Users need not choose between Ycash and Zcash; they can support both. That’s what I plan on doing. I plan on being a long-term holder and supporter of both Ycash and Zcash.
(By the way, @boxalex has been one of the most vocal critics of Ycash on this forum, so I doubt that he believes in Ycash.)
@Autotunafish’s comments above are important. I don’t think that stake-weighted voting should be a dispositive governance mechanism. Meaning, I don’t think that Zcash has to (or even should) always follow what the stake-weighted majority wants. The hypothetical I have posed in the past is a state actor buying up a majority ZEC stake and then voting to deprecate shielded transactions. We as a community would rightly reject the outcome of that vote.
(I believe that @nathan-at-leastprefers the term “polling” instead of “voting” when the outcome is non-binding. To be clear, I’m in favor of stake-weighted voting outcomes being non-binding, so I’m talking about stake-weighted polling in @nathan-at-least’s parlance.)
I have argued in the past that voting, even if non-binding, is an important community-organizing tool (both for the majority and the minority), especially in a community where privacy concerns might impede collective action.
For Ycash, implementing non-binding stake-weighted voting is a top priority. (I am a supporter of @acityinohio’s “Enable Staked Polling from the Sapling Pool” ZIP.)