MGRC Update 11-25-2020 and Meeting Minutes

Community Grants Community Grants Updates
1

Hey Zeal,

It’s getting exciting now! The halving passed smoothly and you can check the funds that MGRC is accumulating here:

This weeks meeting we continued to hammer out application process, website and logo details, and brainstorm ways to get media coverage to prepare for launch.

:loudspeaker: WE ARE GO FOR LAUNCH DECEMBER 7th! :rocket: :zcash:

MGRC Zoom Meeting: November 25th, 2020

[Minutes taken by Danika]

Meeting minutes:

Attendance:

  • Hudson Jameson

  • Sarah Jamie Lewis

  • Shawn

  • Chris Burniske

  • Holmes Wilson

  • Danika Delano acting as notetaker

Notes:

  • Gratitude: Chris and the members thanked Holmes and Shawn for getting the logo and website up and recognized the amount of work they have done.

  • Logo: Hudson discussed the logo that Shawn created and fonts. They agreed that they liked [redacted] because it’s simple and that Roboto would be a better font to use.

  • Grants Platform: Holmes updated everyone that Grants.io is going well and he is confident they will finish well before the launch date.

  • Launch Date: After some discussion about when the team would have time to get the word out, the members decided that they would launch on December 7th. Chis reminded everyone that their next meeting is on Dec 9th so this is the last scheduled meeting before the launch.

  • Publicity: Shawn voiced that he doesn’t think there will be any problem getting the word out and mentioned that CoinDesk or other new outlets may cover it at some capacity. Holmes suggested that the committee create a document for what their narrative is and what to say from a high level. Shawn added that they should have a process in the event that the media/websites contact the MGRC members. Holmes suggested there be a section on the doc with people who are portals to certain communities and what communities they want to reach because privacy is fragmented. Another member added that there could be a list of Tweets in the doc as well. Chris voted for ZF to make an announcement via a blog and wanted to shy away from the committee creating too much written content as bottom up distribution is best and the committee agreed.

  • Order of Operations for Launch: Hudson listed the items that need to be completed in order to launch are 1) The website should be live (it is nearly done) 2) Twitter updated with logo 3) Twitter post and a forum post on ZF forum. He then highlighted that all members should connect with their contacts one-on one on the launch date.

  • Twitter/Outreach- Chris suggested the Twitter post could be something like “[REDACTED) is open for business.” Holmes emphasised that they want to get as much attention as possible and asked what audiences they want to reach and what are the sources that can get them to those audiences? He suggested they make a plan and everyone agreed. Shawn noted that they can find Twitter handles and add them as well as post on Discord and the forum. All group members brainstormed their connections and who they could reach out to for more media launch coverage [Redacted list of personal contacts discussed] Holmes pointed out that it is on their wishlist to explain Zcash to a wider audience as there is amazing funding out there for amazing things that nobody knows about.

  • Grant process Doc: Chris brought up 2 lingering questions about the grant process. Everyone agreed that even though applicants are required to be KYCed, they can be pseudonymous publicly. Shawn confirmed that this is what happened for MGRC applicants and it is a good thing to have as an option. As for the other item, the group agreed that the result should just be published on the forum (no need to duplicate on the website). Chris also referred to the note in the doc that the “button” should be added to the website and Holmes noted that he will add a link. Hudson also stated that we can add the process doc to the website whenever they need to so Chis is welcome to continue editing.

  • Next Meeting: After some discussion, the members agreed that they will keep everything asynchronous next week and call an emergency meeting before the launch if it becomes necessary.

  • Happy Birthday to Holmes: Everyone sang Holmes Happy Birthday!

Summary of action items:

  • Create a document for what [redacted] narrative is, the process in the event that the media/websites contact them, people who are portals to certain communities and what communities they want to reach, a list of Tweets
  • Finish logo with robotico font
  • Update logo on Twitter account/website/etc…
  • Finish website & working with Grants.io
  • All members to connect with their contacts one-on one on or before the launch date (Dec 7th)
14 Likes
2

Happy Birthday Holmes!

3 Likes
3

Awwwwwwwww, thanks!

1 Like
4

Can someone please explain this to me.

How can someone declare a conflict of interest in an applicant when that applicant is pseudo?

Their is no right to veto after the grant has been given. (well a few, but im not sure what zip we are following anymore.)

This could raise serious CoC and possible ethics concerns. what happens if a pseudo anon applicant turns out to be a conflict of interest for one or more of the MGRC voters, or even ZFND/ECC affiliation.

I believe that a better method would be for the applicants to have to reveal all CoC/CoI with their real identity before the MGRC gets to vote on the proposal.

For transparency the ZFND should inform the MGRC and the community as to what happened in the case of an issue.

What checks and balances do we have against this at the moment?

5

My read is that the KYC requirement would mean that the applicant is not pseudonymous to (someone within) ZF; thus ZF could publicly object to a pseudonymous grant where they see CoI, even if they couldn’t technically veto it (though there is probably an obligation under 501(c)3 that could be applied to this, per ZIP 1014).

It’s unclear to me whether the KYC requirement means that the application is not pseudonymous to MGRC itself (but the note about “pseudonymous publicly” suggests that to be the case). If that is the case, conflicts of interest with a subset of the MGRC members would be visible to the other members. If there was a CoI with a quorum of MGRC members and they approved the pseudonymous grant, the minority MGRC members could similarly publicly object (in addition to ZF).

6

@str4d is correct, the idea is that an applicant can remain pseudonymous to the public (ie members of the forums) but won’t be pseudonymous to the MGRC itself while the application is under consideration, nor to the ZF if a grant is given.

Due to reporting requirements from the IRS it’s not possible to receive a grant from the Zcash Foundation pseudonymously.

1 Like
7

I think it was the comparison to the MGRC elections that confused me.

thanks for clearing that up. So MGRC applicants are not pseudo from the MGRC at first, then if successful the ZF has to know their names to write the cheques. (what happens if the ZF finds a problem? the way the zip reads there is nothing they can do about it unless it is a 501)

After an applicant has been accepted, do they then have to reveal their identity to the public?

I get the desire for as much pseudo anon as possible, but what mechanisms are there if a problem is discovered by the ZF or community after the award.

8

I think the applicants will be known to MGRC and ZF before they receive the grant.