The Dev Fund should be extended by up to one year as outlined in ECC’s proposal to modify ZIP 1014.
- Strongly Agree
- Agree
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
0
voters
4 Likes
Can there be a poll guestion to indicate if the voter will directly benefit from the funding not expiring in November?
4 Likes
Personal opinion is none of these current Dev funds even come close to 1014, and this concept that the Zcash community has failed to flesh out these all your other dev fund ideas over how ever many years now reflects poorly on them is ludacris. We just first-try’d it.
I have a few issues with some of the questions presented.
Q2, Q3, and Q4 all appear to assume a funding model similar to the previous approach where block rewards are statically allocated to specific recipients. Specifically, I think that Q2 is problematic, in the duration of an extended dev fund is something that for me would be dependent upon how it is structured; for example, while I might be willing to support a 1-year extension of the dev fund with the existing model (though honestly I’d like for it to be less, maybe 6 months) I would not support a 4 year extension of that sort, but there are other ways of structuring the dev fund for which I might support a 4-year extension. None of these questions can accurately be answered in isolation, and treating the responses to each question as unrelated to the others will produce potentially meaningless or misleading results.
I think that a better way to approach this poll would be to use approval (or preferably STAR) voting to allow ZCap to choose among several different possible options drawn from the proposals on the forum.
EDIT: @skyl’s approach to presenting these questions is vastly superior.
8 Likes
This is incorrect, because there is no way to correlate the responses to each of the separate questions. You can’t choose any of the options suggested by the forum posts using this poll, because when looking at the aggregate responses to each question, it will be impossible to determine how individuals’ responses to each question interact with one another.
6 Likes
Even this poll suggests and correlates with what’s being said everywhere, from twitter to forum posts. Very expected, much wow (lol). The rough consensus is quite clear.
1 Like
Very interesting results thus far!
For my stance see here:
2 Likes
Every poll of the ZCAP should contain one additional question:
“Did the questions and answer options presented in this poll provide you with the opportunity to accurately express your views, and do you believe that its results can be interpreted to accurately judge the views of those polled?”
13 Likes
+1 for this style of questioning
This shows a good representation of sentiment, and there seems to be a clear theme.
4 Likes
(Speaking for myself.)
It’s an obvious ethical requirement, especially in the current legal climate where developers of financial privacy systems have been jailed based on (dubious, in my personal opinion) legal arguments that included, in general terms, their receipt of funds from the protocol (not necessarily via dev-fund-like mechanisms).
5 Likes
Yep. The right questions create clarity. The wrong questions create confusion and only waste everyone’s time. The forum seems to be over it. 
I can’t wait to see what the broader community has to say when it is offered legit ways to express its will. Change is in the air, and that’s exciting.
6 Likes
How do we achieve this? Is it one mega survey? A combination of little surveys? Gather sentiment from people’s comments and posts? Etc
Well, consider ToR. The internet would arguably be far worse off without it. It is also arguable that if it were not a public good produced by a public charity protected under law then said bad-internet might be just what we would have.
The whole funding structure thing that we have, not only has worked now for years, but also carries a high degree of confidence that it will continue to work w/o folks going to jail (F that).
2 Likes
@Dodger out of curiosity, are you also planning on putting forward a dev fund proposal/alternative?
1 Like
Starting in November 2024, when the current devfund expires, funding from the protocol should go into a lockbox address for safekeeping until a large k of n decentralized voting mechanism can be implemented to send funds to contributors in a retroactive, grants-only manner
- Strongly Agree
- Agree
- Disagree
- Strongly Disagree
0
voters
1 Like
From a logistical perspective, I will note that it might be better to put this value into a specific “unissued reserve” (potentially something similar to what I describe in https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/block-rewards-in-the-case-that-the-dev-fund-is-allowed-to-expire) instead of sending separate outputs for each block to an address. Since Zcash operates using a UTXO model, you end up with a huge number of UTXOs to manage; this has actually been something of a hassle for current dev fund recipients because it often takes quite a long time to generate the signatures and/or proofs when you have to aggregate the 30k outputs that accrue from the block rewards within a given month. An in-protocol reserve might be simpler for the signatories to deal with.
9 Likes
Unlocking the lockbox could be a great driver for protocol improvements. In the short term, the idea is that the funds are inaccessible pending the technical implementation. I like that you are already thinking of implementation and logistics! I think an unissued reserve “lockbox” where funds are set aside for rewarding contributors is potentially a homerun idea that the community can rally around. I’ll try to write it up more formally later today. I think there is huge upside and it could solve a lot of problems with the current Dev Fund.
In the short-term, it could simply be a trust held by one of the 501c3s pending the implementation of the threshold signature funding/disbursement mechanism. So, it would be an easy road to start down in November.
The threshold signature stuff is a great area of focus IMO. If it’s brought to fruition all the way to the UI layer, it could be a driver of ZEC adoption in itself - Zcash as the private threshold signature chain. If we can eat our own dogfood more, drink our own champagne more, it could lead to exponential winning.
5 Likes
So are you requesting that Bootstrap and ECC be left off the list of potential recipients in this process?
1 Like
This poll is intended to solicit community sentiment regarding what should happen in November 2024.
It’s not possible to implement the grants-based Funding Bloc idea by November 2024, so whatever ZIP proposal results from this process does not affect or influence whether the grants based Funding Bloc idea gets adopted further down the line.
It’s like ordering takeaway pizza tonight doesn’t impact whether or not you can have a roast dinner next Sunday.
1 Like
That’s correct. This is not about obtaining recipients’ permission to include them as a Dev Fund recipient.
@daira ECC has stated that it supports either:
- extending the existing development fund (i.e. ECC continues to receive the lion’s share of funding, and there can be no new Dev Fund recipients) or
- allowing the Dev Fund to expire.
If it becomes clear that the Zcash community supports a different approach (for example, @GGuy’s proposal), will the ECC engineers implement that in zcashd, or will they refuse because it’s not one of the options that ECC supports?
ETA: This is pretty important because, if ECC will refuse to implement @GGuy’s declining schedule in zcashd even if doing so is the clear consensus of the Zcash community, then the whole idea becomes a bit moot. 
I think the community deserves to know that now.
1 Like