Should ZF and ECC communicate to the community more clearer about their future plans, goals and objectives?
What can we learn about how Qedit and Zcash Media came into the ecosystem to participate to encourage more top-quality orgs to lean in?
Whats the panels view on orchard being BOSL vs not going MIT like the rest of the code including HALO?
Should zcash become like bitcoin i.e. leaderless that allows for decentralized leaders or like Ethereum that only has one defining leader?
Does the panel think that the current structure of Zcash, ECC being operated as company owned by bootstrap sharing governance by ZF advised by ZCAP is an optimal way to structure it?
My unverified sense of the ZCAP is that most people on it (the ones i know personally at least) are not actively building or participating in Zcash (beyond just commenting, even if extensively, on forums). IMO Hodling does not count as active participation. This is in contrast with other programmable blockchains or appchains, where the people opining on and voting on decisions/grants are also those who are building, staking, etc in those ecosystems.
- is this personal assessment wrong? what is a more accurate view?
- how do we fix or improve this, while acknowledging we are not a programmable blockchain and so have natural limitations on the number of people building on/participating in our ecosystem?
Doesn’t the Zcash Foundation prioritizing its U.S. Tax code categorization as the narrative frame that dictates its behavior mean that it is prioritzing the interest of US government?
Is that really the moral frame that the ZF wants to stake their authority on? What about the rest of the population of the planet? Or that is… the interests of other entities?
Adi runs nighthawk wallet and @BrunchTime runs zecpages.
Edit: I’ve got a reading problem today. Thought this read ZCG. Too many Z-* acronyms…
I’m on the ZCAP, and know other ZCAPers who are intent on becoming more active, inasmuch as that’s possible.
On the panel @zooko asserted ZEC hodlers pay for the Dev Fund, and @Dodger responded that he believes ZEC hodlers do not pay for the Dev Fund, because the supply cap and schedule is fully known.
Who pays for the Dev Fund? Where does the money come from?
Is the Zcash network a public good when it requires ZEC to pay for sending ZEC?
Why does Peter conclude that the ability to create a receiving address and get paid in ZEC is a free operation, is because the US government tax code has enforced that freedom?
Isn’t it in the interest of those who wish to pay in zcash to ease receipt?
building world class technology shouldnt be about vibes …
IMHO, the money comes from investors’ net conversion of fiat to ZEC. (Not from them holding ZEC, important as that is.)
ZEC holders pay in the context that their ZEC are perpetually diluted (value subtracted)
but the explicit payors are whoever takes up the Bid side of the market trade where Dev Fund ZEC are liquidated into fiat
Point me to where I said that? I’ll wait…
This analysis doesn’t seem to take into account the high number of variables that influence “value”.
A different analysis which does include all relevant variables because it’s based on “value” is this:
ZEC holders _pay_ because based on their subjective assessment of value, they forgo other options, in order to hold ZEC.
In other words, the Zodler is paying an opportunity cost.
In my context, value is the material/ tangible market rate of ZEC. Value is a function of what a person spent to acquire their X amount of coins, vs time. By default the value of those X coins is diluted over time as function of the emission schedule. I understand your suggestion that some others may try and factor in non-material/ intangible value-like traits that come along with their ZEC. That kind of approach is not conventional and introduces massive risks of subjectivity bias, conflict of interest, misperceptions, et al.
(Aside: did something wacky happen to the forum notifications? I’ve been hit this afternoon with a whole slew of +month old notifications)