The future of Zcash in the year 2020

I think we would be well served in 2020 (when the FR expires) to replace the 20% Zcash Founders’ Reward subsidy with a 20% PoS subsidy. I think this is a simple solution that continues to enrich ECC/ZFND/Founders (by right of their already large stakes) but also would spread some reward to the community.

Decred has a 30% block subsidy for stakers. What are some technical/security criticisms of this? Is it actually a boon to security as suggested in this Decred PR piece? : (

Appreciate any and all thoughts you have, as always! <3


8 posts were merged into an existing topic: Price Speculation

A post was merged into an existing topic: Price Speculation

Hi all! Apologies for the “silence” from ECC. I think this is more to do with us being heads down than a specific plan based on this thread.

We’ve been busy with many things (NU2 and NU3 planning, shielded wallet and exchange adoption, business development efforts in Asia, engaging regulators, etc…) but most relevant for this conversation about funding has been making efforts to improve Zcash governance and preparing The ECC 2019 Q2 Financial Transparency Report.

This is one of the key approaches ECC has been taking to improve governance and multi-stakeholder collaboration. The kind of agreement we’re specifically exploring with the Zcash Foundation would require both organizations to agree on what gets to be called “The Zcash Consensus Protocol”, the “Zcash currency”, and by implication the “ZEC” ticker. This would probably involve some kind of legal agreement that governs the use of the trademark. Both organizations are still exploring that.

If there were any proposed change to funding, like all other consensus rule changes, it would definitely need to go through a Zcash Improvement Proposal process.

I personally would like to get the shared control of the “Zcash” name in place prior to the NU4 Draft ZIP submission deadline, which is August 31, 2019 according to the Network Upgrade Pipeline schedule.

There are several important details about the timeline of NU4:

  • First, if anyone proposed a change to any consensus rules (which every funding scheme I’ve noticed in this thread does do) then they must submit that proposal as a ZIP for NU4 (due by August 31st, 2019).
  • Second, since NU2 and NU3 have already passed the ZIP draft submission deadline, no new proposals changes can activate before NU4, which should activate in October of 2020.
  • Finally, NU4 will activate just as the FR ends. Since proposals like Gareth Davies’s above sounds like it’s supposed to activate at the end of the FR, that suggests they’ll need ZIPs soon.

BTW, another way we’ve been improving collaboration is by collaborating more with the Foundation on the the ZIP selection process. Starting with NU3, the Foundation is performing technical reviews of ZIPs along side the company. Additionally, they are expanding their technical dev team and working on their own full node implementation, which is extremely great news for all Zcash users!


How about a Monero FFS like scheme?

The basic infrastructure is already set up and could be tweaked to facilitate it.

Proposals are put up for funding and ZEC holders either fund or reject them.

I find it also to be a more fair funding system for all ZEC stakeholders.


I’m seeing more and more people talking about this in public, so I thought I’d start collecting their ideas here.

“This is a good thread. Incentive alignment is critical for cybercoin networks…

Zcash did a pretty good job at incentive alignment. As a zec holder I actually hope they continue with some form of long term developer incentive alignment”—

“I broached the subject a while ago and have not seen any initiatives from ECC or the foundation to solicit community feedback on proposals. The onus is on your team(s) to bring the subject to the users if you wish to be perceived as forward-looking and well intentioned.”—

“Fwiw I think a friendly fork is a horrible idea and that funding rewards should remain but taper lower with each halving. Perhaps an adjustable rewards that pegs on USD rather than ZEC. This adds several benefits in terms of the good faith of the user-base imo.”—


Seriously? You start to collect ideas of how to continue funding of development 2.5 years after launching the coin?

Did you really think that the price would maintain such a high level that funding will be secured for a longer time than four years? How could you not plan long-term and keep your expenses lower, so you would be able to fund the company for a minimum of 10 years?

It is disappointing that you could not figure out a way how to get funding apart from the founders reward within the many years that this project is alive.

Now the only people that profited from this project that should “empower everyone with economic freedom and opportunity” are the founders like zooko, members of the company and foundation and seed investors. The retail investors and early adaptors of Zcash had to suffer heavy losses.

Give 25% of the founders reward back for a bit longer than a year is not noble at all. You should try it with 75% at least. Your project did not succeed until now. There is basically no adaption and investors got disappointed over and over again.

I do not doubt the tech. Zk-snarks are an amazing privacy tool imo. But the project and the parameters appear to fail so founders should take responsibility for this.


I somehow think it’s strange that people HAVE to talk about ECC funding. Shouldn’t be ECC and/or the Foundation come up with Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, …??
We even have no idea IF ECC plans to continue development of Zcash further than 2020…
And isn’t in 2020 the foundation in charge of Zcash overviewing? Which would mean the foundation should make a proposal or plans?

After the financial report from some days ago and seeing that only a small piece of the Founders Reward goes/went into Development i came even more to the conclusion that the whole Founders Reward was somehow distributed wrong, but that’s just my personal opinion of course.


The ECC probably won’t be able to make a proposal because it could be perceived as a money grab from a for-profit company, the Zcash Foundation has already taken the position of being against any changes in the monetary policy:

The Foundation opposes any change to the Zcash Founders’ Reward, even those that may benefit our balance sheet.

The Zcash network relies on the users (us) to run the software that makes Zcash work, the Foundation nor the Company can’t force us to run software we don’t like. Thereby, I think it’s up to us to come up with any proposals, and as @nathan-at-least just posted in the other thread, the clock is ticking to have ZIPs submitted for the NU4 release, which will be the last release before the FR ends. Otherwise the default consensus code will become the choice.

[Disclaimer: I am a contractor for the Zcash Foundation but I don’t represent any official position of the Foundation on this issue. My opinions are my own and do not necessarily align with ECC or the Foundation]


You guys should have sold at top :joy:

@Spiral1990 :roll_eyes: that’s not the way it works, FR funds come from blockrewards so they don’t get ZEC until they are mined.

1 Like

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.


This doesn’t make sense, any enterprise and company can make proposals and plans on how to survive, expand, whatever. A good example is when joint-stock companies make proposals/plans and the share holders vote on these. I doubt this is any different for any kind of company forms.

I think at least of several other possible funding forms than extending the Founders Reward. I’am well aware that the foundation is against extending the founder reward, but this shouldn’t exclude automaticly another form of funding, not? Or at least it could/should be discussed and thought about.

I think this is missleading. Actually they force you do to so. IF you don’t agree you can make a fork like Ycash but it’s no more Zcash you run, you than run something different, but not Zcash. Either you agree or you fork.

It’s of course ok to ask the community for proposals as well, but as i said allready, the foundation and ECC should have some “battle plans” as well. They are the once that know every detail, be it the development progress, be it the financial status, whatever… Seriously, we lack some facts to make a real good proposals that fits for a given situation.
I’am for example not aware of any time line on how much more time it takes until Zcash is fully developed or in short, for what timespan funding must be granted somehow? Just as an example.

1 Like

Playing devils advocate here. Someone could argue that with 4 years of a huge founders reward someone could await a fully working project with the expiring of the founders reward, not?
Someone has to realize that the amount in US$ of the 4 years founders reward is just HUGE! Even if we take for ALL months of the 4 years an average price of $50 per ZEC it would result in $105,000,000, that’s huge, seriously. Having in mind that most time ZEC was traded way higher than $50 and if we make take the average price by month i’am pretty sure we get a founders reward worth of $200,000,000 or even higher for the 4 years. That’s mega huge!!!

And to fit it up hardcore. IF someone can’t distribute/use $200,000,000 ($200M) to fully develope the promised product someone has to ask as well if the financial skills/economic skills, forcasting, planning, etc, are really at the level needed for such budget.

The counter argument here is, as seen several times allready, that only a small portion of these funds went into developement. the answer is again, that’s an internal ECC/foundation problem how and why they have choosen that distribution of funds. IF every aspect was more important than ensuring a fully perfect working finished product when the founder reward expires in 2020, than the funds have been distributed somehow wrong. I would even go as far as saying that too many funds went to early investors, different persons at the expense of creating strategical reserves and ensure enough development for finishing Zcash. Without knowing all details someone should expect that from a founders reward of $200,000,000 or even more a development phase of 8-10 years should be ensured.

My opinion is that both go hand in hand and have the same importance. Without knowing for what it is spend how to decide how important they are?

Totally agree, but my impression is that both, ECC and foundation are way to conservative here, hence why we don’t see much into this direction or even nothing in some fields.

I agree that the funding scheme from beginning wasn’t perfect, BUT thecurrent funding scheme was good enough to generate huge funds until 2020. As said above, it’s an internal ECC/foundation problem to use these proper to ensure research, developement, innovation, whatever needed.

I’am one of these that think the foundation is lagging, too slow, not responsive enough, not innovative enough, whatever not enough. Having in mind that the target is only 1.5 years from today that the foundation should be fully responsible for Zcash seems to be science fiction for me at this pace.
And i think the common opinion is not that they don’t spent their funds quickly enough but the processes take too long. Won’t even talk about all the other issues and flaws i see with the grants so far. Just again as an example. These posters for over $2,500 bucks after 1 year since the proposal/grant start are still not available. That’s just a joke on the simplest task, what’s left for handling/deciding more serious matters?


Personally I think yours is the most rational argument for a path towards the highest probability of success for zcash. Hard decisions need to be made with conviction and the clarity of foresight.

It seems like a logical course would be to publicly provide 3 clearly articulated options that are being considered for the path forward. Something like -

  1. Continue funding reward w/ a good faith concession (TBD). (*change name from founders reward to funding reward)
  2. Solicit community for funding donations for 5 year runway. Start asap and if full funding is not reached by X date, all donations returned and funding reward remains. If reached, funding ends.

Please Note: I have merged the other thread titled “people talking about the founders reward in 2020” into this one to avoid having split/parallel conversations on the same topic.


Well I think overpaying CEO like you did does cause problems with lack of funding. Instead that money should have been allocated towards development (wallets, network upgrades etc.). Let me just remind you what kind of titles we’ve read about Zcash these past years:

And now you say, well we are short on cash after 2020. Well of course you are, if you pay that much for someone who produces little to no value to the project (lets be honest here, zooko is too busy with other projects now).


Actually if you readed the financial transparency report you would have seen that we won’t be short on cash in 2020, but we allready are!!!
They (ECC) seem to have decided to cut on PR, development, whatever not but NOT on personal earnings/rewards/compensations/.


totally agree with boxalex. Getting money regardless of the result is a hoax of zcash buyers, sell the designs and all trademarks and everything, and start over again with a new coin, it will be right for all parties, I bought coins that I own in 2017 and still hold them, but the plans that were in that year and the plans of the current team in 2019 are completely different sides, previously there were ambitions for what everyone loved zcash, now it’s just a thirst for profit, there is no real progress in introducing into the mass market, but there are technical achievements, I don’t I can say nothing bad was the purpose of creating financial freedom for 4 years of financing, after which the company can earn on the working product,
providing support and implementation services for example and getting money for it in accordance with the terms of the contract, but it turns out that we pay for a coin that is simply being developed but does not reach the goal of its creation.
Why the company does not have a goal to increase the value of the coin both directly (marketing and advertising) and indirect (adoption and expansion of the functional) in ways, because a higher price gives more money for further development. Another look, do you have plans for 2019-2020 at a price per coin zcash for example $ 10? I think this price will not be enough even for basic expenses and dilution will not help, what is your plan?


Just a thought.

Zcash has delivered privacy tech, not just for ZEC but also to many other projects. All open source & thats a great thing.

There’s new stuff happening, layer one scaling, succinct blockchain, etc that are not strictly related to privacy.

IMHO, new tech not related to privacy should be licenced to other projects, not given to the world but become a new revenue stream.

Edit: The podcast Shawn posted was interesting, the relevant part for me was ‘Open Core’ projects.