@_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
Like most around here, I do not have the expertise to understand this topic at a technical level, however I do feel confident about my judgment that if @daira says it may compromise privacy at a later point, then it is simply not the way forward. I, a ZEC holder that wishes to be asked about these kind of things, would delegate my governance tokens to @daira on this matter.
No you do not. You would ask ZEC token holders if you would.
2 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
and that’s simply dishonest because:
- it has just been done literally a few days ago. yes it is not perfect. you know what else is not perfect? that “community” things I keep reading about. Now one of the two is quickly iterating and improving and let me help, it’s not the definition of our “community”.
- I did not see you pushing for ZEC token holders voting. I can count people who pushed for this on one hand and you’re not it.
Why do I push so hard on this? Because I want to see change.
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
What definitely should be taken with a grain of salt is the “community” sentiment. As previously mentioned, unless proven otherwise, the community is comprised of people that do not have the best interest of Zcash at heart.
My tokens are stuck on a Ledger and I therefore I can only vote with the 1 ZEC I bought for voting testing purposes. As frustrating as it is, I remain confident that other ZEC token holders actually do have the best interest of Zcash in mind.
1 Like
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
You’re a science guy @conradoplg right? No see I’m asking because you just said one matching vote is evidence of alignment between that “community” and ZEC token holders. 
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.
Narrator: that was simply a ridiculous statement.
Are you familiar with governance? I’m asking seriously. It’s quite rare to reach 50% participation. Usually this happen for very controversial votes. 10% is already plenty usually.
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
I was referring to token holders voting, not democracy, but it’s interesting statistics anyway thank you. I’m not saying it’s not impossible, but we would need a very lively ZEC holder community. One can hope.
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