ZF has developed this discussion draft and an AI-generated audio companion in order to empower our community as we collectively explore various future Participatory Grantmaking (PGM) models.
Its purpose is to provide an overview of potential approaches without endorsing or advocating for any specific model. The inclusion of any particular funding model in this document should not be interpreted as an indication of support or preference by ZF.
Hey everyone! I’m thrilled to finally share this discussion draft with you after working on it for quite some time! My hope is that it both empowers you and sparks your active participation in meaningful PGM discussions here on the Forum, at ZconVI and everywhere that us Zcashers gather.
I invite you to download a copy of the draft, listen to the audio companion (which is very cool) and start a discussion about the models that really resonate with you!
Interesting document. From what I have gathered from other projects, I find the Retroactive Public Goods Funding (RPGF) to be the more interesting concept to date.
RPGF Is deception proof. Is zashi wallet a state of the art Android wallet that is fostering adoption.Yes it is. No arguing there. Is Ywallet an excellent PC wallet that on top is implementing very interesting features like shielded coins polling and coin voting. Yes. These are just examples.
So why take random and wild bets on the future when you can simply look back in the past and see what actually works.
My personal preference would towards a large bounty or prize like the ZPrize. All or nothing. Paid on delivery.
0$ for second place.
0$ if it doesn’t work.
I think if you put a one million USD prize for the first team (or individual cough cough) who builds a zcashd replacement in rust, you will get it done for a fraction of the current projected cost (considering that the ECC, ZF and Zingo teams combined) and be on time.
Yes, funding with hindsight is definitely advantageous in some ways.
How do you feel about the known disadvantages outlined on p.78? What are reasonable ways Zcash could balance the advantages of this model against these the challenges, which include:
Challenges in Evaluation: Fairly assessing impact requires robust frameworks that balance quantitative metrics with qualitative judgment. Overemphasis on measurable outcomes may overlook significant but less quantifiable benefits.
Stifled Innovation: A risk-averse, metrics-driven approach may discourage innovation by treating it as a luxury rather than a necessity.
Potential for Manipulation: Projects might manipulate metrics or obscure actual wealth to appear more successful or needy, complicating fair resource allocation.
Governance Challenges: Ensuring objective, fair decision-making and preventing capture by vested interests becomes harder as funding scales increase.
Delayed Funding Issues: Retroactive funding creates uncertainty for projects during development, as financial support is only provided after impact is demonstrated.
Market Failure Concerns: Retroactive funding may not adequately address areas requiring significant upfront investment, leaving some market failures unresolved.
How do you solve for continuity of dev talent over time vs teams that complete the project and move on?
Which of these PGM frameworks best manages the decision-making (e.g. who determines the initial prize, manages the submissions, evaluates who ‘wins’, etc.).
What are other must-have elements of a framework required for this approach to be viable?
Oh, this seems like a ‘thinking outside the box’ point of view. Love it! So often that intersection of what already exists and what ‘could be’ is right where innovation occurs.
Could you describe the framework you have in mind, having both?
How do you solve for continuity of dev talent over time vs teams that complete the project and move on?
It’s expected that people move on. I am actually against the idea that projects systematically continue with a maintenance contract. First it has to prove that it deserves it.
Which of these PGM frameworks best manages the decision-making (e.g. who determines the initial prize, manages the submissions, evaluates who ‘wins’, etc.).
No idea what these PGM frameworks are about.
I like the https://www.zprize.io/ model.
The criteria for success are decided as part of the competition. It is usually a series of tests, some public and some hidden to prevent overfitting.
Thanks for sharing the zprize link. It’s a fascinating approach.
Hey, could I ask a follow up question about your point of view regarding maintaining dev talent vs prize or contract-based approaches? I thought about this a lot while working on the PGM doc and would really appreciate hearing your perspective.
Specifically, how does a project with complex cryptography (is there simple cryptography though, really?) solve for knowledge retention and/or mismatched deliverables over time?
Do you know of any projects that are successfully using this approach that we could study and learn from?
Yes all the challenges listed for RPFG are true, the most concerning from my point of view being the Delayed Funding Issues.
Like it has been said that’s why it works better by being combined with other models.
What I noticed with the ZPrize competition is that though it is a winner-takes-all situation, there has been significant cooperation from the participants. After the competition closed, all the code was open-sourced (including the 2nd, 3rd, etc.) and maintained by the teams that needed it.
In short, maintenance is not a problem when the code is used. If it is not, there is no point in maintaining anyway. On the contrary, I think Zcash has large (100k+ USD) maintenance grants for projects that haven’t proven themselves.
it may be worth noting than some prizes (including the one about halo 2 unfortunately) didn’t attract any competitor even though the bounty was several 100 000 $.
The 2 nd iteration took place during a bear market and the prizes were much lower.
