The proposed trademark agreement is not constrained by the Network Upgrade schedule, and should not be blocked by agreement on post-FR dev funding. In particular, my working assumption had been that this agreement would be in place well before NU4. The owners of dev fund ZIPs do not need to explicitly say that they assumed the “agreement in principle” that was stated at Zcon1, since that is relevant background to the conduct of the ZIP process in general.
I would also like to make clear, with my ZIP Editor hat on, that I am taking 2-of-2 multisig governance to already be in effect for the ZIP process (i.e. everything after NU3 ZIP selection), regardless of any interaction with the trademark.
Again, someone has to do something without instructions, why the fund and companies and their lawyers do not agree on their own, without involving the community, the foundation is already a representative of the community, if something is worse than what the community can intervene now, I don’t think that lawyers are on the same level with some kind of person from the community, so lawyers can do this job much better. At the initial stage, I think you can not even change the owner, just get an agreement on several parties to work with the trademark, in case of failure the mark will remain with the owner, but he cannot use and dictate the terms unilaterally while the agreement is in effect.
As an update to other participants in this thread: the Foundation has delayed its community sentiment collection for NU4 until the trademark issue is resolved. More details below:
We are optimistic we can reach a renewed commitment with the ECC and welcome further negotiations with them.
zooko/ecc still has benevolent intentions for the future of zcash and value of the coin but somehow have zero clues about what PR is, how all this looks like, and that rigorously keeping explicit promises is one of crucial issues for future and valuation of assets that are vulnerable for narrative/appreciacion changes at current stage of their life.
they are confident about what they are doing and have some short sighted thoughts about exit plan that in case of hard disconnect, trademark with probable damaged reputation will have some significant intrinsic value, disconnected from the coin, protocol and project.
i dont understand something, and thats a part of some game to completely screw up current/remaining valuation of coin with one of the best potentials of growth within next cycle, that makes any reasonable person cringe.
maybe my assumptions are wrong, i dont want to assert any libel, but thats how it looks like. if zooko really cares about whats going on, and really believes in future of zcash, i think he could explain his position better.
I think there is a lot conjecture about motives. I ask you to not give into snap judgment, but do seek to understand issues, implications of decisions, and provide your perspective.
Our perspective on the trademark comes from an honest place. While we may have some near term disagreement, we all share a common mission. And I believe this issue is short term.
We have requested a meeting with the foundation and hope to meet with them early this week in the spirit of clarity and cooperation.
This had to be done before that’s all, you don’t think, why create problems out of the blue and then heroically solve them? Nevertheless, the value of the coin is getting lower and lower, and solving current problems will not make the price the same, thereby both ECC and the fund have hurt their own financing, which in my opinion is bad!
As i mentioned weeks/months bevor, this should have been one of the requirements months ahead bevor even entering a dev fund discussion. This would have prevented such negative impact of the trademark discussion towards the dev fund dicussion.
However, as we say here: “Better late than never”. I personally think that’s the only valid move the foundation could/should make. And it indeed gives the community some more time to discuss the dev fund a bit more.
IF within the 1 month delay the trademark issue isn’t resoved the community should make some own steps and withdraw all proposals made as all of them are based on being the ZF an equal Zcash partner in the dev fund discussion. As this currently isn’t the case by the ECC’s desicision not to share the trademark the proposals aren’t even worth 2 cents, expect the proposal “no new def fund”.
“Honest place” and at the same time breaking a long stated promises doesn’t fit together too well.
Good, but shouldn’t this been done allready as a final attempt bevor the decision was made not to share the trademark with the ZF?
About an honest place and failure to fulfill promises, I wrote earlier that such a combination is possible if the ECC sees a threat in transferring the trademark to the fund, that the fund cannot do what it should and how the company is doing it now, but this is not a problem, no one talks about the change owner, they say as far as I can understand about the right to use, this is not the same thing.
Therefore, the company sees a direct threat to the right to use the trademark, in theory it’s just pressure, which I also spoke of when I just started discussing proposals, I said that the fund has no alternative to becoming an independent organization in the current conditions. It just confirmed my words. Therefore, for the benefit of all, it is necessary to reconsider your behavior both on the part of the company and on the part of the fund; there is no point in sharing money and power at a time when this money and power are depreciating at an alarming rate. Soon there will be no need to discuss financing, why not do good for everyone? Make a coin for successful projects, achieve intermediate goals and share areas of influence, and the community will support any ideas if they help achieve success.In the current environment, how much finance is left in stock? 12 months or less? Soon they will announce that “all in” is over and we are moving to a savings plan
That said, this decision by the Foundation has the side effect that there will be more time to get the existing proposals into shape as ZIPs (both editorially and in terms of technical feedback) before that polling, which is welcome given that there were several submissions just before the NU4 draft ZIP submission deadline.
Based on Zfnd’s dev fund proposal we all know that the Zfnd want’s to control at least 60% of the dev fund. They are calling it “A Grand Compromise”.
Now the Zfnd is exercising more pressure by making a revived 2-of-2 agreement with the ECC a necessary condition for the continuation of the NU4 Community Sentiment Collection process, which is an extremely aggressive move - at he cost of current holders and miners among other things.
Given this aggression I’m asking the community:
Based on what facts do we trust the Zfnd?
The non-profit status alone is a weak argument since the existence of corruption, abuse of power and fraud in non-profit organisations is a well known fact.
So based on what facts does the community tolerate the aggression and the huge power shift attempt by the Zfnd?
I can say for myself, I asked this question, but it sounded about responsibility for actions, and there are no existing factors influencing the community either on the fund or on the company and, consequently, on the ZCASH project, except for the honest word of the manager and employees. Well, of course there is the possibility of public pressure, but this is an extreme measure for me.
I wrote above that it was not necessary to keep this situation, it was necessary to agree, now it is not clear who is protecting the project from whom, both organizations are to blame for the bad situation.
In the future, many looking back at what happened will be shunned by this project, regardless of its outcome.
But about the change of power, I honestly did not understand how it seemed to me that the community would own zcash in the future, and now there are companies that organize this bright future, there is a brand owner and he never said that he would hang on forever, just the opposite happens, how much the community will endure course change attempts you want to say for sure?
Therefore, a compromise is needed, everything should be as it was originally voiced, the fund must be able to protect the brand and be protected from possible ill-wishers, this is not now, they will do everything and the question is settled. The company, in turn, I believe should provide all the capabilities that it owns and transfer all agreements on the project, which is very important for the future, because it is also a lever of pressure. There are probably projects that are waiting for the presentation, and if you ruin the relationship now they will be funded, but the money has been spent and it will not be returned, in general you need to do what you promised, and that’s all (and what you didn’t promise but did, you also need to make it public)
Moderation warning to @mika: it is wholly inappropriate to describe the ZF’s actions as a “blackmail attempt”. The poll about dev fund proposals is their poll and they are free to hold it (or not) whenever they wish. Please refrain from using such accusatory language in future.
yawn
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 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 …
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.
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)
