There are things we should be able to all agree on once and for all and move on:
Usage of the dev fund can only be controlled by the token holders. It’s their money, we can’t have random people do that for us.
Token holders voting for who gets a piece of the pie can be gamed. I have not seen much evidence of that but hypothetically it can be and that’s all we need to know. For that reason, we may want to start thinking about deprecating the dev fund as the status-quo is just not good and I have not read about convincing alternative models.
Development teams can poll whoever they want, whenever they want, however they want.
PoS will help gathering feedback on what stakeholders want.
ZF never cared much about stakeholders and they instead have a vision for the people (my understanding of it). It may eventually lead to a fork. Good. Embrace it, can have two tokens. Keep both, nothing to lose.
Just a correction: the former ECC and now ZODL team has been free to speak since you became CEO of ECC, Josh. Thankyou.
(Also we were free to speak in practice for several years during Zooko’s tenure, but not always, and not as a core principle. I am still livid that Simon Liu was, in my view, constructively dismissed for attempting to speak freely about ASICs.)
We did not; in fact I had thought that we explicitly limited the current scope of coin-weighted voting in order to prevent it from being considered as such. ZIP 1016 (Community and Coinholder Funding Model) very intentionally limits its scope to voting on grants from the Coinholder-Controlled Fund.
[Disclosure of interest: @joshs and I are the main authors of that ZIP; Josh is the current Owner.]
ZIP 1016 is not intended to be the final word on governance, obviously, but it is currently the only document relevant to Zcash governance that mentions a role for coin-weighted voting, and it has this disclaimer under Non-Requirements:
Any changes to Zcash protocol governance, specifically what changes are made to consensus node software, are outside this proposal’s scope.
Yes. Privacy of a DEX is highly dependent on the implementations of the tokens being swapped as well as the DEX design. There is a concrete proposal from Qedit (ZIP 228 — Zcash Shielded Asset Swaps) on how to support atomic swaps between ZSAs, optionally via a matching service. We have taken that design into account when specifying ZSAs and sighash versioning, to allow it to be deployed as easily as possible after ZSAs. (If ZSA support is split into its own upgrade, as seems more likely now, shielded asset swaps might be deployed at the same time depending on a governance decision.)
That mechanism maintains as much privacy as possible even against the matching service, and it is completely atomic. No party has custody of the assets at any time, other than the intended custody of the swap participants. The result is a much smaller attack surface than any cross-chain DEX —private or not, ‘trustless’ or not— and that at least matches the attack surface of other intra-chain multi-asset DEXes.
I don’t think a Zcash Custom Asset that directly attempts to “wrap USD” is at all likely to be deployed. Maybe we will eventually see one that wraps USDC, USDT, etc. (if the regulatory environment becomes more amenable to that), but I don’t see the issuers of those tokens cooperating any time soon. And that’s fine IMHO.
See this post for a possible alternative: prices denominated in USD or whatever the parties are comfortable with, but paid in ZEC.
Roughly 10 people had the balance of coin-weighted voting power in the sentiment poll. Why is it “their” project? No other stakeholders agreed to that.
You’re right. I mainly wanted to point out that the argument of @conradoplg wasn’t good in my opinion, but then you’re right to point out that my logic wasn’t great either. My thoughts on this matter are a bit better expressed on a more recent message.
That sounds reasonable until we highlight the implicit assumption that it can only be controlled by token holders weighted by their holdings which I don’t agree by reasons already mentioned. There is a reason why plutocracy is considered a bad thing.
This is kinda of a non-sequitur because you’re talking about the dev fund but this thread is about what features will be included in NU7. Even if the dev fund is deprecated, the question remains: should rich people be able to dictate the future of Zcash?
I’m not sure where this is coming from? If this is coming from my comments, it shouldn’t, as always, I’m not speaking on behalf of ZF. In particular, for example, the ZF board endorsed the C&C
Indeed, as I mentioned above, ZIP 1016 —the only Zcash governance document that mentions coin-weighted voting at all— explicitly disclaims that protocol changes are within its scope. That’s not accidental.
Not if ZSAs could be used to collateralize ZEC. I’ve been living solely off ZEC for the past year and have had to spend it regardless of the price. It’s a tough bullet nobody seems to be willing to bite, but ZEC is much more useful as collateral than as a medium of exchange in a world that runs on inflation. I want to spend something other than my ZEC and zodl instead in that world. Isn’t zodling antithetical to transacting anyway?
Portugal and Germany have zero capital gain tax on cryptocurrencies if you hold them for more than a year. Czechia has three years. A great use case would be the ability to take a loan against ZEC and let inflation do its work. People do this with BTC because they want to hodl as much as they can, instead of having no other option but to spend. Once the price is up and the tax period has passed, they withdraw part of the collateral, pay back the loan, and unlock the rest. All tax-free, including the loan. They spend transparent stablecoins in the meantime, shorting fiat.
Sure… Let’s take more loans to sustain the morbidly obese fiat debt bubble. That’s what crypto is for, right?
The inflation / debasement trade sounds so easy and awesome, until you realize that Nvidia, a 4 trillions+ asset, is very likely to be the equivalent of 2000 Sun Microsystems on steroids. Then things get a bit more complicated and unpredictable.