Zcash Dev Fund - Results Based Financing & Equity Proposal Amendment

Hello community, I wrote an article post-protocol hangout which speaks to some of the Results-Based Financing suggestions (and other items I mentioned on the call) + provides an amendment (of sorts) to one of the Zip proposals.

There’s a lot here on mechanisms for external developers to enter into the ZEC ecosystem, I would appreciate it if this group would pay special attention to my article and provide feedback.

Please find it here: https://medium.com/@antoinette_marie_/reframing-the-conversation-zcash-dev-fund-7db0612f3d10



Thanks to the Zcash community for the liking and retweeting my post, making me accountable to writing this.
Thanks to LeeRoy, Peter, Duncan, Mathu, Zooko, Yizhao, and Troy for reading, listening, and helping me sort through my thoughts.

For the sake of brevity, the scope of this article will not include a background on the Founders’ Reward/Dev Fund, but if you’re looking for that, see here.

The gist of it is: “Zcash development is funded through a “founder’s reward.” For the first 4 years of the blockchain, 20% of the Zcash block reward will go to early investors, advisors, employees, etc, resulting in 10% of all Zcash ever.” By October 2020, this founder’s reward was scheduled to end, with 100% of block rewards going to miners.

You may notice that I use the term Zcash “community” and Zcash “network” somewhat interchangeably throughout the article. Generally, ‘network’ refers to ZEC holders and “community” represents a larger group who may not necessarily hold ZEC but still participate in Zcash-related discussions.

INTRODUCTION

Hello, nice to meet you. The purpose of this intro is to share the context from which I’m pulling a lot of these opinions.

I work for the largest INGO in Canada, specifically on their impact investing team. Our mission is to leverage investment capital to tackle the complex problems that perpetuate inequality for the world’s most vulnerable people.

There are some things that I want to point out, and hopefully you’ll see some correlation between the situation in which we find the Zcash Foundation and the Electric Coin Company.

  • I’m working within non-profit organization and my mandate is to attract for-profit capital to drive tangible impact.
  • Although I’m part of a huge INGO, my team is essentially a start-up operating within a highly antiquated industry, waiting for disruption.
  • Impact Investing is new. Being generous, about 12 years old.
  • My team has to not only report on financial returns, but dually, impact metrics which are scrutinized by our board of directors, investors, and donors.

Why I love Zcash? And I really do love Zcash…

My mission is to build enabling entrepreneurial environments hand-in-hand with catalyzers - the marginalized, the discriminated, the silenced - so that issues and their local solution-drivers can achieve the power to effect catalytic change.

I believe in the fundamental right to privacy. I believe in the fundamental right of an individual to participate in both local and global economies. I believe in the fundamental right of choice- Private, Public, Centralized, Decentralized- and the ability for law-abiding, sovereign individuals to circumvent the ever-more-real surveillance state. I think Zcash is a key that can unlock a different kind of world- one that has diversity, one that has choice, one that is accessible, and one that offers controlled transparency. I want to see that world, I want to live in that world, I want to be a part of making that world our world.

Let’s get to it.

BASELINE — The Electric Coin Company is a Startup

It’s relevant to begin with some definitions and establish a baseline, setting a precedent for the opinions made within this article.

For starters, I define the Electric Coin Company as a startup[0]. There are many ways to slice and dice that definition, but I would argue that this one is industry-standard: Startup: a human institution designed to create new products and services under conditions of extreme uncertainty. (The Lean Startup, Eric Ries, 2011)

[0] - https://electriccoin.co/about/

Here’s what startups need for both short and long-term success:

  • Auditable and measurable metrics for defining success, learnings, and pivots
  • A governance system for accountability
  • A scarce but secure source of operating capital
  • A personal stake in the outcome — stock options, or other forms of equity ownership
  • Flexibility and freedom to pivot on short iteration cycles
  • Finally, and most importantly, retention of talent and reasonable avoidance of high turnover in both the core team and its governance

Maybe you noticed, but each point above has a waterfall effect:

A startup needs auditable metrics to justify continued access to stable capital -> in order to have flexibility and freedom to pivot, capital must be unrestricted to account for a startup’s “uncertainty-factor” -> in order to hold a team accountable, ensure fairness, and audit progress, high turnover in governance and the core team should be avoided- in most cases.

Electric Coin Co. is a startup. Dev Fund/Strategic Reserve is their capital security. Zcash Foundation and the broader Zcash network is their governance system for accountability. This is our baseline.

The arguments that follow are solely based on the premise of my own opinion: I am not yet interested in sustaining innovation; I’m interested in disruptive innovation.

Creating incremental improvements to existing products and serving existing customers is called sustaining innovation, but struggle to create breakthrough new products, this is called disruptive innovation- that can create new sustainable sources of growth. (The Lean Startup, Eric Ries, 2011)

I am firmly against the immediate reduction of the Developers Fund for the sake decentralization. I believe that there is a roadmap to decentralization, but that the community has some work to do in terms of defining and achieving consensus on strategy, auditable metrics, and governance processes.



The case outlined below attempts to balance both value propositions of ground-breaking protocol development and on-boarding of new developers to work on the blockchain- whilst moving towards increased decentralization based on pre-defined metrics and milestones.

PROPOSAL AMENDMENT

Zertilizer, Developers’ Endowment Fund and Results-Based Financing Equity Mechanism for Financial Decentralization

Nearest related proposal:
#11 - A Grand Compromise/Synthesis ZIP Proposal
by Josh Cincinnati - https://twitter.com/acityinohio?lang=en

From the Dev Fund proposal review conversation hosted by the Zcash Foundation and published on September 20, 2019, I’ve distilled some of the pain points discussed from the user-perspectives of:

  1. Developers
  2. ZEC-holders
  3. ECC
  4. Miners.

The conversation can be found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvWpV6-t4HY

Keep in mind that this is not reflective of a full user-centric analysis, which would require several more in-depth interviews, further distillation of data points, and time. This is also a representation of information gathered, with an attempt to limit my own bias as much as possible.

Developers:

  1. There is a high barrier to entry for working on ZEC projects.
  2. There is a lack of immediate funding to compensate for time/resource investment to learn the ZEC codebase.
  3. There is a lack of opportunity/ competition to ECC for longer-term, sustainable funding opportunities for developer work.

ZEC-Holders:

  1. A pivot on the part of ECC could result in a de-valuation of ZEC and loss of ZEC’s leadership position in the crypto-space.
  2. The ECC should not fundraise nor accept money from parties which may influence development.
  3. A pivot away from ZEC by the ECC may result in the transfer of talent to other crypto projects.

ECC:

  1. ECC, like any startup, requires a stable source of capital in order to continue working on Zcash.
  2. ECC is not required to work on Zcash and can decide to pivot to something else that makes sense for their business.
  3. ECC loves Zcash and wants to continue to improve it, circumstance allowing.

Miners:

  1. It’s a huge upfront investment to start a mining operation.
  2. Margins are extremely low.
  3. The Dev Fund/Strategic Reserve can be viewed as tax on miners’ rewards.

The objective of this proposal is to provide a structure by which external developers can earn income and work on Zcash, whilst providing stable capital for ECC during a period of transition leading to financial decentralization through merit-based equity awards.

Zertilizer Capital (Skill Building, Entry-Level Funding)

A pain point for developers is the up-front cost for working on ZEC. As such, Zertilizer is meant to award developers up-front for the investment made into learning the ZEC code-base and applying for a Zcash Developers’ Endowment Fund grant (more on this in the next section). Zertilizer funding will be a set % of the Developers’ Endowment Fund.

Zertilizer represents a community-agreed-upon amount that will be disbursed via a voting mechanism, preferably through a smart contract, by which x-amount of ZEC is used to cast votes. The online vote will expire after 24h post-communication, thus ensuring a quick and timely response for applicants. The Zcash network (meaning all ZEC-holders, inclusive of Electric Coin Company and Zcash Foundation employees) will be the sole decision-making-body for awarding Zertilizer through majority[1] vote rule.

[1]Alternatively, if it is determined that network participation is insufficient to ensure a fair and statistically significant voting body, it can be decided that a ‘voting committee’ should be appointed by the Zcash network for the purpose of managing Zertilizer funding.

To apply for Zertilizer developers (individuals or teams) must submit a 3-minute (max) voice memo describing:

  1. The team or the individual
  2. The intended development
  3. The value-proposition of the development
  4. The alignment of the project with the ZEC strategic roadmap (see #3 in the Recommendations Section)

Voting Rules to Consider:

  1. Should there be a blended approach which includes a Bounty system?
  2. How much money should be awarded per project?
  3. Should developers be able to submit multiple proposals per day, or should there be a waiting period before resubmission?
  4. Should each development proposal each have their own 3-minute voice memo, even if it’s authored by the same developer/team? (I’m leaning towards having only 1 suggested project per proposal so that the community can reject one project and approve another project submitted by the same team).
  5. Should teams be allowed to re-submit a rejected proposal for a re-vote? (Yes but…) If so, should there be a stipulation of significant change or time-in-between? (there should definitely be some rule around change, inclusion of community feedback, or time-in-between submission of similar proposals).
  6. Should there be a ‘staking’ mechanism whereby members have the option to stake more ZEC in order to have greater influence on the voting decision? How much ZEC should be required to vote? (something akin to Dash’s masternodes - https://medium.com/@staked/dash-staking-guide-e8d671d0ce03)

Nullification

Any vote is subject to nullification if:
1 If there is a statistically insignificant number of voters participating in any vote.
2 If there is any tampering or hacking of the voting mechanism.
3 If there is detection of malpractice- like the use of bots, multiple team-members submitting many proposals under different team names, use of funds for other projects, etc.

Technology

Ideally the voting mechanism is simple and easy to use, preferably through a smart contract. There should be a way to ensure that there’s no double-voting, or use of bots, hence the smart contract suggestion. There should be a way to comment/give feedback to developers. Ideally, there should be an opt-in notification mechanism that alerts network members when a Zertilizer vote is live (and ideally) another notification when one is expiring. Ideally, notifications would be pushed through the much-anticipated ZEC Wallet.

Zcash Developer’s Endowment Fund (Seed Funding)

The Zcash Foundation will have a fund called the Zcash Developers’ Endowment Fund. This fund will be initially financed[2] through a crowd-funding campaign and will then invest a %[2] of capital-raised into traditional market assets which will generate a pre-defined return. This will allow the Fund to exist in perpetuity without necessitating crowdfunding beyond the initial financing campaign.

The portfolio will be managed by an experienced fund manager with investment expertise. This fund manager will be employed by the Zcash Foundation, and will be mandated to draft the fund’s investment criteria and manage investments on behalf of the Zcash Foundation. The criteria for investment should be voted on and approved by the Zcash network (meaning all ZEC-holders, inclusive of Electric Coin Company and Zcash Foundation employees).

The remaining capital held within the Zcash Developers’ Endowment Fund will be leveraged to provide up-front capital (Zertilizer) and project-based grants (seed funding) to external developers. The approval process will be handled by the Zcash Foundation (see Recommendation #5 below).

[2]Decision of fundraising goals and % distribution is subject to network vote and consensus. Fundraising goals should be based on financial metrics which account for cost of OpEx, fund manager(s), legal fees, avg. Zertilizer grant size, and avg. project grant size.

Equity Funding (Long-term Funding)

To incentivize and provide an entry-point for external developers to work on the protocol over a longer-term than a seed grant can provide, a % (equity) of the original Dev Fund/Strategic Reserve (not the new Zcash Developers’ Endowment Fund) should be awarded to developer(s) whose work achieves certain key milestones. These milestones need to be linked to the value that the developer creates, through auditable and community agreed-upon metrics.

In addition, where a developer earns a % of the original Dev Fund/Strategic Reserve, a set % of the developer’s reward is returned back to the Zcash Foundation. These funds are to be used by the Zcash Foundation to “top up” the Developers’ Endowment Fund, thus allowing the Zcash Foundation to continue to award Zertilizer and seed grants to external developers.

Through this top-up mechanism, the % of Miners Rewards afforded to the Electric Coin Company and its employees will transfer over to independent developers over-time[3] as projects and the capacity of developers become of enough quality to meet the metrics and milestones required to apply for equity funding, thus achieving a step towards financial decentralization.

In order to ensure that a minimum threshold of funding is awarded to external developers, only once a pre-determined % of equity disbursement is awarded to external developers will the ECC have permission to apply for funding from the Developers’ Endowment Fund.

[3]There is no stipulation of a minimum % disbursement per time period. In other words, it is perfectly possible that upon review of projects, 0 projects are awarded equity funding.

Concerns:

  1. Crowding out — not enough developers at the required skill-level to meaningfully contribute to ZEC technology. (addressed by the structure of the Equity Disbursement- see above)
  2. Barriers to Entry & Bureaucracy — Developers need to be compensated for the up-front cost of learning the code base and bidding for grants (addressed by Zertilizer capital- see above)
  3. Stewardship — without proper stewardship of the Equity Fund, the fund can be rendered useless. (addressed by Recommendations #3, #4, #6- see below)

Recommendations:

  • Recommended, especially if there is concern that existing developer talent is not mature enough to develop on the Zcash Blockchain, that a meaningful percentage of the Developers’ Endowment Fund is attributed to Zertilizer capital for the first 1–2 years of the Fund’s lifespan.

  • Recommended that a ZEC t-shirt be awarded as a crowdfunding incentive of a minimum $5 donation (+ shipping). It is also recommended that all profit from the sale of t-shirts be directed to the Developers’ Endowment Fund. It’s also cheap word-of-mouth marketing for ZEC.

  • Strongly recommended that the Electric Coin Company issue a memo per external developer project proposal for equity funding with a go/no-go decision.

  • Recommended that the Zcash Foundation choose to withhold the disbursement of Equity funding prior to the development of an on-chain voting mechanism whereby the Zcash network may have a vote in the selection of project proposals for equity funding.

  • Strongly recommended that the Zcash Foundation, the Electric Coin Company, and the Zcash network develop and achieve consensus on a strategic roadmap for ZEC, inclusive of both on-chain developments, protocol upgrades, decentralized governance proposals, and regulatory collaboration, by which the decision-making on go/no-go for equity funding are based upon.

  • Strongly Recommended that it be decided that the Zcash Foundation must create a Due Diligence and Investment Criteria Framework prior to the disbursement of any equity funding and that this framework be shared publicly and achieve community consensus.

  • Recommended that the Electric Coin Company offer support, guidance, and expertise on the development of this Due Diligence and Investment Criteria framework.

  • Recommended that, eventually, a mechanism is built-in to the protocol which prescribes, similar to an income tax, a fluctuating tax rate for miners which is dependent on the amount of active miners, nodes being run, coins generated, etc.

AUDITABLE METRICS

The Zcash , Zcash Foundation, and ECC must work together to develop and achieve consensus on auditable metrics that:

  • Show quantitative value to the ZEC economy
  • Track against the strategic roadmap
  • Can be measured and audited by anyone
  • Allows for flexibility in terms of failures, pivots, and adjustments

The Zcash Foundation will contract or hire[4] an individual(s) with the proper pre-requisites (background in blockchain, data, analytics, and design) who will solely be responsible for working with the Zcash Foundation, Electric Coin Company, and external developers to:

  • working with the community to define and communicate auditable metrics with product developers (i.e. ECC and external developers)
  • communicate with the Zcash community and host live votes
  • consolidate and publish voting results, feedback, and suggestions at a defined time interval
  • host Quarterly hangouts for discussions

The independent authority who will be responsible for ensuring the legitimacy and validity of reporting will be the Zcash community.

[4] It can be voted upon whether or not said contractor(s) or employee(s)’ salary(ies) may be taken from the Zcash Foundation Developer fund proposed above.

The Three A’s of Metrics: Actionable, Accessible, Auditable

Actionable — it must demonstrate clear cause and effect, otherwise it’s a vanity metric.

Accessible — make the report as simple as possible so that everyone can read them. The easiest way to do this is to use tangible, concrete units. What is a website hit? Nobody is really sure, but everyone knows what a person visiting a website is.

Auditable — We must ensure that data is credible to employees. Those building reports must make sure that the mechanisms that generate the reports are not too complex. Whenever possible, reports should be drawn directly from the master data, which should be public, which reduces opportunities for error.

Three questions to gut-check metrics:

  1. Are you making your product better?
  2. How do you know?
  3. How do you know that the changes made are related to the results we’re seeing?
    (Source: The Lean Startup, Eric Ries)

CONCLUSION

Before we remove funding from anyone, we need to make sure that we have auditable metrics and a strategic road map to base our decisions upon. I want to see decentralization too, but I need to know how we get there and what are our measurements of success.

If we want to make sure that 4-years from now there is no Dev-fund, we need to build that into governance, technology, and metrics. In other words:

  • Premature action will likely cause more harm than good.
  • Inaction will likely result in little progress and status-quo.
  • Intentional action will result in the desired outcome.

A decentralized economy and its governance won’t be built in a year, two years, or even five years- Enigma was invented in 1923, the first personal computer (KENBAK-1) was introduced in 1971, by 1984 we saw the Macintosh, and 2007 marked the first ever iPhone- in other words, groundbreaking innovation takes dedication and time.

One last thing, a disclosure of sorts, held within this article may be ideas, suggestions, and infrastructure which may have already been communicated or enacted within the Zcash ecosystem. If there is a fundamental misunderstanding held within these ideas or if there’s an already-existing system I have not taken into account, or if you’ve written something similar that you think I should review, please do not hesitate to let me know and send me links — I will read, listen, and watch everything you take the time to communicate to me.


Thanks to @mistfpga for getting this into a proper format to facilitate discussion. I really appreciate it.

4 Likes

Hi,

Just a couple of questions.

Which INGO do you work for?

Would you please post the medium post on the forum so I may respond here? I do not have an account on medium.

Thank you.

Steve

Steve, just respond to the Medium post here. Read it on Medium, then comment here.

It was to make quoting easier. but that is cool. I will work something out.

1 Like

In my opinion the whole medium article should be in the Def Fund all in one place thread. I don’t think it’s a good idea that various dev fund discussions are split and in different threads.

1 Like

Is the article that Coinmonks posted different than the OPs original work? For some reason the OPs link seems broken.

Nope, it is just a oneboxed version. it is the same link. I think they were trying to help me find the article? idk.

I am surprised a new account, as in never posted before, can just post a link with no other text and it get auto followed. - maybe because it had already been posted.

Had to be approved first

1 Like

@Coinmonks added me as approved publisher.

I also wanted to share a “Friend Link” for those who don’t have a Medium subscription. My apologies for the delay on this: https://medium.com/coinmonks/reframing-the-conversation-zcash-dev-fund-7db0612f3d10?source=friends_link&sk=4879f4ce75a6c9ed109f83f3db518750

@mistfpga thank you for all your effort in re-copying and posting in this thread.

My apologies for the delay on this: https://medium.com/coinmonks/reframing-the-conversation-zcash-dev-fund-7db0612f3d10?source=friends_link&sk=4879f4ce75a6c9ed109f83f3db518750

World Vision Canada, on the Origin Capital team, is the INGO.

1 Like

Hey, sorry I’m new to using this thread, and embarrassed to write this, but what is OP? and what would you like me to do?

1 Like

OP = Original Post(er)

Erm, it is a bit tricky to describe.

Would you please edit the original post and after the medium link in the article could you please paste the contents of the link I am about to send you via PM

This will be a link to the forum formatted version of your post. That way when people quote parts, you will get messaged. There is quite a bit of stuff covered that has also been brought up on the forum. I think it will help you a lot more to get a handle on the situation if you can follow direct forum links.

Give me 2 minutes and I will PM you.

1 Like

You asked me to delete this, but I don’t think that I have the proper permissions to do so.

1 Like

No, but I do. :slight_smile:

Thanks for doing that I really appreciate it. I am off to the pub now but will post some feedback tomorrow.

1 Like

Hi,

Thanks for this well thought out post. I am going to make a couple of replies, this is just to make it easier to read and follow. I am just correcting a few misconceptions in this first post. Most of it relates to the ECC and how I understand that they function. This information has be from discussions with recipients of the Founders Reward (from now on just called FR)

I really like the charitble idea that you have put forward and I certainly think a 4th entity working in tandem with the foundation is a great idea. When I talk about 4th entity in this post it is in relation into how things currently work - I know the main job of this 4th entity would be to shepherd the donations. (somewhat like the monero community thingy?) So some of my questions might seem out of context, I am trying to reframe those specific parts in current context (pre halving)

I am putting this at the top, because it is specifically in this context I am referring to your points, I am just trying to get you up to speed on a few things that probably are relevant to your proposal.

I really like your attitude, I hope you stick around on the forums. Please PM me if I can help at all, I always keep PM’s private. I have used footnotes rather than inline quotes to make things a bit easier for you to read up on and the post a bit easier to read.

Sorry if this seems a bit disjointed there is a lot to digest in your post and I wrote this over a few days.

In relation to the ECC as a start up, or more when it was started up these things were not really accounted for then. However they should be for the 4th entity. (this is why I am seperating out the posts.)

the ECC does not publicly disclose these. - and it is difficult to see where we are now from where we were because of the small incremental stuff that you have to be on the very high volume dev list to notice (a metric ton of work does get done, so much so I had to unsub from the list - it is just not done in an auditable way by a lay person. This is the main issue as I see it. Any new group would need to somehow get this lay person auditability.

There is nothing the ECC is accountable for except to distribute the FR to the specified addresses in the specified amounts. They just so happen to work on zcash technology because it enriches them because that is how they get their funding. please see footnotes [1][2]

They have this but wont. “all in zec” even though zooko has expressed that this used to be an option. [3]

what about:
5. hardware developers?

Okay you later say this funding comes from donations. these donations have nothing to do with the current protocol? or are they somehow connected? it is not obvious to me.

Doesnt this favour the ECC, seeing as they have potentially 20% of the current supply and the turnout for these types of things is usually very bad. Why don’t we use the mechanisms we already have? Like the foundation and community governance panel? They are not perfect. but they function and will be used for the NU4 development funding decisions. - I know you are describing a new entity, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t be bound by existing protocol in these matters rather than a 4th party.

I think you will struggle to forum a quorum for is, especially in under 24hrs. (for example, timezones)

Like the community governance panel?

Okay but how does this help retroactive development? for example radix did a lot of work for free developing a GUI for windows and mac and there was no real way for them to get paid.

I am currently having an issue with some tech we developed for another project and have adapted to zec, but we have no requirements to work from so we dont know what effort we need to put in and what we will get paid for it (and we are not looking to make a profit, but different specd devices cost different amounts). Because of this we are thinking of just dropping the zec side of the project and moving on to another project.

We welcome any new processes that would help. Most businesses use things like IBM’s DOORS to track stuff and pay people. Requirements based deliverables are much easier to test and track. you could have a whole set of unit tests that something must pass then that bit of code gets a payout from a smart contract, a human reviews the code and submits their review, again partial pay out.

The thing is Ethereum is designed for this. zcash, not so much. (I do have a post around here somewhere, i think, where I go into the ‘blue skys thinking’ on the idealised situation for smart contract distributed development. I will try to dig it out if you want to have a look.)

  1. Should there be a blended approach which includes a Bounty system?

There has to be or you have created a new bigger barrier by making this ‘committee’ a hoop that needs to be jumped through. This also makes it pretty hard for small fry to add to the project. I understand this fund is not really meant for that, but the zfnd doesn’t account for it either. so it would be nice if some fund somewhere did.

  1. How much money should be awarded per project?
  2. Should developers be able to submit multiple proposals per day, or should there be a waiting period before resubmission?
  3. Should each development proposal each have their own 3-minute voice memo, even if it’s authored by the same developer/team? (I’m leaning towards having only 1 suggested project per proposal so that the community can reject one project and approve another project submitted by the same team).
  4. Should teams be allowed to re-submit a rejected proposal for a re-vote? (Yes but…) If so, should there be a stipulation of significant change or time-in-between? (there should definitely be some rule around change, inclusion of community feedback, or time-in-between submission of similar proposals).

the zcfd should do and already does this role, however like you I see that there is much room for improvement. are getting there though. I dont get the need for a 4th party (if you count the community panel) - unless the funds are completely independent of the protocol. I am only mentioning this in case you are assigning future protocol based donations. (which it does look like you are doing later on in the post)

Any vote is subject to nullification if:
1 If there is a statistically insignificant number of voters participating in any vote.

How are you defining a quorum?

Ideally the voting mechanism is simple and easy to use

This is a problem for democracy in general.

Zcash Developer’s Endowment Fund (Seed Funding)

I really like this concept. But you cannot get seed funding for this from the current FR. Please see my footnotes.

Just so I am double clear on this (I have read your proposal a number of times so I think I have it down.) - All funding for this Zcash Developers’ Endowment Fund. is purely driven via non protocol based mechanisms.

I dont understand, so say I get a proposition through this new entity and get awarded x amount and that money comes from the FR (which it cant, but for arguments sake lets say it can)
Do I have to give y% back to the foundation? or does the foundation get a % of the FR proportional to the amount of the FR I got?

Through this top-up mechanism, the % of Miners Rewards afforded to the Electric Coin Company and its employees will transfer over to independent developers over-time[3] as projects and the capacity of developers become of enough quality to meet the metrics and milestones required to apply for equity funding, thus achieving a step towards financial decentralization.

Are these rewards the initial FR rewards and not the new “dev fund rewards” (I am just double checking. heh)

The Zcash , Zcash Foundation, and ECC must work together to develop and achieve consensus on auditable metrics that:

agreed. Like I said I really like the concept and idea behind the proposal. I just want to get some technical bits out of the way first. I have probably misunderstood a few things.

I believe a requirements based development model suits your outlined goals in the proposal. this is just post is just about funding it.

If we want to make sure that 4-years from now there is no Dev-fund, we need to build that into governance, technology, and metrics. In other words:

So you are envisaging 4 more years of funding? Where is this funding coming from? I am a bit confused now.

Please see footnote [3] - people tried to do this 3 years ago. (although the context is slightly different)

Cheers,

Steve.

footnotes

[1]

One of my proposals had this, which is think is similar to what you are saying.

However the top two had to be taken out for the final github submission. (if you look at the edit history for the that orginal post in that thread and compare it to the github.

[2]

Compare the first post in that thread with the actual github pull request that went through. (this is why people were confused by my proposals in the call, the github versions and my local ones are very different from the forums ones [due to a quirk of the forum]

Nicely formatted github version.

The forum version

[3]

Whilst that is from a 3 year old thread, it seems very prescient.

OHKAY! :partying_face: let’s get into it! I’ll quote and reply. I think you got most of it… you did lose me in some parts, but together we’ll figure it out. I wish this forum had voice memos and maybe a transcription bot! (…@sonya, can we do this?!? There’s an argument to be made that we’re ‘listening’ to information more than we’re ‘reading’ it these days…) but typing will do for now!

1 Like

I think this the only part where I get lost. I did not have the intention to advocate for a formal 4th entity. I do, however, have put forth suggestions which would most likely require the zcash foundation to hire new staff (and appoint new committees- i.e. an investment committee) and/or expand the mandate of existing organizational structures i.e. the community governance panel.


That being said, I would argue that, in the spirit of decentralization, I am a proponent of the former.

I’m going off on a tangent here and I think that’s maybe step 5. There are layers to this proposal and I encourage the community to tackle each issue one layer at a time.

1 Like

I think I addressed this here:

Blockquoteimage
The Zcash , Zcash Foundation, and ECC must work together to develop and achieve consensus on auditable metrics that:
• Show quantitative value to the ZEC economy
• Track against the strategic roadmap
• Can be measured and audited by anyone
• Allows for flexibility in terms of failures, pivots, and adjustments
The Zcash Foundation will contract or hire* an individual(s) with the proper pre-requisites (background in blockchain, data, analytics, and design) who will solely be responsible for working with the Zcash Foundation, Electric Coin Company, and external developers to:
a) working with the community to define and communicate auditable metrics with product developers (i.e. ECC and external developers)
b) communicate with the Zcash community and host live votes
c) consolidate and publish voting results, feedback, and suggestions at a defined time interval
d) host Quarterly hangouts for discussions
The independent authority who will be responsible for ensuring the legitimacy and validity of reporting will be the Zcash community.
It can be voted upon whether or not said contractor(s) or employee(s)’ salary(ies) may be taken from the Zcash Foundation Developer fund proposed above.

1 Like