resources to work with companies like NCC to develop these (I developed these for the Microsoft xbox) - The standards should cover everything from UI/UX, change handling and everything in between. Data content protection is a massive one. and on a PC you need to do some kind of sandboxing. anyway my point is: This is something we are going to have to include in the grant allocations, it is not something the MGRC has time to do, the non financial burden should be on the recipients (i am not saying that the MGRC should not fund it, but it should be in the grant.)

(as an example, just the key exchange and key purge of a datacryptor took 2 weeks to test)

Verisign has an interesting story, they created iDefence, so they could get ahead of the game, now owned by Accenture. - why would the MGRC not use these sorts of resources which give actual confidence?

This is a mature industry with a lot of the companies that have the skills to help. I wonder if any of my contacts moved to Accenture. I have said this before, but this sort of thing is standard in fintech software.

1 Like

I did, and I tried to get it fixed.


Yes, good catch. Though your proposed fix (ZF compensates members for their time) is what ZF ended up doing. Just out of ZF’s money. And it was controversial because paying market rates of an executive director of a non-profit on an hourly basis is apparently cheap.

Which, if you view the MGRC as being a technical committee of experts, well yes it is cheap, Consulting rates are at least 2 to 5 x that. But we didn’t require people on MGRC be technical. And some of them won’t be. So then … what we pay technical rates to some and not other MGRC members?
It seems MGRC will need to rely on volunteers or paid consultants for in depth technical review. Or we could pay 300 to 400 an hour, but then there needs to be some qualification bar and vetting process.


Yep, because that was the consensus on this forum.

I suppose I should know better than to expect consistency from a cryptocurrency community.

Major Grants Review Committee, the video:


Well, I think many people genuinely changed their minds on how much work would be needed on the part of MGRC members, and therefore on how much compensation was reasonable. Personally, I think $100/hr is fine but 5 hr/month is almost certainly not enough time. I notice that the ZF’s post doesn’t mention expenses, and my position is still that reasonable expenses should be paid.


agree, feel pay rate is generous, but don’t believe MGRC would be very effective only putting in 5 hours work a month. think some people like myself were surprised by the low time estimate.

1 Like

this is why i suggested that ZF has the same interpretation of 1014 that the MGRC is a coinholder’s veto check. this is why appreciable coinholders are those who are most inclined to want to be on the MGRC. i definitely appreciate the desire for a more vibrant role, recognize the contentious vote establishing the mgrc, but this really tests the waters for the space for off chain governance. just keep in mind that the ZF holds the keys to these funds, so should there be a critical dispute, we’ll see whose opinion really matters. and because of that arrangement, I think it wise to temper expectations of the freewheeling nature of the MGRC soon, to not permit full blown food fights later. I also know i’ve been annoying on this matter, but hey, this is what my skill set brings to the table.


Just finished watching the Sept 4th call. Thanks to the candidates for sharing their vision. One thing that I am not clear on is how will MGRC grants be different than Zcash Foundation grants? Will Zcash Foundation continue to give out grants once MGRC is set up?

A lot of candidates on the call mentioned “marketing” as something that needs more investment, but that isn’t something that has been typically funded through ZF grants. Other candidates mentioned a preference for smaller grants instead of bigger grants which I found surprising since the name of the committee is Major Grants. :smile:

I don’t feel strongly either way on either of this points - just thought I would share my questions with the group in case anyone had a strong perspective here. Excited to see what happens in the next two weeks!


Great callout Elena. If I were elected to MGRC, I would encourage us to perform a retrospective of the performance of the funded ZF Grants and donations to date. We could analyze which of these were most effective, and solicit follow-on applications from these teams for Major Grants.

I suspect that ZF is waiting to seat a new Executive Director and also see what approach MGRC takes before declaring their go-forward strategy for grants. It is my understanding that dev-fund revenue to ZF will materially increase when NU4 activates, so it will be interesting to see what (if any) strategic changes ZF makes in light of forthcoming new leadership and more funding.

As an engineer, I have an innate skepticism of “all things marketing”. That said, I’ve arrived at a place in my career where I wholeheartedly appreciate the value that high quality communications, messaging, positioning and marketing make. I believe that Zcash technology is ready for prime time, and that soliciting and funding grant applications from teams ready to push hard on Zcash messaging/positioning/etc could be money really well spent for the community.



AFAIK the gameability comes from the amount of zec one starts with. With a lot of zec, one could create socio-economic pressure on the board. Also, one could assume many identities.

I restrict the # of possible identities by randomly selecting a predefined number of voters from the pool of those who want to vote and sending them, and only them, instructions on how to vote alongwith some zcash. This reduces gameability

We will create a work breakdown structure, divide the labor, and dish out grants!!! The 2x2 trademark agreements are a less isolationist way to decentralize. We can get help from ECC and ZF to initiate, plan and execute.

I would like to think that the ZFND model is a “evaluate grant proposals requested by developers” whereas I would like to see the MGRC more specific about what kinds of projects they would like to see. While I think MGRC will also issue grants based on proposals I think bug bounties, wish lists, project suggestion/direction can actively help get more grants started.

My answer regarding the preference for more smaller grants was to address the many different things that Zcash and Zcash users need. Large significant ZEC value grants could still be given, I just don’t want to put all of the ZEC allocated to MGRC into a single or two projects.



ZF and MGRC work together to create network effects among third party developers and end users, respectively. This can be seen in active userbase + functional codebase.

Unlike MGRC, ZF enables grants that work inside the protocol. MGRC should not make protocol level change.

Responsibilities :
Red = ECC (for-profit, created privacy protocol)
Yellow = ZF (non-profit, maintains protocol for public good)
Blue = MGRC (creates useful applications to grow community)

Areas of Operation :
I (+ IV) = ECC
II (+ III) = ZF

Zeal :
A = developers
B = users

Areas of overlap present opportunities to create checks and balances and further decentralize the Zcash Network Flywheel. See Part 4 of my agenda: Trust Badges.

The MGRC Engine

I added an arrow to Ali’s representation of Network Flywheel to reveal the MGRC Engine that fuels the Zcash Network Flywheel:

  1. ZCAP select MGRC candidates
  2. MGRC candidates inspire useful applications with help from the community.
  3. Useful applications attract more Zcash users (and leave code for more developers to adopt)
  4. A growing Zcash userbase begets a larger Zcash community (network effect).
    Further discussion:

More so than marketing, I’d like to set up a two-way communication system with the community, gain their consent, hold their hand, walk them into the zecosystem, and see how long they stay.

This requires user research, one of the four pillars I propose

@lawzec, did you notice any conflict with ZIP1014?


Past results do not necessarily indicate future performance! Hope you will mentor MGRC from ECC whether or not you win a seat

Let’s do this!