@ProfJWVerret Personally while I’m supportive of what ZF has been able to achieve with the funds they have spent I question whether ZF need a minor/mediocre reset and think more carefully about their “north star”.
My concern is that when people question ZF around their objectives these 3 strategic objectives usually are mentioned. When I proceed to question ZF on how they are going about achieving the final objective of making Zcash smarter I get told the major obstacle ZF has is financial.
ZF currently has $16m worth of liquid assets (according to Q2 financial statement).
Given QEDIT’s massive progress towards making Zcash smarter for a mere $1.2m what has ZF done to make Zcash smarter? Why can’t/couldn’t ZF spare $1m or $2m and fund work like this to make Zcash smarter (as either internal or external development)? If @dodger wants to advocate that making Zcash smarter is a strategic objectives then ZF has to follow through with actions to make progress toward this objective. If that means they have to use some of the $16m of liquid assets they are sitting on then they should! If making Zcash smarter isn’t important enough to spend their assets on then ZF should remove it from their strategic objectives.
Presently ECC and QEDIT have visibly done far more towards achieving this object then ZF has. Having poor strategic objectives makes me question what else internally at ZF is being treated as some “hand wavy” idea without a clear path or roadmap forward. But without being privy to any of that info, especially since ZF don’t publish roadmaps, then I don’t really have a way to “hand wave” away some of @Dodger’s statement that don’t seem to match up.