Polling Closed: Coinholder-Directed Retroactive Grants Program (Q4 Round)

Community Grants Retroactive Grants
38

Thank you for considering CrowdStore.

Just to clarify, CrowdStore is not just a regular ecommerce platform, it is a peer-to-peer ecommerce platform, that has significant consequences.

I will repeat what I wrote in another thread:

A peer-to-peer marketplace like CrowdStore has tremendous potential in my opinion - comparable to Napster in the late 1990s or BitTorrent in the early 2000s. Being able to buy and sell stuff without asking anyone for permission aligns closely with Zcash’s emphasis on privacy and user autonomy, and adds users a tool to actually use Zcash.

I understand the grant program as a way to compensate developers for the work they did (several years of work in this case), in order to make zcash more useful. But if you feel like the program is meant to rather evaluate project’s popularity, CrowdStore may not meet that criterion yet because it is new. It can become popular much faster with sufficient funding though, and that’s the reason I submitted the application.

Have a nice day :slight_smile:

39

I vote for results not work.

1 Like
40

Fair enough, you’ll have to wait then :slight_smile:

1 Like
41

Looking forward to that!

1 Like
42

A structured view on the Q4 retroactive grant slate

Retroactive grants only work when they reward delivered work that can be verified today. Evaluation should stay objective and based on artifacts, not narratives.

I use a simple three-part test for every retro proposal.

Impact
What changed for shielded users, wallets, nodes, or core infrastructure. Only measurable improvements count.

Clarity
Can an independent reviewer confirm the work from public repositories, releases, and on-chain data. If this is not possible, the case for a retro grant is weak.

Alignment
Does the work advance privacy, resilience, or self-custody. Work that does not move the mission forward is a poor fit for retroactive funding.

I am reviewing the Q4 retro slate using this structure. If anything is notably strong or notably weak under these criteria, I may add a short note.

If there is a proposal you think deserves closer attention, mention it here. I will look at it with the same criteria.

ShieldOrder

2 Likes
43

It seems that most users on this forum expect coinholders to approve funding for projects that deliver only measurable results or impact.

I was curious about the evaluation terms, since they affect my application as well (CrowdStore P2P marketplace), and I had probably a different understanding than many other people on this forum. I reviewed the ZIPs and would like to share what I found, to get your feedback.

ZIP 1016 (Community and coinholder funding model) states this: Coinholders SHOULD take account of the same factors considered by the ZCG Committee (described in points 2, 3, and 4 of [7]) in deciding whether to fund a grant. The [7] is a link to ZIP 1015, section Zcash Community Grants (ZCG), and the mentioned paragraphs talk about reasonable market-rate costs, priority for teams with substantial continual existence, and restriction of funding only for projects which enhance the Zcash cryptocurrency and its ecosystem. They also state that grants are subject to the usual grant award considerations: impact, ability, risks, team, cost-effectiveness, and similar factors.

From this, I see requirements for standard grant considerations, but I do not see any requirement for measurable results. Metrics such as user base or usage are certainly helpful, but in many cases it may be IMHO difficult or even impossible to measure the real impact of a project. In addition, if I understand correctly, Zcash Community Grants funded projects that were to be completed in the future, meaning that the considerations for impact, ability, risks, and other factors were always evaluated based on expected potential rather than demonstrated real-world impact.

In my opinion, in summary, the ZIPs point toward evaluating proposals using standard grant criteria, not strict requirements for already demonstrated, quantifiable outcomes. Forward-looking assessments appear to be an intended part of the process, and projects without existing traction can still be validly considered if their rationale, feasibility, and prospective impact are strong.

If we judge the measurable impact of my project (CrowdStore p2p marketplace), approval is difficult to justify because the project is new. However, if we evaluate the potential future impact assuming the project gains traction, then the proposal should be assessed on the strength of its concept, its feasibility, and the scale of the benefits it could deliver as adoption grows.

I am open to discussing this further and hearing additional perspectives.

Thank you

44

The Coinholder Grants Program is retroactive and coinholders are asked to evaluate work that has already been completed and can be verified. In a retroactive model, reviewers generally focus on what was actually delivered, the quality of the work, and the contribution it made rather than on projected future impact.

There is no rule preventing coinholders from considering future impact, but in practice decisions tend to rely on concrete, completed work because retroactive programs are designed to reward what has already been delivered. That doesn’t require strict usage metrics, but it does help when applicants can point to completed work that shows clear value to the ecosystem, since that makes it easier for coinholders to make fair and informed decisions.

Having said that, coinholders ultimately have full discretion in how they vote and can weigh factors differently based on their own judgment.

4 Likes
45

NozyWallet will be a user-friendly wallet as well working on frontend development now.

46

I will be voting based on existing accomplishments and results for these retroactive of grants.

I also start with the default assumption that every grant proposal as an attempt to scam token holders until evidence to the contrary is provided.

Suggest updating your proposal for clarity.

1 Like
47

Token holders can vote on retroactive grants however they like. The voters have no mandate to spend any of the grant fund at all.

Potential grantees are asking for other people to give them money, so the onus is on the grant seeker to convince token holders that their grant is worthy of giving away their funds.

There are no requirements for seeking grants because there is no guarantee of receiving a grant. You are not entitled to a grant just because you have done something. You need to be convincing that it is worthwhile.

You are free to ask voters to consider the potential future impact of your project, its really up to each voter to decide whether or not to take that into account. But when you do so you are basically asking token holders to make a venture style investment in your project, so you may want to include all the materials that a venture investor would ask for.

One last note: many voters are not commenting here at all. They may not even read your proposal and may just look at the title and the amount. Some of they may read it and be as critical or more critical than I am. They will vote ‘no’ and never tell you why. I hope my critical feedback help you use your time and resources more effectively.

1 Like
48

This is the part which seems to be most misunderstood in my opinion.

It’s NOT their funds at all.

It’s in fact taxation of miners, not coinholders.

49

All the funds come from the token holders who have somehow put their resources into acquiring ZEC. Either by purchasing it or by mining. The fact that the lockbox takes from the mining reward is a technicality.

4 Likes
50

Mining rewards are a tax on coin holders. Miners get paid when they prove they have done the work that was pre-approved by the coin holders.

51

I am afraid I don’t understand it.

I was mining zcash using 98 graphics cards many years back in my garage (that provided heating for our entire house during two winter seasons :slight_smile:), and I also purchase Zcash on various exchanges. So I am a miner and a coinholder. As far as I know, I was taxed only when I was mining.

Edit: I will expand on this.

When I am in a position of a “coinholder”, I pay a price and I get the ZEC which I’ve paid for, for example on an exchange. These coins are after tax, so as a coinholder I contributed nothing to the lockbox.

When I am in a position of a miner, I pay 20% (former founders reward, then dev fund, now lockbox). As a miner, I earn 20% less due to the “tax”.

I will be happy if you correct me if I am wrong :slight_smile:

52
  • All inflation is a tax on existing coin holders. Value is defined at the coin, making more coin dilutes that value. Therefore it is a tax.
  • Taxing coin holders to pay miners increases coin value. Therefore it is a worthy tax. The mining group and the coin holding group indirectly negotiate the amount required to provide service.
  • Miners are not entitled to receive a consistent rate, but it is in the best interest of the coin holders to make that rate predictable.
  • Zcash negotiated a rate change with miners previously and it was accepted by miners. There is no tax, it was a re-negotiation and it is working as evidenced by the fact that it is a free market and miners continue to mine.
  • As a result of the negotiation, the inflation tax budget was reallocated to the dev fund. Now we are discussing how to properly allocate that budget.
  • One option is to just eliminate the dev fund and lower the inflation tax entirely.
2 Likes
53

Thank you for your feedback. To better address your concerns, could you please be more specific about what exactly raises red flags or feels unclear in the proposal? I’m happy to clarify any points and provide additional context or evidence where needed.

A quick note on where we stand Yes! Nozy is still under active development the foundation is complete, Orchard support, in-wallet bridging, wallet generating seed etc., but the wallet is not “finished” yet. That’s precisely why I’m requesting this retroactive grant; the funds will allow me to keep working full-time on delivering the final implantations. I have purchase 2k in computer software to work and build on Zcash and I’m still not fully operational just to throw that out there.

For the record: Nozy is built from the ground up as a true cypherpunk project privacy-first, fully non-custodial, open-source, and designed to push Zcash shielded ecosystem forward in ways that align directly with the original Zcash mission of private, peer-to-peer electronic cash for everyone. We’re not just talking about ideals; we’ve already shipped concrete results that advance that vision.As you mentioned, you’ll be voting based on existing accomplishments and results for these retroactive grants, and you start with the default assumption that every proposal is an attempt to scam token holders until proven otherwise that’s a healthy and respectable stance. I share the same skepticism toward most proposals. That’s why I encourage you to judge Nozy strictly on the public, verifiable track record we’ve already established rather than on promises alone. If anything in the current write-up still feels vague or insufficiently backed by evidence, please point it out, and I’ll update the proposal immediately for maximum clarity and transparency.

Looking forward to your specific feedback.

2 Likes
Nozy wallet Retroactive Grant
54

It would be nice to keep this thread for questions unrelated to specific grants. We do have threads for each grant.

4 Likes
55

Another update:

Q1:   election 1   ballots: 33
Q2:   election 4   ballots: 17
Q3:   election 9   ballots: 36
Q4:   election 6   ballots: 15
Q5:   election 2   ballots: 12
Q6:   election 5   ballots: 13
Q7:   election 3   ballots: 10
Q8:   election 8   ballots: 11
Q9:   election 7   ballots: 23

Total ballots so far: 170

2 Likes
56

Why is this thread no longer pinned? Poll is not finished yet and we don’t have the results.

2 Likes