I honestly expected this. And itâs a fair reaction, one that I respect. Having said that, I believe it doesnât matter how many people oppose the community grant program. At the moment, some of their arguments resonate with me as well.
Weâre discussing real threats and have come to the conclusion that theyâre right in saying that, at this moment, ZCG doesnât need that much funding. Thatâs exactly why weâre proposing to reallocate the communityâs resources for future periods. And, as we all know, no one knows what the future holds. I do not believe that we are showing weakness by doing this. We are proposing an option that we hope will be a compromise for the majority of community members.
And hereâs what Iâm also convinced of: the NSM adds a time-based supply to Zcash so that it can gain widespread adoption as a means of payment in a volume sufficient to make mining profitable for many epochs, not just in the foreseeable future (paragraph 6 of Satoshi Nakamotoâs white paper âIncentivesâ). And I am convinced that only the community can become the first major contributor to this system.
The fact that there are people who disagree on both sides tells me that if this isnât a compromise, itâs close to one. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have the deepest respect for you.
Sure, Ethereum is a great example of having provably completely misused their large budget by building an L2 roadmap that was met with heavy criticism, succumbed to bureaucracy, and went down a bad path with no one held responsible. Cosmos ecosystem had similar mistakes, and there happen to be quite a few ties to these ecosystems and ways of thinking by ZCG.
ZCG has shown the same level of failure with ZSAs. It does not matter what the justifications are. No one is to blame, and it does not mean that the people in ZCG are bad people or anything like that. They just went down the wrong path and with how much money is at stake, it is best to fix it right now, before even more money is at stake and further mistakes are made.
Can you provide some examples of what ZCG has done well?
Grants that have been given to useful things that everyone loves etc. We have a lot of infighting in this thread about morals and such, why donât we look at the track record.
Completely ends the funding conditionally for ZCG, immediately in effect, via a staggered system.
ZCG only accesses the funds accumulated for the year if its (ZCGâs current fundâs) USD value drops over 75%, via coinholder vote. If they vote no, the money goes to the NSM wholesale.
ZCG radically restructures into multiple committees on appropriations, with coinholders explicitly allocating funding into areas, and every grant having a champion/program manager who is accountable, the same structure used by DARPA?
Almost no adoption from anything on this list. Wallet adoption penetration is ZODL/Vizor/Ledger. Metamask snaps are not going to be supported by metamask much longer. NYM didnât integrate into the widely used mobile wallets. Zero volume on Thorchain/Avalanche Red Bridge vs NEAR Intents. UI on YWallet is terrible compared to Vizor desktop that has existed for 3 months.
The only important thing (Ledger wallet) had to be picked up by Zcash Labs because of the governing crisis not being able to handle an additional $80,000 to Ledger for Ironwood. (No, ZCAP/ZCG does not get credit. Being unable to get the most important thing across the finish line when you have $100mil and 1+ yr delayed is not a success story.)
This is because ZCAP/ZCG isnât accountable and self deals (puts anyone with a project on ZCAP who elects ZCG who chooses funding)
Thanks for your feedback. Iâll include a bit of historical context here for all devs. Unfortunately, Zashi with built-in Near wasnât available yet at that time.
My #1 issue is ending block subsidies going to ZCAP/ZCG over moral hazard. This is more important than how they spend the money they already have. Moral hazard is impacting adoption.
Completely ends the funding conditionally for ZCG, immediately in effect, via a staggered system.
I would support this depending on how it was done. (Pay all existing projects, pay out all ZCG members for the remainder of their term, move unapproved applications to coin holder voting).
I donât think paying all existing projects is an issue. It would simply end any additional funding into the pool, and completely restrict how spending can work from now on. ZCG will now have to work with a limited endowment (the $125M they have already received), manage its own investments responsibly, and radically be restructured.
All existing subsidies will stop with immediate effect, instead going to a staggered pool which has either an annual or a twice-yearly coinholder vote on whether to release to ZCG or not, based on ZCGâs pool condition and track record. If rejected, it always directly goes to the NSM, by default.
Grants get a program manager that is accountable, and champions ensure we always know who exactly is the person who brought it to ZCG.
To my eyes, this list is an absolute disaster. Itâs good to have it out there though, so we can see the list of everything ZCG has done and let people decide if the track record is good or not for themselves.
This almost seems like a joke, no one has used avalanche in 3 years. I truly think there has to be some sort of self-dealing involved for something like this. If âbillionsâ move through the red bridge I will eat my shoe on camera.