Thank you for the clarifications.
While I appreciate your move toward the community’s sentiment, I am not willing to accept direct funding under your proposed ZIP.
I withdrew the one-year extension ZIP, which I maintain was stronger and better aligned than your modified proposal for good reason.
The new (softer) language around non-direct exploration, coupled with a 2 year guaranteed dev fund for the Zcash Foundation and ZCG doesn’t provide sufficient incentive alignment, and is unnecessarily risky, too long, inappropriate for a public good, and perpetuates centralized control (point 7 here). And critically, there does not appear to be significant support for a creating a new direct funding model without a mandate for change. Your proposal risks the perception of theater and rent-seeking that we need to shed. We have the ability to dig in and get it right if we have the will.
I believe the Hybrid Deferred Dev Fund model, which seems to be gaining significant community support and coalescence, is much better aligned with the will of the community and the health of Zcash.