Please let’s focus on whether ECC intends to honour the (informal, but clearly stated) agreement outlined at Zcon1.
this is spectacular. zooko. do you think, that to stand firmly on any supposed sunk costs regarding the trademark could be worth it? now? if current governance process will go off rails and zcash will eventually land in a stage of complete decline (until …?) this trademark will be… worthless.) no, srsly, its hard to believe that such decision can be done by a reasonable person.
I introduced the costs, not Zooko. His rationale was unrelated.
No Zcash trademark > Zcash trademark unilaterally controlled by one entity. The status quo has been acceptable only because it wasn’t intended to remain the status quo.
This is functionally a power grab, regardless of the decision-makers’ intentions.
With respect, Zooko, such a promise would carry more weight if you had asked the community about this decision — the one that you just announced — rather than simply making a declaration.
oh. i see, sry, i just stumbled upon this topic and was quite shocked, that one more fight escalated to top up already not easy situation. i just want to point out one thing: guys of all involved parts, be reasonable. zcash has only one vector of future: survive current market phase, continue development and adoption incentives and outlive majority of currently well promoted/marketed speculative projects/products. pls, realise that some more not careful decisions and escalations and there may be nothing to divide.)) not for ecc, not for zfnd, not for holders, not for miners, and will be no z2z for future generation of users.) so please, try remain reasonable and not to focus on some short-term bargains.
p.s.: maybe its obvious for everyone who are present in this topic, but in case it’s not, i want to add: at declining or stagnating cryptocurrency market the main factor that holds value for currency is confidence. confidence in its future. not tech advantage, promises, roadmap, marketcap, hashrate, number of nodes, number of markets it’s listed at, applications that support it etc. lose (remnants) of confidence - game over. gain more confidence - outlive many rivals.) i think it’s in best interest for all non/for profit entities that are involved.
I’m pretty burned out from the governance proposals so I’m not super well informed on this topic and I can’t say who’s right or who’s wrong
But the key to all of this up into this point has been flexibility (who eventually ends up with the butterscotch Z emblem doesn’t really feel like an infringement on the core values) so regardless of whose arguement is meritorious I suggest we stay flexible and not get bent out of shape
The logo is not important. But a legal monopoly on the right to dictate what “Zcash” means, and how the word can be used, is quite important.
I had a feeling this is coming somehow and i mentioned 2 or 3 times in the past in various posts when the trademark 2-2 multisig was praised as it happened allready:
Nothing is done as long as it’s not done.
One of the reasons i advocated that the dev fund decision/discussion should just and only begin after the trademark 2-2 multisig agreement is settled.
Just some thoughts regarding this issue now and maybe others from the community/forum have the same impressions or feelings:
you guys/girls from ECC/ZF can’t handle a single 2-2 multisig what’s left getting to a 2-3 or 3-5 later on trademark or dev funds?
It again and clearly shows how centralized Zcash is.
Another decision, like many lately, mentioning the community without asking the community.
Another promise broken, which one is next?
Are these the “high ideals” and “integrity” the community should believe in?
Seriously, the trademark question was a perfect one to include into the advisory panel as a question IF the intention was to ask the community. As this has not be done someone can just feel like a statist in a bad film.
When I wake up I don’t recommit myself to the owner or whomever has rights to a word and an emblem
I agree it’s important especially with Zcash becoming more established everyday but it’s not tantamount
completely agree with this statement. almost posted something like this yesterday, but got caught up with other things.
Speaking about informal clear statements…here’s one in the early days about simply transfering the trademark to ZF:
giving the reason that owning the TM is the “kind of thing that’s more apporopriate for a non-profit operating in the public interest”
I appreciate that there is a lot of emotion in the responses to this proposal from Zooko to “wait a bit longer” so I won’t be commenting further than this post.
From a semi-outsiders perspective and having been here since before Zcash Alpha 0.1 here is my 2 ZEC on the whole TM matter.
The TM sits at the core of the Zcash ecosystem and it’s existence has helped keep out bad actors who would squat on or impersonate the hard work that the founders, scientists, engineers, and developers have dedicated parts of thier lives to bring to life. TMs are designed to help defend from those that would act in bad faith when using the Zcash name.
So what exactly are we working to defend from bad actors?
We believe that privacy strengthens social ties and social institutions, protects societies against their enemies, and helps societies to be more peaceful and more prosperous. A robust tradition of privacy is a common feature in rich and peaceful societies, and a lack of privacy is often found in struggling and failing societies.
As we move more of our lives into the Internet, and integrate our lives more with the lives of people from around the globe, we want the new society we are building to be one of the peaceful and prosperous kind.Source
This is the reason everyone is passionate about Zcash. The reason behind everyone working hard to bring it to the masses. With this great purpose comes great responsibility.
Several of the Founders got together to donate significant amounts of thier personal wealth because:
However in the long run it would not be appropriate for a single for-profit company to have this much power over the evolution of the Zcash technology. Ultimately, there will need to be an independent, inclusive, non-profit body to steward the technology in the interests of all users. Source
The Foundation is also at the root of Zcashs core philosophy of stewarding a greater good. It was designed that way from the start. This ethos has not changed, the imperative is just as important today as it was years ago.
From my perspective this whole TM issue should not be an issue at all. The TM is designed to protect the Zcash from those that wish to do harm to Zcashs core mission. ECC and ZFND are the protectors of this mission.
Zcash is already 2-2 multisig, it was designed to be that way from the beginning. A paper agreement is just a affirmation of this and should be a non-issue.
If a third party comes along and can demonstrate that they hold these same core values that the ECC and ZFND have worked to protect, then it would be in the best interest of the community and network to add them to aide with the virtues of decentralization.
But until then the ECC and ZFND are the best we’ve got.
- Keeping a brand longer in the same hands is protection, from whom, from the foundation?
There is no obvious reason to do this longer if they are hidden.
- The founders do not share their personal wealth, this is a hoax.
Founders share only a part of zcash coins, the amount multiplied by the cost gives financing, the cost is the purchase price, this statement is negatively received by buyers (for example), the cost is less and financing is also reduced, therefore owning a brand by its actions reduces the likelihood of success in achieving the goal over which the fund and the company work in my opinion is a threat to the community. Less price, less financing, less implementation and an increased likelihood of not achieving the goal. This is an alternative look.
- It is absolutely not important in whose hands the trademark is, it is important how the owner protects the product, but as you noticed in the protocol there is a need to manage several participants for fault tolerance, therefore holding in one hands and verbally granting the right to the second party (which can be revoked in any moment) this is just the inverse function, risk mitigation.
This is the second point of view, and it would not be like yours under the condition of equal management (documented including). The contradiction is not that he promised and did not give, but that he claimed that he would be used for protection and did not give, that is, he protected, and from whom should he be protected now?
All funds the Foundation receives are from the Founders personal allocation.
This has been made possible by donations from some of the founders of the Zcash project. I personally have donated half of all of the coins I was due to get from the Founders’ Reward, and many of my colleagues have donated as generously or even more so! Source
Your post sounds perfect on first read but after the second read i realized that it’s a bit too idealistic and away from reality.
Sounds good, but just a quick reminder that we are not talking about a open source project founded by some donations. It’s not only about passion but money as well.
This would be true IF there is a garantee that the ECC will work on Zcash next year. From the proposal response we have seen there are not many proposals they are willing to work further on Zcash, means your argument that the ECC is a “protector” might be only valid for 1 more year.
Actually having in mind that there is a possibility that the ECC might not work further on Zcash makes it even more important to transfer rights of the trademark to the ZF.
On the other side we have the ZF which confirmed that no matter they are to continue to work and “protect” Zcash no matter what the dev fund outcome will be, which makes them automaticly a better steward for the trademark.
Upsss, and wait, most important. Until the ZF has any rights on the Zcash trademark and isn’t self founded but depentend on founder donations it’s even not really a protector of Zcash. IF something, whatever, happens with the ECC without the trademark they have 0 affilation to Zcash, easy and simple as that. All the rest could change overnight in a worst case.
Obviously paper agreements which are legal agreements are an issue or the trademark issue would have been settled alllready for months. Everything non legal written are just promises and nice words, which as witnessed, can be broken at any given moment.
You forget an important factor here. With the ECC alone holding the trademark they have a greater say in who and how a possible 3rd entity should be formed. It’s out of my understanding how another absolutly centralized decision than would be in the interest of the community. In my opinion it’s in the very best interest of the community if:
- promises btw the ZF and ECC and from each to the community are hold.
- the ZF and ECC and the community decide about a 3rd entity, not ECC alone with the trademark joker.
- just ask the community about their stance in the trademark issue. The initial post of Zooko got not a single like, do you hear the community Shawn? That’s the first post ever Zooko made that got not a single like. That’s a signal to me that the community does not support Zooko, after even the “mandatory” ECC employee likes are missing.
Why try making a real bad move look better? A bad move is just that, a bad move and this one definatly is one of the worst moves possible in the worst moment possible.
@boxalex My post is purposely idealistic, pessimism will not move us further to resolving this issue.
I will not be responding to your critique of my post.
Actually my post isn’t pessimistic, it’s an realistic overview on what happened, what didn’t happen and what could happen reality.
That’s ok. Here (where i live) we say that closing the eyes won’t get us forward either.
Deeply worried about these things in combination -
- setting conditions that would trigger a pivot
- retaining unilateral control of the trademark
- that a strategy for handling the trademark even exists
2-of-2 trademark control prevents all the ‘bad things’ I can think of from happening, its really important.
Totally agree, that’s just a no-brainer.
The founders are not sharing money but coins.
If after the action the coins will not cost enough to continue the work of the fund, how will the founders help?
The funds received by the founders fund and the company are zcash sales, so the funds are the proceeds from the sale of the goods, the founders simply give a percentage of this product whose trademark you cannot protect from negative influence from the ECC in case this happens.
You wrote how it can and should work, but not how it works now, why it doesn’t work now, because there is no trust.
ECC does not trust the fund to conclude agreements (the answer is that they did not come to an option that suits everyone), the community acts as spectators, although it is the will of the community that the fund should represent, but there is no mechanism for implementation, the company and the fund do not trust the community - again due to the lack of a mechanism for expressing the wishes of the community.
Perhaps something will change, but after all, the conditions under which everything will work as it should should not be voiced, so I conclude that there is protection from anyone with the help of a trademark.
As for pessimism, why did the fund ask for more money when it reached 50? You could continue to work for what is and think that the price remains around 350, but you sold and the amount didn’t work out the same as you would at the price of 350, you looked just pessimistic, you didn’t have to do anything but live a dream