Zcash-Inhaber stimmen über Entnahme von 50.000 ZEC aus Treasury ab

AI-generated

Zcash-Inhaber stimmen über Entnahme von 50.000 ZEC aus dem Fördermittelfonds ab

Zcash-Inhaber und Gemeinschaftsgremien sollen vom 16. bis 30. November über einen Vorschlag abstimmen, 50.000 ZEC aus dem Treasury von Zcash Community Grants (ZCG) aus dem Umlauf zu nehmen. Laut CoinDesk entspricht die geplante Entnahme etwa 55 Prozent der 91.453 ZEC, die in einem im Entwurf zitierten Treasury-Snapshot aus dem Oktober ausgewiesen werden.

Der Wert der entnommenen ZEC soll über zukünftige Mining-Belohnungen zurückgeführt werden. Dafür sieht der Vorschlag vor, den Anteil von 8 Prozent an neu geschaffenen ZEC, den Zcash Community Grants derzeit erhält, künftig einem neuen Entwicklungs- und Rechtsschutzfonds zuzuweisen.

$500 FREE BTC Mining

Get $500 free Bitcoin mining for a free testing phase:

Real daily rewards
1 full month of testing
No strings attached

If you choose to buy after testing, you can keep your mining rewards and receive up to 20% bonus on top.

START TESTING NOW!

Der Vorschlag wurde von den Zcash-Mitbegründern Sean Bowe und Zooko Wilcox gemeinsam mit Jason McGee verfasst. Der Entwurf des Zcash Improvement Proposal wurde am Mittwoch in das Spezifikations-Repository aufgenommen; die Umfragen für Coin-Inhaber und Community-Panels sollen am 16. November beginnen und bis zum 30. November laufen.

Bei einer Annahme müsste der Plan zunächst durch ein Netzwerk-Upgrade aktiviert werden. Ein konkretes Aktivierungsdatum und eine Aktivierungshöhe wurden laut CoinDesk bislang nicht festgelegt, außerdem enthält der Entwurf keine Referenzimplementierung.

Entnahme soll über künftige Mining-Belohnungen ausgeglichen werden

Würde der Vorschlag angenommen und in einem Netzwerk-Upgrade aktiviert, müsste Zcash Community Grants die 50.000 ZEC innerhalb von 30 Tagen aus dem Umlauf nehmen. Ihr Wert würde dem Network Sustainability Mechanism gutgeschrieben, einer Reserve, die im Rahmen des kürzlichen NU7-Upgrades aktiviert wurde und die ZEC schrittweise über zukünftige Blockbelohnungen zurückführen soll.

Die Neuregelung würde zugleich verhindern, dass ZCG weiterhin den bisherigen Anteil von 8 Prozent an neu geschaffenen ZEC erhält. Diese Zuweisung soll stattdessen bis zur nächsten Halbierung von Zcash in einem neuen Future Dev- und Rechtsverteidigungsfonds angesammelt werden.

Aus dem neuen Fonds könnte zunächst niemand Ausgaben tätigen. Für die Festlegung der Auszahlungsregeln wäre ein separater Vorschlag erforderlich.

ZCG soll seine verbleibende Kasse behalten und weiterhin Fördermittel vergeben. Der separate, von Coinholdern kontrollierte Fonds mit einem Anteil von 12 Prozent soll unverändert bleiben.

Vorgesehene Größe	Angabe aus der Quelle
Entnahme aus dem Treasury	50.000 ZEC
Anteil an den 91.453 ZEC des Treasury-Snapshots	etwa 55 Prozent
Bisheriger Anteil von ZCG an neu geschaffenen ZEC	8 Prozent
Separater von Coinholdern kontrollierter Fonds	12 Prozent
Abstimmungszeitraum	16. bis 30. November

Zusammenfassung: 50.000 ZEC sollen aus dem ZCG-Treasury entfernt und über den Network Sustainability Mechanism durch zukünftige Blockbelohnungen zurückgeführt werden. Der bisherige ZCG-Anteil von 8 Prozent an neu geschaffenen ZEC soll in einen neuen Entwicklungs- und Rechtsschutzfonds fließen.

Finanzierung von Zcash Community Grants steht im Mittelpunkt

Zcash finanziert einen Teil seiner Entwicklung durch neu geschaffene Coins. ZCG erhält davon 8 Prozent; sein fünfköpfiges Komitee vergibt Zuschüsse an unabhängige Entwickler, Wallet-Hersteller und Gemeinschaftsprojekte.

Diese Zuschüsse finanzieren laut CoinDesk die Software, die Nutzer für das Halten und Ausgeben von ZEC verwenden. Wenn die automatische Finanzierung endet, müsste ZCG für diese Aufgaben auf die verbleibenden Mittel seines Treasury zurückgreifen.

Gleichzeitig soll die geplante Entnahme von 50.000 ZEC dazu beitragen, zukünftige Miner zu finanzieren. Diese betreiben die Maschinen, die Transaktionen bestätigen und das Netzwerk sichern.

Der Entwurf begründet die Abstimmung unter anderem mit dem gestiegenen Wert der bestehenden ZCG-Bestände. Die Rally von ZEC habe den Wert der bereits vorhandenen Mittel des Komitees deutlich erhöht, während weiterhin neue Finanzmittel eingingen. Daraus seien Forderungen entstanden, einem bereits ausreichend großen Treasury nicht noch weitere Mittel hinzuzufügen.

Unter Verwendung des Treasury-Snapshots vom Oktober, eines angenommenen ZEC-Preises von 1.300 $ und der Ausgaben aus der ersten Hälfte des Jahres 2026 schätzt der Entwurf, dass ZCG seine Ausgaben etwa 13 Jahre lang decken könnte. Nach der Entnahme von 50.000 ZEC würden unter diesen Annahmen ungefähr sechs Jahre verbleiben.

ZCG vergibt Zuschüsse an unabhängige Entwickler, Wallet-Hersteller und Gemeinschaftsprojekte.
Die automatische Zuweisung von 8 Prozent an neu geschaffenen ZEC soll beendet werden.
ZCG soll für die weitere Förderung auf die verbleibenden Treasury-Mittel zurückgreifen.
Der Entwurf schätzt die Deckung der Ausgaben auf etwa 13 Jahre beziehungsweise nach der Entnahme auf ungefähr sechs Jahre.

Zusammenfassung: Die Abstimmung soll die künftige Finanzierung von ZCG neu ordnen. Das Komitee würde die verbleibenden Treasury-Mittel weiter für Zuschüsse einsetzen, aber keine laufende Zuweisung von 8 Prozent an neu geschaffenen ZEC mehr erhalten.

Früherer Plan über 98.000 ZEC wurde aufgegeben

ZCG hatte zuvor vorgeschlagen, seine Finanzierung schrittweise zu reduzieren und etwa 98.000 ZEC aus bestehenden Vermögenswerten und zukünftigen Einnahmen in Richtung Mining-Belohnungen umzuleiten. Nach Kritik wurde dieser Plan am 3. November aufgegeben.

Der nun vorliegende Ersatzvorschlag sieht eine geringere Entnahme von 50.000 ZEC vor. Auch dieser Plan benötigt die Unterstützung der Gemeinschaft sowie ein Netzwerk-Upgrade.

Die Organisatoren wollen zunächst prüfen, ob die Umfragen im November einen „ungefähren Konsens“ ergeben. Anschließend könnten Entwicklerteams und Miner an einem Folge-Upgrade mit der Bezeichnung NU7.1 arbeiten.

Der Vorschlag würde außerdem den neuen Future Dev- und Rechtsverteidigungsfonds schaffen, aus dem zunächst keine Ausgaben erfolgen könnten. Erst ein separater Vorschlag müsste festlegen, unter welchen Bedingungen Mittel aus diesem Fonds ausgezahlt werden.

„ungefähren Konsens“

Zusammenfassung: Der aktuelle Vorschlag ersetzt einen zuvor aufgegebenen Plan zur Umleitung von etwa 98.000 ZEC. Für die Umsetzung sind weiterhin ein Community-Votum und ein Netzwerk-Upgrade erforderlich; als mögliches Folge-Upgrade wird NU7.1 genannt.

Quelle

CoinDesk

Sources:

Zcash-Inhaber stimmen über die Entnahme von 50.000 ZEC aus dem Fördermittelfonds ab

Note on the use of artificial intelligence on this website

Your opinion on this article

Your name

Your email address

Please enter a valid email address.

Your comment

Please enter a comment.

Please inform me by email when it is published or when I receive a reply

Anonymous am 13.11.2026

I dont really get how taking out half the treasury is supposed to be “sustainable” tbh, even if the miners get paid back later. Also 13 years turning into only 6 years of runway sounds like a pretty huge cut, and the new legal fund cant even spend anything yet lol, so what exactly is the plan there?

GrantGoblin am 13.11.2026

Yeah thats the part im stuck on too, moving 8% away before anyone can even use the new fund feels kinda backwards. Maybe the price rally makes the numbers look safe on paper, but six years can go by pretty fast in crypto and then everyones suprised again.

Anonymous am 13.11.2026

Yeah the bit about miners getting paid back feels kinda backwards to me, arent miners the ones securing it now while the dev fund just sits there unused lol.

Anonymous am 13.11.2026

Yeah exactly, the whole thing feels like moving coins from one pocket to the other and calling it sustainable lol. Six years runway is not nothing, but crypto prices dont just stay at 1300 forever, and a legal fund nobody can use yet is kinda just a fancy locked box tbh.

Anonymous am 13.11.2026

Yeah thats the part that seems kinda backwards to me, taking money out now so miners maybe get paid later feels like moving coins from one pocket to the other. And a legal fund nobody can use untill another proposal is passed is not really a fund yet, its more like a locked jar lol.

Anonymous am 13.11.2026

Yeah I dont really get how this is meant to be the less risky option either, 50k ZEC is still a massive chunk even if the number got reduced from 98k. The “13 years to 6 years” thing seems like the biggest part to me, becuase thats not just moving some coins around on paper, its cutting the runway in half-ish for grants that pay the people actually making wallets and tools users need.

And then the new legal/development fund gets the 8 percent, but cant spend any of it until another proposal happens? That sounds backwards lol. Like first take money away from the group already doing grants, then put the replacement money in a locked box, and later everybody has to argue about the rules again. What could possibly go wrong, famous last words.

I also dont understand the “future miners” logic very well. Miners secure the chain sure, but if the treasury is worth more because ZEC went up, that doesnt automatically mean the network has enough funding forever. Crypto prices can go up and down super fast, so using 1300 dollars as an assumption could make the 6 or 13 years look way different next month. Maybe the proposal has better math somewhere but the headline numbers feel a bit too neat.

The fact there is no activation height or reference implementation yet is also kinda worrying. Voting on an idea is one thing, voting on something that later still needs technical details and another upgrade is a different thing. People might agree with the general concept but not with the actual code when it arrives. “Approximate consensus” is probably how these things work in communities, but it can also mean nobody agrees on the important bits yet.

I guess the argument is that ZCG already has enough money and shouldnt just keep receiving more forever, which is fair in principle. A grant committee having a 13 year budget while still getting new coins could look excessive if the asset price jumped a lot. But six years isnt exactly forever either, specially if costs rise or the price drops and projects need longer support. Open source software doesnt magically become cheap because the treasury chart looks big.

Also the 12 percent coinholder fund staying unchanged makes the whole funding setup even harder to follow. There is 8 percent for ZCG, 12 percent elsewhere, then the new fund, then sustainability reserve, and future block rewards paying things back... maybe its all perfectly logical to people who read the protocol docs for breakfast, but normal holders are going to need a flow chart and probably a nap.

I wouldnt vote yes or no based only on this article, but I would want the spending rules for the new fund written before moving the 8 percent there. Otherwise its basically promising that a plan for a plan will be made later. The smaller withdrawal is less alarming than 98k, sure, but “smaller” doesnt mean small. If the community wants confidence, show the exact upgrade details, who controls each pot of money, and what happens if ZEC price crashes again. Otherwise this feels like financial musical chairs with miners, grants people and lawyers all waiting for the music to stop.

CaféCryptographer am 13.11.2026

I’m not sure this really answers the concern about sustainability. Calling it a repayment through future mining rewards makes the accounting sound tidy, but operationally ZCG is still losing 50,000 ZEC right now. Cutting a treasury from an estimated 13 years of runway to roughly six is not a small adjustment, especially when that treasury is meant to fund developers, wallets and community infrastructure that users actually depend on.

The part that bothers me most is the new Future Dev and legal defense fund. Eight percent of newly created ZEC would apparently be set aside, but nobody can spend it until another proposal defines the rules. So there is a period where the money is being collected without a clear mandate, while ZCG has less money and no automatic replacement for its previous funding. That feels like putting the cart before the horse.

I do understand the argument that ZCG’s holdings became much more valuable during the ZEC rally and that a large treasury can attract criticism if it keeps growing indefinitely. There should be some discipline around unused funds, and miners also provide an essential service. But the solution should be based on more than a snapshot and an assumed price of $1,300. Crypto prices move fast, and a six-year runway calculated from one favorable market moment could become much shorter if prices fall or expenses increase.

Also, the timing seems odd. The previous 98,000 ZEC proposal was dropped after criticism, and now this smaller version is being pushed toward a vote before the spending rules for the replacement fund even exist. A rough consensus may be useful, but voters should still know what they are approving in practical terms. Otherwise it risks becoming a vote to remove money first and figure out the governance later.

I’d like to see a clearer budget, several price scenarios, and an explanation of what happens if grant demand rises after the automatic 8 percent allocation ends. The network upgrade also has no activation height yet and apparently no reference implementation, which makes the proposal feel more like a direction than a finished plan. There may be a reasonable compromise here, but taking half the treasury while the replacement mechanism is still undefined is a pretty big leap.

ZcashSkeptic am 13.11.2026

The core issue for me is not just whether 50,000 ZEC is technically repayable, but whether this is a sensible way to manage the treasury in the first place. Calling it a “repayment” through future mining rewards sounds neat on paper, yet it still means taking a very large chunk of funds that currently support grants and replacing predictable access to capital with a much shorter runway. Six years may sound long in crypto, but development plans, security reviews and wallet maintenance do not always fit neatly into a six-year budget.

I also find the sequencing a bit odd. The new development and legal-defense fund would receive the future 8% allocation, but nobody can actually spend it until another proposal defines the rules. So the community is being asked to approve the money moving before it knows exactly how the money will be governed. That feels backwards. At minimum, voters should have a clear outline of who controls the fund, what qualifies as a legal expense, how conflicts of interest are handled and whether there are spending limits.

There is a reasonable argument on the other side, of course. If ZCG really has a treasury worth far more than originally expected because of the ZEC price increase, endlessly adding new issuance may not be necessary. Miners also provide a critical service and should not be treated as an afterthought. But that does not automatically make removing 55% of the reported treasury a conservative decision. The jump from the earlier 98,000 ZEC proposal to 50,000 ZEC is an improvement, but it still leaves a pretty dramatic reduction in flexibility.

The six-year estimate also depends heavily on the assumptions used for ZEC’s price and ZCG’s spending. If the price falls, the runway could be much shorter; if spending rises because the ecosystem needs more work, the same thing happens. On the other hand, if ZEC rallies further, the remaining treasury might still be more than enough. That uncertainty is exactly why I would prefer a staged approach, perhaps with smaller transfers tied to transparent budget reviews, rather than one large withdrawal within 30 days.

And before anyone says this is just delaying progress, publishing a proper reference implementation and a detailed governance plan would hardly be an unreasonable request. The proposal still needs a network upgrade, and there is no activation height yet. Rushing the financial part while the technical and legal details are still being worked out is not a great look for a network that is trying to build trust.

I hope the discussion focuses less on whether this is “for” miners or “against” grants and more on long-term accountability. Zcash needs both a healthy mining incentive and reliable funding for developers, wallets and community infrastructure. Taking money from one side and promising that another fund will eventually cover future needs does not solve that balance by itself. For me, the vote should depend on seeing clearer spending rules, stronger reporting and some mechanism to revisit the amount if the underlying assumptions change.

Anonymous am 13.11.2026

The concern about sustainability is fair, but I think the important distinction is that this is not simply money disappearing from the ecosystem. The proposal is trying to move part of the existing treasury into the sustainability mechanism, with the value gradually returned through future mining rewards. That may make sense in theory, especially if the goal is to give miners a more durable share of the network’s funding, but it still creates a very real trade-off for grants.

Cutting the estimated runway from around 13 years to roughly six is not a minor adjustment. Those figures depend heavily on the ZEC price and on spending staying close to the first-half 2026 level, so they are obviously not guarantees. Still, six years is a much tighter window than 13, particularly for a committee that funds developers, wallets and other infrastructure where projects often need support over several market cycles. If the price drops or grant demand rises, that runway could shrink even faster.

The new development and legal-defense fund is another awkward part of the plan. Setting aside 8% of newly created ZEC may be sensible, but creating a fund that cannot spend anything until another proposal defines the rules feels unfinished. It is hard for holders to judge the value of that arrangement when the actual governance, eligibility and emergency-use conditions are still unknown. Legal protection in particular might require quick decisions, not months of additional process.

I can understand why the earlier 98,000 ZEC proposal was rejected and why the authors came back with a smaller number. That at least suggests the criticism had an effect. But “smaller than the first plan” does not automatically mean “small.” Fifty thousand ZEC is still more than half of the cited treasury balance, so voters should probably focus less on the headline reduction and more on whether ZCG has a credible budget and transition plan after the automatic funding ends.

I would also like to see a clearer activation schedule and a reference implementation before anyone treats this as close to final. An approximate consensus vote can show direction, but it should not replace the technical details needed for a network upgrade. Hopefully the November poll is used as a genuine temperature check, followed by transparent projections, rather than as a rubber stamp for a plan whose spending rules are still to be written.

Anonymous am 13.11.2026

I dont really get why they need to move 50k ZEC now when the whole setup still sounds half finished. The money goes into this new dev and legal fund but nobody can actually spend it untill another proposal happens, so thats not really funding yet is it. Its more like putting coins in a box and saying we will decide later who gets the key lol

Also the 13 years down to around 6 years thing is pretty massive even if the price assumptions are all fancy and probably wont stay at 1,300 dollars forever. Crypto prices dont exactly follow a nice spreadsheet line, they go up then fall off a cliff becuase someone tweets something dumb. If ZCG is supposed to support wallets and developers, having less runway could mean projects get cut right when they are needed most.

I understand the argument that ZCG already has alot of money and shouldnt just keep collecting the 8 percent forever. That part isnt totally crazy. But taking such a huge chunk out before the spending rules for the replacement fund even exist feels backwards. Shouldnt the community agree what the new fund is for first, then decide how much to put in it? Otherwise the plan is kind of “trust us, future people will sort it out” which is how treasury drama starts in the first place.

And the miner part is confusing too. Saying the 50,000 ZEC will be paid back through future mining rewards makes it sound like the miners are getting a refund, but obviously those coins still have to come from somewhere. New issuance isnt magic money, it can affect supply and maybe price, unless I am missing something about the sustainability mechanism. I dont know if this is good for miners or just moving the accounting numbers around so it looks more sustainable on paper.

The earlier 98k plan being rejected is probably a good sign because at least they listened to the criticism, but 50k is still not exactly pocket change. Its more than half of the treasury snapshot mentioned here, which seems like a very big decision to make with no activation height and no reference code yet. Voting first and building the actual thing later sounds risky, especially for a network upgrade where one tiny detail can cause a big headache.

I also wonder who exactly gets to call something “approximate consensus”. If coinholders vote one way and the panels vote another way, does that count as consensus or just everyone being tired of reading governance documents. Five committee members giving grants is already a lot of responsibility, and now there will be another fund with legal defense mixed in, which sounds like two very different purposes. Developer grants and lawyers dont necessarily need the same rules or people making the choices.

Maybe a smaller withdrawal with clear milestones would make more sense. Like release part of it now, publish the spending rules, then unlock the rest after the community can see the budget and audits. Not saying the treasury should never change, just that removing half of it before the replacement is usable feels a bit cart-before-the-horse. And if ZEC price drops again, that six year estimate could become much shorter anyway, so the numbers may be optimistic even before the first grant is handed out.

I like that the separate 12 percent coinholder fund stays untouched, at least there is one pool not being rearranged in this proposal. But overall this feels less like a finished plan and more like a emergency patch that got dressed up as a long term strategy. Maybe NU7.1 will clarify it, maybe by then everyone will have forgotten what they voted for. The community should ask for the exact mechanics, who controls the reserve, what happens if the upgrade is delayed, and why the legal fund cant have rules ready before the money starts building up.

Anonymous am 14.11.2026

The six-year runway is still a big concern, but I think the bigger issue is sequencing. Creating a fund that cannot spend anything until another proposal passes makes the whole plan feel unfinished, even if the long-term idea is reasonable.