Interpretation of the Zcash coinholder sentiment collection... (My personal view is that if coinholders strongly oppose a change, it's *really* hard to argue we should do it anyway.) 1. ZSAs are in bad shape. There is basically no support from coinholders, and I'm not sure there's enough enthusiasm elsewhere to overcome this. I'm personally not bullish about ZSAs for numerous technical reasons. I think an argument still needs to be made for including this feature in the protocol. 2. NSM (modulo fee burning) seems unpopular with coinholders too. My guess is that anything that touches this issuance gives off bad vibes regardless of its merit. I think *because* it touches issuance we should be even more deferential to coinholders. 3. Fee burning seems fine. 4. Memo bundles are broadly disliked from coinholders. Personally I don't like these. It moves us in the wrong direction: memos are not sustainable / scalable in their current form, and we shouldn't be encouraging people to use them in ways we didn't originally anticipate. I appreciate the careful attention to detail and effort put into the ZIP though! 5. Explicit fees seem fine. 6. Sprout removal seems to have more opposition than I expected. We really need to propose this to the community again, perhaps next time with a more clear timeline/warning process. Sprout users are not paying for the ongoing burden that the Sprout pool has on the maintenance of the protocol, and the pool is nearly abandoned. 7. Tachyon has fantastic support from coinholders and from most others that were polled too. Thank you! Making progress on scalability seems very important to ZEC holders and most Zcashers I've talked to. I believe the results show there is a mandate to making progress shipping a shielded pool on mainnet even without wallet support, which is how our other pools have previously been shipped. I think this kind of aggressive deployment strategy is essential to making meaningful progress on scale. More generally, I think this bodes well for other scaling-related objectives being developed such as the ideas coming from the @zkDragon camp (which I think will be vital for Tachyon's success), and so those should feel a similar amount of support here. Take this one with a grain of salt, since Tachyon is my pet project! 8. STARKs haven't quite been sold to the community yet. I haven't seen much enthusiasm for them on a technical level from other protocol devs due to concerns like security levels. Let's maybe keep iterating on this, it doesn't seem dead but it seems like an uphill climb. 9. Dynamic fees don't enjoy much support and there's genuine concern/skepticism about the mechanics design of them (as proposed.) I agree, this needs more work. 10. No real enthusiasm for consensus accounts. This is a weird one, I don't know what to think about it yet. 11. Quantum recoverability is pretty solid across the board. Great work to the ZODL crew on this.

@thecodebuffet (I wouldn't advocate for it, since I'm also not bullish on memos to begin with, but that's a separate issue.)

@zooko @nullc0py Just as a historic note, I did not even ask to have Tachyon mentioned in the poll. My proposed question was workshopped by the organizers in the context of the other questions, and then drafts of the questions were presented to the community for feedback for a considerable time.

@thecodebuffet @nuttycom Also, the points you just made are completely orthogonal to the debate about what is required for a network upgrade. Whether or not a protocol change was motivated is unrelated to the conversation.