Proposal to Evolve the Zenate Governance Structure: Weighted Coin Voting & Community Advisory Tokens
Some of you might recall @joshsâ intriguing idea about introducing the Zenate, a concept that sought to strengthen our governance structure. While his original proposal highlighted several promising mechanisms, our communityâs dynamism pushes us to think even broader. To ensure inclusivity, I propose integrating âWeighted Coin Votingâ alongside a novel initiative: âCommunity Advisory Tokensâ.
Enhancing the Zenate with Weighted Coin Voting
Given Zcashâs decentralized ethos, itâs vital that every ZEC holder, regardless of their holdingsâ size, has a voice . But itâs equally essential to recognize the larger stakes and vested interests of significant holders.
Introducing Community Advisory Tokens
Acknowledging that not everyone has the resources to hold large amounts of ZEC, the introduction of Community Advisory Tokens aims to balance the scales. These tokens could be allocated to:
Zcash ambassadors and their respective communities .
Active members of the Zcash online community .
People who significantly contribute to Zcash in non-monetary ways .
The benefits of this approach are manifold:
It promotes a richer tapestry of voices in our decision-making processes.
Encourages active participation from community members who are invested in Zcashâs success but might not hold large amounts of ZEC.
Strengthens the bridge between Zcashâs core development and its grassroots supporters.
How Weighted Coin Voting Would Work with Community Advisory Tokens
Utilizing Zcash Shielded Assets (ZSAs):
When the Zenate calls for an official weighted coin vote, both ZEC holders and Community Advisory Token holders receive âvoting tokensâ.
Addresses for each voting option are provided. Holders then send their tokens to the corresponding address.
If you hold both ZEC and Community Advisory Tokens, youâll receive the sum of the two in âvoting tokensâ.
At the end of the voting period, the tokens in each address tally up to reflect the communityâs preference.
Technical Nuances
Currently, the ZSA framework doesnât directly support airdrops. However, with the potential involvement of teams like QEDIT, crafting a solution becomes more attainable. Through a consensus change, we might be able to use existing ZEC and other asset notes at a predetermined block as a snapshot for the airdrop/issuance of voting tokens.
Your Input is Crucial
Is the integration of weighted coin voting and Community Advisory Tokens a priority for us? The commitment of teams like QEDIT requires a unified vision from our community.
I invite all forms of feedback, concerns, and suggestions . Together, letâs shape a governance structure thatâs truly representative of our diverse and dynamic community.
Thanks for sharing your ideas. I believe we should create one class of voting and not classes of voters. If large holders of zec believe they have more vested interest then let them use their purchasing power to sway members opinions. The largest holders of zec are not representative of building a vibrant community.
I think the combination of ZSA or using your zcash node external IP address as a means to vote may represent community voice.
Good start
Once we have voting, then I believe zenate should oversee voting where.
coin weighted vote decides boards for foundation and ECC. community advisory tokens can we used to vote to appoint 1 or 2 each at ECC/Foundation. small zec holders appoint 1 or each at ECC/foundation not sure how to make sure this can be done
coin weighted vote with more than 2/3 value and more than 50% in zec holders number required to allow anyone to fork or otherwise give away core technology.
coin weighted vote with more than 2/3rds in value and more than 50% in zec holders number required to maintain block rewards. otherwise we move to fee based funding.
zenate should have the obligation to ensure the ECC/foundation/grants committee are all acting for the benefit and fiduciaries of ZEC holders. I donât see this entity as directly controlling funding; especially if boards of foundation/ecc are voted inâŚ.zenate is more oversight and mission focus with ability to veto/block grants or even stop existing funding under predefined circumstances. If grants are not being approved in a way zenate agrees, zenate can block grants until a consensus is established. it should be comprised of 100% zec holders until block rewards are eliminated; community is represented on foundation/ecc boards. funding is not decentralized currently, itâs 100% funded by zec holders. so as we move away from block rewards funding and to fee based funding then 75% zec holders 25% community/non zec holders.
I like where this is going, but believe it needs to be included in the larger roadmap plan for ZEC, so as to be thought out and streamlined. KISS too.
Weighted Coin Voting will have to work with Proof of Stake (this is a good thing)
Iâm all for a weighted system against whale monopolization, but we canât ignore the staking users and their contribution. We also donât want another hard to understand out of band solution so we will needâŚ
A flagship app will need to be created that allows general wallet usage, staking, and voting. That means a go-to place and more clear line of communication with the community about items being voted on. Decred has a great example of this done successfully.
I donât think it should be the âZenateâ or any form of cabal, it should be the community at large, and the defacto way of doing things. Letâs not confuse users and marketing by talking about anything but the âcommunityâ.
Many esteemed crypto projects, such as MakerDAO (MKR), Compound (COMP), Aragon (ANT), Kusamaâs Council, Balancer (BAL), and Yearn.Finance (YFI), have integrated governance tokens. Taking cues from these trailblazers, this proposal carves out an innovative governance path for Zcash:
Coin Holder Voting: While valuing coin holdersâ input, the proposal doesnât place them at the center. It suggests that voting power should adapt to reflect current coin holdings, moving beyond the initial governance token distribution.
Continuous Advisory Tokens: Eschewing a one-time distribution, the proposal champions recurring issuances of Community Advisory Tokens, guaranteeing continuous representation for evolving contributors.
Advisory Token Lifecycle: The proposal permits the potential inclusion of Community Advisory Tokens with lifespans, such as 1 year. These could be distributed to distinct ZSAs like âCommunity Advisory Tokens - January 2024â and âCommunity Adv⌠- April 2024â. Voting tokens would then be allocated exclusively to valid Community Advisory Token holders, a strategy to deter undue token hoarding and ensure a dynamic advisory body.
In summary, this proposal transcends traditional governance blueprints, striving for a governance model that fortifies Zcashâs resilience and inclusivity.
Thank you for those details @GGuy. However, while governance tokens are interesting, given this is what is discussed here, I am particularly interested by successful deployments of Community Advisory Tokens.
That is, tokens that are not leveraging the core token of the project, but instead tokens that are created to give a voice to community members that may not have enough to have a substantial impact on various voting sessions.
If you know of any, could you please specifically point me to where I could read about those? You mentioned Aragon for instance, but I am not sure where those Community Advisory Tokens equivalents are to be found in their community forum, for example.
Iâm not sure there are any direct equivalents or atleast I havenât seen any. Sorry I canât be more helpful.
My understanding though is that some crypto projects have distributed their governance tokens amongst both their current coin holders and contributors and community members. But from a quick search it appears harder to find the exact initial distribution of these tokens then I believe it should be .
The similarities between the two though is that they give a voice to project/community contributors, not just coin holders. I think one of the key difference in this proposal is rather then then that distribution (and voting rights) largely reflecting a specific point in time in the past, at time of governance token distribution, this proposal advocates that this voting rights are allocated at the time of the vote based on current contributors and holders. I believe is fairer and a better representation of the current ecosystem. So Iâd like to think of this simply as an incremental improvement on that .
Iâve followed closely the Aragon attempt at doing this, which was a spectacular failure (and governance is supposed to be their specialty). I asked you anyway in case you had details I didnât have and maybe had a different perspective.
Several community members seem to be hell bent on having token governance, just because it sounds good. Instead of things that look good or sound good, we need things that work. How is Ethereum succeeding? How can we replicate?
We need smart people of all walks of life to feel welcome here, and for their voice to be respected. If we donât have enough of them, maybe we should take a look inwards and see how we can improve what we already have, instead of looking for magic unproven solutions.
There are several ways to waste time and make the project worse, and imho, Community Advisory Tokens would be one of those. Also, token holders often have no idea how to strategically run a project. It would still be good to poll them sometimes on some key matters, as they literally have skin in the game, but I have yet to read of a practical way to do this with Zcash.
100%. Could be @gguy attempting to prove his worth for ZCG (which I respect), but the overall concept is flawed and adds additional bullshit for people to voice their opinion/contribute value.
Your âbenefitsâ list is pulled out of thin-air with no citations.
Additionally, the quote of âZcashâs decentralized ethosâ is satirical, or??
is it the amount of users storing their tokens on CEXes youâre thinking of? Or maybe the number of lightwallet servers? perhaps itâs the 2 entities who control the project? Or maybe you mean decentralized in the sense of who has received a portion of the dev fund? Because none of that is even tangentially decentralized.
Lastly: QEDIT is a pipe dream at this point. Cart before the horse.
. But itâs equally essential to recognize the larger stakes and vested interests of significant holders.
.
.
.
in our decision-making processes.
. Together, letâs shape a governance structure thatâs truly representative of our diverse and dynamic community.
.
.
.