i like this idea. still need to think more about it and I would love to see the complete proposal so i can better evaluate it, but this is a good direction that addresses part of the concerns, while keeping the program running. seems like a good middle-ground settlement to stop the ongoing governance wars (which is escalating too quickly in a negative way), but I’m yet to make my mind on that with certainty.
can you please provide the source for this data? where did you take the “90%+” from?
i’ve started seeing claims like this one with an increased frequency, and this is concerning.
this is concerning because it’s obvious entitlement of other people’s money. very similar to socialist/communist regimes often criticized in the same posts where these claims have landed. for example:
ZCG’s money is nobody’s but ZCG’s money. it’s allocated under a well-documented, governance-approved system, inherent part of zcash’s protocol.
if you don’t like the current state of zcash’s protocol and want to change it: FINE!
i believe we should always keep the culture and ethos of improving ZEC in different ways – governance included.
but as it’s today, this money clearly belongs to ZCG.
it’s “our money” as much as a miner’s reward is “our money”. it isn’t.
miner’s block rewards belong to the miner who produced the blog, per the protocol.
ZCG’s allocation from the block rewards belong to ZCG, per the protocol, following the same logic.
please, stop calling other people’s money yours. this is the wrong way of campaigning for what you believe is an improvement in zcash governance. it also makes the whole argument look weak, as it seems based in this false premise of entitlement to other people’s money.
EDIT: removed my last question because i found the answer to it later.