The future of Zcash in the year 2020

I feel that even critique actual flaws in the plan will be moved from that thread.

They will not. If you see this happening (in any thread), please ping @moderators . I feel quite strongly about stopping this from happening.


100% agree with @daira. The difference between the moderating policy here versus other forum venues, is that we view the inclusion of ideas we disagree with as important and a strong signal that we are moderating correctly.


Quoting you over here as not to derail that thread with discussion not directly related to the zip. They are in a no lose situation. And I would like to hear what your thoughts on my take of your statement are.

IF and this is a big IF these donations are needed to keep zec going. You are correct in their assertion that the mining farms can play ‘chicken’ with the rest of the community, after all if the rest of the community keeps zec going without their donations that is a win for them.

If zec fails then they have already made their money and have got out.

Now read that again replacing Chinese Farms with Founders Reward recipients (specifically, investors, founders and advisors - /not/ engineers. /not/ paid employees, /not/ funds directed to a non profit.)

See why we cant have stake based voting. Or really voting at all in that matter. Its why I like the idea of the ECC and though it was worth giving a go. It has been a bumpy ride, but this (As in having a for profit running a currency that is open source) is breaking new ground in an industry that is already breaking new ground on top of technology that is breaking new ground.

I believe crypto must work on algo above all. initial contract above all.

I mean no offence to the FR recipients I am just making a point. and I feel this discussion might get heated and so I moved it from the zip. If any solid arguments or points come up I will formally mention them in the appropriate thread.

1 Like

I’m not sure I understand the question. When you say “dilution” here, do you mean what I mean: that issuance is always transfer of value from holders to the recipient?

And are you asking: what was the justification for the FR, or what was the justification for making it be time-limited?

The original justification for having the FR was that we had to promise rewards to the investors in order to raise the cash to build the first version, and that we thought the Zcash community would need ongoing funding for new development.

The justification for making the FR be time-limited was that we didn’t want any entity or entities to have a permanent privileged position, because it could become corrupt or complacent.

Does that answer your questions?


No, the 4.2% was before the internal re-allocation (“dilution”) that directed more of the FR to operations and fewer to founder’s rewards in June of this year. After that event, the ECC receives 8.2%. See the Transparency Report:

1 Like


I think a lot of the confusion has come about because rather than directly answering my posts you were answering someone else then directing me to that answer, which just restated the things I disagreed with, without addressing my points. (this is not a dig at you)

Dilution is the act of devaluing something by making more of it when you can create an infinite amount of that thing.

For the sake of clarity
Block Distribution = Block Reward - Mining fee. [mining fees are a special case and not covered by this]

You made the statement that Block Distribution is a transfer of wealth from every hold of zec to the recipient of the distribution.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement in the case of fixed total issuance. But for now, lets say your statement is true.

Then the FR recipients were the biggest receivers of block distribution - 10% of the total supply in only 4 years. Making the FR the greatest contributors to devaluation of ZEC. (at least in the short term. - this is using your logic and your argument.).

that is not my argument or point because I believe you are fundamentally wrong on this issue

My point is that when you have a fixed cap on total issuance, with an algo that makes sure that the supply is constant you are not receiving a transfer of wealth from the holders, you are giving their coins more value because you are running close to the total supply cap. As soon as you hit that cap you have to start subdividing coins, this increases value. - This is one of the core principles of bitcoins DAA, block distribution and emission curve. Why does it not apply to zec?

Therefore by my logic FR is enriching the holders of zec.

Another extension of my argument is that undistributed blocks have the same value as distributed ones, this is a cornerstone of mining. people that don’t understand this will not make money mining.

Regarding idea that the zec/fiat price is currently because there is too much supply and not enough demand, this too is fundamentally wrong except for in really exceptional circumstances and this is not one of those. [note I am talking in reference to cryptocurrencies here]

Demand is lacking not because of block distribution but the lack of practical usecases. This is why fees seem to work on BTC, Eth and I would wager Monero too. And why people thing the FR is causing devaluation. Which it isn’t. It is lack of demand.

If you wanted a long term store of value you’d use BTC. if you wanted a usable privacy currency you’d use monero. Not sure why anyone would use eth tho. [im talking about non tech crypto people, like a mate of mine who has no idea about computers but still owns 4 btc.]

No. Not at all. Im a bit surprised that you thought I was.


Yes, yes and yes.
This is exactly what I described in my posts, but since I am not a native English speaker, the translation could be wrong.
The issue is not infusion, the transfer of value comes from the current buyer (who buys now) and not from the owners, the fact that the coin loses value is the merit of the fund and the company and not the issue, look at the currencies that go up during their existence. No need to equate the real economy and crypto, they are different things yet.
And just zcash, I thought that would change the situation, but at this stage it is not considered.
Explanation for zooko

1 Like

From that article

That journo seems to know his stuff, did he reach out to you before posting that Shawn? congrats on the name drop :smiley:

1 Like

No, those reporters are at Zcon1 with the rest of the Zcash crew so they are probably talking with them.



I’ve been reading the community posts for a while now and decided to join in on the conversation. Forgive my lack of technical knowledge, but as a Zcash community member and long term holder, I suggest the following plans for funding development post 2020:

1- All ongoing funding to be supplied to the Zcash Foundation, who will then distribute funds to necessary development teams based on a community vote for the ZIP’s we favour the most. I imagine that the foundation will do this through an online portal and require a small ZEC payment to vote.

1- Each year will have a deadline requiring development teams suggest their aspiring road-map for the year.

2- Once the yearly deadline has been met, the vote will be conducted and each team will be given a proportion of the funding correlated to their position in the voted outcome. This will be distributed through the foundation.

3- Miners will be required to vote in order to continue mining. This will give miners an incentive to care about the development.

4- One option that will be available every year, is to burn the funded coins. This, in theory, should provide and incentive for development teams to provide improvements that the community wants more than they want to increase the short term value by burning, and failure to achieve the road-map will see the team receive no votes the following year.

5- After the votes have been completed, miners will have an option to continue to fund development or burn a small percentage (7% or less) of block rewards. The theory here, is that I believe people are more likely to continue funding something that they already voted in favour of.

Funding is thus received from the community of holders (when they vote), and from the miners. It incentivises people at the bare minimum to consider what path they would like to see development take.

The foundation was created to act in the best interest of the community, so I believe they should be responsible for dividing funds funds for development, but not without consideration of which development proposals the community wants most.

Once again, let me remind you that I’m just a holder without the needed tech experience to be able to assess if this idea is even viable, so please keep that in mind while picking it apart.

I’m open to hear all opinions and criticisms.



Hi @SydneyPete welcome to the forums!

You have some great ideas, we are currently giving each proposal their own thread so that users can ask questions and hash out ideas without getting lost in this big thread.

For example this one: Dev fund proposal: 20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or "burn"

Please post your idea as a new thread in the category.

If your not sure how to do this let me know and I can do it for you :wink:


20% is way too high. Should not be higher than 10%. These first 4 years, less than 10% of the FR went to actual development. Why should we more than double that going forward? Especially considering the price increase that the halving will almost certainly bring. Give me a break.

Here are the slides to help clarify

Thank you @daira


Zooko discusses the state of ECC finances (and future development plans): [removed, see next post]


Zcash Foundation has re-posted the entire video of Zookos talk, the first video had the Q&A cut off. This one has almost 20mins Q&A


The Q&A is the best part! People asked a lot of solid questions about governance and funding and timelines and strategy. So definitely watch the fixed version with the Q&A: instead of the first recording (apparently the first recording got cut off because of

Also I actually recommend you watch Nathan’s talk first before mine! Nathan’s talk was one of the opening talks of the conference, and it describes big picture strategy ideas for Zcash as a whole much better than my talk — my talk was more focused on disclosing facts and decisions about the company.

Nathan’s talk:

Then go watch mine, please, especially the Q&A (in the fixed, longer recording that includes extensive Q&A).


Thank you for the requests. I’ll take this back to the financial and communications departments to see if we can add more information like this into future transparency reports. I think it will be difficult to compile and disclose accurate and useful information at this level of granularity. That’s for a few reasons:

  • With regard to the “one time vs ongoing and startup vs ongoing” granularity, things are always changing (especially in this industry and in these times!!).
  • And, sometimes there’s a “one time” exceptional event like the Coinbase Earndrop Campaign, but then the next year you want to do a new one-time exceptional event, and the next year you want to do another one, and then you realize this wasn’t an exceptional event after all but should have been part of your normal marketing budget all along.
  • And, going the other way, sometimes you spin up a whole initiative and plan to spend money on it every quarter, and then two quarters later you’re like “Oh, something changed in the market and this problem is solved. We don’t need to spend this money after all.”
  • With respect to the “usability vs R&D” and “costs of different groups”, some of our employees are dedicated just to one niche, like UX or regulatory or core protocol, but most of our employees work on multiple of those niches over the course of a typical month. Plus, the people whose full-time focus is one thing (e.g. UX) are often spending their time helping the people whose focus is other things (e.g. core protocol or regulatory or bizdev…). This is really valuable and IMO these different areas cannot be effectively handled separately but need to be integrated in one large team and need to co-evolve with each other and to help each other out continuously! But anyway, it would be pretty hard to precisely ascribe costs to the different areas, although maybe we could roughly ascribe costs.

Okay, I’ll take this request back to the finance and comms teams and see what we can do. In the short-term you can eyeball to get a rough estimate of the resources we are applying with different skillsets.

Also, of course, if anyone hasn’t seen the first transparency report, check it out. It already gives a lot of relevant facts. (I’m pretty sure this is a higher level of transparency into our finances that any other cybercoin project, company, or foundation does. If anybody has other examples of detailed disclosures from other projects, please share them so we can learn.)


I didn’t check many but the young BEAM financial report is for sure better in my opinion.

The Dash Core Group one isn’t bad either.

I will review some more when i have a bit more time…

I really appreciate this. Finance isn’t really my thing but I do have to look at a lot of reports and try to allocate resources based of predictions. Hopefully this msg will help clarify the sort of thing I am asking for and if it is possible (I understand it may not.)

I agree, from a tech point of view, with an agile style development it is very hard to work out these numbers. I think that granularity is unneeded for me to make basic inferences. Like I personally think that after listening to your talk, you should slow down, in that time pivot in zec related manner (this is for a different thread), and hand over more control and responsibility to the foundation. so the maintainers and the foundation become the core developers. - but I don’t have the rough outline of what gets spent on what type of development.

It is that kind of decision I am trying to make, so the information only needs to be high level. Something so you can actually look at my ideas and they will in someway reflect the company. It doesnt make them useful or good, but it should help you either adapt them or be able to dismiss them more easily.

Very true, which is why it would be handy to know what you thought you were going to spend on a general area (like sapling activation) and what sapling activation took in terms of time and financial resources. I am not asking to open your books, just very high level info.

I agree. You could have a marketing section and in that section you have “one off promotional events 3%” you can still have that next year. or move it to recurring one off events. or even expand it to 5% next year. You decide on how to display the information just please make it consistent.

Regarding development, It would be more like “Core team work on sapling 57%” in the employees spending. I understand this is a sensitive topic, so I would suggest calling the Core development by a code name and use that as the reference so you cannot correlate employee to salary, because it would say employee core developer, that doesnt mean that the spend all their time on ZCOR.

You have one time recurring costs too - like pc hardware, A dev machine might be seen as a one off cost, but it isn’t, it is a 4 year recurring cost + a recurring electricity cost. you have to decide on how you display it. - just please keep it consistent (dejavu?)

So adding something like 1% spent on employee hardware - would really help. The one off/recurring labels might be off, but that is something for the reader to decide. I am not asking for anyone to do my due diligence for me.

I completely understand. This is the nature of having a company and one of the major benefits of the ECC as apposed to distributed development.

I really am just asking for high level information - so for your example - you would have UX development - 5% (or whatever), but this would just be what you have budgeted v what you spent. - So if someone moves from the core protocol to help a UX developer, that is not counted unless it comes from the UX budget pool. So you name the niche groups and give them cool names.

Big cooperation’s tend to charge themselves for cross teamwork. I understand this is not feasible nor even desirable and certainly far too granular for the ECC.

Again that would be amazing info to have, a forecast of your budget v what was needed. but this feels a little too much info to ask unless at a very high level.

Another example is how much of the % of the budget is going to govt compliance in what regions, etc. but this might be too granular.

Im hoping the finance people can make some sense of what I am requesting. and more importantly what I need the information for. To try to help make my proposals useful.

Thanks for passing this forward, sorry if it is a bit rambling its far too hot here.

1 Like