Zcoin Governance and Development past 4 years


#22

I see too many people taking Zcoin for a Zcash duplicate. In all anon reports last 6 month i hardly saw Zcoin mentioned 'cause of that… Even when they mention other “low caps” coins like Horizen.
It’s a problem in my opinion even if i love the current name.

Zerocoin is alawys mentionned for Zcash. At least Lelantus will change that.


#23

Thx for your reply.
i just wanted to add my view point on the “pay the devs” part.
I see no reason why devs should be paid on our expense.
Why should the future and the rewards be guaranteed to them?
They ain’t guaranteed to us!
We are all in this together.
It seems unethical to me that the devs or any seed investor can make their money on the expense of my time, work and electricity consumption.
I take ALL the risk and they take none.
Crypto “rules” should apply to us all.
They already have thousands of coins mined for them by us.
So they should work for the coins they already have. Not for some FIAT money making incentive.
Whats the deal here? i get to eat spaghetti 7 days a week and they get a paycheck?

First class and second class citizens of a crypto community…

Pay the devs in Zcoin no matter the price in USD.
The way it goes for me boys! The damned miner!

Fair is fair.


#24

First off: Most of our devs are in fact paid in Zcoin.

As you dramatize, let me to the same:
The dev team takes ALL the risk and the miners take none! When Zcoin mining becomes unprofitable, they’ll just hop to the next coin. When developing this coin becomes unviable financially, we have to close down the project and don’t have jobs anymore!

See? Always two sides. What do you think you gain from us not being paid anymore? If nobody creates value by development, the value will just drop to zero and your mined coins are worthless. Is that what you want? You can’t just look at your side and cry foul without considering the whole.

It’s also not an unethical for seed investors to receive a return on their investment. Without them we could have never started to develop this thing the way we did and they deserve a decent return for that. That’s just how the world works.

You said it yourself: We’re all in this together. That includes Miners, Znode owners, team members, holders, and also our seed investors. That’s precisely why we’re asking for feedback here on the future of the project in the post founder’s rewards times.


#25

I aggree with @catchingknives. But mostly @RaulDuke (even though I aggree with you on the point that the end of seeder’s rewards can’t come soon enough) I think you missed the part that it is a dev fund that will be controlled by the community. It’s not a blank check. All of us will decide how these funds are to be spent. We can, if we deem it the best course of action, stop funding current devs. We can point these rewards to new devs, or even into the miners own pockets if you find enough people to support this idea. That’s the whole point of a dev fund.
Maybe we should call it a community fund to avoid confusion.


#28

Thanks for your reply! Excellent point, which I missed to address entirely


#29

Oh my get ready!
If devs are looking for a job they should apply for a job in a company!
If you care to build something, money making is not your incentive!
Value comes from development??? HUGE LOL on that.
Value comes from people. From the community!
The only source of value is that.
I’m calling on equal risks for everyone.
And not for devs table to be full and the rest … oh well we will see!

When devs use crypto just to have a job, these are specifically the devs that don’t care about the coin and will be gone as soon as there is no $ to them!

P.S.: Seed investors offered essentially NOTHING! Gary Lee took all the money and left.
They essentially didn’t help on development at all. And they are reaping the rewards of Poramins’ coding and the value that came from us.
P.S2: your try to turn the ALL the risk argument around is at least laughable. You turn it around in you next sentence! “they will just hop to the next coin.”! Great risk! ya ya…


#30

Thx for your reply kelnel.
I’m not missing the idea of a dev fund or a community fund as you said.
i’m all ears on how this can be done in a fair way. that’s why i’m here.
But i also have the belief that devs, seed investors and team members have been taking a cut of our mined blocks for too long. long enough to sustain themselves.
I bet you that each and every one of them owns multiple Znodes.
i think they can keep working for their “skin in the game” and that they don’t need funding.
Just a thought. just a playful thought.
I know i might be wrong.


#31

Centrally managed… Mmmh let’s see.
Seems a bit anti-crypto.
Tremendous trust you say…
Trust in a trustless system would be an oxymoron.
When Gary Lee was dumping his coins team members said it was the AWS miners.
When the hacker created Zcoins out of thin air, the team members said it was probably a block explorer bug.
When in the community vote, about the algo change from cpu only to gpu/cpu, remain cpu only started gaining momentum on votes, the team members closed the voting and went with what they wanted anyways. nvidia gpu mining! They kicked out all the small time miners around the world and all the mining was done by 7 huge nvidia farms in Asia!

I have been around for too long and witnessed everything.
I appreciate the work and the time they spend, but i wouldn’t trust them. not even if their mission was to throw my saliva to the ground, i wouldn’t trust them.

i would go as far as trusting Poramin. only him.
still centrally managed doesn’t sound good to me.


#32

You are talking about price, I am talking about value. These are different things.

Any shitcoin can have a high price because it gets hyped. Value is created by the product which in turn is created through constant development and nothing else.

And as far as the seed investors are concerned, they take the greatest risk in the whole operation and thus reap the greatest rewards. That’s not rocket science I think. We’re also happy to have great seed investors who support us not only with advice but also with funds for things we could not afford otherwise for which we are very thankful.


#33

Vitalik once proposed Quadratic Voting (https://www.forbes.com/sites/shermanlee/2018/05/30/quadratic-voting-a-new-way-to-govern-blockchains-for-enterprises/#4144a8d36ef8) as a possible solution for blockchain governance. We could borrow from this…

Everybody (each address?) gets a vote, those who really feel strongly about something can pay for extra votes that get more expensive the more they want to buy.

Funds that were paid for extra votes could be distributed among all voters (so they can then pay for extra votes if they feel strongly about something in the future) and/or added to the dev fund (so the governance can potentially help fuel development as well).


#34

Well value the way you mean it is subjective.
And yes i’m pro that my friend.
Now work for that value and don’t ask for price (funding) :slight_smile:


#35

That is actually similar to what I am thinking but using Zerocoin or Sigma or Lelantus spends to spend to a specific address or smart contract. I still haven’t formulated the complete idea back. The concern is it would be nice to have the funds returned to the ppl who voted without breaking privacy.


#36

I guess to maintain privacy eligible non-voters can be registered as ‘neutral votes’ and all funds can be redistributed to all eligible addresses equally.
To prevent funds from going to ‘dead’ addresses, eligibility can be defined as having a certain minimum and/or having a number of transactions in the past X days.
In the interest of decentralization redistribution can also NOT be allowed to addresses with a certain maximum balance, but this would take away their privacy by revealing information about their balance.


#37

The key is to design a system of cents and voting rights that will help the xzc ecosystem continue to grow and develop.
Everyone has to comment, if there is a revolutionary creative governance model, xzc will once again take off to create a miracle.
How to divide coins? How to manage? How to develop? How to keep the system running? How to attract new people? How to vote? How to balance the power of money and money? How to balance organizational and individual interests? How to balance the relationship between old and new coins?


#38

That is, we must consider the interests of between the holders of coins democracy.


#39

I think xzc official should advertise a big deal on this governance plan! Seeking solutions through social tendering


#40

That’s actually what we are trying to do to stimulate discussions and suggestions :slight_smile:


#41

I think Zcoin will need to expand the one person one vote model to the whole Zcoin ecosystem with each person paying a minimum amount of fees to get their votes registered. This would mean Zcoin need to need to expand the Thailand blockchain voting model to the whole world. Each voter will need to submit their identities so that one person can only vote one time. The limiting factor is only the resources available implement such a system for Zcoin community governance model.

Anyways, I am happy with my Znode rewards :slight_smile:


#42

In principle I like the one person one vote model but I wonder if this runs foul of the whole concept of privacy. Should voters be recognized people? Does that make our coin more vulnerable to shutdown?


The Zcoin Master Thread
#43

So a question for all of you. Do you trust in the wisdom of the masses (aka direct democracy) or representative democracy (elected people).

I was thinking of Zcoin’s power groups as falling into three categories:
a) miners
b) znode owners
c) regular zcoin holders

Perhaps the dev team would be one too but maybe not in a governance system.