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?