We’ve bundled two very separate things in this proposal. My thoughts is that making a new account to allow voluntary burns + some component of tx fees to long term help secure the network is fantastic.
However, bundling changing the network emissions to be continuous is radical. The prior discussions were also made in a very different situation for Zcash. The motivations of ZIP-234 do not outline why the block reward should be continuous, and instead the requirements + motivations (imo) would lead you to believe that the issuance was kept the same. This as a change is a huge departure from historical ZCash, and Bitcoin. This is should be the slowest moving part of all of ZCash, and anything trying to be money. Any change to it should at minimum be very clear that its changing issuance.
This is the image from ZIP-234 to showcase what is happening. (Blue is current, Red is new)
Removing the halvening also removes the incredibly valuable discrete halvening date that the community can orient around. Changing the block subsidy to be continuous is also a short term increase to emissions, which is short term bad for the network and supply economics.
In contrast, I am in support of the new voluntary burn, and that being distributed to miners along a smooth issuance curve. Its especially nice for this to be smooth, in order to offset the halving structure of block emissions..
If the token holder voting proposal for this remains as bundling both changing the network emissions and the new voluntary system for burns, I will be voting NO, and strongly hope others do. Even if you want the issuance to change, I hope you’d agree we need far more discussion in the community based on the present conditions we are in.
Prior discussions were full of very different factors, years ago. (The meme of what is ZCash, different price and activity levels, a roadmap very clearly set on a POS transition)