Proposal: Change the ECC management

Hello ZCash community,

I do not want to spend too much time on this as I have already lost way too much time bothering with ZCash. The background why I am writing this is because I do not understand why there is still no big movement against a development fund for the ECC. It did not work out well the first 3 years and the internal strategic decisions of ECC were a fail, when we look at how price and adoption of ZCash evolved. The technical development was groundbreaking in the field of cryptography. The execution of the ZCash project was poor. There is a huge divergence between technical development and financial management.

I am just wondering myself, as an investor who is here since the beginning, and who has lost multiple millions of dollars due to ZEC, why there is no discussion about whether, we as a community shall fund ECC at all under the current circumstances.

I start with @Zooko. He did not bring any public benefit for ZEC. His PR and other strategic decisions were horrible. His two greatest mistakes were the “deal” with Jihan Wu and Bitmain, which paved the way for ASICs and scared away all the GPU miners. This was already a big “hit” for the community.
The second biggest mistake was the famous statement on Twitter where he claimed that it is totally possible to make ZEC traceable for governments against criminals. With just one sentence he destroyed the credibility of ZEC. Politicians and managers usually have to step back after making terrible PR decisions or at least take responsibility for this. Within the ECC mistakes like this seem to be normal and nobody can be made responsible for it.

I am seriously asking the ECC team at this point. Where is the benefit of having Zooko Wilcox as CEO? He gets 1% of the total supply of ZEC but did nothing in order to satisfy the investors.
Usually, in firms which are traded on the stock market, investors have a lot to say in the decision-making process.
Within the ZCash project this is just a myth.
ECC never cared whether investors get something in return for their trust. ECC only cared about staying afloat.

Why should investors finance an entity that cannot provide for itself? Is the pure purpose of ZEC to keep ECC alive?
For me it seems like that at this point.

There was no effort in looking for other sources of income the last three years. There was no effort in finding a way how to fund development of ZEC without a tax for miners. There was no effort in fulfilling the needs of investors.
The only effort that was made, was to keep ECC going.

The trademark agreement debate was just another proof that ECC does not want to lose power over ZEC. Good that you “donated” the trademark to the foundation now, but you have signaled something completely wrong, by wanting to keep it in the first place.

Now we are debating whether the dev fund should be 10% or 20% and how it should look like. I tell you, 20% will not secure funding, not even 100% if the price keeps dumping and ZEC will be worth only a few dollars each. I guess it will keep dropping if you do not change your strategy and values drastically now.

Why do you not want to accept that nobody wants to use ZEC and that the mission will fail if you do not do a 180 degree turn at this point?

I think people who failed to make decisions in the sense of the community should be made reliable for their mistakes. Look what is left of the community. It is just a bunch of people who are waiting to recover their loses, some cryptography nerds and people who still benefit from the founders rewards. That’s it. GPU miners and most investors left.

We need people in the lead now, who actually act in the sense of the community and who are not suspected to only act for their own benefit. I acknowledge the effort of Josh Cincinnati at this point because he was standing up and triggering the Trademark debate. Seems like finally somebody had enough of this culture. I wonder when this will be the case for the ECC internally. Somebody should start with the debate now, whether ECC is lead by the right people!

Zooko and other leaders of the project can retire off the dev fund. I am a young person who lost millions due to the poor management of the ECC. I have watched this “decentralized theater” for years now and I am sick of it.

Please ZCash community, ZEC investors, ECC developers and the ZCash foundation. I urge you to think about whether ZCash does need a complete rebrand which would include a change of the management. This projects death is right around the corner and I think it is time to act now! Thanks for reading :slight_smile:


This goes here
Feel free to fork anytime friend

1 Like

Oh, I am sorry but the blackpill thread did not have any engagement in two months. Just like almost every thread in this forum is becoming an echo chamber.

You can call the proposal that I have made FUD, but I think it is rather legit to ask a company to overthink who is in charge, when things do not go well…

Regarding forking. Why do I have to accept the status quo as a community member who has supported ZCash since its launch?
Is it not desired that anyone makes (unconventional) proposals which include radical change?

Obviously you can gather yourself with people who always say yes, but this is also what dictators do. If you want to progress and succeed you also have to let people speak and sometimes listen to people who you do not agree with. Uncomfortable truths are sometimes hard to swallow and I feel like many people in here still do not want to understand in what a terrible state this project actually is…


Don’t worry hool, they’re burning $750k a month and have decreased the block times this year. Oh and we might get HALO if we vote for 20% for another 4 years.

1 Like

Hi hool. I just made an account to let you know it’s not just you. It seems that the Zcash Foundation has a better grip on the entire situation over the ECC though. I just don’t believe the ECC is the steward this project needs at this point.

It’s immensely disappointing to see things go this direction. See below.

  • The subreddit /r/zec is effectively dead and is a breeding ground for trolls.
  • The recent live stream has a view count of approximately 300 the last I checked.
  • There are 77 users who have contributed a reply over the past month. 13 people contributed 10 or more replies during that period.
  • There are 186 people who have been logged in and read any posts during that time.

Instead of the company having a “big hairy ambitious goal” of a billion users it’d be nice if we could focus on having more than 77 people (per month) make a comment on these forums.


I suggest watching the recent Livestream from ECC, there is huge progress that has been accomplished in the past 3 years and a robust roadmap (flight plan) to drive adoption:

@Yugo the r/zec sub is not an official ECC or Zcash Foundation maintained sub, it is maintained by the community. Neither ECC or ZFND actively promote it.


I’am not sure, but the numbers provided for the subreddit channel may look even better than these on our ghost forum here.


Hool says that there has been no progress over the past 3 years in terms of acceptance and recognition (including price and value stability), at the moment it all comes down to technology that no one needs at the moment and no matter how wonderful the update is this will not fix it. I was waiting for an answer to the question about the application of the technology, but I did not see this unfortunately in the video. Again updates and changes in the code, what will it all give? Nothing. There will be excellent code, but its application in life is equal to the current position (close to 0).
Also, having watched the video, I’m disappointed, the beginning says that it’s just a PR team and dreams, there is no base why all that they say should happen.
All this was before, but there is no progress in adoption, what prevented, there are not enough code updates? Now they say that the code will be even more fantastic, why, what is missing now before success? It is necessary to solve the problems that interfere with widespread adoption, and gradually advance, and now again dreams of an ideal world in which there is zcash. Now 4 more years for the code, then this is not enough and again 4 years for the new code, this suggests that zcash is becoming obsolete during the development process.
We need a plan for the actual application of the technology at the current stage, so that what is not enough now and quality development is required, but zcash should work and is not in endless development.

Shawn’s been around for 3 1/2 years
Hool joined yesterday

1 Like

So what? I have owned coins for 2.5 years, as I have not kept many without selling, but the further the more my decision seems erroneous. Who cares how much time has worked if the result is not visible positive.

1 Like

I do and alot of others as well

@Anton1 I understand your and @hool points about driving adoption, one of the key slides you may have missed was presented by Nathan:

The timeline is for within the next 6 to 12 months for these to be implemented. It’s a little hard to understand so let me break it into simpler terms. (These are just my interpretation of what was presented in the video, not necessarily 100% correct)

  1. The main barrier to users using Z addresses has been a lack of mobile wallets. The ECC wallet team has completed the Android SDK and will have the iOS SDK done. Many wallet providers like Jaxx and others will not add shielded support until both SDKs are done. Once both SDKs are available I expect more major wallets to support Z-addresses.

  2. tZEC and MMR is a big boost for adoption because is allows interoperability between Zcash <-> Ethereum and other blockchains Ethereum already included support in thier Istanbul update for Zcash, now ECC needs to build the rest of bridge. This will also allow ZEC adoption into the Ethereum Defi ecosystem. More info about Defi: What is DeFi? Understanding The Decentralized Finance Landscape

  3. BOLT integration. BOLT is the Zcash lightning network, similar to Bitcoin LN it will allow vendors to accept instantaneous transactions for cheap while not having the downside of a lack of privacy (like LN currently has)

  4. Also, not in this video, but from the Zcash Foundation is for Hardware wallets like Trezor and Ledger to add support for Z-addresses: Engineering Roadmap 2020 - zcash foundation

  5. And the Foundation will provide light client servers to make it easier for wallet providers to add Z-addresses without a big backend burden.

Lastly is Josh Swiharts slide about what they are doing (non-coding wise) to drive adoption:

Helping more Exchanges, large custody providers, and wallets add Zcash along with a “Viral project” for marketing.

Hopefully that helps you guys understand what the teams are doing to drive adoption.


Perhaps you did not understand the meaning of my words because of the translation. Even if zcash technology is ideal, who and why will use it when there are projects that have wallets and distribution on exchanges, why zcash? There is no answer in the video, there is not a single reason why companies and people (massively) will use it in everyday life.
Wallets and distribution on exchanges do not give rise to demand, they are simply necessary tools (and present it as an adoption success)
Example: I have a stone, it is in its way ideal and does not require improvement. To be a stone, do you buy it? And if I place it on different sites with an advertisement for the sale? I think not, this is a zcash problem, while the stone solves all your problems in life (in theory, of course). And if I make a series of slides for him about his future benefits, buy?
Ethereum Defi -like


Its all about Privacy, Privacy, Privacy. Privacy is becoming more important, Facebook, Apple, Google have all been advocating more privacy tools for users. Right now there is no real “mass adoption” by any cryptocurrency, we are all too small and too early in the technology. BUT when people really start realizing that they have no privacy when using Ethereum or Bitcoin they will seek an alternative, and Zcash offers the strongest Privacy available on any Blockchain. That’s why it’s important to build the tools now so that users can switch with little to no effort.


Or, when people massively seek confidentiality, large projects will provide it with existing success.
ust an opinion, not the truth.
My opinion is that success must be obtained here and now, or it will be too late.
Price reduction and lack of funding is a real problem that I spoke about earlier, but then with sufficient funding and price, no one listened, because no one believed in $ 35, everyone thought that they would not fall below 150.

1 Like

only way we’re going to drive adoption is by selling the technology to people (shilling). nothing else will solve this issue. you’re more than welcome to join us on some shill ops, because that’s the only way we’ll add new users.

1 Like

Well said, but my point still stands. The amount of participation from the community is minuscule in comparison to any other reasonable metric. The “build it and they will come” recipe is not working and has not worked for three years. For most regular people the desire for privacy isn’t going to drive people to this cryptocurrency.

In my opinion it will be convenience and community.


Lets hope your right
( I hope the desire for something better drives the adoption and not a survival mechanism because of despotism)
( I know that’s not realistic for everywhere and Zcash is designed to handle both instances but I hope)

1 Like

Also said about many technologies, like electricity or internet, in their early years. We’re at the beginning of all this. It’s not palatable for mass-adoption yet, but we’ll get there. The reason why people will use Zcash (massively) is because its a censorship-resistant economy, without middlemen, not ruled by kings of networks or nations, and in addition users can be free of the dangers that come when adversaries use blockchain data malevolently.


Hi @_eric,

There’s an assumption of success in your comments which I don’t think is valid at this stage of the project. There are multiple technologies which were objectively better than their competitors and still failed.

In regards to your latter statements though, the formation of an economy requires some degree of privacy (implicit or explicit) but private payments by itself will not create an economy. This is the problem we’re seeing now. Ethereum doesn’t have privacy guarantees and people are still comfortable using it.

Also it’s clear that Zcash will stay on PoW for the foreseeable future. To claim that it will be resistant in the face of a large government requesting censorship is unrealistic due to an inevitable concentration in mining power (see the Pareto principle). Don’t get me wrong though; I support Zcash. However I think the community needs to think through some of these items with more care and step back to see the larger picture. We’re effectively at a competitive disadvantage.