ZIP 1014-1: Proposed Amendment to the “MG Slice (Major Grants)” Section

[Dodger]

@aquietinvestor

I am fine with this, but I want to be clear that this is not the process that was explained to me, otherwise I would have focused on this from the beginning. I was under the assumption that I was proposing an amendment to ZIP 1014 for ZCAP’s consideration and I laid out the process I was going to follow clearly months ago. Now, 6 days before the Helios poll convenes , you’re telling me that’s actually not the process, and that we’ll use the Helios poll to gather community sentiment and go from there. If that process was explained to me, I would have focused my time and energy on determining the questions to ask ZCAP rather than drafting the ZIP Amendment.

I’m 99.9% sure that I made it clear quite early on that any new wording would need to be reviewed from a legal perspective.

But, whether I did or not, I understand your frustration. Rest assured that I’m not trying to stymie your efforts. This is the first time we’re tabling an amendment to ZIP 1014, which was itself the first of its kind. There is no pre-existing process for this, so we’re effectively breaking new ground, and it behooves us to be adaptable, particularly when doing so avoids unnecessary delay.

My suggestion that we avoid trying to lock in the precise wording at this point is motivated by a desire to get appropriate questions onto the upcoming ZCAP poll, and not incur any delay by blocking on legal review or risking a delay in implementation because we need to go back to ZCAP with revised wording (particularly in light of the frustratingly lengthy delay caused to the elections by the need to get advice on the COI/inurement issues!).

Edited to add: For what it’s worth, I don’t think the effort that you have already put into drafting the ZIP amendment is wasted. The process of writing down a proposed policy helps refine, clarify and improve the proposal because it forces one to clearly articulate one’s intent, and allows others to read it and provide feedback. In this case, it also provides a strawman for us to run by an attorney and ask “Are there any potential problems with this?”

@aquietinvestor

I would like to be part of the process to refine the questions we’re going to ask ZCAP .

You are. This is the process, right here, on this topic. Discussing, debating, giving feedback, making suggestions, agreeing furiously with one another, and raising good points like:

@aquietinvestor

For example, how you’ve laid out the questions in your previous posts (quoted above) could lead to confusion because you don’t note that the amounts referenced relate to an annual budget.

You’re absolutely right. For the avoidance of any doubt: I agree with you!

So, having taken that feedback onboard, it seems to me that the best approach would be to propose an amendment to ZIP 1014 to provide MGRC (i.e. ZOMG) a discretionary budget from the Major Grants slice, with the amount to be determined by the ZCAP.

I would then suggest that there is a shortlist of three options for asking ZCAP to determine what the budget should be:

1. a “Simple” option:

• Should ZOMG have a discretionary budget? (Yes/No)
• If so, what should the annual budget be? (e.g. $100k, $250k, $500k, $1m)

2. Jason’s “ZEC with optional cap” option:

• Do you support amending ZIP 1014 to give ZOMG a discretionary budget? (Yes; No)
• What should the annual budget be? (1% of the ZOMG slice or approx. 1,052 ZEC; 3% or 3,156 ZEC; 5% or 5,260 ZEC; 10% or 10,519 ZEC)
• Should there be a cap? If so, what should it be? ($100k, $250k, $500k, $1m, no cap)

3. a “Complex” option:

• Should ZOMG have a discretionary budget? (Yes/No)
• If so, should that budget be denominated in USD or ZEC? (USD/ZEC)
• If USD, what should the annual budget be? (e.g. $100k, $250k, $500k, $1m)
• If ZEC, what should the annual budget be? (e.g. 1% of the ZOMG slice or approx. 1,052 ZEC; 3% or 3,156 ZEC; 5% or 5,260 ZEC; 10% or 10,519 ZEC)
• If the budget is to be denominated in ZEC, should there be an annual floor (denominated in USD)? (Yes/No)
• If there is to be a floor, what should it be? (e.g. $100k, $250k, $500k, $1m)
• If the budget is to be denominated in ZEC, should there be an annual cap (denominated in USD)? (Yes/No)
• If there is to be a cap, what should it be? (e.g. $100k, $250k, $500k, $1m)

We’d also need to define what “cap” and “floor” means. For example, something like:

A cap on a budget denominated in ZEC would impose a USD cap on the budget, in the event of a large ZECUSD price increase. A floor would allow for the budget to be “topped up” to the USD floor using additional ZEC (over and above that in the specified budget) from the Major Grants slice in the event or a significant decline in the ZECUSD price.

And, as previously discussed, we should make it clear what would happen if ZCAP voted for a floor that is higher than the cap. For example:

If the ZCAP poll recommends a floor that is higher than the cap, we will implement a floor and cap midway between the recommended floor and cap. i.e. If the poll recommends a cap of $100,000 and a floor of $250,000, we will institute a floor and cap of $175,000.

FYI, I would recommend a simple USD-denominated budget because, as I mentioned above, denominating the budget in ZEC would mean that the implementation becomes more complicated, with more scope for confusion, misunderstanding, and/or a mismatch in expectations.

Please note that this is not me vetoing the idea of a budget denominated in ZEC! I am simply providing feedback and advice that is informed by ten months of interacting with the first ZOMG, which included some confusing conversations about the pitfalls of denominating grants in ZEC instead of USD.