Hey Zcash Zeal,
Apologies for the late posting of these minutes, I was on vacation for several days and it’s my responsibility to get them posted on the forum. I have this and another that I will be posting today:
ZOMG Google Meet Meeting: July 20, 2021
[Minutes taken by Danika]
Meeting minutes:
Attendance:
ML_Sudo
Shawn
Chris Burniske
Holmes Wilson
Alex Bornstein acting as ZF resource
Danika Delano acting as notetaker
Meeting Minutes:
- Milestone Review
ML started the milestone review topic by saying that a good place to start is with due diligence. Alex responded that Jack approved the Nighthawk milestone and it was paid out. ML said she was surprised it was approved and that she had the understanding that ZF will present their assessment to ZOMG and then they would decide if it is paid out.
Alex replied that there seems to be a misunderstanding with the process and asked how ZOMG would like it to be done differently.
Chris stated that he thought it was okay how it was done in that the verifier should be different than the decision maker as ZOMG has a vested interest/potential bias in having things go well; it is better for an independent entity to decide; if someone else is full-time doing the deep dive then he is okay with them signing off but he wants to make sure the verifier has the right resources.
Holmes disagreed and pointed out that if there was a disagreement with ZOMG approving a grant then ZF could not pay out the milestones. He said he aligns more with ML where the verifier makes a presentation for ZOMG.
ML added that if a project is not done then ZOMG is on the hook; ZOMG needs to approve and spend so much time on the front-end so ZOMG should be the ones to decide and verify the milestones as they are the most qualified; the most important reason is the buck stops at ZOMG.
Alex said that he hears what they are saying but it is an unlikely scenario that ZF disagrees with ZOMG approving a grant; if ZF were to reject, they would come back to the committee; ZF is a steward of the money as well and we are not going to approve a milestone unless we feel comfortable with it; additionally, from a logistics perspective the proposed structure could elongate the process and delay milestone payments. He asked how many milestone payouts they have rejected so far.
ML replied that ZOMG has said yes to everything, unfortunately; some are hard to judge; the value-add is ZOMG would get a summary of what has been done as it is currently not put together in a way that is easily stated and that is ZOMG’s need; reviewing milestones may include back and forth with the grantee.
Alex updated the committee that ZF is working on making the deliverables clear and upfront in the initial grant application so the deliverables can be verified. ML replied that the dream is to make milestones clear but most teams, unless they are marketing focused, are unable to predict tech setbacks ahead of time.
Holmes stated that they should use as much of the grantee’s time and support role’s time to make it really easy for ZOMG to evaluate grants and milestones as ZOMG is the final thing making decisions; ideally, ZOMG can make these decisions without a large time commitment; ZOMG typically has a good turnaround time as they decide things in between meetings in 24 hours or less; if ZF can review the milestones in 2 business days, ZOMG can turn around in half a week.
Alex clarified that the logistics concern was more about time on the ZF’s side; he reminded them that ZF wants the Communications and Ecosystems Relations Manager role to be filled even more than ZOMG does; he told the committee he will talk to Jack about this.
Holmes said he appreciated ZF’s time and knows there are limits.
ML stated that ZOMG support was just one out of 6 priorities for the Ecosystems’ role and that is not what they are looking for; it takes more than a couple of hours to verify milestones; Hahn is the best at showing milestones and creates a video to summarize but for other grants it is a heavy responsibility.
Alex assured the committee that ZOMG is one of the bigger priorities of that role and that he will get back to them re: milestone reviews.
- Zcash Thorchain Bridge
Holmes commented that the convo about cost is hard; if people want ZOMG to open up to other competitive bids to be fair, that would be fine… But this is a cool project; ZEC<>ETH<>BTC without a centralized chokepoint is strategically important. He admitted that he was previously wrong when he said that it wasn’t going to be useful; there’s a website where you can switch between ZEC and ETH. He added that the convo about costs is important and hard; there are too many concurrent grants to Nighthawk. He suggested they pick up when Zcash Block Explorer closes and added that Aditya’s intention is that one staff member from that grant would continue to this project.
ML voted for waiting; she said she prefers to wait until current grant projects are complete. She acknowledged that for grantees it is ideal to have them scheduled back to back, but for ZOMG it is more prudent to wait and she doesn’t think ZOMG loses out too much by waiting.
Shawn shared that he did research on Thorchain and read Eric Voorhees blog; he is more on the side of thinking it would be a good project but shares the concern about timing. He added that he is not sure if the cost is out of line; if it can enable direct swaps on ShapeShift platform, it would be super valuable but the timing is still a concern he has.
Chris admitted that he doesn’t know much about Thorchain but he is familiar with Course 1 and they have stated that Thorchain is the single hardest network upgrade to integrate with. He noted that it’s not a reason not to do it but Thorcahin is early in being a network liquidity provider.
ML brought up that she doesn’t think it’s impossible that the government will take a hardline on privacy coins; if we don’t have this set up before, then we are in hot soup; it will be less of a priority but more urgent.
Shawn asked if they postpone/readdress this.
Holmes asked if there were any questions about applicability to users that are outstanding? He summarized that they know what the impact of this is but two members are concerned about timing. He asked if ZOMG could say when the ideal timing is and communicate this. He also brought up the topic of cost and the question of getting other bids to see if there are any takers; he thinks it’s delicate but it’s good.
Shawn replied that it depends on how you frame it; yes, ZOMG are still interested in the project, but they have concerns with cost and timing; we would like to review again when the Blockchain Explorer grant is reached.
ML stated that it’s in an early stage so it’s hard to charge on outcomes; for cost basis, there is something tangible to point to. Holmes agreed and said he wanted to urge Nighthawk to make the cost basis clear.
Shawn summarized by saying they want to look at cost basis and review when they meet X milestone. Holmes said yes and to make sure they understand, for the team’s sake, that with back to back grants, ZOMG will need time to review. Shawn replied that ZOMG can turnaround a decision quickly since the main concerns have been addressed.
Holmes volunteered to respond.
- New Grants:
MuZEC.com App/Site
Unique New Project
Zcash Protocol Integration into Tatum
Shielded Dialogues
Chris shared that he thought that all the new grants are nos.
Shawn stated that he wasn’t impressed because the MuZEC grant was vague. He thought Shielded Dialogue was another podcast and Unique New Project was very vague. He added that they wants to ask the submitter to re-do the Tatum grant. He explained that a few of the grants were originally submitted as CCRs but the proposals they resubmitted didn’t include the detailed requirements of a proposal. He suggested they re-approach them asking for the details a proposal requires.
ML said that she thought Tatum and Unique New Project are easy nos but the others require discussion.
Chris pointed out that Tatum is an API provider and there is a question if they should pay for them. For Shielded Dialogues, he didn’t want to pay $70,000 to create a podcast when the applicant’s reach is not great; Tatum is the only reputable applicant; MuZEC is an artist but it is muddled what platform they are creating.
Everyone voted no for MuZEC and Chris volunteered to respond.
All members agreed that Unique New Project was a no. Chris stated that there is not enough clarity for Unique New Project and he volunteered to “approve without funding” (reject). Chris responded to the applicant during the meeting.
ML commented that in 3 submissions Zcash Protocol Integration into Tatum haven’t explained themselves. Chris pointed outthey have been doing it for 20 other protocols and are asking to get paid. Shawn asked if they should say “no” outright or ask the applicant to edit with more details to avoid getting rejected. Holmes said ZOMG should say no with a nice note with instructions. ML added that they poorly explained what the value is to the community. Holmes volunteered to respond saying no. Shawn agreed that he is not in favor unless they resubmit.
Many members expressed they are not sure how helpful the Shielded Dialogues grant will be. Holmes noted that they seem smart and understand the politics so he is curious who they are and what their angle is; he would like to learn more about this person and what their superpowers are; he wants to learn what the potential is in the process of saying no to this grant. Chris replied that that was smart. Shawn observed that the last line in background says they run a non-profit but there weren’t any links so he agreed that it would be interesting to get more background and if price is the issue, ZOMG could work with them on a pilot program. Holmes commented that they need a forum thread. ML voiced that the proposed topics are not bad but it’s not clear who they are and what quality ZOMG would get for $70K. ML added that they didn’t show a breakdown of time and Holmes agreed they should ask. Shawn volunteered to respond to the applicant saying that it is interesting and they want to learn more about what they do in addition to a granular breakdown of $70K.
- Call to Review ZOMG Whitepaper with Builders
ML told the committee that 7 people filled in the form to attend the call to go over ZOMG’s whitepaper with builders; everyone is available 9-11 ET so she proposed next Wednesday; Shawn and Holmes said they would like to attend.
Shawn asked what the desired outcome is and ML replied that the hope is to see developers find 5 things they are interested in doing that aligns with ZOMG’s funding interests. Shawn summarized by saying so it is to encourage existing developers to come up with more projects for the community.
ML pointed out that most are technical and asked if they should invite ZF and ECC to join. All members agreed that was a good idea.
Shawn asked if they should record the meeting and post a video publicly. ML said she liked the idea of recording and but its probably better to post minutes after to edit out parts if there are sensitive comments. Holmes commented that it is better to check at the beginning if anyone doesn’t want to be recorded. Shawn pointed out that they can edit but asked who will do it and how they will decide what to take out. ML replied that they would only edit out really sensitive things.
[Note: the community ZOMG whitepaper review meeting went as scheduled and the minutes were posted HERE]