I don’t disagree, but I also don’t draw the same conclusion.
If no major team wants to work on Zcash, then no rejiggling of ZIPs and committees will change that, so fiddling with governance won’t help.
If there are major teams that can and want to work on Zcash, then making them into ZOMG seems wrong.
Either way, I wouldn’t substantially change ZOMG’s role with respect to major grants, I would just support it better in the spirit of what @dodger proposed.
As for minor grants, well we could decide to formalize the repurposing of ZOMG as ZOMinorGrants… Or we could decide that this should go back to the in-house ZF model. I don’t recall explicit discussion of this crucial point.