Weighted Coin Voting & Community Advisory Tokens 📜

[GGuy]

Proposal to Evolve the Zenate Governance Structure: Weighted Coin Voting & Community Advisory Tokens

Some of you might recall @joshs’ intriguing idea about introducing the Zenate, a concept that sought to strengthen our governance structure. While his original proposal highlighted several promising mechanisms, our community’s dynamism pushes us to think even broader. To ensure inclusivity, I propose integrating ‘Weighted Coin Voting’ alongside a novel initiative: ‘Community Advisory Tokens’.

Enhancing the Zenate with Weighted Coin Voting

Given Zcash’s decentralized ethos, it’s vital that every ZEC holder, regardless of their holdings’ size, has a voice . But it’s 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:

1. It promotes a richer tapestry of voices in our decision-making processes.

2. Encourages active participation from community members who are invested in Zcash’s success but might not hold large amounts of ZEC.

3. Strengthens the bridge between Zcash’s core development and its grassroots supporters.

How Weighted Coin Voting Would Work with Community Advisory Tokens

Utilizing Zcash Shielded Assets (ZSAs):

1. When the Zenate calls for an official weighted coin vote, both ZEC holders and Community Advisory Token holders receive ‘voting tokens’.

2. Addresses for each voting option are provided. Holders then send their tokens to the corresponding address.

3. If you hold both ZEC and Community Advisory Tokens, you’ll receive the sum of the two in ‘voting tokens’.

4. At the end of the voting period, the tokens in each address tally up to reflect the community’s preference.

Technical Nuances

Currently, the ZSA framework doesn’t 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, let’s shape a governance structure that’s truly representative of our diverse and dynamic community.

Eagerly awaiting a constructive discussion .

[kworks]

One member one vote.
Most votes win.

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

[Jgx7]

@GGuy

Is the integration of weighted coin voting and Community Advisory Tokens a priority for us?

Once we have voting, then I believe zenate should oversee voting where.

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. zenate should have the obligation to ensure the ECC/foundation/grants committee are all acting for the benefit and fiduciaries of ZEC holders. I don’t see this entity as directly controlling funding; especially if boards of foundation/ecc are voted in….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, it’s 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.

[geffen]

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)
  I’m all for a weighted system against whale monopolization, but we can’t ignore the staking users and their contribution. We also don’t want another hard to understand out of band solution so we will need…

• 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 don’t think it should be the “Zenate” or any form of cabal, it should be the community at large, and the defacto way of doing things. Let’s not confuse users and marketing by talking about anything but the “community”.

[GGuy]

Many esteemed crypto projects, such as MakerDAO (MKR), Compound (COMP), Aragon (ANT), Kusama’s 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:

1. Coin Holder Voting: While valuing coin holders’ input, the proposal doesn’t place them at the center. It suggests that voting power should adapt to reflect current coin holdings, moving beyond the initial governance token distribution.
2. Continuous Advisory Tokens: Eschewing a one-time distribution, the proposal champions recurring issuances of Community Advisory Tokens, guaranteeing continuous representation for evolving contributors.
3. 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 “Community Advisory Tokens - January 2024” and “Community Adv… - April 2024”. 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 Zcash’s resilience and inclusivity.

[GGuy]

I’m not sure there are any direct equivalents or atleast I haven’t seen any. Sorry I can’t 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 I’d like to think of this simply as an incremental improvement on that .

[pkr]

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 “benefits” list is pulled out of thin-air with no citations.

Additionally, the quote of “Zcash’s decentralized ethos” is satirical, or??

is it the amount of users storing their tokens on CEXes you’re thinking of? Or maybe the number of lightwallet servers? perhaps it’s 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.