Proposal 3Dev fund proposal: 20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or “burn” Advocate: Andrew MillerCould ECC accept jobs from this fund while remaining true to our mission?No. ECC would not accept funding that would give special interests—such as miners in this case—control over ECC’s direction. If we took a job under these terms, we would risk being in a position where we are forced to choose between compromising our mission or being defunded by the special interests. For example: what if Zcash users want to evolve the consensus algorithm to include Proof-of-Stake, but the Proof-of-Work miners refused to allow that? Or what if a dominant miner coalition demands a change that disadvantages competing minority miners?Additionally, FinHub has indicated that “limiting supply or ensuring scarcity [of a cryptocurrency], through, for example, buybacks, ‘burning,’ or other activities,” is a factor in determining that the cryptocurrency is subject to securities regulations.Conclusion: ECC would wind down or pivot.
Though the ultimate decision about what work is funded is up to the community, we are actively focused on the following objectives. They will require more time than is available through the existing funding model. Objectives:Drive adoption and expand shielded use (e.g. shielded mobile wallets, shielded multisig, view keys, etc.)Layer 1 scalability (potentially including consensus innovation such as proof-of-stake)Regulatory engagement worldwideOnboarding and supporting more services and markets (e.g. BOLT/layer 2 use cases, cross-chain interoperability, Zcash as a platform, trading platforms a.k.a. cryptocurrency exchanges, etc.)Awareness, education, and community-building for both Zcash and the importance of privacy
According to Leto, users who never used a zaddr, only used it over the Tor Onion Routing network or only to send funds, are not affected. Furthermore, Leto also claims that Zcash is not the only cryptocurrency affected and provides a non-exhaustive list.