Scope of projects eligible for Major Grants vs Regular ZF Grants

As discussion around the Major Grants program is underway, there is still some ambiguity for what kinds of projects will be eligible for the Major Grants program. Further, the Zcash Foundation will still be giving grants under its mandate as well, separate from the MG program.

What projects would be funded by MG and what projects should be funded by Zcash Foundation grants? Or am I wrong to think that it’s project based and instead will be funding teams to build internal Zcash teams to work on various Zcash aspects?

The reason why I ask this even though this may have been cleared up already is that there are currently projects on the ZF Grants website that, in my opinion, should be funded by the MG fund. In fact, I think the teams working on these projects have the potential to start Zcash focused companies and the MG fund can help with that. Examples include the folks working on ZecWallet, the Zcash Network Monitoring tool, etc.


As i have an ongoing grant funded by the foundation( i am also interested in this question.


This is a great question! It might be one of those things where different people have different assumptions about how it is going to work, and the next step is to find out that other people have different ideas. :slight_smile: Related, ECC and ZF just agreed on a final ZIP 1014 text and committed it to github, and I posted ECC’s rationale for it in this thread: Final text of ZIP 1014 . It touches on your question by indicating that — at least in ECC’s view — ZF and MGRC should be independent from each other in how they answer questions like this one.


@Mikerah, this is a great question. Some guidance and constraints are given by the Dev Fund ZIP, but truth be told, much of it is up to discussion and ultimately the Major Grants committee. My personal view is precisely what ZIP 1014 (as voted on) says:

  1. Both Major Grants and the ZF (“Minor”?) Grants have very wide scope, based on ZF’s mission and values. However:

  2. Major Grants are restricted to furthering of the Zcash cryptocurrency and its ecosystem (which is more specific than furthering financial privacy in general).

  3. Priority to Major Grants that bolster teams with substantial (current or prospective) continual existence, and set them up for long-term success, subject to the usual grant award considerations (impact, ability, risks, team, cost-effectiveness, etc.).

  4. Priority to to Major Grants that support ecosystem growth through mentorship, coaching, technical resources, creating entrepreneurial opportunities, etc.

  5. Major Grants are expected to have a long duration.

  6. By implication from 3+4+5: large size. At current coin price, I would expect a handful (maybe 2–4) Major Grants at a time, to avoid stretching too thin.

  7. There’s indeed overlap between the two types of grants, and ZIP 1014 acknowleges this and attempts to minimize friction and duplication:

From grant proposers’ side, proposals for such grants SHALL be submitted through ZF’s usual grant process, allowing for public discussion and public funding. It is intended that small one-time grants will be funded by drawing on the ZF-GU slice (where they also compete with other ZF activities), whereas large or long-duration grants will be funded from the dedicated ZF-MG slice; though this is at ZF’s discretion (e.g. if there are no Major Grant applications the ZF may opt to direct the ZF-MG to smaller grants).

Today’s revision removed points 1 and 7, so I’m slightly less sure about the answer… But I think the changes are meant to just give the MG committee more leeway in the same spirit.


I think this is a good answer.

I guess as the details of ZIP 1014 get more finalized, we’d have a better idea of whose eligible for what kind of program based on the teams/projects’ characteristics.