Thank you to all the @ZCG_Candidates who self nominated! The nomination window is now closed and we are planning a Community Call for next week. The candidates will have an opportunity to outline their priorities and vision for Zcash, as well as answer questions from the community that are collected from the forum.
Please post the questions you would like answered in this thread and the ones with the most upvotes from the community will be prioritized.
We have scheduled the Community Call for next Tuesday, June 21, at 19:00 UTC (Noon PT, 1PM MT, 3PM ET). The Community Call will be live-streamed on the Zcash Foundation’s YouTube channel.
REMINDER! Please post the questions you would like answered in this thread and the ones with the most upvotes from the community will be prioritized.
What would you consider the top priority for the Zcash community to accelerate the adoption of ZEC?
In what ways do you see yourself being an asset to Zcash by sitting on ZCG? For example, is it through technical expertise? A strong business background? Connections? …etc.
Asking for full disclosure of Zcash holdings, and any other crypto sector holdings is important. Each individual should share a degree of transparency in that regard so their material financial interests are known prior to driving discussion and ecosystem outcomes.
What will cryptocurrencies look like in 5 years and how does Zcash stay relevant?
@noamchom I believe fairly confidently that most of the community would agree when I say “that” is out of the question
To all Candidates (@Angst01 answered already in the telegram group):
What do you see as the governance role of ZCG in a more decentralized ecosystem?
Do you think ZCG should one day be a fully independent third entity?
Material disclosure of (potential) Conflict of Interest (or lack of interest) should not be off of the table. If candidates have issue with this proposal I encourage them to speak up!
Suppose 101 Game Theory:
Comprise a decision making counsel of individuals who have no material interest in the outcome of their actions
A decision making counsel of individuals with significant material interest in the outcome of their actions
On a moderate or long timeline, where would you place your faith?
Do candidates have “Skin in the Game” is another way of phrasing it
Skin In The Game: Taleb, N. N.: 9780141982656: Books - Amazon
I would argue that showing you a stack of ZEC at a given point in time is not representative of a commitment to the project or a lack of a conflict of interest. Anyone could take their (insert coin here), swap it for ZEC, show it to you, then swap it back.
I believe we could get a better sense of the “skin in the game” of a candidate through their participation in the community (forum, Telegram, Twitter, app dev teams, campaigns, meet-ups). Time invested in the community could be our measure.
I didn’t mean to draw this down into nuance but now it seems necessary (this should have been in my original comment)
- I don’t personally need to know, nor does the general public. I think a solution should involve the existing ZCG being able to collectively review and then reaffirm Zcash and-or other asset holdings that could create conflict/lack of interest. (an example comes to mind @aiyadt for instance is supporting the Zcash X Thorchain integration - He may or may not be sitting on a large RUNE allocation, we have no idea, but it wouldn’t be unreasonable ask)
- Intangible, non-durable hours spent on a project in the past do not create material interest in the present or future
- This question should only be one among the dozens of other topics that a candidate should be evaluated to
The ZCGC ZOMG MGRC is a technical advisory committee and the ins and outs of self recusing and COIs are outlined in the ZFND Bylaws. What you propose is not acceptable regardless of how many other questions it appears alongside.
Revealing how much ZEC one has is a personal choice. Happy for people that are all in ZEC and happy for people that don’t have much.
You could be a ZEC whale and make terrible decisions for the direction of ZEC. Or you could have no ZEC and make the smartest choices in the world to help ZEC adoption. And vice versa.
Judging people off of their capabilities, personalities, experience, vision, engagement, and decisions is the best way imo. It’s pretty obvious when someone is really passionate about helping out Zcash.
The ZCGC ZOMG MGRC is a technical advisory committee and the ins and outs of self recusing and COIs are outlined in the ZFND Bylaws. -Tuna
Your feedback there regards application of existing terms after an individual has already taken the seat at the table. My suggested question regards the context before they’re invited into the room.
I’m surprised how offensive such a standard counsel membership question turned out to be for some. Conflict of interest is a real phenomena, and so is “skin in the game”
I hope that in spite of a couple people who are strongly against my suggested question for candidates, the broader community also spends time to give their opinions.
My two zats We’re all here because we care tremendously about financial privacy. Asking individuals to provide full financial disclosure of all their crypto holdings (including ZEC) goes against the very point of holding ZEC.
If individuals want to provide this information, then great, but I don’t see it as a necessity for choosing ZCG members. Everyone has different earning potential and so using ZEC holdings to determine intent doesn’t seem like the best approach to me. It might lead to classism issues too.
As David said very well above, there’s several other ways to determine intent, such as community involvement, capabilities, experience etc.
I’ll add one last point. And that’s that I think we need to assume good faith a bit more. When you treat people like they shouldn’t be trusted, you deter them from wanting to put their best foot forward.
I’m on the same page in terms of wanting ZCG & others in the ecosystem to have skin in the game, and wanting to minimize COI. At the same time, requiring a full disclosure of holdings is a bit much, and also hard (impossible?) to verify. Sure, I can prove I own something, but how could I prove I don’t own something else? Maybe we can leverage this into good candidate discussions and architect a good solution for the future.
To that end, a Q for the candidates: What mechanism/s do you think would best prevent COI and maximize incentive alignment between ZEC holders and ZEC’s institutions?
Question: Please give an example of (1) a grant proposal ZCG or ZOMG voted to approve that you would have voted to reject or (2) a grant proposal ZCG or ZOMG voted to reject that you would have voted to approve. Why do you think the committee should have made the opposite decision?
Id like to hear from all candidates:
*List your top 2 favorite movie(s)
*List your top 2 favorite musician(s)
*List your top 2 favorite Author(s)
*List your least favorite grant proposal funded and why
Sure I’d love to be more romantic about how people and business structures form, grow, live, and die under the capitalist model. For a long time I used to think that we could all be happy and share good faith efforts and it would all work out. Eli Ben Sasson wouldn’t defect and start a company that took the Zcash market, and grew into 2-3X our valuation.
To Brunches point, all that I suggest is something basic and it could be retained as proprietary to only the current ZCG members
- Are you currently holding Zcash? Is it quantifiably a lot or a little?
- Are you currently holding other crypto assets? quantifiably a lot or a little?
- Are you currently invested in crypto sector equities or anything else relevant to this sector?
If candidates decide to respond deceivingly and it is somehow leaked then so be it. What am I supposed to say when the officer asks if I typically drive faster than the speed limit?
What would be an event or conference that you would participate in to promote ZCG, what topic would you try to speak about?