The future of Zcash in the year 2020

Thx, the approach for the other thread sounds pretty manipulative than, if critic voices are “not allowed” to post/add valid questions, concerns and similars …

1 Like

That’s not how I read the suggestion. Several people have proposed ZIP ideas, but for any ideas to be realistically considered, they need to be turned into ZIPs (or more accurately ZIP drafts). Per-proposal threads with focused discussion will make it significantly easier to crystallize the proposals into ZIPs, and those ZIPs can then be discussed and debated in more general threads like this one.

In my mind, the per-proposal threads would be like working groups; people contributing there have a shared desire to create a strong proposal. It is useful to have varied discussion and constructive critical thinking in order to ensure that the resulting ZIPs are of high quality and more likely to be broadly accepted. Meanwhile, general feedback that applies to most/all of the proposals (such as disagreeing with the entire premise) should probably remain in the general thread. I trust the forum moderators to manage that split, as well as distinguishing between constructive and destructive criticism.


I agree this will be the effect, however I do not believe it comes from a place of ill intent on behalf of the moderation team. It is something they are trying to do as a kind of containment, to help with their moderation.

We are going to see lots of threads popping up that suggest violation of what, at least myself, consider to be sacrosanct crypto, and the initial promises as laid out at the start of the project.

So the threads will go something like this:

  • a well intention person posts an idea like increasing the 21million cap.
  • they haven’t reasoned or thought out their point too well because the thread is about brainstorming ideas.
  • A number of people already have well reasoned arguments against this.
  • They will post this info in a form critical of the initial proposal
  • This post will either:
    – Be ignored by the people in the thread, causing the initial poster to either repost or get frustrated and cause disturbance in the thread.
    – Be responded to by people in the thread dragging the thread into an argument about whatever rule is being broken rather than the idea in the thread
  • end result, no zip or no input.

I don’t disagree with the intent of your post. However it is not moderation I am worried about, it is the shit flinging and ad hominems. look at the ASIC thread. We are talking about starting 12 of them at once.

I was responding to a specific point aimed at myself and others that made it clear that my input to the threads is not wanted and may get a warning. - It will certainly mess up the thread.

I made no statement about the rest of the post (which from a moderation point of view I completely agree with)

I am specifically talking about my behaviour as in I would respond to the threads with “you cant go past 21 million coins”, “90% of all rewards go to miners”, “A private company shouldn’t be bailed out by a community”, these and other sacrosanct crypto values I cannot get past.

So no matter how good the suggestion I will refrain from adding my input because it will be seen by some members of the community as personal bias which will derail the thread.

This is not a problem when in a business meeting. It is on the internet.

Yes this is what my post way saying.

However this will cause people like myself to feel alienated (hence the flippant “get off my lawn” remark) and it will not allow those less informed of the real world implications of the suggestion. This leads to an echo chamber, because I or others cannot post their points in the thread without the taint of being a dissenter. Which then derails the thread and new people wont post their ideas.

A very uncharitable way of look at this is compartmentalisation so new players have limited access to partial information. The charitable way is what you mentioned.

EDIT: Why was talk of redistribution of the FR verboten and heavily censored in threads (something I agree with, it shouldn’t be messed with) but redistribution of mining rewards is encouraged?

1 Like

In particular that was a single member of the mod team from ECC that chose to unilaterally close the thread, and was overturned by the rest of the team. In fact it was that incident that caused Zooko to call for the forums to be transferred to the Foundations control.

I didn’t mean to suggest that users _ shouldn’t _ be critical of ideas within the suggestions threads, and criticism won’t be removed/moderated out of those threads. As long as the CoC is followed all sides of the story are welcome to post as the feel fit. But Ad hominem attacks against the person instead of the ideas are not acceptable.

My point was to encourage users to stand on thier own, in thier own threads, and champion thier ideas for what the community should do. Having everyone continually post in one thread is not the best way to distill the many different approaches into a few actionable items.


I guess I made my point badly again. I understand the intent of your post.

The thing was we could talk about it until we were blue in the face. It was made clear that it would make no difference. I agree with this. you cant mess with someone’s income.

Every post that mentioned it was moved to a contamination thread that just died, because it was an echo chamber of people hating the FR.

Compared to now, where anything goes as long as it doesn’t impact the initial FR.

The community did not have the power to redistribute the FR but the have the power to redistribute the mining reward? see why I am upset? (Even though I don’t mine - I was upset people wanted to take money from ECC employees or FR recipients)

It would help me if you could claify what you meant by this

I think I have found the confusion
Does this mean
1 - That I start a thread titled Why we don’t increase 21mil cap and we all talk about that in there, so that is not brought up in every thread about that?

  • Does it mean that point out issues relevant to that ZIP - for example why its a problem to increase the 21mil cap - within the thread for that ZIP?

I certainly thought it was the first, and I think @str4d did too. - This method seems the best method for containment, which should lead to better discussion if the thread is curated.

If its the second, then, idk, it might work. Please may I have some help with my first zip.

Would you please be clear on how to proceed, because I might have to proposals that are antithetical to each other.

I was quoted in that long post of proposals about a suggestion I made on fees, am I now expected to champion it? in under a month? Im not even sure I want to suggest it if the funds would be redirected to the ECC. I have just added a zip to do the very opposite.


Hi @mistfpga there seems to be some confusion or misinterpretation of my suggestion. I did not request:

  • to stop any conversation here,
  • to compartmentalize information (such as avoiding cross-linking to other conversations or proposals).

The sole intent of my request is so that every proposal has a unique and separate location, that everyone can see, that has the up-to-date refinements that the author intends. This way, everyone knows which proposal anyone is talking about.

With that in mind your ZIP proposal Keep the status quo regarding block rewards post is perfect. :wink: I’ll go post a suggestion there for improving it.


Are there any legal implications of a 501 c 3 receiving a Zcash developmental tax, (zcash mining is optional but the tax isn’t) and distributing X portion of this tax to a for-profit entity responsible for developing zcash?
I know it’s always been kind of touchy matter but assuming the senders receivers switched does this change anything?
And if so which of the proposals still stand?
( I suppose all of them where the ZFND did not fund the ECC…doesn’t look like any of them do)

1 Like

They are good proposals but the thing is I still don’t understand how and if the ECC would be able to maintain the same efficiency and development while dealing with a multisig decision making system
We would all like decentralisation but is the trade-off worth it? Is it even relevant to the proposals and I’m just looking into it too deeply?

I feel that even critique actual flaws in the plan will be moved from that thread.

They will not. If you see this happening (in any thread), please ping @moderators . I feel quite strongly about stopping this from happening.


100% agree with @daira. The difference between the moderating policy here versus other forum venues, is that we view the inclusion of ideas we disagree with as important and a strong signal that we are moderating correctly.


Quoting you over here as not to derail that thread with discussion not directly related to the zip. They are in a no lose situation. And I would like to hear what your thoughts on my take of your statement are.

IF and this is a big IF these donations are needed to keep zec going. You are correct in their assertion that the mining farms can play ‘chicken’ with the rest of the community, after all if the rest of the community keeps zec going without their donations that is a win for them.

If zec fails then they have already made their money and have got out.

Now read that again replacing Chinese Farms with Founders Reward recipients (specifically, investors, founders and advisors - /not/ engineers. /not/ paid employees, /not/ funds directed to a non profit.)

See why we cant have stake based voting. Or really voting at all in that matter. Its why I like the idea of the ECC and though it was worth giving a go. It has been a bumpy ride, but this (As in having a for profit running a currency that is open source) is breaking new ground in an industry that is already breaking new ground on top of technology that is breaking new ground.

I believe crypto must work on algo above all. initial contract above all.

I mean no offence to the FR recipients I am just making a point. and I feel this discussion might get heated and so I moved it from the zip. If any solid arguments or points come up I will formally mention them in the appropriate thread.

1 Like

I’m not sure I understand the question. When you say “dilution” here, do you mean what I mean: that issuance is always transfer of value from holders to the recipient?

And are you asking: what was the justification for the FR, or what was the justification for making it be time-limited?

The original justification for having the FR was that we had to promise rewards to the investors in order to raise the cash to build the first version, and that we thought the Zcash community would need ongoing funding for new development.

The justification for making the FR be time-limited was that we didn’t want any entity or entities to have a permanent privileged position, because it could become corrupt or complacent.

Does that answer your questions?


No, the 4.2% was before the internal re-allocation (“dilution”) that directed more of the FR to operations and fewer to founder’s rewards in June of this year. After that event, the ECC receives 8.2%. See the Transparency Report:

1 Like


I think a lot of the confusion has come about because rather than directly answering my posts you were answering someone else then directing me to that answer, which just restated the things I disagreed with, without addressing my points. (this is not a dig at you)

Dilution is the act of devaluing something by making more of it when you can create an infinite amount of that thing.

For the sake of clarity
Block Distribution = Block Reward - Mining fee. [mining fees are a special case and not covered by this]

You made the statement that Block Distribution is a transfer of wealth from every hold of zec to the recipient of the distribution.

I fundamentally disagree with this statement in the case of fixed total issuance. But for now, lets say your statement is true.

Then the FR recipients were the biggest receivers of block distribution - 10% of the total supply in only 4 years. Making the FR the greatest contributors to devaluation of ZEC. (at least in the short term. - this is using your logic and your argument.).

that is not my argument or point because I believe you are fundamentally wrong on this issue

My point is that when you have a fixed cap on total issuance, with an algo that makes sure that the supply is constant you are not receiving a transfer of wealth from the holders, you are giving their coins more value because you are running close to the total supply cap. As soon as you hit that cap you have to start subdividing coins, this increases value. - This is one of the core principles of bitcoins DAA, block distribution and emission curve. Why does it not apply to zec?

Therefore by my logic FR is enriching the holders of zec.

Another extension of my argument is that undistributed blocks have the same value as distributed ones, this is a cornerstone of mining. people that don’t understand this will not make money mining.

Regarding idea that the zec/fiat price is currently because there is too much supply and not enough demand, this too is fundamentally wrong except for in really exceptional circumstances and this is not one of those. [note I am talking in reference to cryptocurrencies here]

Demand is lacking not because of block distribution but the lack of practical usecases. This is why fees seem to work on BTC, Eth and I would wager Monero too. And why people thing the FR is causing devaluation. Which it isn’t. It is lack of demand.

If you wanted a long term store of value you’d use BTC. if you wanted a usable privacy currency you’d use monero. Not sure why anyone would use eth tho. [im talking about non tech crypto people, like a mate of mine who has no idea about computers but still owns 4 btc.]

No. Not at all. Im a bit surprised that you thought I was.


Yes, yes and yes.
This is exactly what I described in my posts, but since I am not a native English speaker, the translation could be wrong.
The issue is not infusion, the transfer of value comes from the current buyer (who buys now) and not from the owners, the fact that the coin loses value is the merit of the fund and the company and not the issue, look at the currencies that go up during their existence. No need to equate the real economy and crypto, they are different things yet.
And just zcash, I thought that would change the situation, but at this stage it is not considered.
Explanation for zooko

1 Like

From that article

That journo seems to know his stuff, did he reach out to you before posting that Shawn? congrats on the name drop :smiley:

1 Like

No, those reporters are at Zcon1 with the rest of the Zcash crew so they are probably talking with them.



I’ve been reading the community posts for a while now and decided to join in on the conversation. Forgive my lack of technical knowledge, but as a Zcash community member and long term holder, I suggest the following plans for funding development post 2020:

1- All ongoing funding to be supplied to the Zcash Foundation, who will then distribute funds to necessary development teams based on a community vote for the ZIP’s we favour the most. I imagine that the foundation will do this through an online portal and require a small ZEC payment to vote.

1- Each year will have a deadline requiring development teams suggest their aspiring road-map for the year.

2- Once the yearly deadline has been met, the vote will be conducted and each team will be given a proportion of the funding correlated to their position in the voted outcome. This will be distributed through the foundation.

3- Miners will be required to vote in order to continue mining. This will give miners an incentive to care about the development.

4- One option that will be available every year, is to burn the funded coins. This, in theory, should provide and incentive for development teams to provide improvements that the community wants more than they want to increase the short term value by burning, and failure to achieve the road-map will see the team receive no votes the following year.

5- After the votes have been completed, miners will have an option to continue to fund development or burn a small percentage (7% or less) of block rewards. The theory here, is that I believe people are more likely to continue funding something that they already voted in favour of.

Funding is thus received from the community of holders (when they vote), and from the miners. It incentivises people at the bare minimum to consider what path they would like to see development take.

The foundation was created to act in the best interest of the community, so I believe they should be responsible for dividing funds funds for development, but not without consideration of which development proposals the community wants most.

Once again, let me remind you that I’m just a holder without the needed tech experience to be able to assess if this idea is even viable, so please keep that in mind while picking it apart.

I’m open to hear all opinions and criticisms.



Hi @SydneyPete welcome to the forums!

You have some great ideas, we are currently giving each proposal their own thread so that users can ask questions and hash out ideas without getting lost in this big thread.

For example this one: Dev fund proposal: 20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or "burn"

Please post your idea as a new thread in the category.

If your not sure how to do this let me know and I can do it for you :wink: