@cburniske, thank you for this thorough and insightful analysis! I completely agree with your view of the big picture, and especially appreciate your attention to the nuances of the proposals and their foreseeable dynamics.
(You may want to update your ZIP links to the authoritative versions that were merged into the ZIPSs Git repo with some fixes (thanks @daira!), and are nicely rendered at https://zips.z.cash/ .)
Regarding your recommendations for changes in my proposal:
As discussed elsewhere, I do not object in principle to having an independent Grant Review Committee; I’m just apprehensive about decentralized means to appoint it. If a satisfactory formula is found, I’ll be happy to support it.
Regarding this comment:
we also believe there should be flexibility for budgets to expand, should ZEC appreciate significantly and the ECC or ZF benefit from expanded teams at that time. Allowing for such flexibility, or at least a vote to that end, would require an amendment to Eran’s proposal.
This is meant to be addressed by the following part of my proposal:
The Funding Target may be changed only by unanimous agreement of ZF, ECC and the majority vote of a voting mechanism weighted by ZEC coin holding.
Beside providing a way to “unfreeze” the reserve if the situation merits, this also forms an incentivize for ECC and Zfnd to develop the requisite a voting mechanism, which can then be also used for the “Future Community Governance” mandate.