Does it make sense to think of the ZPF like the water fountain in the shopping mall?
People might toss in some coins, knowing that they don’t know who actually will receive them in the future?
Like I explained several times at this point, it’s basically a mechanism to “unissue” coins. If you deposit 1 ZEC into the fund then you’re basically unissuing 1 ZEC which can be issued later by the protocol, effectively pushing back issuance.
You’re suggesting a mechanism for people to send ZEC to specific orgs. There is no need to change the protocol for that, they could setup a donation address or something.
We do? It used to be 1000 zatoshi, now its 10000 mininum but proportional to the number of “logical actions” in the transaction.
It certainly is not pushing back issuance unless you are putting them into the pool and then they are subject to the existing halving schedule. So, if people contribute and they are unissued fairly quickly (a year or two), its not really pushing back. I dont fully understand how they get unissued. How long are the held in the fund before unissued? In any case, they are contributions and my opinion is they should be used as intended, which is not to hold them up (immediately issue them to the orgs as intended).
The pink elephant in the room is the smoothing curve. You keep implying it does not increase issuanace. But you are not saying it directly. Do you think it increases issuance or not compared to the existing halvbing schedule? Its a simple yes or no.
You read the chart correctly of course. Compared to the current issuance schedule for any 4 year period between halvings in its first 2 years the issuance will be higher and the last 2 years lower. On average it’ll be the same.
Personally I don’t subscribe to the ‘pulls forward’ argument. If the overall issuance in the long term is the same then it being higher for a relatively short period of time is a minor side-effect. If you want to move the introduction of this issuance scheme in time to make it more deflationary compared to the current scheme then why not come up with a different scheme that’s even more deflationary?
3 Likes
I answered you three times. I can’t give you a yes/no answer if the answer cannot be answered with only a yes or no.
1 Like
Finally. An honest and straightforward answer. Much easier to have an intelligent conversation. I think we dont touch the halving. Its a waste of time, I think it hurts the trust in governance. I think it should hurt the price more than what you get from more coins issued. And yes. if we are going to change the issuance, more deflationary is better than inflationary. I think we probably get the price to go higher and the $$ value is better under deflationariy than inflationary. So net net everyone should win in a deflationary scenario. But again, I would love it if people were thinking more about creating value than gimmicky things like changing the issuance schedule. The orgs should be disciplined enough to effectively do their own smoothing by simply saving.
I think we dont touch the halving. Its a waste of time, I think it hurts the trust in governance.
IMO if we don’t change the average issuance and don’t send the money to any organizations then it should be easy to understand that it’s not a money grab and no contract that Zcash had with its users is broken.
if we are going to change the issuance, more deflationary is better than inflationary. I think we probably get the price to go higher and the $$ value is better under deflationariy than inflationary.
Except the miners. Lower/deflationary issuance => miners get less coins.
The orgs should be disciplined enough to effectively do their own smoothing by simply saving.
I’ll reiterate here what @conradoplg has mentioned before. While working on ZPF I’ve never heard any plans of sending any coins from ZPF to any organizations (outside of the existing funding streams). In its currently proposed shape its only beneficiaries would be the miners. There’s no technical possibility to send those funds anywhere other than block rewards. From what I understand the plan is to integrate it in the future with things like Zcash Shielded Assets and Proof of Stake and potentially use it as the place where fees or slashing penalties end up.
3 Likes
A lot of it sounds good; just not a fan of the inflation. i think it hurts more than it helps.
I don’t think @Jgx7 response has been constructive in this discussion. They keep ignoring the good points made by other participants and mislead readers by insisting on saying “inflation”.
Sustainability fund is good for the long term survival of Zcash. It seems @Jgx7 wants Zcash to not survives.
2 Likes
the best thing for long term survival is start doing things differently.
Humans start doing things differently, not Code.
altering the protocol has never helped us, it is not helping now and it won’t help in the future.
i just think we all should understand that…
1 Like
It doesn’t seem intentionally misleading, but you are correct.
What we should all be using here is the term “circulating supply issuance/ inflation rate”
inflation & issuance seem to be used interchangeably in this thread.
The ZPF smoothing may potentially increase or decrease the circulating supply issuance rate on a year by year basis, relative to what the halving cycle rate otherwise would have been, under the do-nothing scenario. The difference between increase or decrease depends on which year the smoothing is activated. And over the very long timeline, the smoothing would have no impact on the total supply of ZEC ever brought into circulation. By around year 10, the smoothing vs halving cycle issuance rates converge to practically speaking the same number.
If activated today, smoothing would create an issuance decrease between now and when the halving would have taken place in November.
If activated after the November halving date, and prior to November 2026, the smoothing would cause an increase of issuance rate. After November 2026, but prior to November 2028 the impact would be a decrease.
These impacts are most notable the sooner that the smoothing is activated. If activated right now, the decrease (between now and ~old halving November 2024) would probably be 2-4% and if activated at/near the November halving estimate, the increase for the years 2025 and 2026 would also be in the 2-4% range.
This is where there is some nuance. The impact to issuance rate has everything to do with the calendar. If activated soon, the ZF/ ZCG/ ECC would effectively be taking in 2-3% more ZEC from the block rewards during 2025-2026, than would have otherwise been the case (offset by any decrease impact that would be created, if the smoothing activates prior to the November 2024 halving)(especially so, if the smoothing activates near the November 2024 halving)(this scenario is what may look like a near term money grab).
This is related only to smoothing, it has nothing to do with the actual fund. The ZEC that wind up in the fund, aren’t (currently) intended to be passed along to the current block rewards teams.
Three derivative threads for the ZPF probably make sense. One to discuss smoothing, Two to discuss how to build ZPF/ base use case(s), and Three updates to transaction fees to allocate some % into the ZPF.
5 Likes
it’s not a all or nothing. i’m saying to get rid of the bad parts and keep the good. good parts of the fund - I like enabling people to make contributions. community funding is something ive been proposing for a long time, let’s add more avenues to allow community funding. The fund also is designed to deal with fees. i’m a proponent of increasing fees to make zec stronger. gas/fees is much better for the ecosystem. so i say increase fees more than what’s in the fund proposal not less. I had thought a person was involved in allocating the funds; now I better understand its a protocol. I like the protocol aspect of it. So to say I don’t want to see ZEc survive is misleading. I’m actually of the view you don’t know what hurts zec or helps it. It’s likely our backgrounds. I’m a securities/business analyst and care about the value of ZEC. And you may be a developer and see things differently or might not care at all about the ZEc price.
As it relates to increasing coin supply at a faster rate than under existing halving schedule, i say remove it. I think the price may end up going down such that any perceived benefit from getting more money from higher issuance is offset by a lower price. so you might get more coins, but the dollar value of the coins is the same (or even lower) because the price goes down from too much issuance. It’s what we have been experiencing for the last many years now. The issuance rate is too high.
As @noamchom pointed out. it depends on the timing. you could activate it at a point in time that is deflationary (compared to the existing halving schedule). I like the smoothing of you choose to make it deflationary (on a relative basis) because I think it makes zec stronger.
2 Likes
Development of the Zcash Sustainability Fund (ZSF) is progressing, and we plan to release it as part of a network upgrade in early 2025. As the project has evolved, we’ve come to realize that the name “Zcash Sustainability Fund” might be causing some misunderstanding. For example, it is often mistakenly associated with the Zcash Development Fund, which it is not.
The ZSF is not a fund in the traditional sense. It is a modification to the issuance mechanism that enables deposits of ZEC from the circulating supply into future block rewards to help sustain the network. The ZEC allocated to the ZSF are not held as part of the circulating supply in a transparent or shielded pool. Rather, the ZEC is unissued and accounted for by the network’s consensus rules.
Given the potential confusion around its name, we are considering a change to more accurately reflect its function and purpose. One name I’ve considered is the “Zcash Issuance Reserve.” However, the term “reserve” may not be fitting either as it may imply a discretionary nature, and the ZSF is a non-discretionary, protocol-controlled mechanism.
I’m reaching out to the community for your thoughts and suggestions. Should we consider a name change? If so, what would you propose as a more appropriate name for the ZSF that clearly conveys its purpose?
5 Likes
Big yes, I think a name change is prudent here.
I don’t think I have the perfect name, but I’ll throw one out to get us started.
I’m amused by the acronym ZBRR (Zcash Block Reward Reinforcer).
6 Likes
I like the name Grande Dixence Dam
A while ago, I suggested “Zcash S.A.F.E.”
Smoothening; Allocation of Fees & Emissions
2 Likes
What about something like “Future Issuance Pool”? This would have a nice symmetry to the fact that we have transparent, Sapling, and Orchard pools.
14 Likes