It might be possible to build a ZSA-based claim mechanism after NU7 activation. The user would be able to claim ZSAs tied to a legacy spending key and then convert those to ZEC in the latest pool.
5 Likes
Excellent! I’m looking forward to voicing my support for the deprecation of t-addrs, when we have addressed the current issues doing this anytime soon would create.
Meanwhile, hopefully, we respect our stakeholders playing it safe with their holdings. That is, by not removing their voting rights. Anyway, if polls are made without t-addr stakeholders, it will evidently be bias towards deprecating t-addrs, which would then question the legitimacy of the vote.
I don’t really see any advantages at all to transparent voting. It could even lead over time to funding being diverted to trivial superfluous non privacy related things.
I don’ t mind the transparent side of Zcash as I find it adds a lot of exciting versatility, but it’s also a case of your freedom ends where mine begins on the voting front.
1 Like
That doesn’t hold any logic, does it.
I’m trying but I think this one doesn’t float either.
Regarding the question of whether the Coinholder Grants Program should accept transparent ZEC, many of us seem to share a similar sentiment 
:
This “torn” feeling stems from a central issue: we are trying to make a decision without a formal, consensus-driven roadmap for the future of t-addresses 
.
Establishing a clear plan in a Zcash Improvement Proposal (ZIP) 
should be our first step; otherwise, we’re putting the cart before the horse.
Instead of restricting t-address participation now, we should view the grant polling process as a unique opportunity to communicate 
. When t-address users engage, we gain a direct channel with a segment of the community that may otherwise be disconnected 
.
This approach allows us to proactively encourage migration to shielded pools and gather invaluable feedback, leading to a better-informed decision based on a community-ratified plan 
.
6 Likes
Zcash is about privacy. Let’s demonstrate that to the world by voting with shielded Zcash (only). Transparent voting is a privacy and security risk for voters and simultaneously undermines the reputation of Zcash within the privacy community
For those that really want to publicly broadcast your vote I encourage you to read and support the ZIP below. Something like this can be (optionally) used for voting disclosure in the future.
Does voting transparently to steer the destiny of a privacy network that the person doesn’t even make use of hold more logic?
If you look at the latest vote, you can see a very strong discrepancy between transparent voting and shielding voting results. Total opposite in fact.
1 Like
I’m so amused by your comment and by the like of @daira, it’s really amazing how you guys don’t understand governance.
The whole point of governance is to have various opinions decide together. If you mute the voices you don’t agree with and get 100% approval for something, that’s a fail, not a win… Amazing I even have to explain this. 
1 Like
An aside, but this isn’t a great strategy either given that a lot of people want to deprecate the transparent pool also (and future scalability improvements such as Tachyon won’t support transparent Zcash at all, because it can’t).
1 Like
For reference, when I like a post, it means simply that I think the post is making a useful and well-stated contribution to the discussion. This particular post was stating a relevant and interesting fact about the distribution of coinholder votes between transparent and shielded coins. If I had a strong opinion about what that implies and had had time to state it, I would have stated it. Please try not to infer my positions from incomplete information.
That’s pretty insulting tbh, given my overall contributions to Zcash governance. May I suggest looking here?
1 Like
The 
emoji means approval among other things, so I am not sure what you are saying but I stand by what I said.
tbh using the word “insulting” would imply that my message it not respecting the guidelines of this forum and could therefore get me suspended. It wouldn’t be the first time you would play this game either.
I know details can be lost in the short forum exchanges so let me make few key things clear:
- I greatly value your contributions to the project
- I have nothing against you
Moving on.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a gamble I wish I could avoid, but I feel confident the transparent pool is the less risky one at the moment and for the medium term. Tachyon won’t support it but that doesn’t mean Tachyon will be the only game in town.
Looking forward to the day the project wakes up to the realization that guaranteed support timelines are an absolute must have. At that point it’ll be one less critical thing to worry about when moving my tokens into a shielded pool.
I’ve created a separate thread for the poll to decide whether the Coinholder Grants Program should be structured as a retroactive grants program.
Please continue to use this thread to provide general feedback on the Coinholder-Directed Retroactive Grants Program.
1 Like