ZOMG meeting minutes 8-17-2021

ZOMG Google Meet Meeting: August 17, 2021

[Minutes taken by Danika]

Meeting minutes:


  • Hudson Jameson

  • ML_Sudo

  • Shawn

  • Holmes Wilson

  • Hudson Jameson

  • Alex Bornstein acting as ZF resource

  • Danika Delano acting as notetaker

Pre-Meeting Agenda:


Zemo: Shielded Messaging

  • Shawn updated that group that since Ziga withdrew their proposal on the forum, he closed it on the grant platform

Alex updates:

  • Alex updated the committee that ZF is on their second round of interviews with the C & ERM candidates and he has interviewed candidates that could be a great fit; he will share an update if there is news before the next ZOMG meeting. All members replied that it is great to hear!
  • Alex has been in contact with 37 Laines who are producing the Zcash Mini-Documentary Series; Alex will represent ZF and Josh Swihart may represent ECC. Alex asked if ZOMG wanted to have a representative. ML and Holmes volunteered to join and Alex added them to the email chain.

Privacy/Freedom Novel as Manifesto

  • Hudson summarized that the applicant wants to write a book under a pseudonym.
  • ML pointed out that it’s only $5K and would love to see where it could go; it seems low for an entire book which she’s not sure about. Regardless for $5k it would be interesting to see what we end up with
  • Hudson agreed that it’s a low number for a creative work that could spread awareness.
  • Holmes noted that the applicant said that they have had negative feedback in the past and are cryptic about it; there is also no distribution strategy. He wondered if they could see other work.
  • Shawn mentioned that Andrew Miller was supportive and wanted to help out.
  • Hudson commented that they can ask the applicant questions if they wanted to but he can’t see how any answers would change the vote to a no so they should just approve now.
  • Holmes brought up that it could be terrible or objectionable (sexual, racist, etc.). Shawn replied that they are paying in trenches and assumes, if Andrew is involved throughout the process, he wouldn’t let that happen. Holmes replied that ZOMG would have some editorial control and if there is content that is too objectionable to fund they would pull funding.
  • Hudson reiterated that they should approve upfront and ML volunteered to respond.
  • Holmes said he is a little nervous but it is good to encourage creativity at such a low rate. ML commented that from the language that they see in the grant, it shouldn’t be terrible.

Moeda.casa + Zincretik : Peer-to-Peer trades over Dark Pools

  • Shawn explained that it’s the same applicant as Moeda.casa in Brazil; it is a little over his head and seems pretty complicated and he’s not sure what the benefit is for the average Zcash user.
  • ML agreed that they don’t seem very adept at explaining what they want to achieve; right now she is not in favor. However, this grant is their 2nd attempt to stay involved after their first grant so ZOMG (the first one being the research lab); perhaps we could direct them to the ZOMG whitepaper’s underscored gaps so they can build something the community actually needs / wants
  • Shawn asked if they want to turn down now or ask more questions for clarification.
  • Hudson suggested they start a conversation since they are eager to participate and advocated to not vote now since the proposal is not clear.
  • Holmes agreed that it’s not clear and there’s no forum thread so there’s no community feedback so they should have them post a forum thread.
  • Hudson volunteered to respond, asking them to create a thread on the forum.

CodeUpBlood with Zcash

  • Shawn voiced that he’s not sure how this proposal is applicable; it is far-stretched in the way it was presented and there are a lot of buzz words. He added that someone on the forum asked good questions and he is at a loss and doesn’t see the value-add to the average Zcash user.
  • ML thought this kind of grant is misplaced for a financial privacy and personal freedom community
  • Hudson said that, by the way they laid out the proposal, it shows that applicant has a lack of experience in blockchain; it is sparse and can’t be built out like that; it’s a huge undertaking; he would say no.
  • Holmes and ML also said they vote no. Holmes mentioned that it would be hard to prioritize in specific commerce use cases.
  • Shawn volunteered to respond.

ECC Acceleration using GPU Compute on Mobile devices

  • Shawn summarized that the applicant, Hanh, had very technical questions and suggested that, because it’s so technical, ZOMG should wait for it to marinate on the forum for a bit.
  • Hudson commented that he wants to make sure it’s not duplicate work; it would be valuable but he doesn’t know if it’s already being done.
  • Shawn reiterated that he thinks they should skip a vote until next meeting when they have more information. Holmes asked if the applicant can wait and Hudson read a recent forum comment from Hanh that said they are in no hurry at all and ZOMG can delay it.

ZOMG! Dashboard

  • Hudson explained that the applicant wants to fork Zdash.info, an open source site.
  • Shawn said that his two concerns are: 1) He’s not sure if it’s even possible due to ZIP 1014 because it’s a ZOMG exclusive tool so he’s not sure if it’s something ZOMG is supposed to fund 2) Danika/ZF/Jack have a robust dashboard and he’s not sure if it would be duplicating work they are doing for ZOMG. He added that it looks like they would use the grants platform interface to see what is funded.
  • ML commented that she likes the layout and thinks it does more than ZOMG has now but it seems too expensive for a simple UI display
  • Hudson voiced that it is at least $30K over budget and it’s not needed. ML agreed that it is more like a $10K project but she likes the layout. Hudson pointed out that it’s a fork of already published code so it’s not even worth $10K.
  • ML said that ZOMG needs a better way of standardizing costs; we’ll just say “this is our rate for certain types of work”. It would be more fair and accountable than approving prices on an ad hoc basis.
  • Hudson pointed out that the team is budgeting $400/hr and he’s skeptical of that. How people pay for software developers is based on geography and skillset so it’s hard to put up bounties and to standardize. Holmes commented that they can set guidelines; for instance, if they are in an especially expensive geography they can make adjustments but they try to keep it as standard as possible; there could be guidelines based on experience. ML added that they could look at the market rate in their geography. Hudson brought up that it would be okay to have as a guideline but not as a hard rule.
  • Holmes suggested that they say it’s higher than any other grant approved and it’s not for highly specialized grant; Also, Elliot who left the Metamask grant team is involved. ML agreed that the abandoned project, and the fact that returning the unused funds on that project seemed to be difficult at first, is an additional reason to say no. Holmes commented that he has experience in design and media but started learning code relatively recently so he’s not sure his rate should be $400/hr.
  • ML pointed out that a lot of grantees have been ignoring the requirement to post on the forum and perhaps ZOMG should not respond unless they put a thread on the forum.
  • Hudson said he wanted to address Shawn’s point if ZOMG can even fund this; it’s good to address this issue on the forum. Shawn replied that there is a lot of grey area, like how ZOMG can’t hire a contractor to help ZOMG out, so if ZOMG hires a software developer, it’s in the same realm as hiring a contractor.; he doesn’t have a strong sense of the line for funding outside development and funding ZOMG. He asked if anyone else had an opinion. Holmes said if it’s ambiguous, it’s better to be on the side of making ZOMG’s job easier. All members agreed. Hudson said he interprets it as a community tool to keep ZOMG accountable.
  • ML agreed with Hudson and added that Jack [Gavigan] created an amazing spreadsheet that gives ZOMG what they need; this grant project doesn’t add additional value apart from an ease-of-use perspective, and the fact that it’s open to the public. Hudson asked if they should just reject it outright on the grants platform since they don’t have a forum thread. ML brought up that there is a comment section on the grant platform but no one uses it besides Chris. Holmes suggested they ask the applicant to post to the forum and say ZOMG has concerns about cost and would like this to be discussed on the forums; ZOMG’s stated process after the application is to get community feedback via a forum post. Hudson agreed that ZOMG should have a neutral public place to post their decision. Holmes volunteered to respond and reject after the forum post.
  • ML asked Alex if ZF can make it mandatory on the grant application for applicants to create a forum post. Alex replied that he’ll have Daniel add language to the application on the grant platform ASAP.


  • ML shared with the committee that she posted a follow up from the call on the forums. She asked the members if they wanted to do another session when Nighthawk and Zecwallet can join (they couldn’t attend the last meeting which wasn’t a terrible thing because others got more airtime). Shawn asked if they wanted to make it once a month. ML replied that just one more call with the wallet developers plus a few others would be enough because she’s not sure if the return on time would be high enough for Teor (ZF) and Andre (ECC).
  • All members said it is worth running. Hudson commented that it inspired people to build stuff and Holmes said it’s like ZOMG office hours. ML replied that it’s more like shepherding so people are building things that are relevant. ML asked if anyone else would like to organize it
  • Holmes said he’s interested in supporting and making it happen; he clarified with ML if it was about ZOMG funding and ZOMG priorities with the wallet app teams. ML replied that the wallet guys will anchor the conversation but there are others that will show up. Holmes said he can organize it but will connect with ML to get the workflow. ML replied that the steps are to post, link to google form, then start a Telegram channel where you share logistical details (so you don’t have to share handles or email addresses). She told him to let her know when he wants to get more organized and she can share tips.

Call for ZOMG Candidates for Elections

  • Hudson shared that there are dates announced on a forum post; on September 1 there is a video call so ZOMG should be there.
  • Hudson told the committee that he is on the fence but is leaning toward not running for reelection. ML said unless there are structural changes to the zomg setup, she won’t run either.
  • Hudson said they should talk to ZF to make changes to the call timing. Alex told the committee that Jack is managing the election process and if they have questions they should drop them in the ZOMG-ZF Admin Signal chat and Jack will respond. All members said they were excited about a new hire for ZOMG and thanked the ZF staff.

Follow up from the community developer call: What to build? - #6 by ml_sudo


As @Shawn and @holmesworcester may already know, we have been hosting a discussion on the forums. In fact, it is right here in the Grants section: 📊 ZOMG! Dashboard

1 Like

ZcashUsersGroup posted thier proposal to the grants platform on 8-15 and it was approved for public review 8-16. This ZOMG meeting was on 8-17 and at that time there was no forum thread.

In fact, the @ZcashUsersGroup handle and thread wasn’t created until 8-18, after the meeting had taken place.

The ZOMG website clearly states:

“When you receive the notification that your application is public, please post a link to it on the Zcash Community Forum in the “applicants” category. This step is to gather community feedback about your project.”

ZOMG has decided that from now on: if an applicant has neglected to follow the process outlined on the website and application, the proposal will not be reviewed.

EDIT: For clarification “not be reviewed” is not the same as a rejection of a proposal. It means that if the applicant has not completed the required steps in the process before the bi-weekly ZOMG meeting, then ZOMG will skip reviewing the proposal at that meeting.

This could result in a several week delay of a decision on a proposal. So if applicants wish to have thier proposal reviewed in a timely manner, they will need to be sure to follow the process as described.

1 Like

@Dodger :point_up_2::thinking::pray:

See above edit/clarification.

Your proposal was already reviewed by ZOMG as you can read in the above notes. The key phrase is “from now on” applicants will need to have gone through the process before ZOMG will take the meeting time to review.