Moving the Dev Fund discussion forward

[conradoplg]

@skyl

Here’s a quick thought: 7 of 11 threshold. 3 keys to ZF, 3 keys to ECC, 5 keys to ZCG elected by ZCAP.

What are the biggest problems with this quick thought? How far are we from being able to do it technically?

The tooling is currently still a bit awkward, but it can be done today with FROST.

[Dodger]

After considering all the feedback and suggestions we received, we have adjusted the scope of the questions we are asking in this first poll, and (as @earthrise suggested) have made it explicitly clear in the accompanying blog post that this is an exploratory poll, not a final decision-making.

The poll is now open, and will run until 09:00 UTC on 12th June 2024.

Polling ZCAP on the Design of a Proposal for a new Dev Fund - Zcash Foundation

[zerodartz]

we should pin the poll threads/posts to forum front page if possible

[GGuy]

I voted for a Zcash Grants Fund, specifically selecting the Zcash Community Grants and ZecHub. I hope you can interpret my choices correctly once the results are aggregated . While I trust you’ll extract useful insights from the poll, I’m worried that the current construction of the poll might cause the nuance of my choices to get lost in the aggregated results. This could make the findings less useful and accurate than they could be with a few simple changes.

[aquietinvestor]

@Dodger - It looks like there’s an error in Question #4. The link for “Financial Privacy Foundation” incorrectly leads participants to the Bootstrap homepage.

[ProfJWVerret]

Given recent events, I suggest that a portion of any new Dev Fund should be allocated to fund legal action to challenge any regulatory action or legislation that negatively impacts the overall Zcash project. The Zcash Cayman project might be the right place for that.

[GGuy]

Update: As of posting this I see ZCAP has 45 cast votes for this poll. We can’t assume any of these voters will go back and recast their vote based on any extra details regarding the Legal Defense Fund of any other information provided to the community.

---

As a participant who has already cast my vote, I am genuinely saddened by this poll. I believe the Legal Defense Fund could be a valuable initiative, but I am concerned that the limited time available to communicate its importance may result in the poll not accurately reflecting the informed opinions of the voters.

The poll also lacks nuance regarding whether such a fund would be necessary if the development fund were transitioned to a grants-based model. In such a scenario, would it be possible to apply for legal funds through the grants program instead? What are the pros and cons of each approach?

Additionally, the poll does not provide examples of what these funds could be used for. Would they be primarily used in a defensive manner, or could they be utilized proactively? The lack of communication on these points means the poll might not accurately represent what the voters would truly like to prioritize and fund.

To summarize, better communication and more detailed information are crucial for voters to make an informed decision about the Legal Defense Fund and its potential impact within a grants-based funding model if that’s something the community is considering.

[Minghe]

@GGuy

The lack of communication on these points means the poll might not accurately represent what the voters would truly like to prioritize and fund.

Disappointing that ZF lacks leadership. And this👇

@ml_sudo

I just learned that I was named on this thread. The reason I didn’t respond to your email was because it seemed to be worded as if it was a mass mail to the ZCAP. I had no idea it was addressed to me as a board member of ECC.

[Minghe]

@GGuy

Update: As of posting this I see ZCAP has 45 cast votes for this poll. We can’t assume any of these voters will go back and recast their vote based on any extra details regarding the Legal Defense Fund of any other information provided to the community.

“The design of the polling system should be carefully considered to ensure that the outcome is as informative as possible.” — Placeholder

@cburniske

The design of the polling system should be carefully considered to ensure that the outcome is as informative as possible. For example, as has already been suggested, a one-time poll in which each respondent has to choose between a potentially large number of options runs the risk of not identifying the most widely supported proposal. In theory, a series of elimination polls in which the least supported proposal is dropped after each round until only two remain would more accurately highlight the community’s preferences, all things considered. Of course, introducing such additional complexity must be weighed against technical, time and other constraints, but given the importance of the decision at hand, a basic one-time poll to gauge relative majority could be insufficient.

[Dodger]

@aquietinvestor

@Dodger - It looks like there’s an error in Question #4. The link for “Financial Privacy Foundation” incorrectly leads participants to the Bootstrap homepage.

Yes, a cut’n’paste error. The poll can’t be edited once voting is opened so hopefully respondents will recognise that the link is an error and will refer to the blog post instead.

[Dodger]

@GGuy

I voted for a Zcash Grants Fund, specifically selecting the Zcash Community Grants and ZecHub.

This is a good example of how this “á la carte” approach allows respondents more flexibility to express their preferences in a manner that’s less constrained than if their only option is to choose from a series of “set menus”.

@GGuy

…I’m worried that the current construction of the poll might cause the nuance of my choices to get lost in the aggregated results.

There’s an inevitable trade-off between the nuances of individuals’ preferences and the “wisdom of the crowd”-style insights that can be gained from a poll of this nature.

No poll can be perfect but prioritizing perfection over progress is its own pitfall.

[Dodger]

@ml_sudo

The reason I didn’t respond to your email was because it seemed to be worded as if it was a mass mail to the ZCAP. I had no idea it was addressed to me as a board member of ECC.

It wasn’t a mass email to all of ZCAP but the same wording was used in most of the emails that I sent, so if you were comparing with other Bootstrap/ECC folks, I can see how you could assume it was a blast email.

Next time, I shall endeavour to make it clearer that such emails are not a mass email.

[joshs]

I favor a dev fund, but only if it is non-direct / grants based. If we need more time to develop such a model, I would be ok extending the current fund for under a year, to minimize the impact to smaller grant recipients. I would not be in favor of a dev fund otherwise, except maybe a small amount for minor grants by an independent ZCG, which won’t be done by November.

How should I answer your survey to clearly and accurately reflect that preference?

On a different topic, as you have included both FPF and Zcash Foundation as possible recipients, I think it would be helpful to be abundantly clear that the ZF COO (@Alex_ZF) is also the head of that org, and that both orgs share a board member, if I’m not wrong. Even though I trust that everyone has the best of intentions, it feels like a conflict of interest.

[Autotunafish]

I won’t vote for it because there’s no definition of any kind of capping. There’s no definition of what should be inferred as to necessitate the use of this fund, for whom their use is limited to and, given that it is a steady funding stream, then it seems completely reasonable that if said need arises, then it could be funded on the fly.

[ZcashDeFi]

ZF and ECC has enough “runway” to skip relying on the devfund for another year. Let’s stick to the plan, the devfund is expiring let it be or the investors are going to flee.

[joshs]

Valid. I’m more concerned about smaller grant recipients during that period of time.

What do you think about @skyl ’s idea?

[silentZcollector]

i like @skyl 's idea!

what if we only take 5% of the mining rewards for an emergency fund that is controlled by a multisig? (for a another year)

most of the keys for that should be held by ZCG, but not enough for them to spend the money without keys from other orgs like ECC and the Foundation.

ECC and the foundation should sell their other assets ahead of receiving new funding. since both have enough headway, i don’t see a problem with that.

[skyl]

I think the 7 of 11 grants-only threshold signature would be a significant improvement over direct funding for corporations. But, upon further reflection, I don’t like how ZCAP seems to be controlled by ZF. Maybe I’m ignorant of some governing constitution that defines ZCAP. But, can @Dodger add and remove whoever he wants? How does it work? Can we review how @pkr and @joris were removed? What were the exact offenses? What was the process?

Quick thought #2: how far are we from a working system of coinholder voting? What’s the latest? What are the biggest concerns?

I was extremely disappointed with the latest ZCAP survey. The survey did not allow me to express my view. Perhaps I will make a formal critique in long-form. In short: I want to end direct funding of corporate entities with haste this November; but, I don’t want 100% of the block reward to go to miners! I actually want the minimum possible to go to miners (while still providing sufficient incentives so that there isn’t a catastrophic loss of hash power). I want a portion of the block reward to go to a decentralized funding mechanism that looks nothing like the current devfund. The survey seemed specifically tailored to ignore a new type of “devfund” and force respondents into a false dichotomy.

[peacemonger]

@Dodger

Yes. However, doing that would stop the progress we’ve made towards decentralization dead in its tracks because there could be no new Dev Fund recipients (e.g. ZecHub, QEDIT), and both ZF and ZCG would face severe financial constraints.

How does @skyl’s proposal, outlining a plan to accumulate block rewards until we move to a grants-based non-direct funding model, stop the “progress towards decentralization” “dead in its tracks”? o_0

And what exactly do you call “progress”?

Yeah, ok, no bias there.

–

From ZF’s survey to ZCAP: "Q1: Should a new Dev Fund be put in place when the current Dev Fund ends in November 2024?"

If that Dev Fund goes into a direct funding model - No. If it goes into a non-direct funding model - Yes. So those, who are fully aware of Dodger’s favoritism towards direct funding models by now, can only cautiously answer “Maybe” because it’s downhill from there.

My favorite part is the explanation that comes with Q1: “In this question, “a new Dev Fund” means a Dev Fund that follows the existing Dev Fund’s “funding streams” model”

Still no bias, right?

Manipulating terminology? Really? We are not supposed to notice the attempt to make the words “new Dev Fund” synonymous with direct funding model proposals? Basically, when you hear “new Dev Fund,” Dodger wants you to think “direct funding model.” When you hear “new,” think “old.”
So, if I support a non-direct funding model, according to ZF’s survey, I’m against a new Dev Fund and need to say “no” to Q1.
The Q1 explanation continues: “You should answer “Yes” if you believe that … You should answer “No” if you believe that …” Isn’t it nice to have someone clearly define the 2-3 things we can believe and give us clear instructions on what to do in each of those cases? After all, it all seems so complicated.

W T actual F? What kind of cheap propaganda is this? It’s as if I’m reading a state-funded newspaper. Don’t attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance, so initially, I thought this was incompetence (how hard is it to put together a half-decent survey? others in the community have done it repeatedly), but perhaps this is just a good old power grab. It’s a clear attempt to lie to ZCAP members by omission. What kind of organization is Zcash Foundation?

The rest of the survey is just as painful. I’ll skip the word-by-word breakdown for now, but let me know if it’s needed. This survey clearly favors direct funding model proposals both in language and structure, which really doesn’t align with the righteous tone of the claims of neutrality in this thread.

Meanwhile, a large percentage of the community does not want any variation of a direct funding model.

Indisputable bias? No, of course not. Judging by this thread of 209 comments, nothing is “indisputable,” certainly not community feedback standing in the way of a man’s agenda. 209 comments - time well spent, btw.

I’m in awe of how bad ZF’s ZCAP survey is. Are they always this bad? If this thread doesn’t showcase the author’s bias enough, the explanations accompanying the survey questions sure do. The hours the community wasted giving feedback and reading all these lengthy comments didn’t help one bit. Why even bother? We just have to go around.
Happy to see others coming together to create alternative surveys. This is not ideal, as it’s starting to confuse the respondents, but what other choice do we have?

The ZF survey deserves to be simply disregarded as a blatant attempt to misinform and manipulate ZCAP. Genuinely jaw-dropping stuff. Are we so used to a world ran by bad leaders that we simply accept bad leadership when it is in full display?

ZCAP, blink twice if you want help.

[Dodger]

I’m just going to highlight some sections from our blog post:

…the Zcash Foundation (ZF) has decided to conduct a series of exploratory opinion polls of ZCAP members, to assess the community’s sentiment regarding a potential future Dev Fund, with a view to drafting a formal proposal based on that feedback.

To be clear: the purpose of this poll is not to reach a formal decision regarding what should happen in November.

Instead, this poll is intended to solicit feedback from the community that ZF will then use to draft a proposal that can be evaluated and discussed alongside other proposals.

With limited time available to design and implement a new Dev Fund before November, we will base the proposal on the existing “funding streams” model, whereby a percentage of Zcash mining rewards is allocated to a Dev Fund which is then distributed amongst a number of recipients.

The initial scope is based on several proposals for new Dev Funds that have already been put forward by members of the Zcash community, and have been discussed on the Zcash community forum.

Those proposals are listed at the top of this topic.

As stated above, the objective of this process is to obtain sufficient insight into the Zcash community’s collective sentiment to draft a Dev Fund proposal that reflects that sentiment, and can be assessed alongside other proposals from the community. We expect that there will be a final run-off poll to determine whether any proposal has consensus support across the Zcash community.