Very good point, LOL! At face value the logic doesn’t add up.
My intention there was to suggest that more ZEC would allow for ZF to potentially avoid having to continually hedge further into USD to cover for existing liabilities. My understanding is that there is some hypothetical max ZEC holdings amt on their balance sheet, where no additional hedging (selling) into USD would be needed, regardless of the size of current/ future liabilities, or current USD holdings. Because the ZEC could be paid directly against liabilites, without having first getting hedged into USD, then back into ZEC at point of transaction.
I’m pulling out that line anyway based on your feedback, my proposal intends simplicity so the extra ZEC can be up to the ZF’s discretion.
I think know why you feel this way, and I don’t disagree that the optics here look unfortunate (i.e. economic centralization/ reliance on ZF’s discretion, legal/ regulatory strength, et al).
I’d only make these counter points. With my proposal, the amount of ZEC going into ZF is only about 2% higher than what ZF is receiving today in terms of ZEC as % reward per block.
The number of coins emitted/ received daily becomes quite lower than what ZF receives today, because of the halving impact and the austerity built into my proposal.
As a receiver of 15% via Manufacturing Consent (post 2024 halving) ZF would have daily ZEC inflows of ~270
vs Today where ZF receives ~470 ZEC per day
I’m assuming that ZF (as it can today), would be able to continue to make the same cases for its 501c status in the future regardless of the slight change to how block rewards are distributed… i.e. any risks that exist today, wouldn’t be significantly heightened under my proposal. Coins inflowing is decreased, and in large part ZF operations stay about the same… the only difference being, ZF would then custody/ distribute on behalf of ECC, Qedit, and ZCG - rather than only for ZCG.
The other topic here, social centralization(?) is the risk actually increased when the ZF is operating in this new capacity based on NoamChom’s proposal? I’m only a lone wolf forum participant/ activist investor, and hypothetically speaking my proposal gained ecosystem wide consensus before it was put into action.
This is a much different situation than if a ZF board member put forward a proposal to centralize ZF capacities, and then consensus building process was non-democratic.
Also keep in mind, that by taking Bootstrap/ ECC out of the direct wallet receiver situation, their organization’s risk profile drops because they turn effectively into a grantee like ZCG or Qedit are today.
I like this suggestion, so if that organization is interested/ able, then we should accommodate that path for an FPF/ Qedit relationship.