NU7 Timeline and the Dev Fund Expiration

[noamchom]

There isn’t much value in dredging up all of the previously shared concerns.

Nothing really ever seems to happen in a year with Zcash, which is why I communicated concerns about the original 1-year extension, and why I’m here to share deeper concerns about another 1-year extension.

We look silly to be doing this again so soon. I don’t support any extensions because clearly they’re not effective to incentivize an ecosystem like this. I’m in support of ending the lockbox/ NDFM block subsidies (and ZCG direct subsidies along with it), as was originally communicated by the ZIP proposers whose path we’re on today.

It is unfair, possibly disrespectful, to the many community members who supported the previous Dev Fund NU, with its specific deadlines and outcomes defined - 1-year extension, ZCG/ Lockbox/ et al

Zcash will become a big mess if our disparate teams are made to debate and redeploy new Dev Fund implementations every year.

Can we finally just get subsidization behind us? The results speak for themselves, the results are thus far very poor in a crypto-industry relative sense.

As I mentioned months ago, this ecosystem cannot take on the burden of perpetual 1-year Dev Fund renewal debates/ tinkerings with % address multi-sig implementations of where the subsidy ZEC ought to be distributed.

We’ve got yet another chance to clean the slate, and completely eliminate the hazards created by ZEC ecosystem subsidization.

The funds that the NDFM will have accumulated after 1-year should be adequate to achieve its theoretical objectives. Also keep in mind that Zcash true-believer investors have the freedom to contribute ZEC into the NDFM lockbox, suppose that its liquidity begins to try up years into the future.

@Shawn

The one year period is supposed to be a maximum/worst-case scenario, ideally something would be implemented well before a year:

Moving the Dev Fund discussion forward

The problem here, just as with the “gentleman’s agreement” portion of my proposal, is that it is not enforceable. There is no means for Josh/ ECC’s mandate to certainly affect anything, despite its great ambition (an Eco DAO comprised of inputs from everyone in Zcash to be designed and built in a year; presumably without negatively impacting all of the other current roadmap deliverables for the project). This is part of the reason why I believe that this 1-year extension concept risks setti…

@Dodger

Would a one-year Dev Fund consisting of 23% of coin issuance, a declining schedule, and additional Dev Fund recipients (and, therefore, a different split to the current Dev Fund) fall within your definition of a “one-year extension”?

@noamchom

100% here too
The November Halving/ NU has been known for a very long time, I think a poor precedent would be sent by optioning a 1-year extension. Because then why not extend it another year, when all of the parties building the multi-sig grants system plea to the community that they just need one more year.

@noamchom

In the practical sense, Josh has proposed to keep the block subsidy as-is and subsequently giving it a rolling 1-year renewal option (rather than the previously expected 4-year cycle).

Building the full governance structure that is described (which I do generally support) is a 2-4 year project. I don’t believe that it is reasonable to bind a project that large into the debate about the block subsidy which has to go-live in less than 8 months.