Indeed. Initially this post was evidently about changing the 21M cap. Given I gave clear directions of the aim of this post, I have initially flagged a few off-topic messages.
Then I went offline for a while and being back now, I realize maybe the thread is a better honey pot to catch users that cannot be respectful in the community.
Should we be doing anything wrong, why anyone in their right mind bother themselves to convince us we are doing something wrong if some loud members of the community cannot display any respect?
As much as I love token voting, as much as it is critical for proper basic governance of the project and long term antifragility, it would be misguided to implement it before diverging opinions can safely express themselves.
@joshs@Dodger@decentralistdan Regardless of what you think of this topic as it was intended, I hope you can concur we have a problem that would benefit from being addressed.
currently zcash is facing other problems that need all of our focus, letâs work on things that we can actually change for better and stop making headlines on a topic thatâs literally generations away!
There is no precedent that any of the rest of us can see, to suggest that the ecosystem is even hypothesizing about changing Zcashâs 21 million coin supply cap. That entire topic has been the actions from one user who has been repeating theirself across different threads. Guilty as charged myself also Re: ECC/ ZF as shadow hedge funds
You certainly caused an entire day of unrest on the forum.
As many others have already summarized, there are hundreds of more immediate problems needing attention, so there is no value gained by speculating about a possible boogeyman who might haunt Zcash in the year 2140 once the coin issuance has approached zero.
Please do not:
Create topics or replies for the sole purpose of causing unrest on the forum
I think where it started to go off the rails is @joshs said its a âcommunityâ decision. So that means to the less educated (that would be me) that it could be changed anytime. A simple message from leadership:
We hold the 21m cap and halving schedule as sacred, it will never happen under my watch, it wont ever come up for vote. But if it did, it would be a very very high bar, if at all and certainly not until we have ZEC holder voting and a more well defined governance system in place."
I think part of the issue here is poor framing of the initial post.
Basically the intent seems to be: âonly post positive things about X topic in this thread!â which means it leaves no place for the opposite opinion to be heard unless you also make another thread saying: âonly post negative things about X topic in this threadâ
IMHO if you are going to be brave enough to play host to a thread on a contentious topic then you need to be ready to hear both sides of the argument. Flagging everyone as off-topic only serves to aggravate people who feel their opposing opinions are not being heard.
If people in a normal âboth sides of X topicâ thread get off-topic or break the forums CoC then thatâs what flags are for. I do agree that there needs be a more respectful discourse on this forum in general than we have currently.
(Also, it would have probably helped if you gave the mod team a heads up before you attempted this, I would have advised against it if I was still a mod.)
i read the history of Jelly, he was bringing that idea for months, i donât understand why it bothers him so muchâŚ
Jelly sorry if i offense you, but the Forum let you know few times already that its not negotiable. you created 3 or more topics about this.
here is one example
"
Is the economic issuance of Zcash part of the social contract?
I feel like most of the panel, and probably a good part of the community, has some kind of narrow view on this; maybe a case of groupthink? Who cares how many Zcash tokens there are, seriously. I could be wrong, but it seems pretty obvious that the motivation behind this thinking is some kind of reassurance we get from the idea that it worked for bitcoin, and after all, limited supply implies that the value will have no choice but to go up as demand increases. Have you ever heard of growing the pie?
The number of tokens is just a variable that we should discuss like any other. There is no sacred number as far as Iâm concerned. Obviously, old and new investors in Zcash want to see the value of their investment increase, which is perfectly fair and should of course be taken into serious consideration. Now, if we had an economic rationale that would explain to these investors why doubling the maximum number of tokens to 42M would have the best chance of bringing success to Zcash, Iâm pretty sure youâd at least get their attention, and possibly their support. Today there is no such reason, but we shouldnât limit our options without a good reason. Itâs just cringeworthy to hear this from this panel of otherwise smart people.
"
you also did that trick:
you brought a quote from another topic about privacy, and acted like it was about the supply topic
The intent is therefore simply to see how âit may be beneficial to change itâ, and how this could happen. Indeed, itâs not about whether to change it or not. And thatâs a perfectly reasonable thread subject. That is, in a well moderated and/or educated community.
Honestly I love this thread for how it proves my point that we have a clear problem. Not on the 21M cap, but on the tyranny of the minority.
So they won, and I lose. Good job lads, Iâm probably going to spend a bit less time around here.
@Dodger@decentralistdan sorry but if thatâs not clear to you, thereâs a moderation failure on this forum. @joshs I think your only post here could have had a bit more bite to it; missed opportunity imo.
we all know the different tokenomics in the ecosystem, Cosmos, Eth, Avax, Algorand, Mina, Polkadot, Cardano, Dash, etcâŚ
you really think that you can bring some new idea to the âuneducated forum usersâ lmao
we know what your idea is⌠print ZEC, attract thousands of developers and stakers, change the world and save the unbanked Africa.
but printing coins will not do it, it will just give air for some time, then another printing will be needed.
Now if we can only codify this foundational 21m cap and the existing halving schedule. Reliance on consensus, or community voting, etc is not enough. Its our coins anyone who would even consider to alter would be voting on diluting. And dilution only benefits the people who are selling them or the ones who get the proceeds, it doesnât help the existing holders. The 21m cap should be impossible (or as close to impossible as we can get) to change beyond simple majority voting or consensus. We can put this to bed permanently.
Iâm a zcash maximalist, I really like the currency and I donât intend to sell it. What attracted me to the currency was all the sophisticated technology, the privacy, especially the 21 million limit, before I started buying zcash I took the 21 million limit into consideration, if it werenât for that I wouldnât have bought it.
Have you seen the proposal to change the halving schedule? Its been a while since I looked at it; but my recollection is the proposal will increase the coin issuance higher than we otherwise would get from the existing halving schedule. Now, that doesnât change the 21m; but it does increase coin supply compared to the existing halving scheme.
Then, sounds like we are in agreement. I just dont want to rely on the code. I want the governance or voting requirements to also be consistent with what you say is in the code.
There could indeed be a trading fee rule, something that helps finance future network validators (POS), rewarding those who want to keep the network running, as well as the community, the ECC, the fee distribution policy, making have self-financing (this has to be well thought out so as not to discourage validators and also not to burden coin holders with abusive fees)
I donât think this is such a good idea. ZEC would become more like Doge or Shiba and be more subject to pump and dump scams. That is one good thing about ZEC is that it hasnât had much of any of this since it was created. It is a more honest project.
There was actually discussion earlier about lowering the cap to make it as scarce as BTC. I thought that would be a better idea, but it would look like the long-term holders did it to increase the value of their ZEC and thus shady.
@SexDrugsAndZcash thank you for systematizing these topics. Everything is clear to me now. Another Monero troll has been detected.
They have been acting sophisticated for about two years now. They infiltrate the community, disguise themselves, get into common talking points, and after a while draft these destructive topics.
Weâve seen it in tweets from âFunTokenomicsâ and his many masks, now I see it here on the forum. Iâd like to be wrong, but Iâm certainly not. Because thereâs no rational reason to write that the number of tokens doesnât matter, except when someone a proponent of a blockchain with unlimited issuance and task trying to bring main competitor to a common denominator.
Sure. After all, we all realize that this is just a merciful start caused by the current emissions ratio.
By the way, Iâm not referring to you, of course. I thanked you for bringing different topics together with a common thesis, it gives me a basis for my assumptions about the person who started it.
