I can confirm this is likely to be true, give or take. {Add caveats here}^
All previously approved grants are covered and hedged in USD. On my projections of future requests by these same grantees, with a ZEC price of $30, I am hopeful we will be able to fund almost all the most critical existing grantees.
The only extra stipulation for me specifically is I won’t want ZCGs funds to decline too close to $0 in 2025 to ensure we still have enough to keep covering the most critical audit, legal, FPF, support, dev, etc costs if additional funding it delayed. If you’re sure ZCG will receive extra funds by about June 2025 and the ZEC price doesn’t fall I’m hopeful ZCG can manage with these reserves 
.
Unfortunately my personal experiences with the dev fund is it’s complicated and takes time. I wrote the first draft ZIP for the dev fund in May but despite my and others efforts ECC shifted the landscape from underneath many of us by refusing to accept direct funding. Many proposers had to then reluctantly accept some kind of extension might be best. This led to a mad rush to scrap together alternative proposals. I think the equivalent of that in 2025 would be someone refusing to participate in the key creation process 
.
Keep in mind this time around we are not proposing an amendment to ZIP1014 which I think all of the proposals did this time, rather, I believe we are going to have to write this thing basically from scratch. But I’m sure it’ll be a smooth process right?
When the lockbox was being finalized the ZEC price was like $18 
. So sure, based on the current ZEC price we are in a better financial position. Keep in mind if the ZEC price drop to that price which was only a mere 20days ago I believe in practice ZCG may be forced to reject a very significant portion of requests from both new and existing grantees.
Unfortunately I also think it’s very shortsighted to only want to fund existing projects. Here is an example and it’s not the only one.
^all the normal caveats