Announcement from MightyJaxx admin on MightyMeta discord:
gm folks thank you for showing the Cypherpunk Zero so much love! we’ve been diligently monitoring all our social media platforms & Discord accordingly (of course!), and we’ve come to a consensus: we will be postponing the launch.
why we are doing so is mainly to ensure a fair launch across the board. we’ve been noticing the increased presence of bots to quickly buy out NFT mints and this is something we are actively trying to prevent — especially when this particular collection has such a limited supply. as such, we are taking extra time to improve on the mechanics of the release to prevent such issues from happening during the actual launch date.
wen launch? the new launch date is to be decided, and we will be confirming it with Electric Coin Co. to give everyone an update soon. we have also closed the faq channel until we can provide the latest information that is up to date!
we understanding that this delay might be frustrating to some who are excited about the project launch, and we want to take this time to thank each and every one of you for your patience and understanding. do let our mods @pebbles, @itsduckie, and @paragbhtngr know if you have any questions, and we will do our best to answer you accordingly.
For those who don’t follow this on Twitter: ECC is working with MightyJaxx, a Singaporean collectibles company, on an exclusive NFT drop for their @cypherpunkZero campaign. Initially, the sale was scheduled to be started today but due to spambot attack, this will be postponed. Tweets and blog post related to the initial campaign has been removed.
Same, I woke up early and had a heart attack because 30mins before the drop it said “sold out” I was like WTH?
Then after the time expired I jumped in thier Discord and they changed it to “Coming Soon”.
Looks like they are trying to prevent bots from front running everyone. I wish they had the option of just buying the figure without the NFT because it’s attracting all the snipers trying to make a quick buck on OpenSea.
What they said is true to my knowledge. However, it is also true that the Zcash Foundation notified Mighty Jaxx this week that it believes ECC does not have the rights to engage with Mighty Jaxx on the use of the Zcash trademark in this fashion.
We pursued this relationship and marketing campaign with Mighty Jaxx under our rights as documented in section 3 of the trademark agreement. However, it appears that the Zcash Foundation is asserting we cannot not pursue this type of marketing relationship due to the language under section 6.1, which would preclude both ECC and the Zcash Foundation from entering into trademark agreements without the written approval of the other party.
The campaign with the collectible will be on hold until we are able to resolve that issue with the Zcash Foundation. We have reached out to the foundation and are working to get it resolved as quickly as possible.
Zcash Foundation is asserting we cannot not pursue this type of marketing relationship due to the language under section 6.1
If one day Zcash community stops shooting ourselves in the foot we will easily make it to top 10… Until that day we need to put up with nonsense like this (nothing personal @joshs , I’m sure you tried everything to get this through).
I understand the potential legal right of ZF to interpose themselves here, but I fail to understand the logic of exercising that right and any purpose it might serve. Does ZF object to some aspect of this collaboration?
If it is true that ECC needs written agreement from ZF to pursue a collaboration with MightyJaxx…why not just write out an agreement? Did ZF take this directly to MightyJaxx without discussing with ECC? That seems to be the implication from Josh’s post here.
Just because an entity CAN legally stop another from doing a thing doesn’t mean they OUGHT to. I’m assuming there most be some kind of comprehensible reason that the community just isn’t privy to. Maybe someone from ZF could explain their position or intention here? I think we’d all appreciate it if there is a reasonable explanation here that can be shared.
Hi Josh. Are you saying ECC reached out to ZFND as per the agreement’s requirements and ZFND refused to allow ECC to pursue the campaign? Or ECC did not ask for the ZFND’s required approval and the ZFND halted the process? This detail is important before anyone makes a judgement.
We did not reach out to the Zcash Foundation about the trademark for use in the collectible. We believe that we have the right under section 3 (which was how it was intended when we negotiated the agreement) and have entered in other agreements like this without issue. I believe the foundation may have been doing the same since the time the agreement was drafted, but they’d need to clarify.
We found out from Mighty Jaxx this week, that the Zcash Foundation was asserting that we could not enter into such an agreement and we subsequently reached out to the foundation for clarity on their position.
It seems that section 6.1 conflicts with that right and that both parties are required to grant permission. That issue is one that we need to sort through with the foundation before we are able to proceed.
That did not happen. We found out about this campaign when our trademark monitoring processes flagged up the tweet from MightyJaxx announcing the collectible toy.
ZF have not refused anything. Andy Murray (ECC’s CFO) reached out to me last night about this, we discussed it, and this morning, I sent him an email with a proposal that would have got this resolved today. Specifically, we proposed that we sign a trademark license agreement with Mighty Jaxx, then immediately grant them approval for the MJ X Zcash Cypherpunk Zero toy.
As of right now, we’ve not received any response.
I can confirm that ECC did not ask for ZF’s approval. In fact, as I mentioned above, the first we heard about this was when it was announced on Twitter.
To be clear: We have no problem with the proposed campaign. Our sole concern is ensuring that the Zcash trademarks are protected, as we are obligated to do under the Trademark Agreement. I also want to highlight the fact that the standard trademark license agreement specifies that the “Licensee shall not be required to pay ZF royalties” (i.e. we’re not looking to get any money out of this).
To be honest the optics in this whole entire situation are hilariously bad but a great example of how fragmented the entire structure and communication between the ECC and the Zcash Foundation is.
If ECC went ahead thinking they had the autonomy for this deal as @joshs mentions, why go behind their back to issue a C&D letter (or whatever else was sent to the manufacturer of these dolls/NFTs) without involving the ECC? Absolutely disgraceful from the Foundation.
I agree that it’s a very unfortunate and entirely avoidable situation. As it happens, I had a meeting scheduled with Zooko for last Friday to discuss a different matter, and I had planned to raise this matter with him then. Unfortunately, Zooko didn’t show up to that meeting.
For the avoidance of doubt, the ZF has not issued a C&D.
And, just to reiterate, we’re very happy for this campaign to go forward, so long as the Zcash trademarks are appropriately and adequately protected.
I get it. Sh*t happens. But how have you not taken some accountability here instead of passing the baton of criticism to @zooko who didn’t even know you were going to bring this up to him in the first place?
Ok, so it wasn’t a C&D (a bit pedantic), but it may as well have been one considering the manufacturer pulled a bunch of tweets and created this confusion.
This is part of why people can’t take Zcash seriously and as much as I want to go to bat for it, it becomes increasingly more difficult to do so when things like this happen.
Zcash Foundation and ECC are at odds with each other. It needs fixing.
And, just to reiterate, we’re very happy for this campaign to go forward, so long as the Zcash trademarks are appropriately and adequately protected.
What would you consider as “appropriate and adequate protection” in this context?
It seems this whole thing boils down to communication and simple misunderstanding.
Keep in mind the 2 of 2 TM agreement is meant to be a tool for ZF and ECC to wield together protect the Zcash name against those who would misuse it.
I’ve noticed that ZF has been under increasing pressure lately with posts like this: A Failed Zcash Sticker Store Idea that directly question ZFs ability/willingness to enforce the agreement. If they don’t enforce it then both ECC and ZF will lose the ability to use it.
As mentioned above by Dodger and Josh, I think that these kinds media campaigns are a net positive for Zcash. More marketing to raise awareness about Zcash is a good thing that many in the community have been asking for.
It is unfortunate that this is spilling onto the forums rather than being swiftly handled by a few Zoom calls between ECC and ZF management. The drop could have been back on track with the public none the wiser.
A trademark license agreement. It basically says that the Licensee (e.g. Mighty Jaxx) has permission to use the trademarks, and a bunch of legal language that ensures that the trademark is protected.
I sent Andy (ECC’s CFO) the template trademark license agreement last night, and again earlier today, along with suggested language regarding the scope of the license. As I said, we’ve had no response.
Jesus Christ, can people not just pick up the phone and talk anymore, allowing this crap to spill into the forums is ridiculous. Communication needs to be fixed.
Andy from ECC messaged me last night at 7:32pm UTC asking if I had a minute to chat about this matter. Less than ten minutes later, we were on a call.
Today, at 12:56pm UTC, I sent him an email suggesting a course of action that would have resolved the situation and potentially enabled the launch to go ahead today.
thank you for showing the Cypherpunk Zero so much love! we’ve been diligently monitoring all our social media platforms & Discord accordingly (of course!), and we’ve come to a consensus: we will be postponing the launch.
