ZIP Proposal - 8-15% Opt-in or 4-7.5% Mandatory Dev Free |75% Zcash Foundation 25% ECC|

ZIP Proposal - 8-15% Opt-in or 4-7.5% Mandatory Protocol development donation option for 75% Zcash Foundation 25% ECC

The idea behind this proposal is to ensure continued funding for developement of Zcash and creating a more efficient, fair, transparent way how fund are used.


In 2020, when the Founders Reward of current 20% of the Blockreward expires Zcash won’t be fully developed and continued funding to ensure further development is needed.

My personal opinion is that just and only agreeing to a given % is not enough but some fundamental changes in the dev fee compared to the current founders reward should take place to ensure a way better distribution toward developement, more transpareny, more community agreement on what funds are used, more efficient way of fund distribution as well as enforcing the Zcash Foundation strength.

Proposed Changes compared with the current founders reward:

  • The Zcash Foundation will be the main recepient of the Opt-in Protocol developement fee donation option with 75%, the ECC should receive 25% .
  • The development fee should be Opt-in and no longer mandatory.
  • The dev fee should be 8-15% Opt-in or 4-7.5% Mandatory instead of the current 20% founders reward.
  • The Zcash foundation, as the community representative should than distribute funds upon needs.
  • The Zcash foundation should continue to implent a system designed to include the community into taking important decisions, be it prioritizing given development targets or other associated with the distribution of the funds generated through the opt-in development fee.

Rational why the Zash Foundation should be the recepient for the new dev fee:

  • The foundation is a non-profit organization, while the ECC is a for-profit company.

  • The foundation does not have the pressure to generate a profit and/or associated with this costs for management, bonuses, etc…

  • With the foundation in charge of the funds distribution the community itself should have more influence on how much for what should be spent while at the current founders reward this option is more than limited. Having in mind that we talk in general (in most other proposals as well of fees, no matter they are mandatory/opt-in) about funds from the community, here from the miner community, it should be just fair that the community has some influence and hearing.

  • In my opinion the ECC and the current founders reward are too much compromised allready to make it a thrustworthy solution if the ECC is the direct recepient of the dev fee for the following reasons:
    a.) Allready a very unfair designed founders reward which last priority is development. Hence we got allready into periods with a deficit.
    b.) The founders reward is not handled transparent enough. Making the Zcash Foundation the recepient i think we can await way more transparency.
    c.) The foundation is not compromised with an ongoing law suite which again refers to the distibution of the founders reward, or part of it.
    d.) The foundation can concentrate ONLY on Zcash as it has no other duties than that, while the ECC, management, advisors, whoever are or could be involved in other projects as well.
    e.) With a huge founders reward in place the product Zcash isn’t even nearly finished neither enough funds have reserved to ensure this (or we wouldn’t all write proposals!). This seems to be the result to a wrong designed founders reward distribution and/or internal company burdens/restrictions/design/whatever. Whatever it is, funding from the dev fee should not directly directed to the company but channeled through the foundation with an hopefully more responsible and developement oriented distribution.

Rational why the new dev fee should be 8-15% Opt-in or 4-7.5% Mandatory:

  • Currently the founders reward is 20%, but not the whole is going to development, actually only a small part of it seems to be directly used for development.

  • The initial founders reward has/had to reward early investors, investors, advisors and who knows who else. Early investors have been paid-off allready and with he foundation in charge there is no more need for several “side expense” which take a bigger part of the current founders reward, for example but not limited to advisors…

  • The Foundation, if in charge of 75% of the dev fund, could outsource lower level tech tasks and doesn’t have to use high paid and high qualified tech personal to due lower tech tasks. The ECC would receive 25% of the new dev fund, no matter if the final decision is to be mandatory or opt-in.

  • With a bit less funds efficiency should be motivated which doesn’t seem to be currently really a priority. I’am even not sure if a 8-15% Opt-in or 4-7.5% Mandatory dev fund to the foundation would result in less funds at all, there is a good chance there will be more funds available

Rational behind opt-in instead of mandatory:

  • Simple just not breaking the initial setup of 90% go to miners. With Opt-in thrust is build and no promise broken while leaving the door open to have the community with this proposal and other funding stream generating proposals outside block reward distribution/fees having enough funds to to keep Zcash an ongoing developed project.

Rational behind Mandatory instead of Opt-in:

  • Again simple and it’s a trade-off. A promise versus ensured development. An opt-in Dev fee does not 100% garantee enough funds may be raised/donated by the miners, hence an optional variant of this proposal with Mandatory dev fee but lower percentage.

Zcash development:

My personal opinion is that there is little to no doubt that at the ECC is a great team of developers, engineers and other very talented staff.
Just because the proposal here targets the Zcash Foundation as the recepient doesn’t mean the ECC shouldn’t continue to develop features for Zcash. The Foundation can still asign work & task to ECC and/or make grants in which the ECC can apply, just as an example.
Means there is a more than big chance that the ECC is to continue most of the work that has or should be done, just the money flow, transparency and expenses are changing.
This should naturally even lead to a more competive & efficient development for Zcash in the long run.

As i personally have no idea how to create a ZIP. I as well lack the full technical understanding how what exactly could and should be modified i leave these parts to other community members or the foundation to make it a valid ZIP proposal in time.

These are the base ideas i have towards a possible dev fee.

Edit: This proposals has been updated after i got aware that the foundation does NOT want to be the sole recepient. The change consists of 75% opt-in or mandatory dev fee go directly to the foundation, 25% go to the ECC.

With these changes ALL 3 main points of the Foundations "to be supported requrements are meat!

The Foundation would only support proposals that:

a) don’t rely on the Foundation being a single gatekeeper of funds
b) don’t change the upper bound of ZEC supply
c) have some kind of opt in mechanism for choosing to disburse funds (from miners and/or users)


Im not sure if I hate you or love you for typing this up. I think love. Very well written saved me a lot of work.

This is more or less identical to the zip I was going to be working on next. I have slightly different criteria though. Im a bit busy for the next few hours, but after that I would be happy to go through this with you and incorporate either my ideas or we can make two subtly different ZIP’s. I am happy to make concessions on my zip though, to keep them fewer in number.

I know the templates, wording and format now pretty well - from my fee’s one.

1 Like

Made the following edits to the ZIP Proposals:

  • Changed Opt-In percentage from 5-10% to 8-15% as there is indeed a bigger chance not every miner is going to opt-in.

  • Added Mandatory percentage which is half of the opt-in percentage, means in case if mandatory is prefered for this proposal the Mandatory dev fee should be in the range of 4%-7.5%.

  • Added rational behind Mandatory instead of Opt-in:
    Again simple and it’s a trade-off. A promise versus ensured development. An opt-in Dev fee does not 100% garantee enough funds may be raised/donated by the miners, hence an optional variant of this proposal with Mandatory dev fee but lower percentage.

1 Like

Just adding some observation and things i noticed after a bunch of proposals for continued dev funding are made:

  • It seems not much activity anymore on any proposal the last days and only a view people even discussing this very important issue. (Last input 1 week ago!)

  • The Ycash topic has more replies than ALL funding proposals together, that’s a shame that more people are discussing a fork more than funding of Zcash.

  • Seems only proposals that fit the vision of the foundation and/or ECC get input/feedback from the foundation and ECC.

  • Interestingly this proposal here which suggests that the foundation is the recpient does NOT get neither support, nor feedback, even not a simple “Like” from the foundation. That’s more than strange in my opinion and someone can only guess the reasons for that …

  • After only some proposals which obviously fit the ECC wished position/outcome get feedback isn’t this somehow as well manipulating?

  • I have a hard time to understand sometimes the ZEC community. While other more or less nonsens topics like the speculation threads, ycash fork and other minor important topics get daily input these funding topics which should be of highest importance to the community don’t get much attention and even less contribution. Even if you guys only care about price & profit, even than, these funding proposals should be of highest priority as for sure they will affect price soon or late…

Just some thoughts …

The simple answer is: zcash has no community.
Funding will continue, on the right founders of the conditions, everyone understood, everyone was silent :slight_smile:
There is no activity on the part of the ECC and the foundation, so the topics are silent, ZCON 1 retweets are now going on, and what brought this conference is nothing good, only money spent, there is not a single big deal at the event, all that could have been done was simply to send it to Twitter.

1 Like

What in particular about this proposal do you feel requires further specification? (it is your proposal)

1 Like

I have had some excellent feedback on mine, and I would argue they fit your description above. (I have not had time to incorporate the feedback yet though.)

I think the next step is to get them made into concrete proposals, this kinda requires the OP to reengage with the topic. It would be really handy if there was a way to get an alert when the original post is edited.

It is easier to post in a speculation thread where the expectation of quality of post is much lower than that of a proposal thread. idk. That and waiting for the posts to get updated in the proposals thread is probably why - it is for me at least. (I know I need to get round to updating mine too.)

I don’t think there is anything sinister going on.

Actually a lot. While it’s my proposal it’s currently just that, a proposal, nor in ZIP format, no anything else.

I made my points allready what exactly looks strange to me and what makes me conclude that some proposals get “official help” while others don’t.

Of course, it’s a 20% direct to the ECC proposal without many “resitrictions”. Of course you got help and positive official feedback :slight_smile:

I have seen proposals where there was pretty much of help involved making it a concrete proposal and ZIP ready, not? In my opinion EVERY proposal should get a the help that someone from ECC and/or the foundation put them into ZIPs when they are concrete enough and finished after discussion at a given time frame or “proposal ending tim”. But so far there i can’t see this too happen and my impression, i could be wrong of course, is that only proposals that are in ZIP make it further. This would mean other proposals like this, that are not ZIP ready won’t make it into consideration. Again, i would be wrong here, but that’s how i understand the process so far.

No, it isn’t, it is keep the 90% as is. no money to anyone. and then there is another one that suggests that their only source of protocol level donations have to be exclusively opt-in. This is a stance the Foundation has publicly made before. I don’t see the issue, obviously they are going to chime in. They even clarify the point to the ECC.

The level of support I have received (maybe it is because I got mine in first) from daira, str4d and nathan responses have been invaluable. The Foundation have been really helpful too, but I specifically wanted to mention ECC employees - They have left the ball in my court, it is now for me to take their info and update my original post to reflect that info, and to put it in the correct format so the ECC can evaluate it properly.

If you think about it, the only proposal against any funding at all is my one, and that covers all non funding proposals. Mix that will the opt-in only option (with greed not burn) and that pretty my covers all the anti changing initial contract funding proposals.

I completely agree. Which is why I started the emergency extension thread. for this very scenario. If you look at that post the ECC have acknowledged it, although unfortunately Nathan has yet to comment. The downstream implications look to be non trivial and if there is going to be a protocol level shift, is it realistic to just extend this one part of the NU4 submission process or would it be better served by delaying the whole of NU4.

Zookos points are really excellent and the ECC has a lot to consider. So it is understandable that Nathan hasn’t come out with an official stance yet.

1 Like

It isn’t up to the ECC at all, they’re all in on Zec IF WE decide it (to pay them to be, not realistic otherwise)
In no way can it be construed the ECC is affecting the decision making process in any way which means that they shouldn’t be commenting on any of the proposals at all, in fact they shouldn’t be even liking them (why? Because any problem will be ex post facto and nothing can be changed then and the burden of proof (that lil heart means something other than favoritism) will lie with the ECC)
It is up to the community and then secondly the foundation and no one else

I think you’re largely seeing a reflection of forum member’s discussion interests. Some crude data

The most-viewed threads over the past month:

The threads with the most replies over the past month:

Most-viewed over the past week:

Most replies over the past week:

Caveat: I don’t know whether Discourse analytics is generally accurate. Maybe @Shawn does?

Anyway, if the data is reliable, it seems to indicate that there’s moderate-to-strong level interest in dev funding discussions, but heavily concentrated in a few threads. That’s pretty normal, I think, given the attention economics of the internet.

This one is for sure not correct. Only the radical to the moon speculation thread has about 80 replies in 10 days, compared to the top thread most replies in your chart that counts 45 for a whole month…

Views are unique users (logged in or just visiting) and don’t reflect the number of times a thread has been commented/replied to. There can be fewer uniques in a thread with many more posts.

I strongly disagree with this. The ECC are essential to helping the community create zips that they can act on. Sure they probably shouldn’t be suggesting zips about funding (but still I don’t see why not, its a 50/50 thing)

Regarding hearts/likes - As I stated in my proposals hearts in my proposal threads do not mean “I agree” they are “I have read this, I am watching please keep updating”

I would like it if there was a nice big banner on every thread in the proposals that says that. Maybe even create a “community proposals” subforum where the expectation is of help not of consensus/official ECC positions.

I get where you are coming from but I think it needlessly burdensome to stick to such tight rules.

1 Like

I have quoted and refer to the replies in a given time period. Either we somehow mixed it up by incident or one of us got it totally wrong.

Here again the chart/stats i’am referring to and only these!

Likes are voicing a personal opinion and Its probably a conflict of interest for the ECC considering it has everything to do with their source of funding, I never said they shouldn’t help with specifications
Those burdensome rules are for protection

I personally absolutly agree that Likes are voicing a personal opinion.
I as well agree that it’s probably a conflict of interest.
And that is why i wonder that the proposals with 20% continue funding get exactly these likes. Just as an example of course.

I don’t want to derail this thread. So this will be my last post on this we can continue to talk about it in meta. I am trying to find the exact wording from the makers of the forum regarding likes (not the foundation, the creators of the software) Im sure it says in there that likes are meant to stop forum clutter, with simple posts like “me too”, “I agree”, “Ok I have read this”, “Noted”, etc.

They are presented as a heart button because psychologically it encourages feedback (again this is in that quote im trying to find)

Also, to get access to certain areas of the forum you have to give a certain number of likes. - This seems counterintuitive if likes are literally likes.

You can also like private messages, why? The only possible reason I can think of is a read receipt. Like I have sent some PM’s to some foundation people and not expecting a reply, I would just like to note a concern in private. The heart button serves a good purpose here.

If likes are like voicing a personal opinion then I have a lot of posts to go unlike… heh.

Your argumentation makes perfectly sense as well, no matter i have a different believing how these likes are used in generally.

But if we use your argumentation it gets even worse. This means that only proposals that fit are readed and the others are ignored, not much better either if you think about your likes argumentation.

1 Like

I think it is very well written. Does it not describe your intention?

Does this help you?

Notice all zips start with this:

This is RFC 2119

That is probably essential reading for getting the wording right.

Wording things in this manner really helps to solidify your ideas and give the programming team something to work with. I know you are busy at the mo, so I will try to help if I get time.

Regarding how the ECC would like them formatted, I think these two posts are very relevant, they probably should be rewritten slightly to generalise them and pinned to the top of the thread category.

This one I think is especially relevant.

and this one is just a general overall, look at the RUST style. There is no real format for this so far (community zips). I think your post is the best we have come up with, im going to be following it and the rust format.

Here is a direct link to the rust style. This is how I see community zips looking - especially when coming from non technical people. Nice write up and bullet points with the requirements in RFC 2119 language. I would go as far as to either caps or bold the MUST must not just to highlight it is rfc language you are using.