# Polling ZCAP on NU7 priorities

**URL:** <https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/polling-zcap-on-nu7-priorities/49766>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [December 17, 2024, 9:27pm UTC](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/polling-zcap-on-nu7-priorities/49766 "2024-12-17T21:27:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dodger](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/zcash/user_avatar/forum.zcashcommunity.com/dodger/32/3021_2.png) [@Dodger](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/u/Dodger)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2024, 12:21pm UTC](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/polling-zcap-on-nu7-priorities/49766/5 "2024-12-18T12:21:04Z")

</div>

> [@nuttycom](#):
>
> clarify as:
> 
> > 1. Zcash Shielded Assets will allow anyone to issue and transact with digital assets other than ZEC on the Zcash blockchain. Please indicate how you believe this feature should be prioritized. (approval, select between 0 and 1 answers, result type absolute.)

Question amended.

> [@nuttycom](#):
>
> With the deprecation of the `zcashd` wallet, it will no longer be possible to spend ZEC held in the Sprout shielded pool irrespective of ZIP 2003; there will simply be no code that enables it that is usable with NU7 _ **unless someone decides to go write some** _.

But (absent ZIP 2003) it will still be _ **possible** _ for someone to write some code that enables the creation of V4 transactions, correct?

> [@daira](#):
>
> The poll should link to the ZIP Editors’ assessment of the proposed ZIPs.

There is a link in the sentence _“A number of [consensus and protocol changes](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zip-editors-nu7-zip-viability-assessment/49553) have been been proposed for NU7…”_

> [@daira](#):
>
> Question 4 should say “burn part of the ZSA issuance fees”.

I’m strictly distinguishing between the issuance fee versus (to quote @nuttycom), [the fee for the Orchard actions in the transaction that provide the funds to pay for the issuance fees will still pay normal transfer fees](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/network-sustainability-mechanism-nsm/42703/244).

> [@daira](#):
>
> It should be made clear that the change described in question 4 depends on including ZIP 233, as do ZIPs 234 and 235.

Questions amended.

> [@daira](#):
>
> It should be made clear that ZIP 234 is not the only possible way to reintroduce funds burnt by ZIP 233, and that it would be coherent to activate ZIPs 233 and 234 (or an alternative to 234) without ever activating ZIP 235. (The current description incorrectly implies that accepting some of the NSM ZIPs will inevitably lead to accepting the others eventually.)

Can you suggest a relevant text change(s) for this, bearing in mind that the character “budget” for the poll description is 4,000 (including HTML tags), and the current character count is 3,902?

> [@daira](#):
>
> Question 9 should mention the motivation of ZIP 2003: reducing the attack surface and complexity of the protocol and simplifying transaction validation.

Question amended.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/polling-zcap-on-nu7-priorities/49766)._