Draft Proposal: ZecHub Communities sub-DAO for Ambassadors and emerging communities

Community Collaborations
3

ZecHub DAO proposal: Communities sub-DAO

Prepared: 10th October 2026

Title

Establish a Communities sub-DAO for Ambassador and emerging-community proposals (six-month 2027 pilot)

Summary

This proposal creates a small Communities sub-DAO to decide Ambassador, city meetup and emerging-community proposals for a six-month pilot in 2027.

The priority is incubation: new Ambassadors, new regions and emerging communities. The aim is to help people start small, build a track record, and then graduate successful activity to an established regional programme, the main DAO or direct ZCG funding.

The main DAO remains in control. It elects the sub-DAO’s voting reviewers, sets its budget each quarter, and keeps structural control over membership and configuration. In DAO DAO, the main ZecHub DAO is explicitly configured as the vetoer, so it can block a proposal before it executes.

The design follows a pattern Zcash already uses. ZCAP is broad: members have their say and choose who decides. ZCG is small: it does the review work and decides individual grants. In the same way, the main DAO keeps its voice and control, unpaid, while a small sub-DAO does the routine review work.

There are six paid voting reviewers and one non-voting ZecHub core coordinator. Reviewers receive a flat stipend for completing the required reviews and votes, not a payment per vote.

Everything is funded from a ring-fenced Communities line in ZecHub’s 2027 grant application to ZCG: USD 50,000 for awards and up to USD 7,200 for review. USD 3,600 funds the six-month pilot. The remaining USD 3,600 review budget is available only if the main DAO votes to continue the sub-DAO for the rest of 2027. The Donations treasury is not used. If ZCG does not approve the Communities line, the pilot does not go ahead.

Motivation

Participation. A167 assembled the DAO’s participation record for the first time. Across the ten decisions after the May 2026 membership reset (#155 to #166), average turnout was 65.2%, and it was falling: 87% on #157, then 43%, 17%, 13% and 39% on the four most recent decisions.

Quorum failures. Quorum is 40% of 23 members, which is 10 votes. The Zcash Merchant Adoption Pilot in Nairobi was submitted three times (#164, #165, #166). All three died for lack of quorum. The last had 9 votes, 5 for and 2 against, and failed by one vote.

Volume. The DAO handles about 65 decisions a year (76 in 2025). Many are small community and Ambassador proposals that need people with regional experience to judge them, and a decision within days rather than weeks.

Applicants deserve an answer. A team that prepares a proposal should get a decision, including a decision to reject.

Two kinds of participation. Voting in the main DAO is much closer to ZCAP than to ZCG: members have their say, and most do not see that as something to be paid for. Reviewing a regular flow of small grants is different work. It needs reading, judgement, a written view and a reliable decision. Small Ambassador and emerging-community proposals currently use the same broad DAO process as other ZecHub decisions. That works for many proposals, but it has also led to some quorum failures and inconsistent decision timing. A small specialist body is intended to test whether that work can be handled more reliably without changing what membership of the main DAO means.

Incubation, not permanent support. The Communities sub-DAO is for the stage before a community or regional programme is established. Its priority is new Ambassadors, new locations and new community activity. Proven work should normally graduate rather than remain indefinitely in the incubation stage.

Funding flexibility. A dedicated Communities line avoids tying up a large fixed share of ZecHub’s broader bounty or Donations treasuries. Those funds can remain flexible for uneven and ad hoc priorities such as education, community proposals, hackathons and bounties, while Ambassador and emerging-community incubation gets a predictable annual envelope.

The mechanism already exists. DAO DAO sub-DAOs are child DAOs that help manage groups within a DAO. ZecHub has used one before: the ZecHub Design sub-DAO, created in September 2023 for Community Creative Services.

Expected impact

  • Small community and Ambassador proposals get a reliable decision from a small, committed body.
  • New regions have a clear first funding route.
  • Successful activity has a defined route towards an established community, the main DAO or direct ZCG funding.
  • The main DAO’s attention is kept for larger and governance decisions, and membership stays unpaid.
  • Review work becomes visible and accountable.
  • ZecHub’s broader treasury and bounty funding remain flexible.

Specification

1. Scope

The sub-DAO decides proposals that are:

  • Ambassador initiatives, city meetups, or emerging-community activity;
  • at most USD 8,000 per tranche; and
  • for tranches of at most three months.

The priority is new Ambassadors, new regions and emerging communities.

Anything larger, from an established organisation, or about ZecHub’s own governance stays with the main DAO or the appropriate existing funding route.

Where an established ZCG-funded regional or national community already covers the proposed activity, applicants should normally approach that community first. This does not give an established community exclusive control over Zcash activity in its region. An independent proposal may still be considered where the activity is not covered, or there is a clear reason it cannot reasonably be supported through the existing programme.

Applicants post their proposal on the Zcash Community Forum. The coordinator checks that it falls within scope and creates the corresponding sub-DAO proposal within 3 days.

Every application received is recorded in the minutes, including any ruled out of scope and the reason. Any two voting reviewers may challenge a scope decision. If challenged, the scope question is put to a sub-DAO vote. If it passes, the coordinator creates the grant proposal.

An initiative may normally receive no more than two consecutive tranches through the Communities sub-DAO.

A renewal may be submitted during the final month of the current tranche, so an approved next tranche can begin immediately after the previous one.

Individual Ambassador roles may be renewed beyond two tranches only where:

  • all required reporting is complete;
  • the sub-DAO finds continued funding remains justified; and
  • the renewal does not crowd out the priority of bringing new projects and regions into the ecosystem.

Proven initiatives should normally graduate to an established regional programme, the main DAO or direct ZCG funding.

2. Main DAO powers

The Communities sub-DAO is created as a child DAO of the main ZecHub DAO. The main DAO keeps structural control over membership and configuration.

For veto control, the main ZecHub DAO address is explicitly configured as the sub-DAO’s vetoer in DAO DAO. The veto duration is 7 days and veto_before_passed is enabled, so the main DAO can begin a veto while the sub-DAO proposal is still open.

The main DAO keeps the power to:

  • elect, add and remove voting reviewers;
  • appoint and replace the non-voting coordinator;
  • set the sub-DAO’s budget each quarter;
  • veto a sub-DAO proposal before it executes; and
  • close or reconfigure the sub-DAO.

If the main DAO’s veto proposal passes, the sub-DAO proposal is blocked from execution. If no veto passes, the proposal may execute after the veto timelock expires. The veto mechanism does not reverse an action that has already executed.

A main DAO veto proposal must pass before the sub-DAO’s veto period ends. A main DAO member who wants a veto should open it while the sub-DAO vote is still running.

3. Membership

Six voting reviewers for the pilot, plus one non-voting ZecHub core coordinator:

  • Three regional practitioners with hands-on regional organising experience.
  • Three independent reviewers with grant-review experience and no regional funding of their own.
  • One non-voting ZecHub core coordinator, to check scope, create proposals, coordinate payments, compile minutes and reporting. The coordinator receives no sub-DAO stipend because this work is part of the core team’s existing paid role.

Eligibility and concentration:

  • A nominee who is already a main DAO member must have voted on at least 80% of decisions in the previous quarter.
  • Regional practitioners and independent reviewers do not need to be main DAO members.
  • Sitting ZCG members are not eligible. This keeps the funder and the decision-maker separate.
  • A voting reviewer who is elected to ZCG leaves the sub-DAO when their ZCG term begins.
  • No more than two voting reviewers may come from the same continent.
  • An independent reviewer must not currently receive ZecHub or ZCG funding for regional/community work, and must not have received an award from the Communities line in the previous 12 months once the line exists.

4. Selection

  1. An open call for nominations runs for two weeks. Anyone may nominate themselves or someone else.
  2. Each nominee posts a short statement of their experience and any interests to disclose.
  3. The main DAO elects three regional practitioners and three independent reviewers from the eligible nominees, subject to the continent cap.
  4. Remaining eligible nominees are recorded for possible vacancies.
  5. The main DAO appoints the non-voting ZecHub core coordinator separately.

5. Recusal

A voting reviewer must not review or vote on a proposal:

  • from their own country, organisation, team or regional programme;
  • that would fund them, directly or indirectly; or
  • from someone they work with or for.

A recorded recusal does not count as a missed review and does not affect eligibility for the quarterly stipend.

Recusals are recorded in the minutes and quarterly report.

6. Voting rules

The sub-DAO’s own proposal module is set to:

  • Quorum: 66% of voting power. With six seated reviewers this requires four votes. With five seated reviewers it also requires four.
  • Passing threshold: Majority, so more Yes than No votes.
  • Voting period: 7 days.
  • Allow revoting: enabled, so the full voting period remains open for reviews and votes.

Recusal does not reduce quorum. A recused reviewer does not vote, including by abstaining simply to satisfy quorum.

Non-recused reviewers vote Yes or No. Abstaining counts as failure to complete the required review-and-vote duty for stipend purposes. A reviewer who should not take a side recuses instead. In DAO DAO an abstention counts towards quorum but not towards the passing threshold, so with three abstentions a single Yes vote would pass a proposal.

Regardless of DAO DAO’s displayed voting outcome, no award is approved or paid unless at least four eligible reviewers participated and at least three cast Yes votes.

If fewer than five voting reviewers are seated, in-scope proposals return to the main DAO until a vacancy is filled.

If recusals or announced absences leave fewer than four eligible reviewers able to participate in a particular proposal, that proposal is referred to the main DAO instead.

A passed proposal does not become final immediately. It enters the 7-day veto period, during which the main DAO may veto it. If no veto is exercised and the execution rule above is met, the decision becomes final and the ZecHub core team arranges payment from the Communities line.

The sub-DAO may not approve awards exceeding the uncommitted balance made available to it by the main DAO. Unless the main DAO votes otherwise, USD 12,500 of the awards line is made available each quarter, and any uncommitted balance carries into the next quarter. The coordinator records the available and committed balance in each set of minutes.

These differ from the main DAO’s 40% quorum and 67% threshold on purpose. A small body of paid, committed reviewers should be able to decide routine community proposals by majority, while no award can pass with fewer than four reviewers voting or fewer than three voting Yes. The main DAO retains the veto before the decision becomes final.

7. Written reviews

Before voting closes, each non-recused voting reviewer posts a short written review of each proposal. Around 100 to 200 words covering:

  • what the proposal will do;
  • whether the budget is realistic;
  • the applicant’s track record; and
  • a recommendation.

Reviews are posted in the applicant’s Forum thread and published in the minutes, so applicants see the reasoning behind each decision.

8. Minutes

Within 7 days of each voting period closing, the coordinator compiles and posts minutes, as part of their existing paid ZecHub role, on the Zcash Community Forum, in the same form as ZCG’s meeting minutes.

For each application the minutes record:

  • the applicant and the amount requested;
  • whether it was accepted as in scope, or ruled out of scope and why;
  • each voting reviewer’s written review and vote for proposals that went to a vote;
  • any recusals;
  • the outcome, with reasons; and
  • the available and committed award balance.

Because reviewers write their reviews before voting closes, the minutes are compiled from those reviews. No separate notetaker is needed. If the sub-DAO ever meets by call, the coordinator takes the notes.

9. Terms, absences and vacancies

  • The six-month pilot begins on 1st January 2027, or when the executable setup proposal creating and configuring the sub-DAO is executed, whichever is later. It goes ahead only if ZCG approves the Communities line in ZecHub’s 2027 grant.
  • Voting reviewers serve for the six-month pilot. If the sub-DAO continues, sitting reviewers continue for the rest of 2027 unless the main DAO decides otherwise.
  • At the end of the six months, the main DAO votes whether to continue, adjust or close the sub-DAO for the rest of 2027.
  • Pay: a voting reviewer who misses any required review in a quarter receives no stipend for that quarter.
  • Absence: a voting reviewer who announces an absence in advance, of up to two weeks in a quarter, is treated as recused for proposals in that period. It does not count as a miss.
  • Removal: a voting reviewer who misses two reviews in a row, or three in total during their term, is removed. A miss is a proposal the reviewer was eligible to review, not recused and not on an announced absence, where they did not both post a written review and cast a Yes or No vote before voting closed. The coordinator submits the removal to the main DAO.
  • Voting vacancies: a vacant reviewer seat is filled by the main DAO from the remaining eligible nominees from the last selection, subject to the continent cap. If none remain suitable, a new open nomination is held. If fewer than five voting reviewers remain seated, the main DAO decides in-scope proposals until the seat is filled.
  • Coordinator vacancy: if the coordinator position becomes vacant, the main DAO appoints another ZecHub core member.

10. Technical implementation

The pilot initially uses DAO DAO, as ZecHub’s existing governance infrastructure.

For the Communities sub-DAO:

  • the main ZecHub DAO is the sub-DAO’s admin, so it can change members, the voting configuration and the submission allowlist;
  • each voting reviewer holds one equal vote, and the coordinator holds none;
  • each voting reviewer votes from their own Juno wallet address. When a reviewer is added, the coordinator sends them a small amount of JUNO to cover voting fees;
  • proposal submission is set to Specific: voting reviewers may submit, and the coordinator’s address is on the allowlist. When the coordinator changes, the main DAO updates the allowlist in the same action;
  • the main ZecHub DAO address is configured as the vetoer;
  • the veto duration is 7 days;
  • veto_before_passed is enabled; and
  • the Communities sub-DAO is added under DAO Governance → Manage Vetoable DAOs in the main DAO interface.

The flow is:

Sub-DAO proposal opens → sub-DAO votes → main DAO may veto → if the veto passes, the proposal is blocked → if no veto passes, the proposal may execute after the veto timelock expires.

The governance rules in this proposal are not intended to depend permanently on DAO DAO or Juno. A later migration to a Zcash-native or other governance system would require a separate main DAO decision and should preserve or strengthen the membership, quorum, recusal, veto, audit and reporting controls in this proposal.

Budget

Item Amount
Stipend per voting reviewer USD 300 per quarter, flat, for each of the six voting reviewers, paid in ZEC at the spot price on the payment date
Condition Paid only to reviewers who posted a written review and cast a Yes or No vote on every proposal they did not recuse from. Nothing is paid per vote or per review, so there is no incentive to generate proposals or votes
Core team coordinator No sub-DAO stipend. Coordination, scope checks, proposal creation, payments, minutes and reporting are part of the existing paid ZecHub role
Pilot review cost USD 1,800 per quarter, USD 3,600 for the six-month pilot
Continuation review cost A further USD 3,600 is available only if the main DAO votes to continue the sub-DAO after the pilot
Main DAO members Unpaid, as now
Stipend funding source The Communities line in ZecHub’s 2027 grant
Awards funding source The same line: USD 50,000 for awards
Donations treasury Not used
Retroactive payments None

For comparison, ZCG has historically treated grant review as compensated specialist work, while A167’s proposed DAO-wide participation model could have cost about USD 75,000 a year at full turnout. This pilot costs USD 3,600 for six months and no more than USD 7,200 for the year.

Success metrics

Reviewed by the main DAO after the first quarter, and again at the end of the pilot:

  • No sub-DAO proposals lost to quorum.
  • Every in-scope proposal receives a sub-DAO vote outcome within 14 days of its Forum submission. This is measured to the end of the vote, before the veto period.
  • A written review from every non-recused voting reviewer on every proposal.
  • Minutes posted within 7 days of every voting period, and the quarterly report published on time.
  • No more than one in-scope proposal per quarter referred to the main DAO because fewer than four eligible reviewers were available.
  • Quarterly reporting distinguishes new or first-time initiatives from renewals, so the main DAO can see whether the pipeline is still producing new activity.
  • Cost within budget.

Reporting

Alongside the minutes for each voting period, the sub-DAO posts a quarterly summary on the Zcash Community Forum covering:

  • every application received, including any ruled out of scope and why;
  • every proposal decided, with amounts and outcomes;
  • rejections, with reasons;
  • awards by continent;
  • voting reviewer seats by continent;
  • recusals by continent;
  • new or first-time initiatives compared with renewals;
  • each voting reviewer’s reviews completed and stipend paid.

These are paid review roles, so review completion and stipends are published by name.

Awarded initiatives continue to post monthly recaps on the Forum, as now.

Funding: ZecHub’s 2027 grant application to ZCG

The Communities sub-DAO is funded entirely through a ring-fenced line in ZecHub’s 2027 grant application to ZCG.

Including the line is ZecHub’s decision. Funding it is ZCG’s. If ZCG does not approve the line, the pilot does not go ahead.

The dedicated line is deliberate. Ambassador and emerging-community incubation gets a predictable annual envelope, while ZecHub’s broader bounty and Donations treasuries remain flexible for other education, community, hackathon and bounty priorities.

Using an illustrative USD 1,000/ZEC:

Communities Sub-DAO Line, ring-fenced: USD 57,200 (~57.2 ZEC) (FPF)

Held in a separate address. Not part of the Bounty fund.

Ambassador & Emerging Community Awards: USD 50,000 (~50 ZEC)

  • Ambassador initiatives, city meetups and emerging communities
  • Priority to new Ambassadors, new regions and emerging communities
  • Max USD 8,000 per tranche
  • Tranches of max 3 months
  • Normally no more than two consecutive tranches
  • Decided by the Communities sub-DAO
  • Written reviews and minutes published on the Zcash Community Forum
  • Monthly recap on the Zcash Community Forum required

Communities Sub-DAO Review: USD 7,200 (~7.2 ZEC)

  • 6 voting reviewers x USD 300 per quarter, flat
  • USD 3,600 funds the six-month pilot
  • The remaining USD 3,600 is available only if the main DAO votes to continue the sub-DAO after the pilot
  • Paid only if every required review and vote is completed
  • Core team coordinator: no sub-DAO stipend

Carry-forward

  • If the sub-DAO continues, unspent award funds remain available for the rest of 2027.
  • If the sub-DAO is closed after the pilot, any uncommitted balance stays ring-fenced for Ambassador and emerging-community awards, decided by the main DAO.
  • Anything unspent at year end is carried forward or returned under the grant terms.

Notes for ZecHub:

  • Ambassador earmark. The 2026 Bounty fund earmarked 20% for Ambassador initiatives. In 2027 that work moves to this line, so the Bounty fund needs no Ambassador earmark and nothing is funded twice.
  • USD, converted at payment. Awards are denominated in USD and converted to ZEC at payment, subject to the funded balance available.
  • Review cost. Reviewer compensation is a flat USD 300 per quarter, not priced per vote or proposal. This is intended as modest compensation for availability and required written review work, without creating an incentive to generate proposals or votes. Actual proposal volume and reviewer workload will be reported during the pilot and the rate can be reassessed at the six-month review.

Sources

This proposal does not perform any actions

Setting up the sub-DAO, its proposal module, explicit main-DAO vetoer configuration and membership would follow in a second, executable proposal once this proposal passes and ZCG has approved the Communities line.

Nominations open once ZCG approves the Communities line. The main DAO’s election vote comes before the setup proposal, which then adds the elected reviewers.

The six-month pilot begins on 1st January 2027, or when that setup proposal is executed, whichever is later.

Optional companion proposal: no-cost fixes for the main DAO

Three rule changes that cost nothing and could go first:

  1. Last call. If a proposal is 48 hours from closing below quorum, a reminder is posted in the DAO channel.
  2. One resubmission. A proposal that fails quorum with a majority in favour may be resubmitted once, unchanged, and is flagged as a resubmission.
  3. Conflict recusal. Main DAO members do not vote on funding proposals from their own organisation or programme, or where they are part of the applicant’s regional team.

To confirm with the core team before submitting

  • Payment flow. Who controls the separate Communities-line ZEC address, and what is the operational process for paying an approved proposal once the veto period has expired?
  • Timing. When does ZecHub need to submit its 2027 ZCG grant application, and by what date would this policy proposal need to pass for the Communities line to be included?

Edit: Updated Motivation section based on feedback.

3 Likes