Moving the Dev Fund discussion forward

Governance
42

ZF plans to open the first poll of ZCAP on this theme of seeking consensus early next week.

Note that this process is not intended to preclude or discourage the community from working towards implementing a new development funding model (such as Josh’s Zcash Funding Bloc proposal) in the future. It is simply intended to assess community sentiment regarding what should happen in November.

In the past, some community members have expressed concern that ZCAP poll questions were unclear or ambiguous. Therefore, we are explicitly inviting feedback on any concerns about clarity or ambiguity with the following questions.

Q1: What percentage of new ZEC issuance should be allocated to a new Dev Fund?

  • 0% (i.e. there should be no new Dev Fund)
  • 0-15% (i.e. more than 0% but less than 15%)
  • 15%
  • 15-20%
  • 20%
  • 20-23%
  • 23%
  • More than 23%

To ensure that respondents who believe that there should not be a new Dev Fund are able to express that view, 0% has been included in the list of responses.

Unless a clear majority of respondents vote for one of the single options (i.e. 0%, 15%, 20% or 23%), this poll question would serve to narrow down the options that would be presented in a second poll.

Q2: How long should the new Dev Fund last?

  • 1 year
  • 2 years
  • 3 years
  • 4 years

As with the first question, if there is no clear “winner”, the option(s) with the lowest support could be dropped in a subsequent poll.

Q3: Should Dev Fund recipients’ allocations reduce over time, with the balance allocated to an Unissued Reserve, as proposed by GGuy?

GGuy has suggested that the amount allocated to each Dev Fund recipient should follow a declining schedule, with the surplus funds allocated to an Unissued Reserve, that can only be issued through community consensus.

Q4: Which organizations and programs should receive a slice of the Dev Fund?

  • Bootstrap / ECC
  • Financial Privacy Foundation
  • QEDIT
  • Zcash Community Grants program
  • Zcash Foundation
  • Zechub

Respondents will be able to select up to six options for this question. Organizations may be removed from this list before the poll if they indicate that they do not wish to receive a slice of the Dev Fund (as Shielded Labs have already indicated).

4 Likes
43

No dev fund, FIT21, inflation must go to end users only.

44

If ZEC goes to $1000, then ECC/ZF/ZCG have 10s of millions of dollars worth with their current holdings. Increasing the devfund percentage signals to the market the expectation that ZEC price will go down, decreasing the devfund percentage signals confidence that the price will increase. Either way the prophecy will likely be fulfilled. This idea that ECC and ZF will have to close shop if the devfund is not renewed is bad psychology. Leadership should have confidence that some ~100,000 ZEC is plenty without adding any more. Without confidence, no amount is enough. With confidence, there is already plenty of ZEC to sustain these orgs forever. Have some confidence.

7 Likes
45

This exactly.

ECC / ZF should stop sending the market the signal that it expect the price of ZEC to go down / be stable at the current price.

3 Likes
46

Slightly ambiguous.

ZecHub receiving Dev Fund under the current ‘direct funding’ model is not feasible.

However, under a grants based model in which Coin Holders, existing orgs, Core Engineers and ZCG are able to periodically determine adequate productivity and if necessary remove organisations based on performance, then sure.

The poll asks which orgs should receive dev fund - yes.

Is context around how also relevant to my decision? - yes.

1 Like
47

Dodger, can you explain why your survey omits ECC’s proposal to modify ZIP 1014 and extend the Dev Fund by one year in order to give the community time to reach clear consensus? ECC’s position has significant community support, and if you continue to blatantly ignore it, you show disregard for the community. You also signal an intent to manipulate outcomes through your use of ZCAP.

I am truly puzzled by this. You ask for feedback, and then you flat out ignore it. Let me just say it plainly then: the questions of your survey do not reflect real options and are chosen and worded poorly; so are the multiple choice answers that accompany them. But what’s really bad is that this survey does nothing to move us closer to clear, well-informed community consensus. In fact, it seems to aim to do the opposite. It’s starting to look like despite claiming to have no position on the Dev Fund, ZF indeed has one and is willing to omit important information to misuse ZCAP and mislead its members.

ZCAP is a community resource, not a Dodger resource. This survey should represent all options available to the community, not just a few chunks representing a narrow view of a single individual.

It’s not that complicated. Given ECC’s proposal to extend the Dev Fun by up to a year, there are two things that need to be decided on urgently:

  1. Does the Dev Fund continue in some shape or form: Yes or No?
    a. If the community expresses a clear “No,” that’s the end of the Dev Fund discussion.
    b. If the community expresses a clear “Yes,” the community will need to decide on the percentage, duration, and how those funds are allocated. As we can see from this thread alone, it can be a time-consuming process, which brings us to the next decision we have to make:

  2. Does the community want an additional year to explore all of the options available in order to make a well-informed decision?
    a. If the community expresses a clear “Yes,” the Dev Fund, in its current form, gets extended by up to a year (if the community reaches consensus sooner, further changes can be implemented before the year is up). ECC and ZF will begin the work to implement the 1-year extension. Meanwhile, we continue to explore the proposed Dev Fund models and clarify all the pros and cons, all with the goal of making Zcash as competitive and resilient as it can be.
    b. If the community expresses a clear “No,” a consensus on the next steps will have to be reached by this July, so that ECC and ZF could have enough time to implement the changes. This is not a lot of time, so this option comes with many challenges. It is important to understand the downside and risks of this option, which is why we cannot ignore the conversation about the proposal to extend the Dev Fund by a year.

This is not a game. We are talking about the future of Zcash here.

8 Likes
48

I was about to ask the same, nothing personal, but there’s an option to extend the current fund while all options are explored and analyzed in depth. I guess that’s a good option to consider since the Dev Fund is a fundaental subject for Zcash Ecosystem as a whole. Some love it, some hate it, but it affects every aspect of the community one way or the other.

If the votes say there has to be a Dev Fund alternative, such alternative will not start working right away, so that year could give enough time to really come up with a solution and for everyone counting on the dev fund to be prepared.

3 Likes
50

As I detailed above, respondents who want to express support for a specific proposal can do so by voting as follows:

The goal here is to ask the community as open a set of questions as possible about what they think should happen in November.

How would you phrase the questions?

We already posed this question to ZCAP.

Screenshot 2024-05-24 at 22.41.49
Screenshot 2024-05-24 at 22.41.49906×306 13.6 KB

The option of 0% has been included in the list of responses to Q1 so that any of those respondents who have changed their minds can express their preference.

Respondents can select “1 year” as a response to the second question if they want to put a temporary Dev Fund in place while options are explored.

(Incidentally, even if they opt for a longer Dev Fund period, there’s no reason the community can’t opt to amend or replace that Dev Fund partway through that period. I think that one of the big mistakes that we, as a community, have made is anchoring ourselves to the current Dev Fund’s four year lifecycle. With hindsight, I believe that we should have reviewed it periodically throughout those four years.)

Josh has every right to put forward his proposal.

We (ZF) are polling the community using as open an approach as possible, to explore whether there is support for a different approach.

You seem to be suggesting that the only options that should be presented to the Zcash community are the ones ECC is putting forward. If that is, indeed, what you are suggesting, then respectfully, I disagree.

Edited to add…

@peacemonger Are you under the impression that the only two options that are available for November 2024 are:

  • extend the current Dev Fund (with the same 20% percentage of issuance, the same recipients, and the same percentage split between those receipients), or
  • do nothing (and allow the Dev Fund to end)?
51

Extending the current Dev Fund is not the only option.

At the risk of repeating myself, other comunity members have put forward alternative options:

The current Dev Fund (i.e. 20% of issuance, split between ZF, ECC and ZCG) could certainly be extended by a year.

It could also be changed, to use the same model but with different percentages and different recipients, for a year (or longer).

That very much depends on what the alternative is. Certainly, a proposal such as @joshs’s Zcash Funding Bloc cannot be ready in time for November.

However, a proposal along the lines of @noamchom’s or @JGx7’s can certainly be put in place by November, as they effectively replicate the existing Dev Fund model, with different recipients and allocations. (There is some uncertainty around @GGuy’s proposal, as it would require more complex changes; so long as zcashd remains the dominant node implementation, those changes would almost certainly require the support of the ECC engineering team, and it’s not currently clear if that would be forthcoming. Perhaps @Daira can comment.)

This poll isn’t intended to assess community sentiment regarding @joshs’s Zcash Funding Bloc proposal.

This poll is intended to gather ZCAP members’ views on What should happen in November?

ECC has proposed that the current Dev Fund should be extended for a year, with the same recipients and the same percentage splits, and that during that year, @joshs’s Funding Bloc proposal should be implemented.

There is no reason a changed Dev Fund (with different recipients and different percentage splits) cannot be put in place from November. And, if that happens, it doesn’t prevent ECC from continuing to work on – and build consensus around – @joshs’s Funding Bloc proposal.

We’re looking at two different time horizons.

The first time horizon is November 2024, which is when the current Dev Fund expires. If the community wants to continue directly funding organisations and programs from coin issuance (i.e. using the current Dev Fund model), then we need to reach consensus on that soon.

The second time horizon is longer term, November 2025 or later, to give the community time to explore entirely different Dev Fund models (like @joshs’s Funding Bloc proposal).

What we decide to do in November 2024 has no bearing or impact on what we do in November 2025.

4 Likes
52

Why do you say that?

As far as I’m aware, there’s no reason a new Dev Fund using the current ‘direct funding’ model can’t be put in place from November, that includes ZecHub as one of the recipients.

53

Sure, it would certainly be an option.

I suppose I am trying not to be cavalier. As it stands ZecHub has not produced deliverables extending 2-4 years. In my opinion that is a prerequisite.

Just for clarity, if I was in favour of the grants based Funding Bloc I would select the New Dev Fund lasts 1 year?

1 Like
54

Below is an extract from the ZIP discussions had on the forum that I believe aligns with the preferred implementation requirements. Assuming “funding streams” are still the preferred method for defining recipients after ZSF deployment the definition below would still apply after ZSF deployment.

Keep in mind these splits are only intended to be examples and would be adjusted to suit the communities desires.

Declining Schedule

This allocation is designed to decrease by approximately 3% every 35064 blocks (~1 month). This reduction is calculated by multiplying the denominator in the split calculations below, starting at 1000, by 1.03^(blocks_since_halving / 35064) and rounding down the result. The Unissued Reserve’s calculation is an estimate and should be calculated as the leftover unallocated rewards. Beginning with the second Zcash halving in 2024, the development fund’s allocation for the ensuing 35064 blocks will be as follows:

  • 240/1000 (24%) Unissued Reserve/Zcash Sustainability Fund (denoted UR slice);
  • 266/1000 (26.6%) for the Bootstrap Project (denoted BP slice);
  • 190/1000 (19%) for the Zcash Foundation, for general use (denoted ZF slice);
  • 304/1000 (30.4%) for additional “Major Grants” for large-scale long-term projects
    (denoted ZCG slice).

After 35064blocks (~1month) the Dev Fund SHALL continue for another 35064blocks and be allocated as follows:

  • 260/1030 (~26.21%) Unissued Reserve/Zcash Sustainability Fund (denoted UR slice);
  • 266/1030 (~25.83%) for the Bootstrap Project (denoted BP slice);
  • 190/1030 (~18.45%) for the Zcash Foundation, for general use (denoted ZF slice);
  • 304/1030 (~29.51%) for additional “Major Grants” for large-scale long-term projects
    (denoted ZCG slice).

This calculation will continue until the dev fund allocation effectively reaches 0 or the dev fund is change which should be voted on every network upgrade. Implementations of this development fund SHALL use the numerators and denominators above to calculate the slice.

1 Like
55

I have seen your survey, I have read the questions carefully, and wrote my responses with all of that information in mind. Pointing them out to me again does not provide any additional information. If you have to provide an explanation to the questions in a separate post, they are not good questions. This is especially true for the claim that the proposal to extend the Dev Fund by up to 1 year is represented in a question, the design of which is riddled with other issues.

There is a lot more context to ECC’s proposal that survey respondents need to know about. Also, the proposal to extend the Dev Fund notes that if community consensus on further steps is reached before the 1-year extension is up, changes can be implemented much sooner.

I would not just edit these questions, I’d get rid of them. There are issues with all of them. I don’t want to waste time going back and forth on this. It’s a bad survey. It’s not worth it. That’s my feedback. It needs to be replaced with a completely different one, the logic for which I outline in my previous responses.

2 Likes
56

And no, I am not under that impression. Did you read my responses in this thread? Did you understand any of it?

57

Theres no evidence of any clear preference in the Zcash world yet. certainly not here or on twitter. It feels like a dangerous idea to set a new trend where this whole ecosystem has to have a huge debate over how much % all the dev teams get on a yearly basis. It seems even worse to set our feet in concrete by forcing all work to be sent through a boondoggle of a DAO funding model that doesnt even exist yet. Four years is not an eternity so either we get it all figured out for another 4 years to happen in November or else let it expire and teams go about their way. Part of the old ZIP that created this current devtax made it clear that either it expires or gets renenewed next halving. Joshs basically asking the community today to flip the bird to that previous Zcash community agreement. If we get into 1 year extensions then whats gonna stop us from 6 month extensions and 2 year extensions… where will it stop lol

58

I’m baffled by the response here because ECC’s proposal is clearly included by answering Q1: 20%, Q2: 1 year, Q3: No, Q4: current recipients.

But honestly this approach (which I personally do like) seems faded to needless confusion and drama. It may be better to simply vote between specific proposals.

1 Like
59

Any dev fund proposal requires the consent of every entity that receives funds under that proposal.

ECC has clearly indicated that its consent to receive funds at an address hard-coded into the consensus protocol, will not extend beyond one year after the 2024 halving. Some of the current proposals (and some portion of the space of possible responses to the poll) are inconsistent with that.

ECC’s engineering team wouldn’t implement alternatives that send funds to entities under conditions in which they have not consented to receive them. Does that answer the question?

2 Likes
60

i think the voting should be way simpler and clear. maybe in this direction.

questions:

  1. Do u support new dev fund?
    yes/no
  2. Which proposals would you like/ support (multiple choice option)?
    gguy/noamchom/jgx7/joshswihart
  3. Your favourite out of those?
    choose 1 of previous ones.

If not anyone of these, then have some options for the %, duration.
4. Duration of other option dev fund. (optional q)
1year,2year,3year,4year
5. % of other option dev fund. (optional q)
<5%,5-10%,10-15%,15-20%,>20%

not sure about the new organizations question. its kinda late for that maybe?
also i understand the new law stuff is not so good to have all these orgs receive direct funding(maybe its my misunderstanding)

1 Like
62

I think @Dodger was asking about the feasibility and willingness of engineers in implementing the declining schedule using funding streams and unissued ZEC features I’ve proposed. Not specifically about bootstrap receiving funds.

63

Let’s address the elephant in the room. Earlier this month, @josh posted ECC’s position on the Zcash Dev Fund. As it stands, none of the other dev fund options (including mine) have adjusted their proposals to reflect Bootstrap’s right to refuse receiving development funds directly to their wallet.

I don’t blame anyone for this. There are two key points to consider:

  1. We can’t assume that supporters or owners of the existing dev fund models would continue to support them now that Bootstrap’s portion needs to be removed and reallocated.
  2. We need to improve how we govern and allocate development funds through block rewards. It’s crucial to get this right. That’s also why it might take weeks for proposal owners to adjust to such drastic changes.

It’s unfortunate that ECC’s statement has come so late in the process. At a time when we should be starting the polling process, the community currently has only one valid option, which is ECC’s proposal. This is neither fair nor productive for governance. This situation highlights why I strongly advocate for more frequent governance on the dev fund. Addressing this issue only every four years often leads to suboptimal outcomes because contentious issues tend to arise just as we’re finalizing decisions. In this case, ECC’s recent statement has effectively invalidated every other dev fund proposal weeks before the decision-making deadlines.