Zcash Protocol Hangout, Dev Fund Edition

Hi @Joshs,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I would like to start off my apologising for the tone of my last message. It was a very standoffish and accusatory. I also included things that were speculation but I allowed myself to frame them as if they were fact. I didnt intend on doing that but that is how it reads back to me now. I assume that is how you read it at the time too.

I really do hate having to involve you, for the reasons you have outlined below.

I think I focused a bit to much on the proposals side of things and didnt proper articulate my concerns. I was very cross though and I think that clouded my point. I will try to cover it one last time here. I will be answering each point of you message so hopefully you can see and empathise with my position.

Please make the ECC make the forum one of them - the ECC advertises as a preferred method of communication. forum.z.cash even redirects here.

This is new information to me. And yes you have no control over that. - I would like to not derail this into a trademark thing. This is a time and focus thing. You do have control over how the time is used between now and when finally a trademark agreement is met so why not use it to help the community along?

The forum feels so neglected in certain areas that I know there is no point posting questions. There are so many foundation answered or acknowledged questions out there that are just waiting for the ECC.

This is why I feel bad. I know you really busy, you are a VP. You are not going to be up to speed on everything on the forums. You are very willing to engage, but you have a really busy schedule. Can the ECC please employ someone that has the same role as sonya does for the foundation? This would go very far to repairing broken bridges and dousing out the ones that are currently on fire.

That is a really kind and open offer. I just dont like doing it because it isnt really your job. I have said this before but I really appreciate you being in that livestream and prepared to answer questions. it helped a lot.

This is a great example. Why did sonya have to raise this issue? This is why I suggested that the foundation has a call with the ECC to put the communities points forward, not just on protocol stuff, not just forum stuff, but other social media too.

Please dont go to hard on this people, but this has been nearly 2 weeks. 2 weeks I have been sitting on my hands not knowing if I should change things or not. (yes it is to do with proposals, but it just needs a very simple answer.)

I am guessing not, which is why I asked if the ECC would talk to the ZFND so we can get things addressed that way. (I have posted this question in at least 4 threads.) - Please note that a proposal by KEK has be attributed to me, this and the confusion in the call about my proposals lead me to ask the question in the first place)

(the joke at the start for the ESL speakers is that in British English 2 weeks is a fortnight - the title is in International English, the first bit in British English then the next bit in US English - bi-weekly means twice a week in British English where as it can be twice a week or twice a month in US English - its just a stupid quirk of the different types.)

After the forum got handed over to the foundation it really feels like the ECC used that to put them one step further from the community.

I am no longer pissed, just sad.

I am genuinely sorry for taking up this much of your time.


Thank you. I appreciate your candor and sincerity. I take the feedback to heart.

I agree with the issues you’ve outlined, recognize how we got here, and am taking very specific steps to not only improve on community engagement but add some fresh engagement across various community types.

Our team is in planning and collaborative sessions this week. On Thursday, most of the day is set aside specifically for community and increasing engagement. Your note is timely.


A separate note on timing and proposal work:

The focus has largely been the trademark agreement. It’s very close with some minor but legally important clarification around expectations and responsibilities under the agreement, and how to handle certain edges cases.

Per above, the foundation has committed to collecting community sentiment on proposals. It’s my understanding that they will not do this until the agreement is signed. We are looking forward to that next step.


Hi Josh,

Not meaning to be a dick, but I thought this was last Thursday? Was it meant to be yesterday? Any chace you could post a short update. Just so the community knows the ECC is still working on this. I want to keep this conversation going so I am asking now and not in a weeks time, id rather be proactive than moan. (but it does feel like I am moaning a lot).

The forums have stagnated a lot recently after a lot of involvement. I know the trademark is a big thing. If the trademark is going to be sorted out before the development fund decisions are made cant we just assume that it is sorted out in the best case.

If not, can we just use the proposals as they are (they all assume best case already) and have a discussion about what they would need to look like in “worst case”.

And I still haven’t had an answer to my question as to which of the proposals were judged. I asked this question lots now, and it should be a simple answer.

I know you are a busy man, so maybe get the comms manager (is that short for community or communications) @hels or an intern to handle it?

1 Like

That’s correct.

We worked through ECC priorities for the next 6 months and made a few org changes within my team. We formed a communications team to handle various aspects of communications across different levels of engagement including corporate communications and models for community engagement. They are working out a plan.

We, as a company, also set direction for the next 6 months. We’ll share more on that on our blog and a company livestream on the 28th. I did sit down with Leigh at Coindesk here at Devcon in Japan and outlined some of it to her - so you may see something posted there ahead of our post.

I’m not sure what you mean exactly. This is our response to the proposals: https://electriccoin.co/blog/an-update-from-ecc-on-the-initial-assessment-of-community-proposals/

Are you looking for something else?


That is really cool.

It would have been nice if you could have just dropped a short note to the forum explaining that though. Especially seeing as you were responding to me complaining about the lack of information and communication from the ECC.

I have asked this question several times, I even link to it in my above post. (the 10 day old one)

Yes, I am looking for an answer to the question regarding the proposals. “Were the GitHub versions used to judge or was it the forum versions?” - to me it seems the forum versions were used.

It may or may not make a difference to how the ECC perceives things, but it certainly makes a difference to any modifications I make to the proposals.

This is my original response to Hels, (21 days ago according to the forum software)

This also goes towards a number of other proposals I wrote, not just for myself but for other people.

In addition, the forum versions of these are different to the .rst files I submitted as pull requests. All of the links on the blog go to this forum. It is not a huge deal but, it caused real problems in the voice chat too, because I was looking at different versions to everyone else. (they were looking at the forum versions, I was using local copies and my .rst’s - that’s what I double check, when I say “let me just check” in the livestream.

So were these judged on the pull requests or on the forum posts? (you cannot edit a forum post after 2 months)

For a nicely formatted version of the pull requests, I have linked my merge requests, from my GitHub.

Should be (and is different to the actual pull request)


Should be (and is different to the actual pull request)

I am given credit for kek’s proposal, this is mentioned in the forum thread but not the .rst

notice is has the same header as

So why am I an advocate for one and not the other? @kek should have been on both. (I don’t mind I will advocate for them both. it is just confusing)

Thanks for your time.

I’m doing the best that I can. The meetings concluded Thursday and I was on a flight to Japan early Sunday morning. We can’t communicate all things in realtime for various reasons.

I’ll have to go back through all these links later, however, we did review versions saved in Git and I did review for differences. However, I didn’t look for changes in the advocates - sorry for any confusion there.

I did review the Git version of your proposal and our assessment hasn’t changed. If you believe there was a fundamental change to a proposal I missed and that would affect our position based on the framework provided, please let me know and I’ll take another look.

Please note that I am in China for meetings this coming week and may be slow to respond.


So am I.

I never said you were not.

maybe hire a comms manager or intern to interact with whats left of the community.

Cool. So you couldn’t communicate to anyone at all to post to the forums that the engagement you promised wouldn’t happen?

Why did that take 3 weeks to get that answer?

Wait, so a ZIP that says:
1 - the FR must end
2 - Any forced protocol donations would be considered a continuation of the FR

(because that is all it says)

Is not compatible with the vision of the ECC? Which part? maybe some more feedback would be useful?

What am I missing?


I appreciate your engagement and questions. This tone feels off, however.

The framework is whether or not it provides funding in a manner consistent with our mission. We said that it doesn’t provide funding.

I also included an update at the bottom that recognized that we reviewed your changes.

I’ve copied the full text here:

Proposal 2

ZIP Proposal – A genuine opt-in protocol level, development donation option

Advocate: mistfpga

Could ECC accept jobs from this fund while remaining true to our mission?

By design, this proposal does not provide funding for jobs.

Conclusion: ECC would wind down or pivot .

Update: The proposal was updated by the advocate to clarify and finalize language. Our initial conclusion has not changed.

I feel off key, that is probably why. It is not meant as a slight against you.

I understand this is a personal issue for you and that you are under a lot of stress at the moment, not to mention jetlagged and tired from meetings. so appreciate the time you take to respond to my posts.

you can stop reading here, there rest goes on for a bit. but addresses your point I quoted above in more detail.

More of my messages might start to sound off key, this is just simply how it goes. if I get banned I get banned. However I do not think you can find a more ardent supporter of the general community that is not involved with either the ECC or ZFND than me.

so lets just cut to brass tacks.

It is clear your heart and mind is in the right place, but you do not have the support/time to drive the engagement on the forum and do the stuff you are actually meant to be doing (like regulation and marketing). you need an assistant or 4.

It annoys me that the level of engagement on this forum from the ECC used to be high. now it is virtually nil.

The community managed to generate a lot of new buzz and some big names came to get involved (PL BT, sgp, etc) and where are they now? they haven’t even assigned even an intern to keep up to speed and keep community involvement going, why is that? (this is in no way a slight against the companies or people mentioned. it is not rhetorical either.)

Like I said before if the forums do not matter to the ECC please stop saying this is the primary means of communication.

I feel frustrated that there is no one you (as in you josh) can just say “hey, let the forum know we wont be able to do that Thursday update” (you did say you had already been talking about it that week - I even left it a week in case I got the wrong Thursday) - or say you forgot, why was there no one saying “hey josh is out of town, we promised an update, but xyz, will keep you updated.”.

When the forums where given to the foundation the ECC said it would not remove them from the conversation, if anything it will allow them to communicate more. - this didn’t quite work out as planned.

the misattribution - I only pointed that out because it made me think you had seen the GitHub, but at the same time hadn’t - I understand mistakes happen.

Like I said it was no big deal if the wrong proposal was looked at, but 3 weeks for a simple response is not a timescale I can work with. The fact I had to throw a fit just to get an answer is really off putting.

I think the ECC is just pushing what is left of the community further away.

I really hope you understand where I am coming from with this. Sorry if I am being overly pushy and you have other things to do but I do give a shit, I do care and I know you do too. i fear that there wont be a community in 6 weeks. I/we have developed some quite cool stuff over the past year, there is a lot more to mist than me talking on a forum.

I guess I am just not forward thinking enough, or im too abrasive, i genuinely don’t know.

If this conversation is happening in other places, I will just bow out of the conversation now. I will keep with my proposals though, and I will uphold any commitments I have already made to the community.

take care.

1 Like

I naturally now have more questions, to the response given to my proposal by the ECC but is there any point in asking them? I mean who do I address them to? and will I get an answer.

If you remember from the protocol hangout people were hoping to adjust their proposals, maybe add or remove some. There has been no movement at all. The only person who has asked for movement on their proposal is me. I have asked several times, each time the foundation either has to step in to get the ECC to talk or it just gets ignored even if the foundation ask.

Would the ECC block this proposal with their 2-2 sign off (assuming it takes two parties to agree for a change to be made). This is nearly but not quite the status quo.

The proposal was meant to be a simple, yep. at block x it all stops. at block x+y we start a new form of dev fund or whatever.

The responses from the ECC that were posted seem very one dimensional, as in there is only one proposal that can pass. This conflicts with information given by the ECC.

So the feedback on the proposals is pretty useless, there is nothing I can do with that information.

I would like to say that @ttmariemia has posted some great stuff. but even then it is hard to get the engagement on the forum rather than somewhere else.

If this conversation is happening in other places, I will just bow out of the conversation now. I will keep with my proposals though, and I will uphold any commitments I have already made to the community.

1 Like

Thanks for the response Steve.

I have to head out for meetings but wanted to highlight a couple things quickly. Please circle back with me if I didn’t address your concern.

I don’t recall promising that I would provide an update immediately after the meetings this week. These are company planning sessions. A key topic for my team was community engagement, which we are in the process of addressing. That includes, but is not exclusive to, the forum. Where are we saying that the forum is the primary means of communication?

On the proposals, we have stated that we will honor the community’s decision with the trademark. If the community determines it won’t fund ECC, we have no intention of blocking that with the trademark agreement. It’s the opposite! It simply means that we (ECC) have to wind down the company or pivot to something else that would allow us to pay the team for their work. There are a large number of proposals that could potentially support ECC’s ongoing development and support work.


What is the progress of the negotiations between ECC and ZF after all this time?
That’s disappointing! To be honest, I used to visit this forum every day, but now I come here once a week.The atmosphere made me feel that Zcash was dying.


Let’s fix it!

The trademark agreement is very close to done.


Sure, here:

I read that as on Thursday you would be engaging with the community. - I guess you could read it that you set aside Thursday to talk internally about it. to me the wording would seem clumsy if that was the intent. (not having a go, just saying that is why I read it the other way)

Okay that sort of answers my question but doesn’t at the same time. The company can accept that proposal and another one that doesn’t wind down and pivot. but this is getting circular so I will leave it we both have better things to be doing. I think we understand each other.

Not the primary, you do also say GitHub too.

Seeing as this is the protocol section and I dont want to fill this post up with lots of quotes, please check zip 0. and search for forum.

Here are few quotes from zip 0

Then you have zooko on twitter asking people to add proposals to the forum so they can be discussed. (The person came to me asking me to write their proposal and saying zooko told them to put it on the forum when they suggested it on twitter. I have not seen the twitter conversation)

And old post from zooko

I really don’t have time to find more examples but There are plenty out there.

There are some threads in the meta category about it. (there is 10 threads total in meta)

From the website

I am on the community governance panel so i feel i should keep abreast of what is going on regarding the proposals I will have to vote on. If that is other places than the forum and github, where are they?

I do not have time to follow all the other places. I need to eat and pay bills too.

Thinking about it, if the forum and GitHub are not the primary places for official engagement from the ECC, where is.?

(I wrote my last two posts between midnight and 2 am, I was up again at 6 for work. It is now 10:30 and I still have a full day of work ahead. this is what I mean when I said we both had better things to do. I wasn’t being passive aggressive.)




We met internally and established a plan. That’s the disconnect.

ECC uses its blog, ECCs Twitter and Blockfolio for official comms.

Sometimes we announce things on the forum to help facilitate community engagement and discussion. We use git for engagement around protocol dev, zips, etc. We also engage on the community chat, Telegram and sometimes other places but less frequently (LinkedIn, Facebook, Reddit, etc).

I agree that it’s confusing.

1 Like

Fair enough. my mistake then.

Okay, but they are more announcements. I was talking about interactive communication. where does that happen? I mean what platforms does the ECC officially commit to publicly hold two way conversations on?

Yes very. It never used to be though, and the point of the foundation taking over the forums was to allow more discussion from the ECC not less. idk.


@mistfpga thank you for expressing your concerns with determination and humility. I think this is how community and decentralized governance is strengthened.

@joshs thank you for also responding to @mistfpga with fairness and as much diligence as you could afford.

I guess I’ll start with where I’m at… beyond some intital exchanges with @zooko (and I thank you again for that :zebra:) I have had some silence from ECC. This is discouraging more than anything and @mistfpga I’m guessing you and I share in that sentiment…

That being said, I don’t think this is a @zooko or @joshs problem, but a challenge of decentralized governance ( which is in progress, in testing and needs some ideation/ iteration as can be seen from this thread). We want decentralization, but who/whom is/are appointed to drive this very task? Maybe it’s just not a priority right now, that’s okay, but then when will it be?

I am not satisfied with official publications as the primary source of communication by the ECC- that’s not decentralized at all- It feels like the wall shared by the Amazon’s, the Google’s, the Facebook’s… As a community member, my reward is not in dollars (or ZEC’s) but in the recognition that ZFND and ECC are listening.

So what to do? Walls exist because CEO’s and VP’s can’t be everywhere at once and be pulled in a million directions and respond to everything. That’s not productive, and, to me, it’s also undesirable.

But it sounds like a bridge between ECC and ZFND and the Zcashers needs to be built. But what kind of bridge? What does it look like? How does it work? Who maintains it?

@mistfpga suggested a rep on the ECC side, similar to @sonya. This is a viable solution, but for that to work, ECC has to want to build that bridge, and they have bake-in time, money, and effort to make it work (I.e review the forum, consider Zcashers’ thoughts, and then build trust in that elected rep to respond on behalf of ECC) and, again, that just may not be a priority right now.

And there are other options too…

ECC can commit to being more vocal, either as an entity or as individuals responding directly to the community in their area of interest / expertise…

Or, simply. ECC can tell us, the community, what model they want to pursue, so that we (as a community) can have clear expectations of one another.

I will say however, that I do know that Zooko (can’t speak on behalf of ECC since I’m limited in my acquaintance with all members) wants to give the community its freedom to choose what it wants to do with Zcash. And I really respect this, but I do disagree with the sentiment (somewhat).

I want ECC to be more involved, and I think that as a whole community (ECC included) we need to decide on some things together.

Where I’m standing (aka as a newbie) beyond the ground-breaking, industry-setting tech, I fell in love with Zcash because for-once it felt like it was accessible to a random person like me…and if I worked hard, read a lot, listened to podcasts, and took time to write something and publish it here- then could even be a part of it too.

So, what should I / can I expect?
Have I overstepped a boundary?
Am I asking for too much?
How should we move forward?
All these questions, I’m open to your honest response.


Hi there!

I’m chiming in so that @joshs isn’t the lone ECC voice on this thread. I’ll start by expressing deep gratitude to community members like @mistfpga and @ttmariemia - your love for and dedication to Zcash is inspiring.

I know the silence can be deafening especially in moments of uncertainly like the one our community is currently in. I’ve only been with the team for four weeks and I can tell you that community engagement is a priority that comes up daily. There’s more I want to do in addition to the weekly updates (alternating between community/ engineering), but it will take me some time just to get my Z legs (:grin:).

@ttmariemia to your questions

  • “What should I expect?” Expect updates from me every week and feel free to reach out! I’m a newbie too.
  • “Overstepped a boundary?” No, your comments were thoughtful and respectful.
  • “Am I asking for too much?” Are you asking for ECC to be more involved? I will check this forum more regularly, and responding when appropriate.
  • “How should we move forward?” Baby steps is my favorite way to go but I’m open to other approaches. Bridges take time to build, especially if they’re going to last!

Hey Elena! Welcome and congrats! :zebra: Z legs :zebra:, love it, seriously the terminology for Zcash is unlimited in possibility - just like the opportunities held within Zcashers, ZFND, and the ECC.

I know that this time of uncertainty must be stressful for everyone, and especially for ECC members, but I do see this moment a sign of strength and a pivotal opportunity for Zcash.

I hope that the ECC sees’ this as a proof-point: the community cares. We’re here. We have a voice. Most of us love Zcash. Some of us want to see it fail - a good thing- as those members are best at highlighting our weaknesses :wink: .

When you say, “Are you asking for ECC to be more involved?” my answer is: yes and no.

I want ECC’s specialists to have the time, space, and silence to focus on the technology that gives Zcash its edge. However, there has been a shared sentiment (by the community, by ZFND, and by the ECC) that Zcash needs to move towards decentralization, in this, I would like to see more involvement from the ECC. Otherwise, we’re all in our separate silos and playing into traditional inefficiencies.

This is a shame when we have a unique opportunity to rewrite the book on governance and become industry-setters for how decentralized governance is to be created and maintained.

In other words, I’m selfish. Not only do I want us to have the most widely adopted crypto, the most technologically-advanced blockchain, but also have the most forward-thinking and functioning decentralized governance.

For Zcash, I hold tech and governance with equal importance, at this stage of development.

This is the gap: not so much in terms of updates, but in terms of intentionality towards decentralization. (although I still do love updates!)