Well no, there is no way to currently implement global freezing capabilities of ZSAs…
But hey, I love your enthusiasm. Let’s push for an RFP so that we get someone to build a stablecoin with ZSAs? What do you think are the next steps?
How many ZEC are the ECC selling per day, and How many are they receiving from the block rewards (~est 160?)?
It has been a few months since the last transparency report. We are interested in seeing how far additional spending may be curbed as more people are leaving, and ECC ongoing activities are being pruned down?
Does the ECC have healthy cash balances for the next 12-15 months, while ZEC stays under $30 price?
Does ECC have any funding emergency mode contingency plans?
2 Likes
I appreciate the high esteem and consideration that means to be considered alongside Zooko and Josh for your inquiry, but for the sake of correctness I must remark that I was a mere developer at ECC and in no way involved or aware of financial decisions of the company and furthermore my engagement was terminated months ago 
3 Likes
true, my bad. being used to Ethereum programmability made me project it onto ZSAs. 
The business case is so frustratingly clear for the ones enabling it, that there´ll surely be an irreputable bank risking their swift access for massive AUM inflows.
Doesn’t even need to be a bank, the initial MVP could be a centrally crypto-backed multi-sig controlled issuer. Many obvious issues, but it’d be a start.
Clearly positioning zcash as an a-moral tech stack should be a start. We need credible neutrality and 2 US-corporations managing the stack might not be the best pre-start.
Tangential dream scenario: CCIP or LayerZero (or even HOP or Rune) will eventually enable any-to-anyChain messaging. This would enable ZSA issuance triggers based on collateral deposits on other chains; e.g. deposit LUSD onto locked contract on ETH, issue zUSD on zcash. UX would be similar to keep v1
okay maybe we are more on the same page than I thought.
Only one mention - don’t think CCIP or LayerZero will be they key here, as they require messaging on both chains. Rather, you would need some kind of council-based model, similar to something like How does the Avalanche Bridge™ work? | Avalanche Support.
But yeah, I ended up in the same conclusion as you. Lock decentralized stablecoin on some other network, have a council/committee verify it - then initiate a corresponding mint on Zcash for the specfic ZSA asset. Confirm this via seeing the supply change etc. Dont give a fuck about proof of funds, AML, KYC etc.
This would be severly limited in supply (capped by the stable itself), peg (decentralised stables have floating pegs, and bridging makes it worse), efficiency (each bridged stable will hold on a bunch of fees).
But hey, at least its better than holding ZEC.
And its private by default! (All ZSAs are)
3 Likes
Auto-shielding wallets can steer people into the shielded pool, likely without them even noticing.
I’m perfectly fine with deprecating t-addresses as a part of a roadmap where the Zcash community works with exchanges and multi-coin wallets to implement shielded support, develops multiple non-exchange ways to on/off-ramp ZEC, and only then they get sunset.
I don’t agree with deprecating t-addresses just for bragging rights with the privacy community, because the transparent pool is the main interface of Zcash with the rest of the world right now.
5 Likes
I disagree slightly, but definitely understand the points you’re making.
This is a valid argument and perhaps the way the community should move forward with t-addr deprecation discussions.
4 Likes
Being mediocre at Zcash is tradition.
Mediocre leadership, but extremely reliable mechanism to block-reward those in charge.
Mediocre PR, but remarkable community.
Mediocre effort to focus on Zcash, but remarkable efforts at being inclusive and lib-compliant.
Mediocre effort at promoting Zcash, but remarkable efforts at enforcing the trademark.
Mediocre policies, but remarkable shitshow all year long.
Mediocre engineering roadmap, but remarkable privacy-tech.
You don’t fix mediocrity by deciding to stop being mediocre. You get rid of this affliction by getting rid of mediocre people. Fork Zcash now.
1 Like
not sure if this was clear. for me it’s not about removing the dev fund, it’s realigning how the dev fund is funded. if dev funding came from transaction fees, developers would be more incentivized to build the products people need to transact. more transactions=more fees=more devopment=more products to create more transactions. that’s a positive feedback loop.
zec is not designed to transact for day to day useage for all the reasons i have stated many times. A lack of transaction fees obfuscate the normal market based mechanisms that let a development team know they are on the right track. If we charged transaction fees, what would that tell us?
They say zec transactions are $38m per day. at 1% that’s 38,000 per day or around 14m per year. Maybe we lose some people if we charge. Even if it goes to a 50% reduction in transactions it’s still 7m per year in fees.
since block rewards are paid regardless of anything else, there isnt that tight connection between development, the product and the customer. eventually the market figures out the products don’t have a customer base. and in our case it means a lower zec price. zcash and the dev fund needs a customer centric approach and transaction fees are the best way to help guide development. because if people arnt willing to pay for it, you probably arnt building something they want or need.
3 Likes
yea, i think fork is a great solution, but for a successful one, we need some strong group of people taking it under their control.
all those people already doing something of their own like Mina, Starkware etc…
so the probability for a fork is very low, you can explore other ZK tech thou
1 Like
That sounds very optimistic. Where are you getting these numbers?
2 Likes
messari has the real volume at 11m.
Could you be more specific?
https://messari.io/asset/zcash/chart/txn-tsfr-val-adj
whatever the actual volume is, the transactions should generate fees.
and it should be higher because i believe this is transparent only. but not 100% sure.
- This is exchange volume. Not on chain.
- Anyway, the volume off chain is 6.1m, not 11m
- Fees are based on tx size, not value
https://messari.io/asset/zcash/chart/fees-ntv
Fees are currently at less than 100 USD per day.
4 Likes
that’s kinda the whole point of all this. the 100 is feedback from the target market. given the age and brand awareness, those fees should be in millions (and probably a lot higher over time) for a day to day global currency.
to me the 100 is saying, the product doesn’t work for day to day transactions. now i also believe there are other reasons. but this is just one more datapoint.
2 Likes
You don’t think @hanh already knows this is the issue? I do appreciate your contrarian take and overall stance on Zcash, but I’ve noticed lots of your replies are becoming ramblings that rehash the same points. If you did a little more research, your initial reply would hold more water, instead of having your numbers corrected, and trying to spin it in your favor. Less is more.
5 Likes
One of Zcash’s most catastrophic failures was to never welcome small hobbyist miners (via selecting an ASIC resistant hash algorithm).
Many poor decisions have followed, such as prioritizing the removal of trusted encryption parameter setup. Vs prioritizing the User experience or Vs accrued value to ZEC investors.
I wish that only one catastrophic poor project decision had been made, but in fact there are many - and they continue to plague Zcash today.
4 Likes
What was the reasoning for an asic resistant hashing algorithm??