Let’s do a Free2Z Live broadcast soon? We could even do it later this week or this weekend?
3 Likes
Thursday, maybe?
I’ll DM you.
5 Likes
Q1: Should a new Dev Fund be put in place when the current Dev Fund ends in November 2024?
- Yes – 100 votes (71.4%)
- No – 40 votes (28.6%)
Q2: If there is to be a new Dev Fund, should its recipients’ allocations reduce over time, with the balance allocated to an Unissued Reserve, as proposed by GGuy?
- Yes – 48 votes (34.3%)
- No, recipients’ allocation should remain constant for the duration of the new Dev Fund. – 89 votes (63.6%)
Q3: If there is to be a new Dev Fund, how long should it last?
- 1 year – 49 votes (35%)
- 18 months – 3 votes (2.1%)
- 2 years – 51 votes (36.4%)
- 3 years – 7 votes (5%)
- 4 years – 24 votes (17.1%)
Q4: Which organizations and programs should receive funding from a new Dev Fund?
- Bootstrap Project (parent of the Electric Coin Company) – 91 votes (65% approval)
- Financial Privacy Foundation – 57 votes (40.7% approval)
- a Legal Defense Fund – 46 votes (32.9% approval)
- QEDIT – 52 votes (37.1% approval)
- Zcash Community Grants program – 97 votes (69.3% approval)
- Zcash Foundation – 99 votes (70.7% approval)
- ZecHub – 67 votes (47.9% approval)
Super-interesting results! Something that really jumps out at me is that none of the potential new recipients (FPF, QEDIT, ZecHub) received more than 50% support, despite the fact that the results of the Alternative Dev Fund Sentiment polls indicate that 85% of respondents are in favour or more independent entities receiving a slice of the Dev Fund.
A lot of food for thought here. Interested in hearing all your thoughts. 
3 Likes
The poll had 140 voters. If 40 people voted “no” on Q1 and the rest of the questions were answered by >100 people, there is a non-zero chance troll voting was done on the remaining questions. ie voting in a way contray to the benefit of the group conducting the poll with the goal being to intentionally skew the results of a poll or survey to produce a specific, often disruptive, outcome.
I left all questions blank after Q1.
3 Likes
You’re right, there is a non-zero chance that those who are not in favour of a Dev Fund responded to questions 2, 3 and 4 with mischief or malice in mind.
However, I think that, even if someone is not in favour of the Dev Fund, as a member of the Zcash community, they should have the opportunity to express their views on what a new Dev Fund should look like, if that is what the community decides to do.
Personally, I would expect that most of those 40 people voted for a 1 year duration. 
Edited to add: It’s interesting to consider how those 40 people are likely to have responded to Q4 - i.e. whether they simply (like you) didn’t vote to approve any Dev Fund recipients. With a denominator of 100 instead of 140, FPF, QEDIT, and ZecHub garner >50% approval.
1 Like
moving from my previous edit.
The ‘don’t continue the dev fund’ group would only needs to fillibuster and cause indecisiveness for a few months to have its voice heard. This is a much lower bar than the orgs in charge of the protocol who must build a consensus.
I appreciate the effort of the community polls. Its a bit sad the turn out is so small these days. It is an interesting parallel to corporate share holders though and will be much more so when pos is implemented and direct representation becomes possible.
2 Likes
Hopefully such behaviour is obvious to the broader community. 
Ackshually, more people voted in this poll than in any previous ZCAP poll! 
3 Likes
How do I vote too?
So much differences between all the polls lol
This one shows status quo with 2 years of 20% dev fund lol
1 Like
either rigged votes or troll votes lol
I think its really hard to win votes without either major results and or a large amount of time to really solidify confidence. I think its amazing out of the three @ZecHub had the highest percent! I think more folks are realizing education is important. 
3 Likes
Given that Q3 was structured as a choose-only-one vote, its results are meaningless; none of the options received a majority of support.
Also, a runoff cannot be used to determine a winner here, because runoff elections DO NOT WORK. They squeeze out consensus options as follows:
In this poll, a runoff would be between the 1 year and 2 year options. However, the supporters of the 4 year option might be strongly opposed to both of these options (as there’s relatively little difference between them) and therefore might refuse to vote. The runoff is then decided by a smaller pool of voters, and the result of the election is not representative of the entirety of the electorate.
This should have been an approval poll question, with “no dev fund continuation” as an option.
6 Likes
@HIROSHIMAH Respectfully I have to disagree that ECC & ZF didn’t do any thing lol
groth16 halo2 all came from their work lol
and I don’t think combining ECC & ZF will solve anything
Its clear majority wants to remove the Dev fund now when poll are done in anon
and don’t forget the regulators angle on that & the fear some are thinking about the Dev Fund
The Threat is the Government LOL
1 Like
ECC & ZF contains those too along with cryptographers lol
1 Like
you sure 
2 Likes
Speaking for myself / as a Zcash protocol engineer: that option, and similar options with any combination of key holders using transparent P2SH multisig, are technically feasible using the existing ZIP 207 funding stream mechanism. Zcash was forked from Bitcoin Core 0.11.x so I believe its P2SH multisigs support any threshold up to 15 of 15, but I would have to check that.
[Edit: due to technical limitations of P2SH multisig, I now think it would probably be better to use FROST.]
3 Likes
FWIW, I think that Zashi has been absolutely critical to improving the robustness and functionality of librustzcash, which is used by all shielded Zcash mobile wallets.
13 Likes
We cannot claim credit for Groth16 itself! That was Jens Groth, building on previous work by himself, Rafail Ostrovsky, Amit Sahai, Bryan Parno, Jon Howell, Craig Gentry, Mariana Raykova, Nir Bitansky, Ran Canetti, Alessandro Chiesa, Eran Tromer, Daniel Genkin, Madars Virza, Yuval Ishai, Omer Paneth, Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali, Charles Rackoff, and others.
Specifically regarding Groth16, we can claim credit for the first major deployment of it, and for designing, implementing, and conducting the associated trusted setup (which is now generally considered an integral part of it, although strictly speaking separate from the proof system).
Sean Bowe, Ariel Gabizon, and Ian Miers also published the first security proof for this setup protocol, and many other people at ECC, especially including Zooko Wilcox, Nathan Wilcox, and Jack Grigg if I’m remembering correctly, contributed to its design and implementation. The protocol and implementation has been used by many subsequent projects.
12 Likes
The results from this question cannot be used because we cannot be 100% sure that the respondents read the absurd instructions that came with it.
Respondents could’ve skipped the instructions, mistakenly thinking it’s a straightforward question. By choosing “yes,” they could be voting for the idea of continuing some unspecified type of new dev fund, direct or non-direct, without realizing that Dodger forced his own limited definition of the phrase “new Dev Fund” on them. This confusion is encouraged by the indefinite article “a” used in the question: “a new Dev Fund.”
2 Likes
The primary issue I see with using the existing funding stream mechanism sending to p2sh outputs is that the process of spending those outputs becomes a bit of a logistical nightmare, because you have to handle the process for signing to spend those coins out-of-band in a coordinated fashion, and you have to be able to do it for over a thousand individual outputs per day. So, while feasible, at a minimum this would require a nontrivial investment in tooling to make it possible to spend those coins once they’re allocated.
In this sense, @skyl’s proposal is a bit simpler, because in both cases you have to build out the signing infrastructure, and none of the funding’s going to get distributed until someone does so. At least if there’s an in-protocol lockbox that signing infrastructure doesn’t have to juggle the signatures of tens of thousands of individual outputs each month, and you don’t have to precommit to the keys.
4 Likes