In order for the Zcash ecosystem to be as strong as possible, I propose that moving forward, the Community Grants Committee should implement this policy:
When a Zcash Community Grants committee member has ever either
contributed to a project’s repository, or
been paid to work on a project
Then that committee member has a conflict of interest regarding that project, and should recuse themselves from any decisions regarding it.
The recusal should occur in two ways:
the committee member with the conflict of interest shall not participate in any vote regarding that project
the committee member with the conflict of interest shall not participate in any closed room grant committee conversation regarding that project
Structurally, this is how the recusal should occur:
During the bimonthly community grants committee meetings, when it is time to discuss and/or vote for any project for which a committee member has a conflict of interest, that committee member shall leave the meeting before the discussion starts, and not return until the rest of the committee has finished both the discussion of that project as well as the vote for it.
ZCG members sign an annual conflict of interest declaration. As part of this declaration the committee members agree to recuse themselves from any discussion that constitutes a conflict of interest. The document states there is a COI if a committee member has a financial interest in common with the grantee:
A person has a financial interest if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment, or family:
An ownership or investment interest in any entity with which the Organization has a transaction or arrangement,
A compensation arrangement with the Organization or with any entity or individual with which the Organization has a transaction or arrangement, or
A potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the Organization is negotiating a transaction or arrangement.
Contributing code to a project’s repository does not constitute a conflict of interest. However, if the committee member disclosed a financial interest in the applicant then yes, they would not be present for discussion or voting on the application.
Ah, thank you for saying this! You’ve just gotten to the heart of the problem that I have been working on for the last two years. Under normal circumstances, yes, one would think that someone having contributed to a project’s repository would not constitute a conflict of interest.
I’m about to say something, and I’m going to say it very plainly, but first I’m gonna take some time to think about exactly how I’m gonna say it.
It seems strange to me that this issue was raised, but since you believe there was a conflict of interest on my part, I feel it is appropriate to respond clearly.
I do not believe a conflict existed. I did not contribute to the core code of the plugin, nor did I receive any compensation for preparing or publishing deployment instructions. My involvement was limited to documentation and community-facing guidance, which I have provided for many years across the Zcash ecosystem, long before the current grant structures even existed.
I understand that it may seem unusual when someone contributes without financial incentive. However, this has been my consistent approach over the years, and it does not change based on my role or position.
That said, to avoid any possible misinterpretation going forward, I will recuse myself from further discussion of this specific proposal. I regret this somewhat, as I have generally been an advocate for proposals that strengthen Zcash-based payment infrastructure, but clarity and trust in the process are more important here.
Entities an Individuals may have a conflict of Interest policy, even sign a conflict of interest agreement. However, the art of avoiding the appearance of any conflict of interest is much more challenging. Let’s help each other by providing a real world example, In October, the Financial Privacy Foundation renewed its service contract with the Zcash Community Grants. In all the ZCG meeting minutes the Note Taker is a member of FPF. However, there are no ZCG meeting minutes which show any discussion or debate or value of this renewed FPF service contract. More important, there are no RECUSE of the FPF note taker from the renewal of the service contract.
Let’s shine light on setting the standard of when to recuse. How about each current member of ZCG and the FPF note taker communicate when did the discussion occur for FPF contract renewal and how did FPF recuse themselves from this meeting to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest?
So it’s a self-imposed system? Are there any audits or enforcement/consequences if this is violated?
At the moment, it just seems like members self-certify. People sign declarations all the time. Basically, it’s just reliant on ‘trusted individuals’?
In an environment such as this, a crypto project with little regulation, meaning almost non-existent legal repercussions, it’s a recipe for exploitation/corruption.
Nevertheless, it is a legally binding document. And when I sign it, I am fully aware of the responsibility I bear if I attempt to violate it. Personally, I would not take this lightly.
Hey @Jimmy_Z yes it’s a self-imposed system, the same as every grant review committee that we’ve researched. If a member was conclusively found to have omitted information and then voted inappropriately we would notify the community, terminate their independent contractor agreement, and select the candidate that received the next most votes in the last election to fill their seat.
What alternative to self-certification do you suggest?
This is incorrect. FPF is a Cayman Islands incorporated organization subject to CI laws. If a ZCG member violated any of those laws then there absolutely would be repercussions (not specific to COI, in general). While crypto regulation might vary by jurisdiction the orgs that work in this environment are highly regulated and under a microscope.
For the record I am not commenting to target any individual. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of @artkor, but I’m more focused on the system/structure. Because humans are ultimately driven by incentives, if you have a system that can easily be exploited but relies on good behaviour it’s a matter of when NOT if it will be abused.
A solution that was suggested by other members which I think makes logical sense, is having the ZCG panel a hybrid with some members voted in by ZCAP as it currently stands and some members elected in by token holder voting.
This helps allievate symbiotic nature between ZCG and ZCAP where grantees get automatic voting rights.
I hear you that you regret the need to recuse yourself in this instance. I understand that. I personally also regret the decision to recuse myself and my team from doing further development work on the btcpay module after we review it again. I know my team does good work and that we’d be a good fit for its future development. But I made the decision anyway because I realized that structurally, it doesn’t set the right precedent unless we recuse.
The team that reviews it shouldn’t be the team that builds it. Even if I know that I am approaching this with integrity (which I am !), and even if I can convince everyone that I am approaching this with integrity, I still have a structural conflict of interest.
In the same way, someone who builds it shouldn’t make the decision about whether it gets reviewed.
I know it’s more of a gray area for you @artkor because you’ve only contributed to the documentation for the module. However, lack of proper documentation was one of the original bullet point critiques in our 2022 analysis of the module. So our proposed review will include a direct assessment of your work.
Okay. All that being said, here’s my updated proposal based on my updated understanding of the situation:
I propose that the definition of Conflict Of Interest be expanded to include the situation where someone has contributed to a project and then is in the position of discussing & voting on decisions regarding that project.[I’m sure there’s a more articulate legal way to phrase this, but I’m hoping someone else can take it from here.]
@1337bytes roping in your contribution to this discussion:
I think I’ve explained my opinion on the conflict of interest in my comment above.
I absolutely agree with you that people who have worked on a project should still contribute to the discussion around future grant proposals regarding that project. I do think that the right place for that is in the public forum.
I disagree. This would discourage grant committee members from being active open-source contributors; the main aim of being transparent around Conflict of Interests and withholding from discussions/votes upon one being declared is to avoid unfair financial motives.
This would not help the ecosystem be as strong as possible:
… when a Zcash Community Grants committee member has ever .. contributed to a project’s repository … that committee member has a conflict of interest
Think about it. If this was the case, a ZCG member would not be able to contribute code or commit documentation to any project and be able to take part in a funding decision for that project, ever again.
Code (and documentation, etc, hereafter I’ll just say code) is like speech, and it usually signifies thought, effort and time. Hopefully also, but not always, understanding! Contributing is like a credit. One way we know who is serious and might understand some things within the ecosystem is by this credit.
I might rightly want ZCG candidates to have contributed to every possible aspect of the ecosystem. They might then understand how things work, what strengths and weaknesses each project and team has, some notion of their work culture, and so on.
More, our open source movement is based around free speech and free association. This proposal could create a reason for people to not contribute. Even without payment, when and how they may want to. It would reduce their future political power (mild as I feel this is with as a ZCG member) while the ecosystem runs on and advances with contributions.
At the least, this proposal is overbroad and I don’t think very well thought through.
@aaal I hear that. I’m nodding my head. You paint a picture of a beautiful, idyllic, open source world. The way we wanted this ecosystem to be. My proposal limits the possibilities for that world’s existence.
I’m speaking here from a state of curiosity and brainstorming:
In your vision, how do you deal with people who don’t have Zcash’s best interests at heart? How do you deal with people who, on some spectrum from incompetence to greed to malice, get a hold of one corner of the ecosystem, build it so badly that it doesn’t function, then try to hide the fact that it doesn’t function, then try to vote to keep it nonfunctional?
I’ve been thinking about this all morning and I think the mistake in my reasoning is that I’ve been working from the assumption that a Project Review is something that has to get proposed to the grant committee for a vote.
When actually, it would make a lot more sense for independent project reviews to just be standard practice. This sort of thing shouldn’t require a vote. It should just always happen.
So I’m going to modify my position and say this:
In this particular situation where I’m in the weird position of having to submit a proposal to the grant committee to review the work of grant committee members, it still makes sense for @artkor and @hanh to recuse themselves from this vote.
But moving forward, the better long term solution is for independent project reviews to become a standard and non-negotiable part of the ecosystem.
