To the Zcash Community Grants Committee,
I am writing to formally request specific, substantive feedback regarding the decision to decline my grant application, “Pure Go Zero-Dependency Zcash Transaction Blob Parser” (#352). While I acknowledge the committee’s prerogative to make funding decisions, the generic rejection notice I received provides no actionable insight into the decision-making process.
My application detailed a clear and significant problem: the current state of transaction parsing in the Zcash Go ecosystem is fragmented, relies on incomplete or non-portable implementations, and creates a recurring cost for every Go-based project. It proposed a practical, low-risk solution with a demonstrable deliverable, backed by a proven track record with the go-monblob library. The proposal was specific, costed, and time-bound.
Given this context, I find the lack of specific feedback perplexing. Without understanding the substantive reasons for the rejection—whether they relate to technical approach, perceived impact, strategic priorities, or other factors—it is impossible to improve future applications. Furthermore, a vague rejection contradicts the principle of a transparent and merit-based grant process, which I understand is a goal of ZCG.
I have observed that other applications, including some that appear less defined or focused, have received funding. This raises a natural and fair question: what specific criteria were applied in this case that led to a different outcome?
I am not seeking to reverse the decision. I am seeking clarity. A detailed explanation would provide a valuable learning opportunity and would help assure the broader community that the process is indeed based on clear and consistently applied standards. I look forward to your specific and constructive feedback.
Sincerely,
Jones Miller (cexpepe)