I recall that long ago, when things were really tough and ZCG elections didn’t have much candidates and almost nobody wanted to actually be on ZCG because it was a lot of unpaid work and stress, the mixed compensation model was decided and voted on to align incentives around the price action of ZEC.
I find it kind of disappointing that people are pasting screenshots of stipends of ZCG members as some sort of blame. Now that number went up that stipend can be seen as a lot of money. Well… wasn’t that the idea in the first place? Doesn’t this meant that the mixed compensation actually worked? I’m really confused.
A bit, but it’s okay. In fact, people have every right to do so.
I didn’t respond because I didn’t want to take a defensive stance, as I have absolutely no guilt about this. I don’t sell ZEC — I have no need to do so. And in that sense, the payment has even decreased :)) But of course, things are moving in the right direction for Zcash.
And I emphasize that the current compensation is more than good - it’s great! I also stated this a year ago - it was great from the very beginning when the community approved this proposal.
And since we’re on the subject, I’ll take this opportunity to tell forum visitors once again how crazy our ideas are.
I believe that we are dealing with a phenomenon that, with a high degree of probability, will capture 3 to 15% of the global payments market over the next 20 years and begin to compete with the giants. And this share will grow year after year. So, given that I believe in this very strongly, exchanging ZEC for dollars now in order to spend them later on luxury goods is the stupidest thing you could possibly do. The most you can do is treat yourself to a nice purchase with ZEC so that you don’t feel like you’re putting your life on hold.
And I believed in this from the very beginning, as soon as I got here. And that’s the main reason why I’ve been hiding my face from the general public since first day.
You are wise. I don’t necessarily recommend my approach, which is more open than many here. It requires stricter opsec than if you shield yourself including your true name and identity.
In my case the relative openness is a deliberate choice. But I balance that with being careful and cautious where it matters.
Absolutely, and I appreciate you sharing the reasoning behind your choice; it’s a reminder of how high the stakes truly are when advocating for private money and free speech in today’s environment.
Remaining pseudonymous (including choosing not to show one’s face) should always be a personal option, not a requirement. In this forum, we are debating ideas, proposals, and governance principles on their merits, and no one should feel compelled to reveal their identity or live in fear if they prefer to keep it private. The strength of our community lies precisely in protecting that freedom of choice for everyone.
Thank you for your longstanding commitment to these values from day one.