Zcash Funding - Reading Assignment

[ghiasi12reza]

1. What was Zcash’s original funding model, and why did it need to be replaced?
   Zcash’s Developer Fund set to expire in November 2020, also know as the Founder’s Reward, 20 percent of block rewards were taken from miners and diverted towards Zcash’s Founders and Investors along with some assistance for continued development.

2. Under the new funding model, how is the general community fund allocated?
   Zcash Improvement Proposal 1014 will now split block mining rewards 80/20 between miners and a general community fund for coin development in a similar manner to the initial Founder’s Reward.

3. Who was included in the final vote and why?
   Votes were cast by members of the Zcash Community Forum along with a 72-person community advisory panel. Miners were not included.

4. What was ECC’s reason for rejecting an ‘upper-bound dollar limit’ on their block reward funding?
   The company said any cap would hamstring the organization’s ability to attract talent

[madingo]

Zcash Funding - Reading

1. Zcash original funding model was 80/20 (80% goes to the miners and 20% of block rewards taken from miners goes toward Zcash founders and investor along with some assistance for continued development). The reason for replacement was that, the ECC was spending more than it was receiving and that needs to be adjusted.

2. Under the new funding model, the general community’s 20% is allocated to 3 categories:

• 35% to ECC

• 25% to Zcash founders

• 40% to third party developers.

3. ZEC bag holders were included in the final vote because they deserved to be represented.

4. The ECC’s reason for rejecting an 'upper-bound dollar limit on their block reward funding is that, for a firm on a leading edge of privacy advancements, any cap would hinder the organization’s ability to attract new talents.

[bdoherty]

1. What was Zcash’s original funding model, and why did it need to be replaced?
   20% of block rewards were taken from miners as the Founder’s Reward. ECC was spending more than it was receiving.
2. Under the new funding model, how is the general community fund allocated?
   35% ECC, 25% Zcash Foundation and 40% third-party developers.
3. Who was included in the final vote and why?
   Votes were cast by members of the Zcash Community Forum along with a 72 person community advisory panel
4. What was ECC’s reason for rejecting an ‘upper-bound dollar limit’ on their block reward funding?
   It would make it more difficult to attract talent

[Raquel]

1.- it was founded by community and investors, it. looks they did not organized expenses in a realistic way.
2.- Split block rewards miing 80 and 20 between miners and community fund for coin developers.
20% split in: 354 ECC, 25% Zcash Foundation and 40% for third party developers.
3.- The members of Zcah community Forum along with community advisory panel with a result of 112 voters.
4.- The company said that any cap would hamstring the organization´s ability to attract talent.

[cge5009]

1. They initially used a developers fund which was capped at 10% of total supply. This limited the cash flow for ECC and Zcash foundation as they were operating at a loss.
2. A miner tax in which the block reward would be split 80% to miners and 20% to developers. The 20% to developers was split even further with 35% to ECC, 25% to Zcash Foundation, and 40% to outside developers.
3. 40 members of the Zcash community forum and 72 members of a community advisory board. No miners were included in the vote as most withheld votes in the first round.
4. They claimed it would hamper their ability in the future to draw in top talent.

[Cestrada]

1. The original model was funded by the community and investors but the ECC was spending more than it took in.
2. 80% to miners and 20% is divided between zcash founders, ECC, and 3rd party developers.
3. Members of zcash community as well as advisory panel
4. The reason for rejecting an upper bound dollar limit on the block funding reward is because it would hinder the organization’s ability to attract talent.

[Sam_Clare]

1. What was Zcash’s original funding model, and why did it need to be replaced?

It was a founders reward that had a 4 year life and needed renewing. 20% of the mining rewards went to investors and founders.

2. Under the new funding model, how is the general community fund allocated?

The 20% is split 35 percent for the ECC, 25 percent for the Zcash Foundation and 40 percent for third-party developers.

3. Who was included in the final vote and why?

Zcash community forum members alongside a 72 person advisory panel.

4. What was ECC’s reason for rejecting an ‘upper-bound dollar limit’ on their block reward funding?

To alleviate strain on existing relationships with investors and make sure that new talent are attracted.

[bbss]

1. Zcash was initially funded by the community; but the project needed more funds in order to further expand.

2. 80% for minters, 20% to developers.

3. In the final vote there were included members of the Zcash Community Forum, with a 72-person community advisory panel.

4. ECC did not wanted to add constraints.

[Mihir23]

1. Originally, ZCash’s funding model involved receiving 20 percent of the block rewards from the miners. These funds were then diverted towards the founders of ZCash, and its investors. This model was replaced because intially, more funds were being allocated to the development than they were received.

2. In the Zcahs Improvement Proposal (ZIP) 1014, the block mining rewards are split 80/20 between miners and the general community. The 20 percent pool is divided into three groups:

• 35 percent for the ECC
• 25 percent for the Zcash Foundation
• 40 percent for third-party developers

3. In the final vote, since miners did not participate in the first round, their input was not included. In the second round, the foundation agreed on not counting the miners again due to lack of participation.

4. Setting an upper-bound dollar limit would only create strained relationships, and limit the organization’s ability to attract talent. The ECC stated that it will reject any proposal with similar contraints.

[aryakrishna]

1. Zcash Developer Funds, it was a founders reward that set to be expired after 4 years. The reward stated 20% of mining reward went to investors and founders. It need to be replaced because Community transparency reports showed the Electric Coin Company (ECC) spending more than it toke in.
2. With ZIP 1014, block mining rewards will be split 80/20 between miners and a general community fund for coin development, the 20 % pool will then be split into three groups, 35% for the ECC, 25% for the Zcash Foundation and 40% for third-party developers.
3. Members of Zcash community forum and 72-person community advisory panel, because community’s efforts stands as a future example of democratized governance.
4. The company will have hard time on attracting new talent on such a firm with bleeding age privacy advancement.

[kylemoore8]

1. It was funded by the community and investors. It was replaced because they spent more than they had.

2. Each block reward 80% go to the miner miner and 20% to development (of which 35 percent for the ECC, 25 percent for the Zcash Foundation and 40 percent for third-party developers)

3. 3rd party developers were included to increase decentralization of development.

4. The company said any cap would hamstring the organization’s ability to attract talent.

[Uyan]

1. Zcash’s original funding model:

"Launched in 2016, zcash’s developer fund was on a four-year leash set to expire in November 2020. Known as the Founder’s Reward, 20 percent of block rewards were taken from miners and diverted towards zcash’s founders and investors along with some assistance for continued development.

In other words, miner block rewards. However:

“Community transparency reports showed the ECC [Electric Coin Company] spending more than it took in, as well as adjustments to the previous Founder’s Reward meant to increase revenue.”

2. Under the new funding model:

“Zcash Improvement Proposal (ZIP) 1014 will now split block mining rewards 80/20 between miners and a general community fund for coin development in a similar manner to the initial Founder’s Reward. The 20 percent pool will be further split into three groups: 35 percent for the ECC, 25 percent for the Zcash Foundation and 40 percent for third-party developers.”

In summary, the miner block rewards will be split as follows:

• 80% miners
• 8% 3rd-party developers
• 7% ECC
• 5% Zcash Foundation

3. “Votes were cast by members of the Zcash Community Forum along with a 72-person community advisory panel. Of the 112 eligible voters, 88 members cast ballots with the overwhelming majority calling for continued funding.”

Notably no miners were involved:

“The final vote went without miner input – since no miners participated in the first round. The foundation opted not to count miners in the second round, according to an email from Cincinnati, because of the lack of participation.”

4. The ECC’s reason for rejecting an ‘upper-bound dollar limit’ on their block reward funding was because they were “on the bleeding edge of privacy advancements” and thus argued that “any cap would hamstring the organization’s ability to attract talent”. There were also talk of “strained relationships” as a result of “speaking out against the ECC’s actions”.

[Dani_Kavcic]

1. 20% of block rewards were taken from miners to founders and investors. It needed to be replaced for better transparency and decentralization.

2. 20% block reward split between ECC (35%), Zcash foundation (25%) and third party developers(40%).

3. Zcash community forum along with 72 person community advisory pannel were able to vote. Out of 112 eigible voters, 88 called for continued funding.

4. It would make it hard to attract talent which is needed for any project.

[Alex_Chaz]

1. Original model was 80-20% rule for miners and founders for every 10min block
2. For each block 80-20 same rule, but the 20% part is divided into: 35-25-40% for ECC, Zcash Foundation and 3rd party devs respectively
3. " Votes were cast by members of the Zcash Community Forum, along with a 72-people community advisory panel. Of the 112 eligible voters, 88 members cast ballots with the overwhelming majority calling for continued funding. "
4. " For a firm on the bleeding edge of privacy advancements, the company said any cap would hamstring the organization’s ability to attract talent."

[Bull75rm]

1. Community and investors but they spent more than they received.
2. Block mining rewards will be split 80/20 between miners and a general community fund for coin development in a similar manner to the initial Founder’s Reward. The 20 percent pool will be further split into three groups: 35 percent for the ECC, 25 percent for the Zcash Foundation and 40 percent for third-party developers.
3. Community Forum members and 72 people form the community advisory panel.
4. Any cap would hamstring the organization’s ability to attract talent.

[LukeS]

1. 20% of mining rewards was given to zcash’s founders and investors. There was not enough funding to continue.
2. Mining rewards split 80/20 between miners and a general community fund. Of that 20%: 35% Is for the ECC, 25% for the Zcash Foundation, 40% for third-party developers
3. Votes were cast by members of the Zcash Community and a 72 person community advisory panel. No miners had input due to the first rounds lack of participation.
4. They thought any cap would hamstring the organizations ability to attract talent.

[Aiisnotbad]

@Grant_Hawkins

• What was Zcash’s original funding model, and why did it need to be replaced?
• Under the new funding model, how is the general community fund allocated?
• Who was included in the final vote and why?
• What was ECC’s reason for rejecting an ‘upper-bound dollar limit’ on their block reward funding?

. Basically a centralized management of fund through miners tax.

. It is split using an hybrid model. In short, it is more decentralized but still has a classic approach by keeping the ECC presence.

. Mostly prominent people from the Zcash community forum, and large bag holders.

. Because that would limit the recrutement of talent when development is most needed.

[mervxxgotti]

1. What was Zcash’s original funding model, and why did it need to be replaced? — funded by community and investors but too much funding was being spent.
2. Under the new funding model, how is the general community fund allocated? — split block mining rewards 80/20 between miners and general community fund for coin development
3. Who was included in the final vote and why? —- Zcash community forum with 72 person community advisory panel.
4. What was ECC’s reason for rejecting an ‘upper-bound dollar limit’ on their block reward funding? — cap would reduce attraction of talent

[vegas316]

1. What was Zcash’s original funding model, and why did it need to be replaced?
The initial funding model was a 20% miner tax (set to sunset in Nov 2020) which was primarily sent to the investors and founders, and some left over used for development.
2. Under the new funding model, how is the general community fund allocated?
The 20% miner tax will remain, but will now be distributed as follows: 35% for the ECC, 25% for Zcash Foundation, and 40% for third party developers.
3. Who was included in the final vote and why?
Votes were cast by members of the Zcash Community Forum along with a 72-person community advisory panel. The voting was limited to known entities to prevent a Sybil attack.
4. What was ECC’s reason for rejecting an ‘upper-bound dollar limit’ on their block reward funding?
They felt it would hamstring their ability to attract top talent.

[ol_frank]

1. What was Zcash’s original funding model, and why did it need to be replaced?
   Community funded, however the cash flow wasn’t enough to sustain the growth that Zcash was experiencing.

2. Under the new funding model, how is the general community fund allocated?
   The block mining reward will be split 80/20 between miners and the general community fund. That 20% will be divided further with 35% going to ECC, 25% for the Zcash Foundation and 40% for third-party developers.

3. Who was included in the final vote and why?
   Members of the Zcash community forum, and the community advisory panel. 88 out of the eligible 112 members casted their vote. Overwhelming majority in favour of the funding proposal. Miners were not counted however due to lack of participation.

4. What was ECC’s reason for rejecting an ‘upper-bound dollar limit’ on their block reward funding?
   ECC said any cap would hamstring the organisation’s ability to attract talent. As such, the ECC said it would not accept any proposal with similar constraints.