123 lines
4.4 KiB
ReStructuredText
123 lines
4.4 KiB
ReStructuredText
::
|
||
|
||
ZIP: 1008
|
||
Title: Fund ECC for Two More Years
|
||
Owners: @kek (zcash forums)
|
||
@mistfpga (zcash forums) <steve@mistfpga.net>
|
||
Status: Obsolete
|
||
Category: Consensus Process
|
||
Created: 2019-09-02
|
||
License: CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/>
|
||
Discussions-To: <https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/kek-s-proposal-fund-ecc-for-2-more-years/34778>
|
||
|
||
|
||
Terminology
|
||
===========
|
||
|
||
The key words "MUST" and "MUST NOT" in this document are to be interpreted as
|
||
described in RFC 2119. [#RFC2119]_
|
||
|
||
For clarity this ZIP defines these terms:
|
||
|
||
* Spirit is defined as what is the intended outcome of the ZIP. [#spirit]_
|
||
|
||
.. [#spirit] If there is contradiction between Spirit and any other part of
|
||
the proposal that needs to be addressed, in the event it is not addressed
|
||
Spirit is assumed to overrule all.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Out of Scope for this Proposal
|
||
==============================
|
||
|
||
Everything except moving the development fund end date.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
========
|
||
|
||
The spirit of this proposal is to keep to the current structure of the
|
||
Electric Coin Company (ECC) receiving funding from the block distribution for
|
||
two years' worth of blocks after the first halving in October 2020.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Motivation
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
To give more time to work out the full ramifications of any potential pivot /
|
||
slow down, yet keep "all in on ZEC" for two more years with as little
|
||
disruption as possible.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Requirements
|
||
============
|
||
|
||
.. role:: editor-note
|
||
|
||
Nothing about distribution recipients changes.
|
||
|
||
:editor-note:`The current distribution of the Founders’ Reward is dependent
|
||
on arrangements between the participants that will, if not explicitly renewed,
|
||
expire at the first halving. There are currently direct and indirect recipients
|
||
other than the ECC and Zcash Foundation. It is unclear whether funding of the
|
||
ECC and Foundation is intended to continue at the current absolute ZEC rate,
|
||
or at the same rate relative to the block subsidy which halves in October 2020.
|
||
Further specification would be needed in order to fulfil and clarify the spirit
|
||
of the proposal.`
|
||
|
||
|
||
Specification
|
||
=============
|
||
|
||
* The ECC's portion of block subsidy MUST be 20%, until a block height
|
||
corresponding to two years after the first halving, i.e. until October 2022.
|
||
* A to-be-specified fraction of ECC's portion SHOULD be used to fund the
|
||
Zcash Foundation.
|
||
|
||
:editor-note:`A previous version of this ZIP stated the following requirements:
|
||
"The ECC's portion of block subsidy MUST be capped at their projected 1.1m USD
|
||
costs a month." and "The ECC's portion of block subsidy MUST NOT be greater than
|
||
10% of total block subsidy of any one block." These requirements were mistakenly
|
||
introduced in the process of ZIP editing; they do not reflect the intent of the
|
||
original author @kek. They are also inconsistent with the summary that was posted
|
||
in the Community Sentiment Collection Poll blog post at
|
||
<https://www.zfnd.org/blog/community-sentiment-collection-poll/>, which stated an
|
||
ECC percentage of 20%. Votes on the Community Sentiment Collection Poll, the
|
||
Community Advisory Panel Helios poll, and/or the stake-weighted petition reported
|
||
at <https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/staked-poll-on-zcash-dev-fund-debate/34846/71>,
|
||
should be interpreted with care in light of this ambiguity. Also note that the
|
||
1.1m USD cap could not in any case be specified as a consensus rule since there
|
||
is no on-chain oracle for the USD price.`
|
||
|
||
Rationale
|
||
---------
|
||
|
||
Provisions that referred to specific block heights have been revised since they
|
||
were inconsistent with the change in block target spacing [#zip-0208]_ that will
|
||
occur with the Blossom Network Upgrade [#zip-0206]_; and even if recalculated,
|
||
fixed block heights would potentially be inconsistent with future changes in
|
||
target block spacing.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Raised objections and issues so far
|
||
===================================
|
||
|
||
* This is just kicking the can down the road.
|
||
* The Zcash Foundation has raised objections to a single point of failure in the
|
||
ECC.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Implications to other users
|
||
===========================
|
||
|
||
* The knock-on impact of this ZIP to exchanges and wallet developers may be
|
||
nontrivial.
|
||
* The economics of doing this have not been calculated.
|
||
|
||
|
||
References
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
.. [#RFC2119] `RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.html>`_
|
||
.. [#zip-0206] `ZIP 206: Deployment of the Blossom Network Upgrade <zip-0206.rst>`_
|
||
.. [#zip-0208] `ZIP 208: Shorter Block Target Spacing <zip-0208.rst>`_
|