3 ms·
The real problem here is that the compensation structure was initially defined to give the dev team payments for four years and then stop. That makes sense for
by lacker 7y ago
The real problem here is that the compensation structure was initially defined to give the dev team payments for four years and then stop. That makes sense for stock options, when there are established mechanisms to expand the options pool later. For a cryptocurrency it creates a big problem for you, that you’ve punted four years down the road.
We’ll see if Zcash developers manage to fork into a coin that keeps paying them to work on it, but I think the lesson here is to incorporate this up front in the model. Any amount can be fair if it’s fairly communicated up front.
- jdsully 7y agoShareholders don't expect to keep getting additional shares as time goes on. The point is you increase the value of each share by improving the company (or in this case the currency). They already have substantial ownership in the currency - this should be sufficient.
- lacker 7y agoShareholders don't expect to keep getting additional shares, but employees do. The main problem isn't that Zcash needs to incentivize shareholders, the main problem is that they need to incentivize engineers to work on their software.
- jdsully 7y agoGiven the assets they have - the interest alone out to be enough cash to employ their devs. ZCash doesn't throw off interest directly but wall street is pretty creative at turning assets into cash flow.