Extending the direct dev fund is a bit problematic. As some said, the time can be used more wisely (for actual R&D and progress). Expiring would let ZEC be finally free (pointing at FIT21), also the impression really is in the public that ECC/ZF moved very slowly in the past and this November halving with the dev fund expiration could be used as a trigger and make everyone work faster, deliver and start adjusting NOW! There’s no time to wait and procrastinate. ZEC and the future of private payments are in stake here.
I see only 3 real pathways:
fully expire the fund
1-year extension and setting of the Zcash Funding Bloc
no extension and setting of the Zcash Funding Bloc
Pathway number 3 would ensure people work hard to get there.@joshs
Standing behind Hanh and as I see on other media (twitter, telegram), @hanh’s proposal seems to be getting the most support. This is also basically my 3rd pathway from the previous post in a different wording.
expire the dev fund in November, as it is supposed to end (meeting your own deadlines!)
fund the implementation of zcash funding bloc via donations, if it doesn’t get funded, the community doesn’t want that, as simple as that.
I believe it should end. I think one of the reasons Zec has become so far down the table is due to lack of progression. Some projects build things in 6 months from scratch. I do think there has been some dragging of feet previous but as said above - if November is the deadline and it ends then time is ticking and get what needs to be done from your own deadlines. For Zec to move forward the deadline needs to be met and no extension as it just makes it look like incompetence.
I like these alternative suggestions a lot. Basically, you’re suggesting that we all take Josh’s DAO/ grants model concept and run with it while necessitating that the community votes with $$$ via a ZCG(?) fund to show support for the work needed to get it done.
Keeping the same old 20% model for another year does paint a bit of an odd picture, especially because how Josh/ ECC have ~explicitly said they don’t want any block rewards after November (while simultaneously writing a proposal to ask for another 7% of block rewards until November 2025)… a bit of a contraction if you ask me.
Dropping the block rewards altogether is slowly feeling more and more like it is shifting into the community’s preference.
50% of the block reward to long-term sustainability starting in November. No extension of the current dev fund. End corporate addresses in the protocol in November. Sustainability fund is only disbursed through appropriately decentralized mechanism. The high-level requirements for this mechanism must be decided. These requirements become the hard part. The new mechanism can run for 4 years or indefinitely.
Community must have more participation, giving just 1/8 is “disrespectfully” at the end of the date they eat all the down trend and also are the ones buying power, creating a economy, using and transaction ZEC.
If you want great tech: already have but products are missing, contract devs.
But if devs have the power, and the products. Without community they are just employes. It’s like create a enterprise project and give the voting power to the employees, the customer is the one who knows what he wants and what is needed in all the schools. Dev are the tool or the one you contract to deploy it, not to vote or run it. No matter how much they know about code they tend to be in their basement they don’t represent the full extension of all the user archetypes, the mass, the user.
The grants space in the future will be for future devs and protects but at the beginning will be the same people that already have a vote you have to put some clear rules to give more power also to devs and foundation as the same way you are trying to take the powers out from whales that is stupid because buying the coin is a way of buy stocks of the business as i repeat devs org are employes, you must be able to fire the people that is not doing thing as intended for the future and objective the proyect want to achieve and I repeat the devs are not the proyect the protocol is for the customers.
who will be responsible for accountability? Will they be paid to do so?
who is allowed to submit a grant? That is, are there any cases where KYC will be both necessary and sufficient for the grant to proceed?
What happens if a grantee misbehaves?
Will there be any “Nuclear” option if nothing can be agreed upon? What would this look like?
Since term limits do not exists, can other key members propose to “Kick out” a key holder if they feel they are acting in bad faith, or against the community? (Ala survival counsel meeting)
My thought is that each key holder is responsible for making their own determination. If they don’t believe that the requirements have been met, they can chose to withhold payment my not signing for the release of the payment. Once a majority has signed, the payment is sent to the grantee.
In theory, anyone is allowed to submit a grant. For major grants, it’s likely that US regulated orgs with signing keys would require KYC. This is would different through minor grants (ZCG) and/or other key signers.
If a signer does not believe that payments should be made, they don’t sign. If the majority doesn’t sign, the grantee isn’t paid.
It means that nothing is funded and the fund coins accumulate until something is agreed upon.
Yes, the idea is that someone request a vote and the other signers vote on whether to remove another signer. Same for adding a new signer.
Right now, this is just an idea to explore, so adjustable. If this was implemented, it could be adjusted by a consensus change if the community desired to change it.
I hope that helps clarify my thoughts. Happy to hear thoughts from you and others.
