There is also a summarized version of this forum thread, for those of you who are particularly busy: Future of Zcash dev funding — high signal, low noise
Let’s get a little more organized Thanks @nathan-at-least and @boxalex for prompting me to put this post together. It is meant to be a more focused version of @Shawn’s January “Zcash in the year 2020” thread, which kickstarted this whole discussion on the forum.
Disclaimer: I will update this post with new information as needed. If you think I missed anything, or want to point me toward something to add, send me a message, tag @sonya in a comment, whatever. In particular, I would appreciate being pinged about new proposals to add to the list below.Meta
This thread is for comparing and contrasting proposals (e.g. which ones can be combined?), commenting on the general trends of proposals so far, discussing and defining the feedback process, and hopefully moving toward broad consensus or something close to it.
On the threads (or GitHub issues) for specific proposals, discuss the pros and cons of those specific proposals, or suggest improvements.Proposals
Mostly in chronological order. (Quite a few came in on 6/19, for example, and I didn’t order them by exact posting time.)
Relevant statements from Zcash Foundation executive director @acityinohio:Thanks for tagging me @sonya; yes, I think any proposal that has the Foundation receiving all funds (even if there are contracts in place for development) could jeopardize broader decentralization, and as you suggested I wouldn’t want the Foundation to be a single gatekeeper. And thanks to @zooko for his post above and giving the community his perspective. 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 and c) have some kind of opt in mechanism for choosing to disburse funds (from miners and/or...