@Mikerah, this is a great question. Some guidance and constraints are given by the Dev Fund ZIP, but truth be told, much of it is up to discussion and ultimately the Major Grants committee. My personal view is precisely what ZIP 1014 (as voted on) says:
-
Both Major Grants and the ZF (“Minor”?) Grants have very wide scope, based on ZF’s mission and values. However:
-
Major Grants are restricted to furthering of the Zcash cryptocurrency and its ecosystem (which is more specific than furthering financial privacy in general).
-
Priority to Major Grants that bolster teams with substantial (current or prospective) continual existence, and set them up for long-term success, subject to the usual grant award considerations (impact, ability, risks, team, cost-effectiveness, etc.).
-
Priority to to Major Grants that support ecosystem growth through mentorship, coaching, technical resources, creating entrepreneurial opportunities, etc.
-
Major Grants are expected to have a long duration.
-
By implication from 3+4+5: large size. At current coin price, I would expect a handful (maybe 2–4) Major Grants at a time, to avoid stretching too thin.
-
There’s indeed overlap between the two types of grants, and ZIP 1014 acknowleges this and attempts to minimize friction and duplication:
From grant proposers’ side, proposals for such grants SHALL be submitted through ZF’s usual grant process, allowing for public discussion and public funding. It is intended that small one-time grants will be funded by drawing on the ZF-GU slice (where they also compete with other ZF activities), whereas large or long-duration grants will be funded from the dedicated ZF-MG slice; though this is at ZF’s discretion (e.g. if there are no Major Grant applications the ZF may opt to direct the ZF-MG to smaller grants).
Today’s revision removed points 1 and 7, so I’m slightly less sure about the answer… But I think the changes are meant to just give the MG committee more leeway in the same spirit.