Yep, all good, there was no expectation of your initial post being a final proposal. And my comment was indeed, participating into the discussion you have initiated.
The good news is that as far as Zcash itself is concerned, I don’t think anyone wants any on-chain governance. That has the serious implication that none of the votes we organize is technically binding. That is miners / validators are under no obligation to run a specific code, likewise for what ECC/ZF & others decide to work on and how. In other words, on a technical / game theoretical level, we currently share and have no plans to deviate from, using the Bitcoin Governance as far as the protocol is concerned. We are actually immune from large token holders takeovers!
So why are we doing it? To get a pulse on the ecosystem we wouldn’t otherwise have. That is quite important to optimize the allocation of resources; both those of the dev funds, but also those of stakeholders deciding to allocate from their own stash directly.
If you look at it from this perspective, there is no longer any “Must pass” or “Can veto”. Every ecosystem participant is free to interpret the results as they see fit. But now we know what each side wants, and that is quite precious.
Now where I would argue we could and should have on-chain governance is for the very special dev fund. That is because you want to make sure the power of ZEC holders to spend their tokens is not stolen from them, as it is now. Someone else is doing it before us btw. It’s a different subject and outside of the scope of this thread so I’ll stop there on this, but still a reminder that I would appreciate an answer from you @joshs.