Zcash Foundation - aggressive and harmful?

What do you think about the reactions of the Zcash Foundation towards this https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/proposal-for-the-zcash-2020-network-upgrade funding proposal.
They look very aggressive and counterproductive to me.

After you ask for feedback i will share my opinion.

In my opinin the whole process of this funding discussion and debate is handled totally wrong by all parties, including us proposal makers.


Proposal makers: We proposal makers make proposals for given amounts we don’t know what they are actually? Even less for what they are planned to be used for. That’s absolute strange to begin with.

Than we have a totally uncoordinated approach on guidelines, answers, requirements, whatever not in the last minute. All these conditions, guidelines, whatever should have been thought about months ago and not at 5 minutes bevor 12 a clock…

Than we see obvious favouring, sabotage, ignorance, aggresiveness and whatever not interventions IF a given proposal fits or doesn’t fit into the entities view how they shold be. Your claim here just underlines my personal opinion on this. No matter if you are right or not and i’am not claiming you are right, is actually enough. If you get an impression that a given proposal is attacked, favoured, not favoured, ignored, whatever it’s enoug to allready have a line crossed IF it’s not based on pure technical requirements.

To be fair, at least from my point of view, i would say that the ZF did a way better job so far in trying to be neutral than the ECC does. IF you ask me if i think that they (ZF) are 100% neutral, no, i don’t think they are 100% neutral either. One of the reason is that they have a proposal from a ZF board member in the race as well which in my opinion is a bad move, but that’s just my opinion and how i see pure neutrality.

One of the main problems in this very important discussion is that it is that important to a lot of people with different views that they forget how much sensibility should be used. That every action, even if in best faith could be considered manipulation and intervention.

I personally would have wished that both, the ECC and ZF only add pure formal technical help to each proposal so they get ZIP ready, eventually legal concerns IF a given proposal wouldn’t fit due legal concerns and that’s it. Having in mind how many of us propsoal makers struggle with making a zip ready format proposal it’s more counterproductive to see how much time the ZF and ECC uses to comment, maybe even influence proposals instead of making them proposal zip ready. But that’s just my personal observations, not many care anyway…

the fact that its gone public at all, and that all opinions are being taken for consideration - is an one big non-trivial show for crypto. ofc it could be less messy, but honestly, could this be expected in such format? the fact that whole process is not going behind closed doors is already interesting and if maintained properly - have chances to refit zcash for good. anyway, i support your view that all the statements from involved parties could and should be as neutral and well articulated as possible. every wrong word in such process can be harmful.


Let me explain again why I was harsh (which I stand by): Blocktown’s proposal reflected such ignorance of context that it was disrespectful to everyone involved so far. Blocktown’s desired arrangement contradicts the principles that we’ve been painstakingly, arduously implementing for more than a year.

When I say “we,” I don’t just mean the Foundation, nor do I mean the Foundation and ECC. I mean all of us. I mean the people who took hours and hours of their personal lives to debate this, to keep up with the copious relevant information, to write and iterate on proposals based on community feedback. The arrogance of Blocktown showing up, apparently without even skimming the megathread, is astounding. Compare to Placeholder, another VC firm — Placeholder did the homework.

I’m not saying that everyone needs to do a full-on research project before drafting a proposal. I’m saying, if you draft a proposal without knowing what the realistic constraints are, I’m gonna be irritated. I refuse to pretend that low-quality work is actually high-quality — Zcash is too important for that.

It’s one thing when someone is confused by, say, the ZIP process, or when someone demonstrates that they tried to catch up on context but missed something. That’s valuable UX feedback, in fact! It’s a whole different ball of wax when they’re like, “Here’s my plan. ZIP process? What’s that?”

Why bother with calling people you disagree with ignorant?
So righteous, hard working, empowered to speak for “all of us”, you should just delete the thread and ban their account.

I am not speaking for all of us, I am speaking about all of us. I am relaying how I see things.

If you want to defend Blocktown’s proposal or lack of relevant knowledge, be my guess.

Because the information is readily available and has been highlighted about a gazillion times wherever Zcash development funding is discussed. Everyone has been linking to these two threads, including ECC:

A post was merged into an existing topic: Proposal for the Zcash 2020 Network Upgrade