they are proposing a change that pulls forward issuance. it appears. i say do nothing, but if we are going to change it, push back issuance. pushing back issuance doesn’t change the 21m cap either. are you saying the proposal doesn’t pull forward issuance?
1 Like
understood. and where is the zec coming from that it will unissue? why does it need to recycle through the sustainability fund instead of just going directly to the existing orgs? the name is a little confusing because a “fund” implies it has capital and people who manage it and you are saying it has no money it just a protocol with no fund or capital or people. it’s just code – the “sustainabilty/posterity protocol” ?
1 Like
Like I said it depends on when it’s activated. But in the long term it doesn’t make any substancial difference.
1 Like
don’t they disclose a block at which it gets activated? the image clearly indicates it’s pulling forward issuance doesn’t it? if it doesn’t make a difference push back the curve. i think pulling forward issuance hurts the price. if you don’t think it matters push it back. pushin back also keeps it at 21m.
1 Like
It’s a “fund” in the sense that it’s an amount of ZEC. The ZEC that it unissues can come from transactions that voluntarily choose to deposit in the the fund, or there is also a ZIP that if approved woul make a % of fees deposit into the fund instead of going to miners. In practice it’s a mechanism to push back issuance which is exactly what you’re advocating for.
2 Likes
The image is an example. It would get activated in the next network upgrade (IIRC) if the community actually wants it to be activated in the first place, and if it’s implemented in time for the next network upgrade.
1 Like
it looks to me that it pulls forward issuance. one of the reasons i don’t like it. i think it’s great if people are able to contribute and it goes directly to the orgs to help fund development. i’d rather skip the whole unissue step and see the orgs get contributions directly and immediately. also not a fan of messing with miners. just my 2 cents
(edit it would be great if people could contribute USDC or something else as other options too. and as i’m sure you know from my posts, i think we need gas/fees which would also increase funding)
The curve smoothing and the posterity fund and completely independent things. While the curve smoothing could initially push back issuance depending on when it’s activated, the posterity funds strictly pushes back issuance by definition.
1 Like
Makes sense. I am 100% for more funding for development. Im a pro developer. I just want organically driven funding (gas/contributions). Issuance is not organic. So im sure you will be able to predict my reply when it comes to increasing coin supply or changing the halving schedule (by pulling issuance forward).
Hopefully this proposal to increase or pull forward the coin issuance schedule is dead. The last thing we need is to be issuing more coins than we already have scheduled. Reducing coin issuance would be positive for zec. We need to focus on creating value. Coin issuance dilutes the value created.
Let’s also keep in mind that miners today, will be ZEC validators/ stakers in the future. Taking ZEC that would otherwise be their compensation is less likely to be supported when Zcash is Proof of Stake.
Speaking about miners today is different, because they’re institutional/ big entities for the most part and as a majority, they’re not Zcash supporters (Zcash miners today seem like mercenaries who are in practice Bitcoin miners with an obfuscation layer; they mine ZEC for the sole purpose of liquidating it into BTC).
Pulling forward issuance doesn’t seem like a good idea to me, so I’d favor waiting until around November 2026 or later to activate the smoothening portion of the ZPF.
Importantly, the concept of smoothing is just an admission the orgs dont have the discipline to save ZEC on their own. They can do the smoothing themselves just by saving ZEC and not spending it so quickly. So if they do indeed need a smoothing mechanism, then we should certainly not increase issuance, its proof we need the opposite, more discipline and less issuance. So the curve would be lower than the existing curves.
Just to clarify, ZSF and the associated issuance changes do not increase issuance over the long term. Effort was put in to make sure that the issuance would resemble the current schedule as much as possible. See the results of our ZSF issuance simulation at GitHub - eigerco/zsf-simulator: Zcash Sustainability Fund simulator. The main takeway is this chart:
Actually the ZSF would allow ZEC to be deposited into it effectively reducing the ZEC in circulation, which is, as you’ve said, positive.
2 Likes
As long as you start it when the red line is below the blue line, I would agree it does not increase issuance. Otherwise it does increase issuance higher and pulls forward issuance.
Maybe it makes sense to show a total supply curve side by side and how total supply looks under both scenarios. If we are not pulling forward issuance, then the total supply curve under the proposed plan should always be lower than (or equal to) the total supply curve under the existing plan at any given point in time.
1 Like
The smoothing proposal doesn’t come from any devfund recipients. Even if they did the smoothing “themselves” as you said, the smoothing stills affects the miners.
There is multiple things happening at once. Its hard to parse them all out. There is another one that wants to give less to the miners. So I am stating I am against a) the smoothing scheme if it means we are pulling forward issuance and b) diverting coins away from miners and towards orgs. The orgs and dev fund recipients are the beneficiaries if we increase the issuance rates to be more than under the halving schedule. So its a little bit like offering candy to people who vote for you. If you vote yes, you get more money. Now, if you say it actually reduces the total supply curve at every point in time. Then, I will very quickly admit and apoligize, I read the chart wrong.
There are three ZIPs:
- Create the Posterity Fund and create a mechanism to deposit into it in transactions (this is effectively an “pushing back” issuance mechanism)
- Divert 60% of the transactions fees to the Posterity Fund
- Smooth out the issuance curve
None of these divert coins from miners towards orgs. Like I explained, the Posterity Fund is not an org.
1 Like
This does not push back. This pulls forward. Are you denying this?
This does not push back. This is organically using already issued coins. So people are contributing already issued coins arnt they? These coins should go directly to the existing orgs. Give it to them immediately. Why would we need to hold contributions up?
Do we have transaction fees? Or is this a placeholder to get a cut of future fees?