[ZIP 1002] FINAL: ZIP Proposal - Genuine Protocol opt-in/out donation feature updated 02/sept

Just a quick question.

I was going to @ a few ppl but I thought Id ask you quickly first:

Do you think it would help to consolidate the OP with my responses to Nathan and possible objections/issues and stuff that is not covered by it?

Entirely up to you, think if you were visiting this thread for the first time, what information would be best to present in the first post to help you convey your idea?

1 Like

I think for threads like this where a proposal idea is being crystallized into a ZIP draft, it makes sense to use the OP for tracking this progress. That could include continually-updated “Motivation” and “Rationale” sections (that would become part of the ZIP), which would probably be the most useful sections for a newcomer to read in order to catch up with the current state. Maybe also include the full proto-draft itself depending on its length (or a link to wherever the thread participants are drafting the text).


That’s mostly very true.
However, it could be at least be part of several independet funding sources which together could add up in covering developement or given tasks that must/should be funded.

1 Like

Thank you. Could you point me towards a couple of well written zips so I know what sort of format to copy, and what sort of wording to use.

I complete agree with the sentiment that hopefully the OP can just be cut n pasted into a zip.


1 Like

ZIP 210 is probably the simplest ZIP that was written after ZIP 0 was finished. It has all the sections that you’ll see defined in the ZIP Format and Structure section of ZIP 0, for what is conceptually a simple proposal.

Other ZIPs that affect coinbase, and may be useful for you to examine:

You can ignore reference implementations etc. for now.

Having seen your current OP summary, I’m now also thinking that it may be useful to have “Drawbacks” and “Alternatives” sections in some ZIPs to complement the “Rationale” section, similar to in Rust RFCs (here’s a short example). It may be useful as a summary of the community discussions that led to the ZIP. We can figure that out as we go.


Thank you for hand holding me thorough this - I saw the templates but didn’t really get it until the examples you gave. Personally I like bullet points, but I will do both and see which works better.

I think have everything I need now. I will have problems with the specification part. I will fill in what I can.

I agree on the Rust style, that is what I am a lot more familiar with.

And for reference implementation, I probably will not be able to provide that.

Thanks again.


My main concern with this proposal and any other fully opt-in funding mechanism at this stage of development is that it creates a lot of uncertainty and potentially instability. With proper governance and accountability, I think a lot more can be achieved through a guaranteed funding pool. I admit that this comes with its own set of problems and challenges, so it all boils down to strategic trade-offs and timing. I’m not against opt-in, I’m just worried whether it will create more problems than it solves given where Zcash is and what needs to happen for it to be successful.


Thank you - I appreciate you taking the time to give me feedback

For me that is really valuable and useful feedback. I will try to incorporate it in. It does also help my greed v burn suggestion. the greed option was my compromise I was going to put in to make my proposal more inline with anthers (I think amiller’s, not 100% sure - the idea seemed to get a lot of community support, wanted a greed option added.)

I will think about this and the best way to address it in this zip, once I have done that I will post some updates to the OP and maybe a few more questions in this thread.

It is a concern that does need to be highlighted in the proposal somewhere, if I find a mechanism or idea to solve it - it will probably be needed to be solved or at least properly against other zips (I can do that)


Hi (again). Thanks for making the effort to follow my requests in Proposal authors, please read: Help making ZIPs . I’ll check back to you in the next week or so to help you with any formatting or editorial needs.

(Sorry for reposting boilerplate, but I thought it would help someone who sees only one of your proposals to have the same information.)

1 Like

Complete rewrite of OP.

Please use this one to comment on. bumping thread in hopes of exposure without having to @ half the forum.


Watched the live stream.

This is not going to go anywhere. Should I retract it? I don’t want to have to waste my time championing something that is not relevant.

Had to add a few extra words so I can post it.

Why did you conclude that it’s not going anywhere?

1 Like

Because it realistically cannot fund the ECC. I think even you flat out said “dentations don’t work” This zip is very similar to amillers, except it has greed.

I am starting to get a little concerned we are wandering into some areas of game theory that no one wins. idk. I have sent you a PM I will be unable to answer stuff for a week or so. I will mull it over, whilst away.

I haven’t official withdrawn anything, but the objections section just got huge. It will take me some time to address the live stream comments and work them into the zip.

I understand I am representing not just my voice with this zip so I will continue to champion it. So even if I am wasting my time I am still doing the right thing by other people. (strange how moments of clarity come whilst typing thing up)

1 Like

Ahhh. Yeah, I stand by that, donations for FOSS funding don’t work… unless you have a full-on program around them, which is what the Zcash Foundation will have eventually. You need to be able to play the long game with big donors as well as having a robust pipeline for the larger group (ideally) of smaller ones. It takes years to build that into a reliable revenue stream, modulo extraordinary circumstances.

Personally I think that miners donating voluntarily is a total dead end for funding, but: 1) I could be wrong! 2) My personal opinion isn’t the litmus test :slight_smile: We want to see what the community rallies around, and then filter the set of community-embraced ideas (later, once they’re ZIPs) by “will this inadvertently destroy or weaken Zcash.” That’s where the technocracy comes in.


I agree that only miner donations mostly won’t be enough, so why only rely on miner donations? There are others that are able to donate as well, VCs, hedge funds, bitmain, innosilicon, large holders, exchanges, private people. In the case of the foundation corporations can make charitable donations.

Just checked the GRIN Funding Transparency Report.

At the end of Mar 31 2019, Grin held the equivalent of $123,423.73 in the following assets

I think that’s not bad for a new born project in the first 3 months and shows that there are people willing to donate and finance.

I personally still do not understand why everything is focused only on miners at all when there are other additional options as well. Nobody is talking about a mix of funding sources, strange enough for an issue that should be more than important.

Why not for example donations + minimal dev fund from miners + Bitmain/Innosilicon donations + other possible sources like company share selling?
This could be result in a: donations + mininmal dev fund from miners (5%) + Bitmain/Innosilicon donations (5% from their sold Equihash miners) + other sources x% .

The next question should be if the $1.1M requested funding by the ECC should be funded like that or that with some economy, more efficiency and other measures this can’t be cut down to $600-700k for example? Just logical someone gets easier to 600-700k than some whopping $1.1M…

In my opinion there are some points that indeed make it hard especially for the ECC to rely on donations.

  • Possibly loosing more and more trust in the community. The less trust an entity has the less they can count on donations in my opinion.
  • Community may think that currently Zcash is underdeveloped for the amount they have available.
  • Community might be less willing to donate to a pure for profit company compared to a foundation.
  • Not enough transparency, not enough accountability in the past, makes it harder to convience someone to donate.
  • Too centralized, not enough community envolved, miners not enough involved (past and now).
  • Donors not agreeing with the direction would/could result in an donation “embargo”.
  • and some more …

I’am pretty sure that due these and other points i didn’t mention the foundation would receive more funds than the ECC, hence the reason why in my proposal i made the foundation that main recepient which than could grant additionally funds to the ECC. The foundation just fits much better for a donation and opt-in solution.

Edit: When can we await the foundations long awaited statement today?


No later than August 6 includes August 6 :stuck_out_tongue: Don’t worry, it’s coming! Let’s resume our discussion then.

1 Like

I need to adjust this so that the ECC can get funding from it as a private company.

I cant see how to do that. Do I copy/paste it just to change one line? It seems like it might confuse people.

This bit. The foundation wont take the money, even if they did, they wont give it to the ECC (points not up for discussion here plz) If the ECC stays a for profit then this zip shouldn’t preclude them from receiving donations (as set out in the spirit).

Otherwise this is an antifunding ECC proposal, which it was never intended to be. 2 almost identical proposals?

1 Like

Reading through this again, a couple of things jump out at me.

Can you define “signaling” in the ZIP, and explain what you mean by it? I think you mean how users communicate the choice to donate or not, but I’m unsure, and you also use the term in other places where the context seems different.

I also think it would be helpful to add a short encapsulation of what the ZIP changes about Zcash. My attempt:

The purpose of this ZIP is 1) to allocate the entirety of block rewards to Zcash miners after the Founders’ Reward ends, and 2) to build voluntary donation by miners into the protocol.

how about

In some select circumstances i.e. miner signalling via some software mechanism, they might not have that option available to them, so a pool could say mine on this port and we will signal this for you, or mine on this port and we will signal something different.

It is left deliberately vague because there will be some form of governance and decision making, but I dont want this zip to get rejected because a form of signalling is chosen and is not covered by this zip.

I tried to do that in section 4 will edit it a bit. make some mistakes with the custodian stuff rereading it. I need to change holder to owner. - I think. hurm.

The main question is tho, how do I get this through without removing the line about what the allocation of the funds should be used for and who it goes to. I guess I could remove all references to the foundation at all but that seems a bit crazy.

Im also thinking of writing a rolling burn proposal. after a recent chat in amillers thread. That would allow block distribution to be used and the opt out/burn becomes adding it on to the emission curve. so no coins ever get to become unspendable which I think might solve the above problem.