Governance
I see ZCG’s role as forward-looking: funding strategic projects that wouldn’t exist (or would take much longer) without the committee’s push.
Retroactive funding works for rewarding past work, but it can’t create the future. For that you need a panel that can say “yes” to something that only exists on paper today.
That’s why I believe we still need ZCG (or something like it) for the proactive, high-risk bets.
A simple yearly coin-holder vote on the total ZCG budget envelope (and perhaps an exceptional override for very large projects) would give stakeholders real power, while keeping day-to-day decisions fast and expert-driven.
We could even align the dates with the quarterly Coinholder-Directed Retroactive Grants votes to keep it simple.
Add the one-pager transparency (key criteria + strategic priorities published on the forum) by ZCG and we have the best of both worlds.