I wrote this article about Zcash’s difficult block reward discussion. It’s critical that the community is able to properly consent to a sensible decision that will be positive for the ecosystem. I support a community-elected board to negotiate terms.
Good post @sgp, the tricky part will be getting a community-elected board together without a solid voting process in place.
If we could solve how to fairly elect such a board we could also solve how to poll the entire community about the ZIP proposals.
@Shawn indeed, the devil is in the details as I mentioned. Expect another post soon (as fast as I can put it together) sharing some of my initial ideas. But I’d love to hear other ideas on this topic too. I feel it’s the correct general direction to go in.
Good post and article, finally someone that adresses many (if not all) of the very same concerns i have as well.
Cant the same mechanism that is used to appoint the strategic council be the same one used to decided on future decisions? thus making the council not needed. - I think this is what @lex-node’s proposals was meant to be about. I think.
Thank you for your contributions to this discussion and zcash. you have written up a very nice and succinct version of events.
This is why I asked Josh S if the ECC had to have its funding in $ or ZEC. They seemed flexible on the idea, but with the caveat that I think everyone has, who would control zcash in that situation.
Could the picture look more like this? it seems a massive shame to put the council between the zfnd and the community.
relationship map click to expand
behold my mspaint skills.
I see others being companies that want to put significant financial investment into zcash technologies. - people who might be motivated to try to control the protocol. which is why I have them reporting to the council who then bring this up with the 3 parties (community, ecc, zfnd) this could help in leading to a seamless transitioning in moving from an ECC based model to a private company model (if that is desirable). It could open avenues for continual funding based projects rather than one off type things that the grant process currently seems to be best for.
Is there a difference between tan arrows and the black arrows? because if there is, is tan RECOMMEDED and black MUST? (as in get approval) or am I reading too much into it?
I humbly disagree. A lot of the “community” was chased away with the broken asic ‘social contract’. And the community has been trying to prepare for this for a long time. The stopping point was mainly the ECC. The community wasn’t informed that the ECC wanted more money for quite a while.
So yes, in a sense you are correct, although I do feel it is missing quite a bit of context, which generated more bad feeling amongst what was left of the “community” towards the ECC.
Agree whole-heartedly with this.
I don’t like the idea of a new entity wielding that much power, or a small group that could be coerced or corrupted. Way too risky.
The only group I can think of that should have power is ‘all of us’, which means involving and polling the ecosystem for important decisions.
Ultimately, ZF & ECC work for ‘all of us’.
the problem is, as far as i see, major part of subset of “all of us”, that consists of users, holders and investors - demand side - are mostly careless or unqualified to take a voluntary part in decision making processes.