As indicated in that other thread I’m a strong advocate for creating a new development fund once the current founder’s reward ends. There are of course specifics that need to be ironed out e.g. what % of block rewards should be allocated (10%?) and where to direct it (i.e. Foundation vs. ECC) but it seems the most contentious part is likely agreeing on the fund’s existence rather than how to spend it.
There would be no dilution of existing funds with such a proposal and no change of the 21M limit as this is directing a small % of future block rewards from the miners for development. I believe this will maximise the potential of Zcash and is in the best interest of all ZEC holders and the crypto and privacy space in general.
In addition to ecosystem development and further outreach, I’d like to see funds used to further research (and hopefully implementation) of alternate proving systems, consensus algorithms and scalability solutions. That’s what get’s people excited and more importantly, make them believe the token holds greater future value and become invested for the long-term. Such research can also be co-opted by other projects serving a greater good for the crypto community as a whole.
In general, open source is littered with underfunded projects. Even cornerstone projects like Debian are struggling. Sure, there are the rare successes such as Red Hat, MongoDB and Canonical but those are the exceptions and typically are service-based. It’s delusional to think that there is a similar funding model at this stage of crypto that can fund the extensive research and development required for a project like Zcash. Crypto projects have a unique potential funding model and one in that everyone’s interests are aligned in the success of the project.
Sure, it is not perfect and a funding scheme that was implemented in perpetuity from the beginning would have been preferable. Ideologues will always believe that no coin is worthy that hasn’t emerged from the purity of unfunded organic community collaboration. I think that’s misguided and a coin in such a state has a much larger chance of being co-opted by those with funds willing to direct at it.
You can make the argument the other way. The Foundation, for example, has spent more sustainably but as a result, has not had the same impact as the Company. Indeed it only just made its first technical hire. The common opinion is they have not spent their funds quickly enough, so honestly, I don’t think you can win here and someone will cherry pick to suit their argument either way.