@_jon What’s the blocker on Vanilla Swap deployment?
1 Like
If you still want work on getting stablecoins on Zcash you should be researching how to create the most secure possible bridge to Ethereum so we can bridge DAI and Ethena USDe. Bridging stablecoins is the only realistic way to get stablecoins on Zcash imo.
3 Likes
The ZCG has done incredible work under tight constraints.
I don’t believe the ZCG bears any of the blame. It is not feasible for our community to expect them to vet deep technical details that might be nefarious. We as a community share a responsibility to support that work.
Why didn’t the protocol engineers who were aware of the issues reach out to the ZCG?
The onus must be on those who are aware.
6 Likes
i’m disappointed with the result, but I join you on the fact ZCG’s work and process was diligent, with month of discussions, reading the forums, with an eye on ZEC price, etc.
on a technical level, i recognize QEDIT would have needed to work harder for a secure design at the high standard of zcash protocol. i’m sorry our initial shot was so crudely formed. with the lack of interest for the verified encryption capability and no funding for the research, this direction is abandoned for now.
at QEDIT we believed there’s a space in the community for these “hard topics” and that ZCG would be the diverse source funding of the research of that. i’m obviously reading the backlash and hope we’ll figure out a better angle of work, on all the topics to make zcash robust.
13 Likes
I believe that everyone is very excited about e.g. Mint-And-Burn.
1 Like
Again, as I said above, my understanding up until yesterday was that there was collaboration to address those concerns. I, too, would not be happy going forward with something if I thought Daira thought it was completely unredeemable.
Until we have audited code that does coin holder voting (which I consider a top priority), that’s simply not feasible.
4 Likes
I was pretty pointedly questioning the ZCG here. I was not sensitive to the full impact of my words. I apologize if I hurt anyone’s feelings. It’s not possible for the ZCG to master all topics, and not reasonable to expect them to do so. Deep technical experts need to develop the practice of reaching out to the ZCG directly.
3 Likes
Not to mention that coin holder voting should only be taken with a grain of salt, until all ZEC holders can vote (transparent, and/or vintage pools… not just Orchard ZEC)
4 Likes
Considering that the coin holder poll gave results similar to the other polls… it’s evidence that the community and holders are aligned
3 Likes
That is a massive stretch, especially considering the outcome control by one or a few whales in contact with Zooko.
460k ZEC voted (400k represented the whale(s)), but 15 million coins are in circulation. Deriving any conclusion from just a tiny fraction of total ZEC is quite a risk.
I wouldn’t even contemplate taking coin holder voting seriously until at least half of the ZEC in circulation were represented.
I’m thinking quite generically about what a reasonable watermark could be. Haven’t dove into the history of voting/ governance philosophy.
In the EU, they seem to be able to hit 50% or so most of the time.
1 Like
It is…? It’s certainly not enough to assert that both are aligned, but it’s certainly evidence that they are.
(I gotta say that I was slightly amused it matched so closely, when there was a lot of narrative that coin holders weren’t being heard and they had some mystical insight that the rest of the community lacked.)
But yeah, of course, we’d need more participation to affirm either way.
3 Likes
If I had to take a wild guess, I’d suggest here is what explains the amusing alignment of coin holder votes, compared to all of the other polling outcomes.
The guess: the vast majority of coin voters, had also already participated in the other polling events. Which would create conforming outcomes, despite different polling mechanisms.
1 Like
I’ve said before on the forum that I believe I’m one of the staunchest supporters of coin holder voting in the community. I’ve consistently advocated for it and mentioned it as my current top priority (for months) on the committee, and as I’ve also said on this forum, I think it should ultimately be the basis of all major decisions. I’m also the person who (anonymously) said this explicitly in the comments section of the recent Zure poll.
I’m basically about as much a coin holder voting maximalist as there is, along with @BrunchTime , if I understand correctly. And I’m supporting it not just by chatting here but with votes that count in governance. So I really don’t appreciate this BS uninformed opinion on my stances.
But!
This is not at all inconsistent with another position I also take, which is that I will not advocate for people to use software that is not audited and not open source. That’s completely against my principles, and I’m actually somewhat horrified that @hanh has not only suggested that we do this but moreover that he won’t release the code because he thinks he might not get paid for it if he releases it before it’s approved. I’m really disappointed about that attitude.
5 Likes
Accepted. 
1 Like
Following up on your opinions… (all of you in ZCG, in fact)
What do you believe about **gerrymandered Coin Voting? (where only Orchard ZEC could participate) vs. lets suppose a solution where ZEC of all types could vote?
**I’m using that term to generically suggest that the current coin voting solution gerrymandered for tiny slice of Zcashers with the technical, risk, timing, etc capabilities to actually participate in the polls.
I know that Hanh didn’t intend to exclude Transparent ZEC holders from voting, obviously there are hundreds of technical/ external challenges to prevent T-voting. His ability to make this happen is a marvel, and hopefully the community helps him continue to build on the progress already made.
Well, if you need 50% participation, what legitimacy does the ZCAP (and the others - forgot their names) poll have? It should have 50% of the coin holders, which is at least in the order of tens of thousands.
Edit: Transparent voting was excluded because it is not private (obviously). It does not present much technical difficulty.
1 Like
I consider it to have been a test and I assume these details will be ironed out.
1 Like
I’ve already made my opinion clear on this one. I can’t quickly find the original comments 
but yes, I agree that 50% is not a high enough participation rate to take the ZCAP result especially serious.
I believe ZCAP does good at purging inactive members, but it sadly has no policies afaik for invalidating any given poll based on lack of participation.
IMO, at some point, you will have to accept that the election system is not perfect. As long as it was correctly executed (i.e., there was no cheating), we need to accept the results and work from there.
9 Likes