I’ll read through it again more deeply, but here are a couple of thoughts. (disclaimer This is my personal opinion. They do not reflect the Zcash Foundation and so on though I do use ZF in examples)
When you say “are banned from engaging their block rewards into Crypto Hedge funding, Angel/ Seed Investing, or any other forms of speculative, non-Zcash related treasury activities.”, like to mention that for the ZF at least, technically, this already applies. 501c3 charity status mandates they are prohibited from engaging in self innurment investment schemes with public funds and stuff, which incur the reporting requirements, so on so forth.
The thing is that as far as what anybody can tell, that’s the only thing that enforces any kind of a “ban” on that stuff. This was talked about back in 1014 duscussions with reporting requirements and, beyond the IRS, it was/is basically never actually enforceable, or at least we never came up with a practical way.
How would you, the Zcash community, actually enforce reporting requirements or enact penañties for potentially for-profit entities? Why do for-profit entities think they can profit off of donated money from the public (stupid question!)? What is the lever and why would they not immediately start planning on pivoting away from under it? Who monitors and then, presumably, soft-forks us? What actually constitued that and who gave them this authority? What are they even montoring? How are they incentivized? There are many things open to capture.
The last part where it says “non-Zcash related treasury activities”, I assume falls into the same category of angel funds hedge stuff, but it is a bit ambiguous.
The act of strictly funding development on only Zcash related things bleeds into the same realm of self innurment things like that. The goal is privacy enhancing technologies which is why ZF also funds things like tor and this frost thing xp which does work for Zcash (after a modification) but it also works for other things, too.
With the long-term sustainability part thing and adjusted subsidies: If, say, the ZF became the recipient of too much funds, then changing the funding stream would already be in their best interest anyways. Adjustments have been made to 1014 over the past couple of years, NU’s are dime a dozen!
, so it seems practical to just cross that bridge when we reach it.
I won’t touch on the price and percentages and things like that.
But, ultimately I am a fan of 1014. My concerns as described relate to who is receiving it and what is actually keeping them in line wrt to above mentioned things because decentralization merely for its own sake is just ridiculous. I’ve made similar statements in other threads related to future development fund models so this shouldnt come as a surprise, I suppose.