377 lines
20 KiB
ReStructuredText
377 lines
20 KiB
ReStructuredText
::
|
||
|
||
ZIP: 1006
|
||
Title: Development Fund of 10% to a 2-of-3 Multisig with Community-Involved Third Entity
|
||
Owners: James Todaro <james@blocktown.capital>
|
||
Joseph Todaro <joseph@blocktown.capital>
|
||
Credits: Mario Laul
|
||
Chris Burniske
|
||
Status: Obsolete
|
||
Category: Consensus Process
|
||
Created: 2019-08-31
|
||
License: MIT
|
||
Discussions-To: <https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/blocktown-development-fund-proposal-10-to-a-2-of-3-multisig-with-community-involved-third-entity/34782>
|
||
|
||
|
||
Terminology
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
The key words “MUST”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, and “MAY” in this document
|
||
are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. [#RFC2119]_
|
||
|
||
The additional terms below are to be interpreted as follows:
|
||
|
||
Mining
|
||
The actions of processing transactions, which include processing
|
||
transactions in a Proof-of-Stake or Proof-of-Work/Proof-of-Stake
|
||
hybrid system, in the event Zcash implements either at a future date.
|
||
Mining software
|
||
Pool software, local mining software or staking software.
|
||
Mining rewards / Block rewards
|
||
Network transaction fees and/or coinbase rewards (e.g. newly issued
|
||
ZEC associated with block generation).
|
||
Network Upgrade
|
||
Any consensus rule change to the Zcash protocol, introduced as part
|
||
of the standard Zcash Network Upgrade Pipeline [#nu-pipeline]_ or
|
||
otherwise.
|
||
Founder’s Reward
|
||
The 20% ZEC from mined blocks allocated to the Electric Coin Company
|
||
(ECC), Zcash Foundation (ZF), employees, investors and/or other
|
||
entities prior to the expected first halving in October 2020.
|
||
Zcash Development Fund
|
||
Transparent address(es) controlled jointly by the Electric Coin
|
||
Company, Zcash Foundation, and a “Third Entity”. The fund is intended
|
||
for research, development, maintenance, and other technical work
|
||
directly connected to the Zcash protocol, as well as non-technical
|
||
initiatives (including design, marketing, events, regulatory
|
||
outreach, education, governance, and any other form of business or
|
||
community development) that contribute to the long-term success of
|
||
the Zcash network. In the context of this proposal, the Zcash
|
||
Development Fund consists of 10% of newly issued ZEC from block
|
||
rewards between the first and second halvings of the Zcash network.
|
||
Applicant
|
||
Any individual, group, or entity that seeks funding from the Zcash
|
||
Development Fund.
|
||
Recipient
|
||
Any individual, group, or entity that receives funding from the Zcash
|
||
Development Fund.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
========
|
||
|
||
This proposal puts forward the financing mechanism and fundamental rules
|
||
of governance for the creation of a Zcash Development Fund.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Specification
|
||
=============
|
||
|
||
Funding mechanism of the Zcash Development Fund
|
||
-----------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
* This funding mechanism MUST be hard-coded so that 10% of newly issued
|
||
ZEC from block rewards are automatically directed to the transparent
|
||
address(es) of the Zcash Development Fund.
|
||
* The above requirement MUST be met between the first halving and
|
||
second halving. Upon the second halving, future governance decisions
|
||
MAY result in a further decrease of the Zcash Development Fund to 5%
|
||
of newly issued ZEC from block rewards, or alternatively MAY result
|
||
in another percent allocation which includes the possibility of a
|
||
system whereby 100% of block rewards go to miners.
|
||
* The two aforementioned requirements above MUST remain regardless of
|
||
any additional Network Upgrades or changes to mining or mining software
|
||
prior to the second halving.
|
||
* The Zcash Development Fund MAY outlive the period of its initial
|
||
funding mechanism, either through the appreciation in the price of ZEC,
|
||
or from alternative funding sources upon the second halving in 2024.
|
||
* The hard-coded transparent address(es) of the Zcash Development Fund
|
||
MAY be periodically rotated for operational security purposes to
|
||
decrease the risk of any potential loss of funds associated with the
|
||
address(es). The ECC, ZF, and/or “Third Entity” described below SHOULD
|
||
take any possible precautions within the confines of this Specification
|
||
section to avoid loss of funds.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Governance of the Zcash Development Fund
|
||
----------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
* Funds allocated to the Zcash Development Fund MUST be used only for
|
||
their intended purpose as defined in the following Rationale section of
|
||
this proposal.
|
||
* The transparent address(es) of the Zcash Development Fund MUST be
|
||
jointly controlled by the ECC, ZF, and Third Entity, and all funds
|
||
transferred from the Zcash Development Fund MUST be publicly confirmed
|
||
in an official manner by a majority decision among the ECC, ZF, and
|
||
Third Entity–commonly referred to as “2-of-3 multisig”. That is, funding
|
||
decisions MUST be put to an officially documented vote which MUST NOT
|
||
pass unless at least 2 of the 3 entities above vote approvingly.
|
||
* Prior to any movement of funds from the Zcash Development Fund, the ZF
|
||
and ECC MUST coordinate with each other and the community to establish
|
||
the Third Entity that will be involved in governance of the Zcash
|
||
Development Fund. The process of determining the exact initial
|
||
composition and rules of governance of the Third Entity MUST involve the
|
||
Zcash community at large in a process similar to that outlined in the
|
||
section "How the Foundation will select a particular proposal" in the
|
||
ZF’s August 6, 2019 statement [#zfnd-guidance]_.
|
||
|
||
The governance rules of the Third Entity MUST include the following:
|
||
|
||
* All decision-making and other governing processes of the Third Entity
|
||
MUST be independent of the ECC and ZF, and MUST include measures that
|
||
are necessary to avoid conflicts of interest in relation to the ECC and
|
||
ZF.
|
||
* At creation, the Third Entity MUST include an uneven number of at least
|
||
5 individuals with independent previous affiliations, each having a
|
||
single vote. All such decisions MUST have majority support within the
|
||
Third Entity to result in an overall approving vote by the Third Entity.
|
||
* Once the Third Entity is established, it MAY decide to change its rules
|
||
of governance (e.g. simple majority versus supermajority rules), but
|
||
any such change MUST be preceded by the involvement of the Zcash
|
||
community at large, similar to the process outlined in the ZF’s
|
||
August 6, 2019 statement [#zfnd-guidance]_.
|
||
* Once the Third Entity is established as a self-governing body, it
|
||
SHOULD evolve toward a system whereby ZEC holders have a direct role in
|
||
determining votes and internal governance of the Third Entity.
|
||
* The Third Entity MAY apply for funding from the Zcash Development Fund,
|
||
if deemed appropriate by its governing body. This would be subject to a
|
||
majority vote by the ECC, ZF and Third Entity.
|
||
|
||
Prior to any transfer of funds from the Zcash Development Fund, the ECC,
|
||
ZF, and Third Entity MUST specify, approve, and make public the final
|
||
rules on applying for and receiving funding from the Zcash Development
|
||
Fund, including the details of the decision-making process for approving
|
||
or rejecting funding requests. These rules MUST apply equally to all
|
||
Applicants, including the ECC, ZF, and Third Entity, and MUST include
|
||
the following:
|
||
|
||
* Funding from the Zcash Development Fund MUST be available to not only
|
||
the ECC, ZF, and Third Entity but also to other individuals, groups,
|
||
or entities that could make technical and/or non-technical
|
||
contributions to Zcash as described in the Rationale section of this
|
||
proposal.
|
||
* To receive funding from the Zcash Development Fund, all Applicants
|
||
MUST follow the rules described in the Specification section of this
|
||
proposal and in final detail by the ECC, ZF, and Third Entity.
|
||
* As part of an application, each Applicant MUST produce a public
|
||
overview of the activities and projected costs for which they are
|
||
seeking funds.
|
||
* Each funding decision MUST be preceded by a community review period
|
||
of reasonable length to be determined by the ECC, ZF and Third Entity
|
||
in which Zcash stakeholders and community members can familiarize
|
||
themselves with the Applicant’s request and make suggestions, or
|
||
raise objections.
|
||
* In situations of overwhelming opposition from Zcash stakeholders and
|
||
community members to requests from Applicants, the ECC, ZF, and Third
|
||
Entity SHOULD NOT approve the request before striving to address
|
||
stakeholders and community concerns, and modifying the request, if
|
||
appropriate, to assuage concerns.
|
||
* Each funding decision MUST be accompanied by an easily referenced
|
||
joint public statement by the ECC, ZF, and Third Entity, which MUST
|
||
include the final tally of the relevant vote, as well as the votes of
|
||
the three involved entities. As part of this statement, each of the
|
||
three entities MUST provide explicit justification for its respective
|
||
vote.
|
||
* The ZF MUST ensure that all Zcash Development Fund votes and the
|
||
accompanying justifications described previously remain archived and
|
||
easily accessible online by Zcash community members, stakeholders and
|
||
the general public.
|
||
* The ECC, ZF, and Third Entity MAY approve funding requests on a
|
||
rolling basis, but all funding requests MUST be revisited and voted
|
||
on at a minimum of every 6 months to receive renewed approval.
|
||
* Recipients MUST publicize at minimum quarterly progress updates on
|
||
their activities funded from the Zcash Development Fund. In the case
|
||
of short-term assignments (less than 6 months), a single report upon
|
||
completion of the project is sufficient. Standard reporting
|
||
requirements MUST be specified by the ECC, ZF, and Third Entity prior
|
||
to any approved requests from the Zcash Development Fund and
|
||
additional requirements MAY be introduced as needed.
|
||
* Depending on the nature of each request, funds MAY be disbursed in a
|
||
single payment or incrementally, subject to objective milestones
|
||
and/or other performance metrics.
|
||
|
||
Any decision to alter the governance of the Zcash Development Fund as
|
||
described in this proposal and in final detail by the ECC, ZF, and Third
|
||
Entity MUST involve the Zcash community at large, similar to the process
|
||
outlined in the ZF’s August 6, 2019 statement [#zfnd-guidance]_.
|
||
All transfers from the Zcash Development Fund MUST be in full accordance
|
||
with the requirements described in this proposal.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Issues not addressed in this proposal/Out-of-Scope
|
||
==================================================
|
||
|
||
* Details of the decision-making process for supporting or rejecting
|
||
this or other relevant proposals by the ECC, ZF, and/or other Zcash
|
||
stakeholders. We do maintain, however, that any decision by the ECC
|
||
and/or the ZF on the issue described in the Motivation section below
|
||
SHOULD be preceded by the procedures for measuring community sentiment
|
||
as outlined in the ZF’s August 6, 2019 statement [#zfnd-guidance]_.
|
||
* Additional methods for measuring community sentiment MAY include a
|
||
way for ZEC holders to signal their support of specific proposals.
|
||
* The matter of whether the ECC should reorganize itself into a
|
||
non-profit or remain for-profit, as addressed by the ZF in their
|
||
August 6, 2019 statement [#zfnd-guidance]_. The current proposal is
|
||
neutral on this matter, and funding from the Development Fund would be
|
||
available for non-profit and/or for-profit entities. We consider the
|
||
governance rules of the Development Fund outlined in this Specification
|
||
section adequate for transparency and accountability.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Motivation
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
The Zcash network is scheduled to undergo its first halving in October
|
||
2020, per current protocol specifications. At the time of the first
|
||
halving, the codebase dictates that the Founder’s Reward, which consists
|
||
of 20% of the ZEC from every block reward, will be terminated. Without
|
||
codebase modification, for example in the upcoming NU4 Network Upgrade,
|
||
100% of block rewards would be claimed by miners after the first halving.
|
||
|
||
The two organizations presently leading development and maintenance of
|
||
the Zcash network receive funds from the Founder’s Reward. These
|
||
organizations, the ECC and ZF, have recently requested a source of
|
||
funding after the first halving in order to continue operations for the
|
||
foreseeable future. The source of funds could theoretically be from
|
||
either a modification to the codebase dictating a Zcash Development Fund
|
||
from block rewards or, alternatively, from external sources. The ECC has
|
||
indicated though that it would “wind down or pivot” rather than accept
|
||
funding from any sources that would give “special interests” control
|
||
over the ECC [#ecc-assessment]_.
|
||
|
||
Based on the ECC’s demands, the block reward appears to be the most
|
||
agreeable source of resources for a Zcash Development Fund.
|
||
|
||
This proposal, originally published in the Zcash Community Forum on
|
||
August 14, 2019 [#blocktown-proposal]_ and formalized further in a
|
||
blog post on August 23, 2019 [#blocktown-blog]_, outlines the funding
|
||
mechanism and governance of such a Zcash Development Fund. Herein, we
|
||
propose a feature of NU4 whereby 10% of the ZEC from every new block
|
||
reward between the first halving and second halving would be directly
|
||
deposited in a Zcash Development Fund.
|
||
|
||
For the period between the launch of the Zcash network in 2016 and the
|
||
first halving, there has been a centralized 20% fee known as the
|
||
Founder’s Reward taken from the block reward. Other active ZIP drafts
|
||
advocate a Zcash Development Fund of 20% allocation from the block
|
||
reward after the first halving. We believe that a cumulative eight years
|
||
of centralized fees from the block reward at the identical rate of 20%
|
||
would ultimately result in a narrow community that accepts the
|
||
likelihood of a perpetual 20% fee on the Zcash network.
|
||
|
||
With a Zcash Development Fund that is only 10% of the block reward, a
|
||
precedent will be set that a large centralized fund is not indefinite
|
||
and will decrease faster than simply the rate of block reward halvings.
|
||
Although this proposal specifically addresses the period between the
|
||
first and second halving, this proposed feature may set a precedent
|
||
whereby the percent fee from block rewards allocated to a Zcash
|
||
Development Fund continually decreases every halving, e.g. 20% (FR) from
|
||
2016-2020, 10% from 2020-2024, 5% from 2024-2028, 2.5% from 2028-2032
|
||
(effectively quartering the ZEC allocated to a development fund every
|
||
four years). We believe that this social contract could restore the
|
||
community’s faith in the decentralization of Zcash as the network
|
||
incentives align more closely with that of Bitcoin’s over time.
|
||
Alternatively, it is not unreasonable for the Zcash governance system to
|
||
elect a 0% allocation for the Zcash Development Fund upon the second
|
||
halving. For a more detailed exploration regarding the selection of 10%,
|
||
please review the blog post ‘Proposal for 10% Dev Fund in Zcash 2020
|
||
Network Upgrade’ [#blocktown-10pc]_.
|
||
|
||
Of note, we are not suggesting or implying that the funding from the
|
||
Founder’s Reward and a Zcash Development Fund would be managed in a
|
||
similar way or have similar directives. The Zcash Development Fund
|
||
feature that we propose for NU4 does not allocate any funds to former
|
||
angel investors, VCs or vested employees. Furthermore, the Zcash
|
||
Development Fund would be subject to more explicit and transparent
|
||
rules of governance, as outlined in the Specification section of this
|
||
proposal.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rationale
|
||
=========
|
||
|
||
The rationale behind this proposal is as follows:
|
||
|
||
* To provide financial resources for research, development, and any
|
||
other technical work connected to software upgrades/maintenance of
|
||
the Zcash protocol, as well as non-technical initiatives including
|
||
marketing, design, events, regulatory outreach, education,
|
||
governance, and any other form of business that contribute to the
|
||
success of the Zcash network.
|
||
* To increase decentralization and network security of the Zcash
|
||
network.
|
||
* To increase decentralization through greater community involvement
|
||
in Zcash governance and resource allocation.
|
||
* To establish basic rules of governance and accountability regarding
|
||
the deployment of funds in the Zcash Development Fund.
|
||
* To encourage transparency and cooperation among Zcash stakeholders
|
||
and strengthen the community’s governance capabilities moving
|
||
forward.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Discussion
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
Recognized objections to this proposal include:
|
||
|
||
* This proposal is not in accordance with the current Zcash protocol,
|
||
which is programmed to allocate 100% of the coinbase to miners upon
|
||
the first halving in 2020. However, at least during the next few
|
||
years of Zcash’s infancy, we believe it is advantageous to have a
|
||
funded and dedicated development team.
|
||
* The funding mechanism in this proposal is a Zcash Development Fund
|
||
consisting of 10% of newly issued ZEC from block rewards after the
|
||
first halving. This is in contrast to other proposals that allocate
|
||
20% of the mining rewards to the Zcash Development Fund – presumably
|
||
a popular selection because the original Founder’s Reward was also
|
||
set at 20%. For reasons we have explored in depth [#blocktown-10pc]_
|
||
and summarized in [#blocktown-summary]_, we believe 10% instead of
|
||
20% is superior for network security, decentralization, uniting the
|
||
Zcash community and renewing interest in ZEC.
|
||
* Various parameters of governance in approving Applicant requests for
|
||
funding from the Zcash Development Fund.
|
||
* The inclusion of a Third Entity in governance. One notable objection
|
||
is the possibility of collusion between Third Entity and either the
|
||
ECC or ZF that would result in a “usurped” Zcash Development Fund.
|
||
We believe that the process for a community elected Third Entity,
|
||
however, will mature over time – giving the community and Zcash
|
||
stakeholders that important third opinion in deciding the proper
|
||
allocation of funds. As demonstrated by the resilience of the Bitcoin
|
||
network and community, well-formed communities tend to resist any
|
||
collusion with corporations and controlling entities that do not
|
||
promote the direct success of the network. Moreover, the inclusion of
|
||
a Third Entity has the advantage of offering a “tie-breaker” in the
|
||
event of a deadlock vote between the ECC and ZF and/or a situation
|
||
where one entity holds the other hostage, which is a possible
|
||
scenario in a 2-of-2 multisig agreement.
|
||
* This proposal does not have a clause dictating that a Recipient must
|
||
abstain from voting. If a Recipient must abstain from voting in a
|
||
2-of-3 multisig governance system, then this could –as in the case of
|
||
2-of-2 multisig– result in an entity holding another hostage. For
|
||
example, if the ECC refuses to fund the ZF until the ZF complies with
|
||
the ECC’s demands, then the ECC has the power to deadlock any vote to
|
||
fund the ZF, which requires the ECC and Third Entity to both vote
|
||
approvingly.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Acknowledgements
|
||
================
|
||
|
||
Aspects of this proposal, particularly the Terminology and Specification
|
||
sections, were adapted and expanded definitions and concepts put forth
|
||
in Placeholder’s dev fund proposal from August 22, 2019 [#placeholder-proposal]_.
|
||
|
||
|
||
References
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
.. [#RFC2119] `RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.html>`_
|
||
.. [#zfnd-guidance] `Zcash Foundation Guidance on Dev Fund Proposals. Zcash Foundation blog, August 6, 2019. <https://www.zfnd.org/blog/dev-fund-guidance-and-timeline/>`_
|
||
.. [#ecc-assessment] `ECC Initial Assessment of Community Proposals. Electric Coin Company blog, August 26, 2019. <https://electriccoin.co/blog/ecc-initial-assessment-of-community-proposals/>`_
|
||
.. [#blocktown-proposal] `Proposal for the Zcash 2020 Network Upgrade (topic on the Zcash community forum). <https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/proposal-for-the-zcash-2020-network-upgrade/34503>`_
|
||
.. [#blocktown-blog] `Blocktown Proposal for Zcash 2020 Network Upgrade. Blocktown Capital, August 23, 2019. <https://medium.com/blocktown/blocktown-proposal-for-zcash-2020-network-upgrade-fdec1e9d507c>`_
|
||
.. [#blocktown-10pc] `Proposal for 10% Dev Fund in Zcash 2020 Network Upgrade. Blocktown Capital, August 14, 2019. <https://medium.com/blocktown/proposal-for-the-zcash-2020-network-upgrade-fcd320a5d6f5>`_
|
||
.. [#blocktown-summary] `Executive Summary: Blocktown Proposal for Zcash 2020 Network Upgrade. Blocktown Capital, August 15, 2019. <https://medium.com/blocktown/executive-summary-blocktown-proposal-for-zcash-2020-network-upgrade-84ff20997502>`_
|
||
.. [#placeholder-proposal] `Dev Fund Proposal: 20% to a 2-of-3 multisig with community-involved governance (topic on the Zcash community forum). <https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/dev-fund-proposal-20-to-a-2-of-3-multisig-with-community-involved-governance/34646>`_
|
||
.. [#nu-pipeline] `The Zcash Network Upgrade Pipeline. Electric Coin Company blog, December 3, 2018. <https://electriccoin.co/blog/the-zcash-network-upgrade-pipeline/>`_
|