Did you mean “non-direct funding model,” which is grants-based and removes the wallets of specific recipients like ECC and ZF from the protocol?
I’m in agreement.
From my perspective the decision to focus on Zashi was made “from a distance”. For those of us in the weeds, looking at code every day, it’s obviously a misallocation of scarce resources.
I believe that we need to migrate away from PoW consensus ASAP. That’s a specialized concern and the ECC is capable of handling it. While the ECC is allocating engineering to reproducing the work of other wallets, and directly competing with the community… who’s upgrading the protocol?
11 Likes
I appreciate this sentiment, especially given your work on Zingo!.
I think there may be a misunderstanding of what we’re actually building, and that means that we need to do a better job of sharing what our plans are, and I suspect it will become more clear as we deliver more results over time. Fwiw, the Zashi stack will be used to inform speculative protocol work, while also allowing other developers like you to use the code they find valuable. All these things work together as part of our strategy for driving adoption.
That said, one of the benefits of a non-direct model is that the community doesn’t have to make a binary decision. It could choose to fund our core work and choose not to fund Zashi if it doesn’t see the value.
13 Likes
To be clear, Zingoistas have benefited tremendously from collaborations with ECC Zashi developers.
Props especially to the @Juanky / @Lukas collaboration that added background-sync to zingo-mobile.
This suggests to me that the right answer is somewhat nuanced, rather than a simple binary. That having been said, I don’t have the impression that we’re moving too quickly on PoS/TrailingFinality.
I believe that protocol upgrade is critical, and generally we need to more protocol engineering. As always it’s a delicate balancing act in a high-variable space. It’s a pleasure to work with this community.
7 Likes
My position on the Dev Fund:
We’re not in a place for a thoroughly planned smooth transition.
Therefore we should minimize variance.
The dev fund should be continued with minimal change.
It is the goal to innovate to come up with ever better funding models iteratively, therefore the continuation should be set to 1 year.
We should proceed with epistemic humility… there are many things we cannot predict. It would be folly to lock ourselves into inflexible policies.
TL;DR:
Minimize change, revisit soon, innovate incrementally.
5 Likes
Fwiw, our PoS/Pow work has largely taken a near term backseat to zcashd deprecation for a number of reasons.
3 Likes
I fully support zcashd deprecation as a priority, and I think several Zingoistas are active participants in the process.
We’re contributing to expanding Zebrad test functionality (regtest mode) to facilitate it as a drop in replacement, in test, for at least YWallet and Zingo!.. and likely other wallets.
We’re actively pursuing a pure Rust alternative to lightwalletd which means we’re working out which interfaces lightclients need to have supported by full-nodes.
5 Likes
IMHO, it needs to start soon if we intend for change within the next year. That’s the idea with the ZIP I posted, continuity for up to 12 mo. There may be other paths (like proposed by @skyl), but a non-direct model with take several months to sort out.
5 Likes
I’m hearing a lot of desire to contribute!
3 Likes
I see future as zingo ywallet zashi & nighthawk becoming more like multi-coin wallet and find alternate funding from other communities to list their coins & provide services while they continue development of shielded zcash & ZSA with those extra funding
and overall continue FOSS work
3 Likes
dont remember a better joke
2 Likes
Dodger solicited feedback on the poll. He got plenty of it, and ignored all of it.
9 Likes
The answer is that I cannot. Your suggestion does not reflect that preference.
Both as the CEO of ECC and a ZCAP voter, I am disappointed in your approach, blatant disregard of the community’s voice, and believe that what you put forward is unnecessarily constrained and reflects a clear bias.
For those reasons, I abstain from voting in this poll by the ZF.
4 Likes
Been a Zcash holder for like 7 years now. Also on ZCAP.
My 2c: End the dev fund in November.
IMO the only entity that has proven worthy of being a dev fund recipient over the years has been ECC. Still, it’s time to end the dev fund.
8 Likes
as all ZCAP members should
2 Likes
I don’t think any of them are.
Certainly, our poll isn’t intended to be. Its sole purpose is to inform the drafting of a proposal that the community can evaluate alongside the other proposals that have been put forward by @GGuy, @noamchom, @JGx7, @joshs/ECC, @skyl’s “lockbox” idea, etc.
Agreed. 
%
I think that the challenge is going to be how we agree on what the determinant poll should be.
FWIW, I’m in favour of the approach suggested by @Shawn: Converging Paths
1 Like
Josh, I’m geniunely mystified by your stance on this.
I could understand the intensity of your opposition if this poll was intended to be determinant (to borrow @gordonesTV’s terminology) but I believe that we have been clear that the purpose of this poll is not to reach a formal decision but, instead, to solicit feedback from the community that ZF will then use to draft a proposal that can be evaluated and discussed alongside other proposals (including yours).
We’re not disregarding the community’s voice. We’re ensuring that the community’s voice can be heard.
I urge you to recognise and acknowledge that I’m not suggesting that the outcome of these polls is intended to be the final decision, and that this process is intended to produce a proposal that can be evaluated as an alternative to yours and the other proposals.
I also urge you to give @Shawn’s suggestion serious consideration. At some point, we need to agree on how a determinant poll should be worded. As things stand, it’s hard to see how we’ll be able to reach agreement unless we seek the help of an independent and unbiased third-party.
2 Likes
Interesting to see so many support removal of dev fund
but allow t-address support lol
in a way its smart for the community to decide
shows the community can think long term & at the same time have good vision for right direction
when good DEX adoption come that time t-address could be removed
and with Huge shielded on-chain transaction & ZSA some security budget issues will be mitigated due to fix supply of 21 mill and no tail emissions