You do have a point. There shouldn’t be a “Trusted Guardian” for a cryptocurrency. That’s too much like the corrupt system we have now. I’m not saying Vandar can’t be trusted, but a trustless system should be developed. Anything can happen in life; private keys to community funds can be lost or anything could happen which would cause a percent of the mining community’s funds to be misplaced an inaccessible forever. With a vote from a few, to put a few in control over something that is supposed to be decentralized isn’t logical. Like you said HarryArms, there were 60 YES votes in the first few days (I don’t know, I haven’t verified the amount of votes). I do know that Hydra had been discussed for quite a while before the voting began. I know I voted YES immediately after the proposal was mentioned in the Telegram/Discord channels. That would explain why there were so many immediate YES votes in the beginning, followed by some NO votes later on. Maybe people voted NO weren’t active in the community and didn’t know of Hydra or who was making the proposal in order to trust a “Trusted Guardian”. I think voting should be mandatory in order to use the BTCZ ecosystem because community voting is in the whitepaper. Voting should be verified by a trustless system, but there’s really no way to verify each vote is from only one community member. The white paper is all about community voting, so if the community votes for someone to be a “Trusted Guardian” for a particular wallet, the community can just as well come together with a proposal against it. With that being said, it is up to the community to come together to make a trustless voting system/ community funds manager.
We should work for a better voting system , at least from the requirements view for someone in order to cast a vote etc.
However the “Guardian” or “President -like” role wss necessary like in the most Democracies: There is a parliament (you can see as a mini parliament the 5 Community Managers ) and there is a President who has to approve everything that the parliament is voting, because something could be harmful.
In our case , our open structure is leaving the Community vulnerable to bad actors or a team which could hypothetically come and try to take over the project, changing its initial approach (for example trying to half the rewards faster with a speculative and narrow -view or letting ASICs in etc).
This is why a Guardian/President is necessary even more in our case.
Cryptorex was the choice for this position in this proposal because he is the oldest and more stable member, a part of the core team and extremely active through time.
- A proper page for voting on selected projects should be created.
- no one should have private keys to vaultZ.
- in order to reward miners for the loss of 5%, they should receive something similar to the VoteCoinZ sewn into blockchain BTCZ during extraction.
- by voting on the appropriate page, votecoinZ would vote on the projects voted on here.
- after the vote, coins automatically come out in the indicated amount to the address indicated.
- I have no idea what it would look like from the technical side
your idea is a bit overcomplexed.
Giving out coins from nowhere is something what Whitepaper clearly says out as NO.
Its an untrusted scammish behaviour.
Every miner can decide if he/she takes the loss for the community’s advantage for faster improvements.
Amounts at VaultZ if noone has a key, it means its completely lost. The system how it is now, VaultZ has more keyholders and be only to transfer funds based only on votes and it needs a certain transaction approval to move out (Multisignature).
Community voted projects by a community driver coin is Decentralization itself. Hydra is just an Overwatch.
Any new improvements can be devoted.
The problem here is that some people of “trust” have taken control of btcz and are doing and undoing what they want and nobody can do anything, I got bored of saying no, that’s why I got away from the project, but good luck with everything!
hi @KOMETE4, please can we talk? I’m the guy who organized the first btcz meeting. there are things that don’t work for me, too. Example? you still don’t know when you vote. 
but if you’ve spent a lot of time on this project. please help me have a conversation with you. I could be you some time ago, and if this project is to be abandoned I would understand it right away.
this is my telegram: @greyfox7
Guys I never felt that the project is under control of anyone. This is by far the most open Cryptocurrency project ever.
BitcoinZ had overcome this risk when the developers and many members refused to “hand it over” to a specific designers group who asked for complete control of the project showing an extremely violent and offensive behaviour to many Community members who had made many things for btcz.
IMHO the most important element for a Community driven project , is the respect among its members, especially the very first core members who set the base of the Project is ideal to have good relationship.
During the last months , despite the “crypto winter” with most of the cryptocurrencies being considerably lower than their all time highs , I have noticed that there are many people who silently work for BTCZ sub-projects either in small groups or alone , with harmony and respect to everyone’s efforts! There is even an evolving on-line friendship being built between some of them, although they are just strangers in “real life”.
This is the most beautiful thing, much more important than anything else, and this is how a real Community Driven Project should be anyway.
Personally I would have been happier if I had seen the old core developers being more active around the BitcoinZ project again.
However, I totally understand that this is a volunteering project and some people don’t always have endless time to spend for it.
Some are passing from it, others are returning after some months or a few years, but in every case , everyone who has done something for BitcoinZ and has been respectful to the other members, has helped the project evolve to a higher level.
IMHO , as I have already expressed my thoughts to you 
: We should vote again for a more sophisticated election system, with more time for the Community managers (for example 6 months instead of 3) and some protection measures as well if possible.
However most of the active members had no time to either rewrite a proposal or to even complete the report for the current Community Managers and ask for a new election round, because they are working for sub-projects like the site , the ledger solution , the stealth project etc.
I hope that this will change soon though !
I think you had some good ideas, I have suggested a few as well however, things take time. I have also took the attitude of just do it as this is a grass roots project and there is also individual responsibility to make things happen where we\I can . Make stickers, print flyers, Blog, give friends a few coins and make it grow. Cheers
Hi is necessary even more in our case.
Cryptorex was the choice for this position in this proposal because he is the
Good luck to everyone
After the Hydra 2.0 vote, I will also walk away. But your crying on you doesn’t lead to anything. Just to lose. Vandar is focusing on the fact that there is too much money on managers (when there is an option and it is written that the community will decide them in the future) not to show the thing really is representing Hydra 2.0. The point is that he chose the managers and never said how to run for manager . Now he has also decided to remake the website, whitout vote or proposal. For him it is not important even to limit fake clicks, because managers will have to block all uncomfortable proposals. You think me btcz is transforming and someone has taken control. And that’s also your fault too.
Yes I am the one who can accuse about the climate change as well.
I really have no time to respond analytically to this nonsense.