Temporary re-allocation of funding among Zcash entities

[noamchom]

One long weekend from the forum has me feeling like I’ve missed an entire month’s worth of discussions!
Is there a reason why the foundation keeps 69 Bitcoin, that seems counter productive as a Zcash advocacy group. Considering that Zcash are at their all time relative low value against Bitcoin, now is as good of a time as any to make a statement of confidence in Zcash by trading those BTC in for ZEC. I’m sure that some tax obligations would be triggered by an action like that, I think the community would still rally behind the swap

@artkor

Adoption? I’ve been writing about Zcash for more than 5 years. I communicate with retail investors in ZEC and I can say that people are attracted by the position that ZEC is a promising asset that will allow them to benefit. But today, when two full crypto cycles have already passed, they do not see that this is at least a reliable asset in which they should save their money for the day when they need it. A huge number of people want to dispose of funds when they need them. And they want to be able to do it without loss.

You and I have each shared a lot of back and forth about this topic. I’m happy to see it being raised back into community awareness again. Poor Zcash price permanently damages adoption. It does so because it damages merchants who give goods or services in exchange for Zcash coins that subsequently create loss. The long term mission of Zcash cannot succeed unless the value of Zcash coins becomes a cyclical uptrend in value.

This is getting off-topic because our thread is to the question of how to allocate funding among the Zcash entities. Let me make a final redirection to this more relevant thread.

I’ll wrap up my thoughts on this thread because it seems to be getting obsoleted by the above. The crisis at hand since June 2022, and on going, is one that cannot be fixed by throwing more money at it.

It is a crisis that manifested because of a risk evaluation that never happened with regard to the potentially destructive (and cheap) attack vector of spam in the blockchain under the old fee mechanism. The money spend to resolve this crisis needed to happen a year or longer ago among the engineering teams. A risk manager was needed who could have identified the risk to the ecosystem, and then begun tracking it and planning about active mediation of the risk vectors. Obviously, none of that was happening because the engineering teams and risk managers (if they exist) where on other perceived high priority efforts. In my opinion the blockchain spam/ wallet sync crisis shouldn’t boil down to a finger pointing exercise, or a plea to double down on money allocation; it can only be viewed as an expensive learning lesson.