This discussion began in the thread titled “What Has Gone Wrong?” Amber became the focus of it because some of her actions and decisions certainly didn’t go right, and because somewhere along this discussion, she announced her run to be re-elected for ZCG. And also because she asked. Btw, removing Josh’s comments from their original thread (and moving them here) is not an example of good moderation, but it is another example of “what has gone wrong” as it resembles attempts to minimize this conversation’s impact on the current ZCG election.
-
Reducing this to “personal beef” misses the point entirely. This isn’t about two people; it involves many more. It’s worth mentioning that initially, the idea was to cancel others who participated in the Zcash Media grant discussion in an “unacceptable” way—not just me. Fortunately for several community members such as myself, that agenda deflated after the conversation with Josh. (Thank you.)
-
If discussing one’s actions feels like a personal attack, perhaps the issue lies with the actions themselves. There’s no way or need to sugarcoat bad behavior when exposed—it’s not meant to feel good. The expectations to keep these secrets and turn the other cheek don’t make any sense. Shifting the focus to tone or personal offense only distracts from the actual problem. The focus should be on accountability, not tone policing.
-
I’m not as good at playing victim and clutching my pearls as some of the other main characters in this story, so maybe some missed the part about Amber’s "confidant” Zooko, after speaking with her, trying to get a community member fired for participating in an off-forum discussion about a mismanaged and now withdrawn ZCG grant. If they wanted to defend ZM’s work, they could’ve done so by showing evidence of why it was worth $1M. They could have engaged in a public debate and presented their reasons for supporting it. But instead, they used every channel available to them to intimidate and manipulate the people they disagreed with. Since there seems to be some confusion about what a personal attack is - what Amber and Zooko did was a personal attack. “Retaliation” is also a good word for it. They crossed a line, and no amount of deflecting and top-notch virtue signaling change that.
-
We should protect this space for free discourse, not use the Code of Conduct against people with valid concerns. Sadly, I’ve never encountered censorship to this degree anywhere else. It’s disappointing. I can’t believe this comes down to a debate about free speech, on this forum of all places. *smh That’s fine. If I get kicked off for this, I’ll live and sleep just fine. I’d prefer to keep it here, but if the forum can’t handle these discussions, there are other platforms. I intend to continue to speak plainly. Like most of us, I’m not here to help lay the foundation for another corrupt, ineffective system. We already have one of those. If censorship continues, the conversation will simply move somewhere else.
-
ZCG is the only organization that continues to receive direct funding, which means ZEC holders like me are effectively taxed to support it. I have the right to call Amber’s candidacy for ZCG into question here, and any ZCG candidate, running for one of the seats that grant the power to allocate community resources, should be prepared to face criticism for their voting record.
.
Beyond the clear indication of her inability to manage conflicts of interest, Amber’s ZCG voting record is not great. For example, she refused to vote to cancel the grossly overpriced Zcash Media grant despite abundant feedback from contributing community members that have something she doesn’t—relevant professional experience. She’s also repeatedly dismissed the need to focus on early adopters and user research, arguing against the product adoption curve, presented and explained to her multiple times—ignoring the expertise of contributors who understand these basic, widely-accepted principles of product adoption. If she doesn’t have any relevant professional experience and can’t base her decisions on professional feedback, community input, or data provided to her, what guides her decisions to approve or deny six-figure grants that are supposed to drive Zcash adoption—gut feelings? Her “confidant”? Anecdotal evidence? This lack of experience, combined with the apparent lack of desire to learn and absorb input from others, is a disqualifying trait for anyone entrusted with ZCG responsibilities.
.
We deserve leadership that seeks feedback and makes decisions in the community’s best interest—not their own. And we deserve better stewardship of community resources. -
Zcash isn’t anyone’s personal playground—it’s a public good built by many highly skilled, committed, talented individuals, most of whom don’t get nearly enough credit for the actual work that went and goes into building and promoting Zcash. The fact that a handful of people still think they can play politics and manipulate community discourse across platforms through censorship and intimidation without any accountability is a problem worth noting. Understandably, they don’t like it thrown back at them. It changes the dynamics of punching down. If we are not allowed to discuss that here, perhaps the forum is failing its purpose just like the handful of legacy gatekeepers that have kept Zcash stagnating for years. Zcash is growing and thankfully not every emerging voice is going to sing along with the same old tunes.