one of cryptocurrencies core promises is Capped Supply
if a group of 100 people can decide to change the cap, this is not a cryptocurrency,
one of cryptocurrencies core promises is Capped Supply
The same way that it never happened with Bitcoin, the same way it will never happen with Zcash. This is as non-negotiable as the name of Zcash itself.
I don’t think this statement is right. Do you not consider Ethereum, Solana or Monero as cryptocurrency then?
I don’t see any serious support to remove the cap, and I personally don’t support changing the current consensus on total supply.
Nop Ethereum and Solana are not Cryptocurrencies…
Monero has that under 1% inflation i know…
But Monero also doesn’t have a CEO with his family, they are still ASIC resistant, they dont have “Rewards” that they can control, they didn’t manipulate the supply (or did they?)
im not the biggest fan of Monero but i mean at least Monero has some principles lol
and i see Zcash as a coin without principles… just always thinking how to save ECC.
do you really think that a group of people could have the power to vote on max supply of a crypto? after millions of people around the world invested in it?
if Zcash dies - let it die.
it will be better for Zcash than betraying core principles
Im not aware anyone is planning to change the 21M cap.
ps. just to let u know Monero is not ASIC resistant anymore - u can buy Monero ASICs.
also crypto in crptocurrency means cryptography not something to do with supply.
ok Monero sucks then. my point is
Bitcoin, Litecoin and every other cryptocurrency that does not have pre-mine, will consider changing the cap as a taboo.
you are not aware, but they are starting to bring up that idea and even Josh saying “its up to the community” is very dangerous.
We need our own little constitution/manifesto. This for sure will give a massive boost of confidence to ZEC holders and newcomers. + free up these forums from unnecessary discussions/distractions (any comment/topic that goes against our “constitution” gets flagged and taken down immediately).
“If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything”
Strongly Agree Here.
This entire ecosystem needs to go through the process of soul searching. And if in the end, the ecosystem wants to be subject to the opinions of a tight-nit group of insiders controlling their own wealth, then so be it.
The upgrade to Proof of Stake is radical enough for the next 5 years, bringing up the speculation about messing with the hard cap is dangerous right now because our industry image is already so tarnished.
I’m a huge proponent of the upgrade to Proof of Stake - even moreso than my opposition to changing the supply cap 10 years into the project.
If it’s not up to the community, who is it up to then? Would you prefer for it to be up to a specific person or org?
Zcash is its community, and most cryptocurrencies are the same. If the Bitcoin community decides to increase the cap it will happen. But I don’t see it happening there nor in Zcash since most people don’t seem to be in favor of it.
Some things should be up to no one. This is certainly one of them.
Like God decided that we ought to have oxygen to survive, Satoshi Nakamoto decided that 21 Million was the max supply cap for Bitcoin.
The same way the world’s community is unable to discuss whether we should depreciate oxygen, the Zcash community should also be unable to discuss the 21 Million supply cap.
The challenge with acting on the idea of the Zcash Community is because the methodology to decide what The Community wants is low quality/ the process is largely subjective.
With Bitcoin and its Community the same challenge exists, but it is at a different scale/ involves less subjectivity (due to being so many orders of magnitude larger than Zcash). Bitcoin has around 17,000 nodes, whereas Zcash has only about 160. Bitcoin has probably 200 million ~investors, Zcash might have 200,000. User and Miner numbers are also orders of magnitude different.
do you consider me a part of the community?
so why in the last 2 votes i couldn’t participate?
im an active member of this forum for years, but no one would invite me to the ZCAP, so i do not have a voice.
i can find you millions more who use/own Zcash, they are against changing the cap, but the minority in ZCAP will decide for them…
if Zcash is permissionless, you cant restrain people from participating in the voting mechanism and then say that “the community decided”.
i could understand the previous votes, but the supply i won’t let you touch !!
I don’t agree with this idea of restriction. If anything, our community needs less restriction. More love, open, constructive, collaborative efforts from all.
If I may, I invite you to ZCAP
You have the impression that the ZCAP can single-handedly remove the cap which I don’t think it’s true. It’s a mechanism for soliciting advisory input from the community.
That being said you can self-nominate yourself to join ZCAP.
I agree there’s a lot to improve in Zcash governance but I don’t think the cap being removed by it somehow is something that we need to worry about
Zcash is literally the only cryptocurrency by definition. Because it has encryption in the form Satoshi envisioned it.
Everything else is just innuendo. There is no discussion, it was instigated by some group of people without there being an adequate reason.
at the Dev Fund vote it wasn’t like this… not anyone could nominate himself.
if its true now, why do we need the step of declaration about self nomination at all??
lets find a way to listen to as many users!
Zcash has a small community not since the beginning and not because of the price.
it has a small community because 90% of the people abandoned the project, because there was an option to vote only when there was something useful for ECC…
we didn’t have a vote to stop the Founders reward right?
we didn’t have an option to vote for a stable full node, they just decided that its up to the community to make one…
there are many examples for that
It’s a waste of time. Even water has a saturation point. If everything can be discussed and should be discussed at anytime and every time, then we’re just discussing aren’t we.
Ideally certain red lines need to be drawn, for example we will forever be a privacy centric cryptocurrency and we pledge to never go the Horizen route. This way we can focus our discussions and learning on what really matters and what will get things moving. I consider one of those red lines that should never be discussed, the 21 M max supply cap.
Certainty is comfortable, but not realistic. I choose to be open minded. I’m not sure we will ever agree on this fundamentally.