I actually would like to put forward a change to subparagraph 4, despite being late to do so, based on a discussion I had earlier.
Major Grants and the MG Slice SHOULD be restricted to the benefit of the Zcash cryptocurrency and its ecosystem (which is more specific than furthering financial privacy in general) as permitted under Section 501(c)(3).
It replaces one word with three in order to offer more flexibility to the ZOMG in its action, with the historical example being Arti. Arti does not directly further Zcash and is primarily just an advancement for Tor which Zebra will be able to optimally hook into. That said, regardless of ZOMG’s involvement, Arti was intended to be easily integrated (though ZOMG’s grant did offer inroads with Arti to ensure a clean integration when the time comes). Because of this, Arti’s funding is arguably against subparagraph 4, with debate possible both for and against, though that’s also irrelevant as it isn’t a requirement thanks to the usage of the word “SHOULD”. Using “to the benefit of” makes it clear that works such as Arti aren’t in conflict with any section of the ZIP, without the potential for such debate.
While this may seem like a minor nitpick, I would argue Arti is directly beneficial to Zcash yet does not directly further Zcash to emphasize why I want this change. I’m sure discussion can be had over this, including discussion where even if it’s valid it’s not the time, and even if’s valid and the right time it’s not needed so it’s best to avoid any further contention over it. I do believe it’d be a valuable change though.