MGRC long term structure. Savings account. Post dev fund funding

Whoever ends up getting elected, I beg them to be very thoughtful in how the funds are spent. It is imperative that there is a large amount of funds available at all times, and especially for the long term future. The MGRC NEEDS a savings account. How silly would the community feel if we were too gung-ho in the first couple years, exhausted all funds on silly projects to show “hey were doing something!” and then a few years down the road, price is up 100x? Like Bitcoin, Zcash is here to stay, and fiat money is only getting worse. Gold is hitting all time highs in every world currency because fiat is designed to fail, whereas Zcash/Bitcoin is designed to win.

This could mean saying NO to a lot of grant proposals, and accepting that people from the community will be salty over it and claim, “hey, you aren’t doing anything for the ecosystem! we wont re-elect you!”.

Just because that block reward keeps coming in, doesn’t mean it needs to be spent immediately. We need to consider the future because another 4 years of dev funding isn’t guaranteed.


Agree 100%. We want people who are long term thinkers on the MGRC, and there’s no reason to spend money as soon as it comes in.


How would you respond to @mistfpga’s arguments in these 2 posts?

As for my POV, I would say it would be unwise to feel compelled to spend money as soon as it comes in.

1 Like


It is not meant to be a literal ‘savings account’, but more like “The MGRC is keeping XX% of funds per block in reserve.”

I’m aware the MGRC itself isn’t in control of the funds, but they get to choose how it’s spent. Under that logic they can choose to not spend a certain percentage of the funds, and just keep track of it and have the ZFND hold it in reserve.


Got it! Makes perfect sense.


Does this mean that as block rewards come in they have to be immediately spent?

Sorry, my mistake, I read the post too quickly and rushed out an answer.

Yes they can have a “savings” account like that. The ZFND will already prevent them from being wasteful.

The ZFND looks after it all, and then distributes it to who the MGRC tells them to in the form of MG’s

Absolutely. There is deliberately no timescale set for when to give out grants. The ZFND has a proven track record of being able to look after the funds, I see no rush in this.

I trust the established ZFND a lot more than a completely new MGRC.

Ok, so the ZFND holds the money while the MGRC decides who gets what. If the MGRC decides to not give out all the money as soon as it comes in, then voilà, a ‘savings account’ has been created in the form of the remaining balance of the MG slice, controlled by the ZFND.

…or am I completely wrong?

Sorry, your usage of ‘cap’ was confusing to me.


I missed part of your first message (i got it confused with your PM) - i will go edit it. I got the wrong end of the stick, sorry.

This is not prohibited by the zip.

This is just sensible budgeting. Id be a bit shocked it anyone said not to do this.

Im not sure setting limits or amounts is particularly useful tho, not until we at least know what sort of costs are going to be involved. The ZFND would act as a balance if they though the MGRC was being wasteful with its funds. Although they dont have anything for them being overly conservative.

There is absolutely no pressure to spend money. I don’t think the dynamic needs a “savings” account. I think it would just make things really complicated. Setting reserve limits might be a bit more useful. Im up for it either way :slight_smile:

1 Like

In your defense I could have worded my original message more clearly.


very nice!! tm3k i like your ideas!
15% a month to saving account and its gg for everyone
maybe consider 1% a month to charity too… split it between few different charities or make it even less lets say 0.3% because 1% is a lot too