This is a fair point, but it doesn’t have to be binary.
I am disappointed with the overall results of the current grant program. It’s not the fault of the members but something structural. Several large grants were given without any or negligible impact on ZEC adoption (Arti/Tor). In some cases, recipients started and stopped (Trezor). Some deliverables were garbage (Blockchain Training Alliance).
In contrast, a notable example of demonstrating value before receiving a grant was Hahn’s work on YWallet and Warp Sync.
In the case of Qedit. I love the idea of ZSAs, but 1) they haven’t been delivered yet, and 2) we don’t know if they will be used. It’s speculative. It could be a massive driver of adoption. It might be a dud. As a Zcasher, I’d rather pay more if they deliver a ton of value to the network.
Who bears the risk of ZCG grants, ECC or ZF not- or under-performing?
ZEC holders do.
Who makes the decisions about what is funded and delivered?
A small group of ZCG members, ECC and ZF.
There is a clear lack of alignment. I believe the proposal for the Funding Bloc addresses, and retroactive funding can potentially improve outcomes.
In the proposal, I suggested the following: “The ZCG will be solely responsible for grants under a certain threshold. I suggest starting with a per grant cap of $200k and an annual cap of 20% of the grant-based development fund.”
While these might be retroactive, it could be up to the ZCG to determine its policies. The caps help keep things in check while allowing a lot of discretion. Retroactive grants could, in my opinion, improve ZCG’s effectiveness while giving it another tool for filtering and guiding the ecosystem.
For the remaining grants, the Bloc might do something like the following (somewhat arbitrary %s):
Set up a speculative investment fund (10%): seed funding innovation with significant but speculative upside. This might fund things like post-quantum cryptographic research or some untested business model that drives ZEC adoption. Speculative funds are given to proven parties without the expectation of specific milestones.
Maintenance fund (30%): protocol, community, security, etc., to keep things up and running. These might be longer grants, open to competition annually, or when SLAs are not met.
Retroactive grants fund (40%): based on demonstrated value to the network.
Again, at this point, these are just ideas for discussion and logic testing rather than a formal proposal. I appreciate the engagement.