Doubts about ZSAs

Hi guys, today I would like to talk about ZSAs. First of all, I can’t figure out if ZSAs are still a case study or not. If they are, I would like to open a discussion to understand if ZSAs are truly relevant. Don’t you think it’s better to focus all our efforts on the migration from PoW to PoS? I would also like to see network fees that are no longer fixed, but that adapt based on network congestion.


I also dont understand the need of ZSA. i think that the main focus should be a wallet.
Not having an official and smooth wallet makes Zcash untrustable.
Explanation: imagine a company wants to build something on Zcash like DashDirect on Dash, but they see that Zcash dont have an official smooth wallet for that. hmmm they’ll probably go away…

1 Like

There is! But it’s a full node Zcashd. and by the way, bitcoin doesn’t have an official light wallet either.

I support the current approach of having QEDIT work on ZSAs, it grows the pool of protocol developers working on Zcash and allows other teams like ECC and ZF devs to focus on other parts of the protocol.

Personally, I am skeptical about the use cases of ZSAs. I understand that tokens and NFTs are very attractive to crypto-natives, I’m not sure they will do much to attract normies, and I believe the way to grow the ecosystem is to turn normies into Zcashers, not bitcoiners into Zcashers.

As I’ve written before, I was tangentially involved in the implementation of SecretSwap on Secret Network after they implemented their SNIP-20 tokens. The tokens that were bridged were those that SN provided financial incentives, and those with no incentives got little traction. The pitch of “your token is now private” was certainly not enough. I believe most of the demand was from speculators trying to find arbitrage opportunities by trading on both sides of the bridge.

Speaking of bridges, these have been a weak point for many projects and I think it is very risky for Zcash, as a project based on privacy and securing people’s funds, to have headlines out there saying “Zcash got hacked” if a bridge gets compromised, as inaccurate as the statement may be.

I also think that having ZSAs available is going to challenge the community, what are we going to do to avoid the ‘SafeDogRocketMoonSuperSafe’ rug-pulls?


Bitcoin easily compensating that, something only Bitcoin can afford to do since everyone want to make it better…
Bitcoin don’t pay 20% for development either
One official trustful wallet is better than 5 questionable, especially in an experimental environment like Zcash…

hopefully the Foundation will make one after Zebrad is stable… if they dont have enought fund we can make a vote to give 1% of the Zcash Community Development Fund for a permanent UX Team inside the Foundation, so they can make things together with Arti and other Foundation partners

I completely agree.

Based on the current usability faults of wallets and nodes and based on the chronic devaluation of ZEC, i tend to want to agree. Engineering resources should be focused on the upgrade to PoS, and on upgrading the protocol to provide recursive zk proving. ZSA feel like a concept not grounded to reality yet because Zcash is working through basic challenges of a crypto network. Once all of the basic challenges have been overcome, lets take on a more discretionary feature like ZSA.


from my understanding current approach is to implement zip317 alongside DAGSync for mobile wallets. Priority is fixing UX from sandblast before undertaking a switch in consensus (massive requirements)

In parallel qedit is developing ZSA. They’re a separate team working on a different protocol, although i gather it takes a fair amount of coordination between them ECC core team to get things right.

EIP-1559 style dynamic fee’s have been considered but remains a future item.