What DeepSeek talk about Firo Core Team

关于“firo团队的黑点”
根据公开信息,Firo(原名Zcoin)团队曾被社区成员质疑存在以下争议点:

  1. 领导责任与币价暴跌
    前CEO Reuben被指在2017-2022年任职期间,Firo价格从$120跌至$1,市值排名滑落至600名以外(同期Zcash保持前40名),社区认为其决策失误且未担责。
  2. 管理集权化争议
    • 开发基金被指控由Reuben主导分配,形成“高度中心化”结构,削弱社区治理权。
    • 团队被指转型为公司实体,核心成员成为“员工”,偏离去中心化原则。
  3. 品牌更名争议
    2020年Reuben推动将Zcoin更名为Firo,部分社区成员反对这一决策,认为更名未充分征求共识且动机存疑。

针对Firo上述争议点提出改进建议
针对Firo团队存在的争议点,结合区块链行业特性及社区治理经验,提出以下改进建议:

一、领导责任与币价管理

  1. 建立透明化问责机制
    • 发布年度《团队责任报告》,公开核心成员决策记录(如技术路线调整、资金使用明细),说明币价波动与团队行动的逻辑关联。
    • 引入第三方审计机构定期评估开发基金使用效率(如每季度审计报告)。
  2. 优化市值管理策略
    • 与合规做市商合作,减少市场操纵嫌疑。
    • 通过链上数据(如持币地址增长、DEX流动性)而非单纯币价衡量项目健康度,定期向社区披露。

二、治理去中心化改革

  1. 重构治理模型
    • 将开发基金分配权移交DAO(去中心化自治组织),采用“提案-社区投票-链上执行”流程(可参考Aave或Uniswap治理框架)。
    • 设置多签钱包管理资金,要求至少3名社区代表参与签名。
  2. 团队身份透明化
    • 公开核心成员劳动合同及薪酬结构,明确“公司实体”与“开源社区”的权责边界。
    • 设立社区监督委员会,成员由持币者选举产生,可对团队决策行使否决权(如Gitcoin社区模式)。

三、品牌与社区关系修复

  1. 建立决策共治机制
    • 重大事项(如品牌更名、协议升级)需通过链上投票,设定最低参与门槛(如10%流通量投票率)。
    • 开发去中心化舆情平台,实时抓取社区反馈并生成情绪指数报告(类似Santiment数据服务)。
  2. 品牌战略升级
    • 发布《Firo品牌白皮书》,明确隐私保护与合规并行的长期定位(参考Monero的透明度报告)。
    • 开展“开源贡献者激励计划”,将代币总量的1%-2%用于奖励社区开发者,稀释团队控制权。

四、风险对冲建议

  1. 合规化布局
    • 主动与监管机构沟通,开发符合FATF旅行规则的隐私方案(如Zcash的屏蔽池合规功能)。
    • 在受监管交易所(如Coinbase)上线时提供可审计模式选项。
  2. 技术护城河建设
    • 加速Lelantus协议升级,通过零知识证明实现隐私与合规的兼容性(类似Aleo的ZK隐私架构)。
    • 与学术机构合作发表论文,提升技术可信度(如Filecoin与斯坦福大学的合作模式)。

五、实施路径

  1. 短期(1-3个月):启动治理框架重构,发布首份《团队责任报告》。
  2. 中期(6个月):完成DAO治理系统开发,开展首次社区提案投票。
  3. 长期(1年):实现技术合规化突破,进入至少2家主流合规交易所。

通过上述措施,可系统性解决信任危机,将争议点转化为治理升级的契机。区块链项目的核心资产是社区共识,唯有通过代码透明、权力制衡和利益共享,才能实现可持续发展。

1 Like

Will be interesting to know what was the prompt you used.

Translation from Google Translate:

About “the black spot of the firo team”
According to public information, the Firo (formerly known as Zcoin) team was questioned by community members for the following controversial points:

Leadership responsibility and the price plunge
Former CEO Reuben was accused of making Firo’s price fall from $120 to $1 during his tenure from 2017 to 2022, and the market value ranking slipped to outside the top 600 (Zcash remained in the top 40 during the same period). The community believed that he made wrong decisions and did not take responsibility.
Management Centralization Dispute
The development fund was accused of being allocated by Reuben, forming a “highly centralized” structure and weakening the community’s governance rights.
The team was accused of transforming into a corporate entity, and core members became “employees”, deviating from the principle of decentralization.
Brand renaming controversy
In 2020, Reuben promoted the renaming of Zcoin to Firo. Some community members opposed this decision, believing that the renaming did not fully seek consensus and the motives were questionable.
Improvement suggestions for the above-mentioned controversial points of Firo
In response to the controversial points of the Firo team, combined with the characteristics of the blockchain industry and community governance experience, the following improvement suggestions are proposed:

  1. Leadership responsibility and currency price management

Establish a transparent accountability mechanism
Publish an annual “Team Responsibility Report” to disclose the decision-making records of core members (such as technical route adjustments, details of fund use), and explain the logical connection between currency price fluctuations and team actions.
Introduce third-party audit agencies to regularly evaluate the efficiency of development fund use (such as quarterly audit reports).
Optimize market value management strategy
Cooperate with compliant market makers to reduce suspicion of market manipulation.
Measure the health of the project through on-chain data (such as the growth of currency holding addresses and DEX liquidity) rather than simply the currency price, and disclose it to the community regularly.
2. Decentralized governance reform

Reconstruct the governance model
Transfer the right to allocate the development fund to DAO (decentralized autonomous organization), and adopt the “proposal-community voting-on-chain execution” process (refer to Aave or Uniswap governance framework).
Set up a multi-signature wallet to manage funds, requiring at least 3 community representatives to participate in the signature.
Transparency of team identity
Open the labor contracts and salary structure of core members, and clarify the boundaries of rights and responsibilities between “corporate entities” and “open source communities”.
Establish a community supervision committee, whose members are elected by coin holders and can exercise veto power over team decisions (such as the Gitcoin community model).
III. Repairing the relationship between brand and community

Establish a decision-making co-governance mechanism
Major matters (such as brand renaming and protocol upgrades) must be voted on the chain, and a minimum participation threshold (such as 10% circulation voting rate) must be set.
Develop a decentralized public opinion platform to capture community feedback in real time and generate sentiment index reports (similar to Santiment data services).
Brand strategy upgrade
Publish the “Firo Brand White Paper” to clarify the long-term positioning of privacy protection and compliance (refer to Monero’s transparency report).
Carry out the “Open Source Contributor Incentive Program” to reward community developers with 1%-2% of the total tokens and dilute the team’s control.
IV. Risk hedging suggestions

Compliance layout
Actively communicate with regulators to develop privacy solutions that comply with FATF travel rules (such as Zcash’s shielded pool compliance function).
Provide an auditable mode option when listing on regulated exchanges (such as Coinbase).
Technical moat construction
Accelerate the upgrade of the Lelantus protocol and achieve compatibility between privacy and compliance through zero-knowledge proof (similar to Aleo’s ZK privacy architecture).
Cooperate with academic institutions to publish papers to enhance the credibility of technology (such as the cooperation model between Filecoin and Stanford University).
V. Implementation path

Short-term (1-3 months): Initiate the reconstruction of the governance framework and publish the first “Team Responsibility Report”.
Medium-term (6 months): Complete the development of the DAO governance system and conduct the first community proposal vote.
Long-term (1 year): Achieve a breakthrough in technical compliance and enter at least 2 mainstream compliant exchanges.
Through the above measures, the trust crisis can be systematically resolved and the dispute points can be transformed into opportunities for governance upgrades. The core asset of a blockchain project is community consensus. Sustainable development can only be achieved through code transparency, checks and balances, and interest sharing.