[ZIP 1003] Dev Fund Proposal: 20% split between the ECC and the Foundation

[boxalex]

@aristarchus

I’m curious, are you a miner?

Ex miner. I don’t mine anymore since December 2018.

@aristarchus

I trying to understand why you don’t like the 20% figure.

Read my proposal and you might get an idea why i’am not for a 20% dev fee but a lower one…

@aristarchus

As a zec holder, I actually am not worried if we ‘overpay’ slightly for research and development. I would much rather overpay for r&d and than underpay and not have enough funds for development.

Of course you are not after you are not paying for it.

I’am as well not concerned with the US government debts because i don’t pay a cent as a non-US citizien and i’am as well not worried if you guys raise your taxes even higher.

@aristarchus

I think that the idea is to trust that the ECC and Foundation will continue to act responsibly

Makes me remind 2 german sayings:
1.) Trust is for fools
2.) Trusting is good, control (checking/monitoring) is better.

@aristarchus

From my perspective as a zec holder, I only want to pay enough to the miners to be sure that the chain is secure.

2 Problems i see:
1.) The less block rewards the more centralization towards low-electricity mining regions, especially China.
2.) The less mining rewards the higher an incentive to abuse the system.
3.) Why taking something away from someone that does a job (miners). Why not taking away from someone something who doesn’t do anything? Don’t get me wrong, i’am not against a dev fee, but against a mandatory dev fee towards only 1 group of the Zcash community while the other groups (traders, holders, etc. pay just … nothing…

@aristarchus

I believe they have done a pretty good job so far, don’t you?

NO, i don’t think they did all over. IF we talk about the team they have, superb, no doubt here, it’s top notch. IF we talk about cryptography, top notch as well, but that’s it.

• I have made many posts arguing that the foundation is too laggy for my taste. I like them all, nice guys and girls, but they are lagging in my opinion.
• About the ECC. I can’t say great job to a Founders reward design of an estiminated $300-$400M by 2020 which resulted in a temporary deficit for development and only a smaller fraction of the whole amount of the founder reward alligned directly into research & development. That’s not right!
• The inflation design is terrible, one of the reasons this design causes even for the founders reward a huge stall.
• Let asics mine on the network was a huge mistake. While i myself was an asic miner and with full power was pro-asic, it was a mistake, easy and simple as that, resulting in huge loss of the community.
• The list goes on and on but i don’t want to de-rail your proposal and stop here. So in short the devs are top, everything else way less to say it diplomaticly.

@aristarchus

Finally, I don’t think the build a good voting is simple at all. I would rather trust the ECC and the foundation for 4 years than have a bad voting system.

You have a point here with a good voting system. But as said, trust is one thing and nobody ever should trust blind whomever. In my proposal i advocate having the foundation as the recepient which than can allocate funds to the ECC for example for given developments. That’s simply because a foundation can be controlled easier, doesn’t have the huge for-profit pressure and i think the foundation is closer to the community than the company.
It’s ok if you trust endless someone while talking about several 100’s of millions of founders reward and multi million to come dev fees, i’am for more control and transparency.