This is a very important question, and my view is that ZCG should scale up, but responsibly.
The treasury is clearly no longer the main constraint. Based on the ZCG dashboard analysis - Zcash Community Grants + Coinholder Grants Dashboard (Updated Version) - Google Sheets - ZCG has around $41.9M in current holdings, around $40.5M net spendable after existing commitments, and roughly $95.6M in total resources through November 2028 at the dashboard’s ZEC price assumption. At $2M - $3M per quarter, ZCG would still have substantial runway.
So I do not think the right default is to keep grant activity fixed at historic levels while the treasury grows. If credible teams can create real value for Zcash, ZCG should be willing to fund more work.
At the same time, the recent data also shows that more applications does not automatically mean more fundable applications. From 2025 Q4 to 2026 Q2, the analysis shows roughly 202 proposals, around 38 approvals, and an approval rate of about 20%. The largest rejection category was low Zcash relevance, followed by out-of-scope proposals, vague deliverables, weak technical scope, weak teams, and duplicate submissions.
That tells me the issue is not simply “spend more”. The issue is to build a better pipeline for high-quality Zcash work. How do we increase the quality of the proposals?
I also want to acknowledge the work already being done by the current committee. The data suggests ZCG has been processing a much larger volume of applications without decision times blowing out, especially with the higher volume of AI generated proposals. So this is not a criticism of effort. It is more a recognition that the scale of the treasury and the volume of applications may now require a more developed structure around the committee. That’s a question for the wider Zcash community and it’s own forum post.
I would like to see ZCG move towards clearer funding lanes:
-
small exploratory grants for new contributors;
-
medium-sized grants for well-scoped ecosystem work;
-
larger strategic grants for proven teams;
-
targeted RFPs where the community already knows there is an important gap;
-
follow-on funding for teams that have already delivered.
A small exploratory grant, a community grant, a serious infrastructure grant, and a multi-million dollar strategic grant should not all be treated the same. The larger the grant, the stronger the diligence, milestone controls, budget review, reporting, and evidence of delivery should be.
Regarding the AI question, I think ZCG should remain open to strategic ecosystem synergies, including with AI-focused ecosystems such as NEAR where there may be useful future conversations around privacy, user ownership, agents, and Zcash. How could NEAR dev expertise and skills be utilised to create useful public goods for the zcash community?
On the broader structural question, I think it is fair to ask whether ZCG’s current structure is designed for the scale of capital now available. Some changes may be within the committee’s process, such as clearer RFPs, better funding lanes, and stronger reporting. But bigger questions around treasury strategy, Dev Fund structure, lockboxes, spin-offs, or alternative allocation mechanisms probably sit with the wider community rather than ZCG alone.
So my answer is: yes, ZCG should become more ambitious. The opportunity is too large to simply let the treasury grow by default. But scaling should mean better grant lanes, clearer RFPs, stronger milestone controls, a structure that fits the size of the opportunity, and more funding for serious work that creates long-term value for Zcash.
