ZOMG Google Meet Meeting: July 6, 2021
[Minutes taken by Danika]
Meeting minutes:
Attendance:
ML_Sudo
Shawn
Chris Burniske
Holmes Wilson
Alex Bornstein acting as ZF ZOMG resource
Danika Delano acting as notetaker
Pre-meeting Agenda:
- grant: thorchain bridge
- grant: bridge from zec to eth
- grant: Tatum (not yet moved from Draft). Seems to be lacking a lot of fields
- whitepaper ideas / soliciting grants (we were supposed to pick out potential grant ideas we know we could target potential grantees with)
- hedging discussion on email (internal discussion)
Notes:
Pre-agenda discussion:
In reference to how the ZOMG funds are being spent, Chris commented that he thought the pace is decent and has always had concerns with grants and accountability. He added that there are many examples where there is no accountability in other funding structures.
ML voiced that there is an urgency of finding a person to help ZOMG. Chris brought up that he feels that the communication with Jack is adversarial and ML agreed. Chris summarized his perspective: ZOMG has put forth many things and has been told to just stick to making decisions on grants; ZOMG needs help holding grantees accountable as it is outside the ZOMG time commitment; ZOMG was told that ZF will support them on this and they have not received support. Alex reassured the committee that the Ecosystems Relations Manager (ERM) position will be posted soon and the Foundation will be aggressively recruiting as ZF sees it as a huge priority. ML suggested that ZOMG be given the funds to hire a part-timer or support until the ERM position is filled.
Chris continued his opinion on handling the ZOMG treasury. He said ZOMG is still being formalized and he doesn’t feel they need to add turbo. He doesn’t have concerns on having an annual surplus and thinks it is better to have a balance sheet to last for years and fund grants as they come. He added that he wants to see true asset diversification (equities, fixed income, managed like an endowment) and asked, “who takes on that responsibility?” He summarized that he sees it more as an endowment approach more than anything else.
Holmes commented that there is an ongoing problem on verifying that milestones are completed and admitted that ZOMG messed up by not having milestone payout linked to a deliverable in the Metamask grant. Now ZOMG has to figure out what was committed for the work that is paid to Zephyr. He voiced that ZOMG is short of capacity and cannot approve without due diligence.
ML pointed out that one of the grants put down $280K without a breakdown. Holmes replied that he noticed that and asked them about it on the forum.
- Zcash Thorchain Bridge
Chris pointed out that the value is based on an outcome, not an hourly rate, which is not how ZOMG has been granting things. Holmes commented that it is a good proposal and a good thing to work on and it is important for Zcash’s long term resilience but the scope is a proof of concept so it is not appropriate to attach a value based on impact.
ML asked if anyone has spoken to the applicant or ECC and Holmes said that he has spoken with the applicant.
ML shared that she has monthly calls with Andre at ECC and he has been excited about Thorchain. The original idea was to convince Thorchain to do it themselves but they didn’t agree for some reason and Aditya from Nighthawk decided to do it. She added that it is for the public good and the built-in swap capability is a cool idea; additionally, their concerns of ZEC being banned by more exchanges are valid.
Holmes explained that Nighthawk doesn’t plan to build it into Nighthawk and postulated that it might be easier for someone like Unstoppable because, in the current proposal, it is not to the point a user could run with it.
Shawn said that as much as he respects Nighthawk, he understands Hahn’s concerns on the forum in that they have a lot on their plate and they haven’t delivered much yet; it seems excessive at this point in time. He continued that it’s cool to have interoperability but the team is loaded with work/expectation and it’s a large amount of money to go to one team. Chris agreed and added that they have to deliver on one of the major grants this size to get another. ML played devil’s advocate and asked, “what if they can do this on top of the other grants they are working on?” Chris replied that there is a lot of poor execution in crypto so freely granting too many things without proof of delivery starts to be dangerous. Holmes added that he’s not concerned with someone that is committed to the ecosystem but if something happened to Aditya (of Nighthawk), it would be a bad situation.
Holmes suggested ZOMG waits until August until they get through enough milestones on other grants so that ZOMG feels comfortable… Holmes added that ZOMG wants to make sure they (ZOMG) don’t get too far ahead of themselves in granting and wants to verify existing work is going well. Chris added that ZOMG wants to fund them but the timing doesn’t feel right.
Shawn voiced that even in August he doesn’t know if he’d be supportive because he needs to see a better use case in addition to the team aspect of it; he is still on the fence. Holmes asked for clarification of the team aspect concern. Shawn explained that they are a fully committed team requesting to take on more work.
Holmes summarized their points: ZOMG is excited and there’s support but there are questions and concerns. ZOMG wants to see what they’ve got, make sure they are not spread thin, and see use cases (how this will benefit Zcash users and see that in the budget). Shawn reiterated that the end user is key. ML asked if the applicants followed ZOMG’s template because it’s not clear on the Zcash side of things. Shawn asked, “interoperability is a cool tool but how many people can take advantage? Zcash users? Do they have to jump through hoops?” It can get complicated really fast. ML asked, “what else needs to be done before regular users can use this?” Holmes agreed and added, “what will be doable at the end of this grant?”
ML commented that these are basic clarifying questions and thinks someone else should help ZOMG field them as it’s not a good use of their hour per two weeks. Shawn agreed. Holmes replied that it’s healthy to ask questions because not every grantee is a grant writer but they can modify the template so they can make sure ZOMG’s questions are asked. ML added that she doesn’t think the grant is terribly written but they need clarity on a few items. Holmes volunteered to respond.
- Grant: Creation of trustless ZCash to Ethereum bridge
Chris explained that Strudel.finance is a separate company and he doesn’t know if they got venture funding. He added that the grant feels tangential or something they would do without ZOMG funds; he also doesn’t know where they stand on RenZec implementation. ML replied that they delivered.
Holmes asked, “is this something that is already covered?” And, to Chris’s point, “does the ecosystem need this?”
ML commented that it sounds like they are burning coins and disappearing Zec; they claim they can maintain a peg but are brave to be so confident.
Shawn said that he is concerned that no interpegs are using their token to hold up the value to match a peg but admitted that he is not sure how the system works so he can’t speak with authority. He added that Hanh asked some hard questions on the forum. When asked hard questions about how BTC would be stabilized, the response was that they would have a creative finance thing so he doesn’t understand, personally.
ML commented that it is a standard DeFi “trying stuff out” and doesn’t want ZOMG to sponsor this sort of early stage bets, especially at the price asked of $75,000…
ML voted to reject and all agreed. ML volunteered to respond.
Holmes elaborated that their position is that they are not sure if benefits outweigh the risks. Chris added that they funded RenZec for $7,500 USD so they don’t see why they should pay 10x for a similar application of this.
- Grant: Zcash Protocol Integration into Tatum (not yet moved from Draft).
ML observed that the grant seems to be lacking a lot of fields and Danika pointed out that it was submitted as a CCR.
Shawn explained that when an applicant submits a CCR ZOMG has to have them resubmit by replying requesting changes and asking them to resubmit as a proper proposal because a CCR doesn’t have the detail. Shawn volunteered to ask them to resubmit as a proposal. Alex commented that he and Danika met with Daniel at Grants.io and they removed the option for applicants to select CCRs so there should only be proposals submitted, moving forward.
- Zephyr update
ML summarised feedback that Elliot is said to not have the desire to complete the grant and there are stylistic differences within the team (the team is new). The current action item is for Elliot, who has $15K worth of funds, to transfer to fireice and Steve so they can hire someone else. ZOMG can just let it play out. Shawn agreed with the summary and added that ZOMG has given them the funding and they are working it out amongst themselves to (hopefully) get over the speed bump; ZOMG just needs to wait to see how it plays out and hold off on further milestone payments.
Holmes commented that it seems like the lesson learned would be it’s nice to have clear first deliverables even if it’s 2 weeks/1 month in and not give upfront payment (with exception of if there are bills to be paid).
Shawn suggested a kickoff amount limit like 5% or 10% of grant so there is less liability but still gives grantees the incentive to get the ball rolling. Holmes replied, if someone has a cash flow issue they can set it to one week or for work they’ve done already; having something where you show ZOMG, then ZOMG pays the applicant; if the work doesn’t happen, there isn’t a concern of if the community is losing. Shawn agreed that it is a good lesson learned and ZOMG needs to analyze the scope of the project and look at milestones.
Alex stated that the deliverables should be clear and enforceable, with payment dependent on clear deliverable successes. He added that ZF would rather spend their operational costs on more frequent milestones to reduce risk and allow ZOMG to evaluate better for payment and future engagement so the expectations are clear on both sides.
ML asked what the action item is. Alex volunteered to look at the grant template from the admin enforcement side. ML asked if they should create a repository so ZOMG can check deliverables. She added that ZOMG needs a better way to track milestones and deliverables but does not know how to make this happen; if ZOMG does not get a person for assistance, they need a technology solution, like a tool to find the relevant links and look at upcoming milestones. Alex agreed that a tech solution would be helpful, if it exists. He asked how many of the grant deliverables are demonstrable? He postulated that evaluating milestones is a mix of taking the grantee’s word and other evidence. He asked the committee how they would like support. Homes replied that they need someone from ZF to do an initial review of each milestone and put together a doc/email with their opinion of if they’ve met or not met the milestone with reasons and any ambiguities that exist so legwork is done; this person should have the technical capacity to review stuff. Alex added that the milestones should be able to be evaluated and that grant requests need to include clear deliverables prior to approval.
ML voiced that Jack has said he’s ready to support, etc. but there is a point where it will be too much; she asked,” if ZOMG is to pick it up, then does ZOMG need to make changes to the zip if it takes up more than our allotted time?”
Chris agreed and explained that it was the original thing raised with Jack; a few months ago ZOMG outlined their constraints and was told that their job was to select grants and nothing else and ZF will take care of the excess. He shared with Alex that ZOMG still has the same constraints and ZF is not delivering; ZOMG is not sustainable so the time commitment and compensation should be increased; people should go into the next election with their eyes wide open and the reality would be a dissuasion. Alex explained that ZF is doing a lot in the background to be accountable to the IRS and the US government and recruiting and hiring the ERM will begin shortly. Shawn clarified that some of the concerns being raised are systemic to zip itself and how ZOMG operates under ZF as there are different ways ZOMG relates to ZF. Alex reassured the committee that ZF wants it to work and understands that the support aspect needs to be improved. ML said she appreciated communication about the ZF dealing with the taxes. She summarized that the action item is to figure out how to track milestones better before the ERM is hired. ML said she can take care of it but needs clarity moving forward. Alex agreed that clarity was required. Chris told Alex he appreciates his attitude even though ZOMG is frustrated.
Hudson’s Absence
The committee summarized that Hudson will be out until further notice to take personal time. They estimated he will be out for about 3-5 weeks and will miss a few meetings. The committee agreed that this information should be included in the minutes because it is a process matter.
Re-election
Holmes asked, “if there is an election in October, when is there public guidance?” Shawn disclosed that he had a conversation with Jack and Jack is working on it; ZF will be posting something on their blog and on the forum as ZF is responsible for reconvening ZCAP but is not sure how far in advance of the October election. He explained that there will likely be a preliminary Q & A period for people running as before. ML summarized that ZF is handling it and will post updates on the forum. Chris asked, “when the current members phase out, if elections are in Oct.?” Shawn said he believes that November is the first month the next committee serves and added that the question of the transition period is a good point. ML stated that they are over time so they can chat about it at the next meeting.
