Note about trademark strategy

imho, it looks like complete theater or giveaway-for-competitors game, who dont even need to cook bad media about zcash recently. i’m completely bored. will check in a while to see what’s left. no point to watch closely anymore. sad, but not uncommon for crypto.

I personally think as well that this proposal is very unfortunate. Even more the community and it’s increasing proposal makers are able themself to adjust proposals, combine and adjust them with other parts due the community feedback they get. There was and is no need of a proposal made by the foundation at all. Amillers one was allready borderline but as an opt-in/opt-out and unique at that time it had somehow a place btw. the other proposals, but this “A Grand Compromise” is a poor attempt in my opinion.

I have asked bevor that both sides (ECC and ZF) should stay as neutral as possible with the community dev fund proposals and this ZF proposal is in my opinon a violation of neutrality. And so is the marketing campaign by the ECC with their favourite proposals.

I personally recommend that @acityinohio withdraws his proposal “A Grand Compromise” and leaves the proposal making process in the faith of the community as it was intended to be.

I think you messed up the proposal @mika mentiones “A Grand Compromise” with " Staked Poll on Zcash Dev Fund Debate. I could be wrong of course, but it looks like he didn’t have in mind the poll you are referring to.

I don’t think it’s “very unfortunate”. It’s a clear data point.

I support you, everyone has the right to make proposals, the more so the proposal from both the fund and the company is needed to understand what they are willing to work with, but whether or not to support this I hope to play a role to a greater extent of the community, I hope …

1 Like

Oh wow! I was hoping this would be the case. thank you for that. Is your ZIP editors hat cone shaped, purple, has stars and a fluffy white rim? If not I will have to make you one! their is a costume shop opposite where I live.

Im taking the day off @lex-node @kek please read Daira statement.


Zooko’s response to the Zcash Foundation post: Update on trademark strategy

1 Like

Given the current situation - we’re able to get an impression about the dynamics of an 2-of-2 decision making process in the situation where two parties collide. Furthermore we are able to see what instruments are being weaponized and the compromise readiness of the parties. The ECC has proven their willingness to share power otherwise the Zfnd would not exists, however sharing power seems to be much more difficult for the Zfnd itself, all their (Zfnd’s) recent actions clearly support this hypothesis.

The fund has no power to divide it, it seems to me that you don’t understand the essence of what is happening, the fund asks for equal trademark management, so that further decisions can be considered independent, and in case of abuse of power it will be bad for everyone. Look at what is happening, I don’t think it was possible if someone couldn’t unilaterally stop progress (on the part of the fund this is suspension of consideration of offers, on the part of the company is discussion of the trademark agreement - they lost muscle and lost some of the capital)

Meh… this is just the nature of 2-of-2, its what happens when there’s a difference of opinion on a serious issue.

Functionally, the statements ‘I cannot agree’ and ‘I will block’ are identical, but the way those statements are perceived and shape further discussion are wildly different.

They’re delaying things which gives time to come up with a solution and are meeting (IRL) to work on it.

Right thing to do IMHO, far more productive. Its easy to forget that behind those glowing screens there are real people and their perceptions are their own realities.


Are you sure?

Here are the data points we have:
The Zfnd wants the 2-of-2 decision making process.
The Zfnd doesn’t like the 3-of-2 decision making process.
The Zfnd wants to control at least 60% of the development Fund.
Zooko proposed multiple times an 3-of-2 decision making process.
Zooko informs everyone about this disagreement.
Zfnd uses their available instruments to force an 2-of-2 decision making process.

That’s the corresponding statement of the Zfnd:

Therefore we are delaying our community sentiment collection and any decision-making regarding NU4 until the ECC recommits to the 2-of-2 agreement that was already agreed upon

Agree. On the one hand, it seems the ECC is pushing hard for a quick (too quick) voting process for a 20% Dev Fund, but then on the other hand, stalls on any changes to the governance of the Zcash trademark when it means less control for the ECC.

Does a large Dev Fund of 20% until the year 2024 still seem like a good idea? (Not implying @boxalex is a fan of 20%, which I believe he is not.)

The faster Zcash gets to true decentralization by decreasing large amounts of funding for centralized entities, the better.

1 Like

I do not know the truth but:

  1. Does the fund want 2 in 2 because it is feasible in the current situation? 3 in 2 is not due to the absence of a third party, if you wait, you can continue to coordinate forever, while the preliminary agreement was 2 in 2, right?
  2. the fund does not want 60%, as I understand it, but offers, the next proposal was to create a trust that will accumulate and pay money, which is the same for both funded organizations, isn’t it?
  3. Zooko, as I understand it, refuses preliminary agreements of 2 to 2 and offers to switch immediately to a complex scheme, why, it will be endless, then 5 to 3 and so on, and for now, the trademark owner can block everything and, in principle, dissolve the fund after refusal of financing after 2020, and maybe not right?
    For my part, I see no problems in order to find a common solution, there is a problem that both sides do not like the existing solutions. I’m more than sure that after the meeting a solution will be found, this is bad, because it was possible to meet and agree earlier, and then we can discuss some decisions among the masses, understanding where the community is leaning, not the other way around.


This is a misleading characterisation; Josh Cincinnati said quite clearly:

I’ve no reason to doubt the sincerity of that. (Not to mention that “The Zfnd wants to control at least 60% of the development Fund” also misrepresents the proposal.)


Thanks for clarifying this @daira, and just to reiterate: @mika as I said in the other thread my personal (not official Foundation) proposal does not call for 60% going to the Foundation. In a “fully shielded” world, 40% would go to the ECC, 40% would go to the Foundation, and 20% would go to ZF Grants administered by the Foundation (via restricted donations) and I very clearly in the proposal do not want the Foundation to have anything but a minority voice in the disbursement of those funds.

But back to the main thread: I’m glad the ECC is coming back to the negotiating table and look forward to a swift and amicable resolution.


Thanks Josh Cincinnati for pointing out your understanding of the term “minority”, such that it’s clearly visible for everyone.

However I’m very interested in your interpretation of the following statemen:
I hope your interpretation becomes as clear as in the case of the term "minority

Zfnd uses their available instruments to force an 2-of-2 decision making process.

That’s the corresponding statement of the Zfnd:
Therefore we are delaying our community sentiment collection and any decision-making regarding NU4 until the ECC recommits to the 2-of-2 agreement that was already agreed upon

This seems to be the most accurate statement. 2-2 is what the ECC and Foundation have stated needs to happen for some time now. I don’t think the Foundation is opposed to a 2-3 agreement but as of right now there is no 3rd party. So in the meantime (until a 3rd party is established) the Foundation feels the 2-2 should be in effect.


Please Note:

Zooko has posted a follow-up to this original trademark post here: Update on trademark strategy

1 Like

When are negotiations planned? It was announced that at the beginning of this week, it was already mid.

Zooko and Josh released a statement: