The future of Zcash in the year 2020

As you can read here, they don’t discuss the price of zcash, we are trying to convey to you that zcash without cost will not exist as a project, because in the first place there will not be enough funding, volume and liquidity on exchanges, as a result of which it will be removed from bidding will be unsuitable as a means of storing valuables and so on. Therefore, in our opinion, the development strategy should include the development of value, and it is not necessary to mistakenly believe that people will not rush to buy it at all costs until the project has attractiveness in accumulating (this may be use cases when coins are needed to work in the vault, and a simple faith in the coin and its growth) at the moment this is not, this issue relates to the future and not to the price formation.
Exchanges and wallets do not give a reason to use zcash, and what happens is what we are now observing. No one asks to raise the price due to statements, asks to give the project a direction when many want to get a product that will turn the idea of ​​the familiar with mass distribution.

IF you are sensible and sensitive enough you can get a bit more out of it when it sounds they are leaving. Like loss in trust for example and a lot other feelings.
Some people like me, the somebody you mentioned, and some other active members just said it or mentioned it would be an option, as we have been active members here, but how many just left without a good bye? How many just leave and sell?
I’am well aware that a project never can fit everybodies wishes, dreams, hopes, opinins, directions, etc. but if you have at the end of the day nearly a ghost forum where only about 10 people express their opinon something is wrong in my opinion.
And as said bevor, without the foundation’s actions and believing in the foundation i for sure wouldn’t be here anymore.

1 Like

yeah, its kinda ghost town here nowadays. but my personal recent relatively small bets on zcash are based on the fact that they actually doing they job and this coin will survive inevitable altcoin purge. because it has some tech and pretty simple and useful idea. in crypto communities are generally vocal in two stages of market. 1) hype, pump, number goes up. 2) sharp price decline and many people that mindlessly bought some coin/token/“asset”/etc are landing related resources to vent and rant. there’s diminishing minority of crypto users/holders that actually think something wider about whats going on and whats with it in long term. zcash didnt fit well stages and cycles of market compared to bitcoin. many people bought it according to price action of falling wedge with idea that its relatively “cheap”. completely disregarding explicit inflation rate and the fact that complex tech with implied high reliability isnt deployable in a matter of days or even months. then they got obviously pissed. again and again, and finally this got some compound effect.

1 Like

You are absolutle correct with that statement, but as well forget an important factor i mentioned bevor. The price as well effects the future of Zcash developement itself. It’s not only about speculators and investors, but as well as how much price affects the Zcash possibility to ensure developement and running their operations.

Best example is that a price of $50 the ECC was allready running on a deficit. Lucky there has been some dilution from the founders to allocate more funds to the ECC, but with an ending FR such options won’t be available after 2020 anymore.

In short, the lower the price of ZEC the less possible developement is possible. The lower the price the more general operations for maintaining and daily Zcash operations are at risk as well. Having the founders, ECC and & foundation as the single biggest ZEC recepients there should be a high incentive to do everything legal and possible to add as much as possible price stability, not even talking about a price increase.

There are endless ways and paths on how to add something to price stability and/or not to hurt such.

As the most current issue that hurts price stability is the funding discussion i will take it for some expamples:

Several months ago, i even think in this thread, i asked for a plan A, plan B, plan C from the ECC. Nothing. Sure, they might think why answer forum idiot boxalex, fair enough, but why not think about for 1 minute and check if there is some reasoning behind it? Now, maybe 6 months later, they are in the position they have to come up with plan A, plan B, plan C anyway. Outcome: Uncertainity.

When you Shawn, came up with this topic in January i think, which was actually a more than good idea, just some of us discussed it and than it got more or less forgotten. Why? Because there was no continous input from the foundation and even less from the ECC. Just nothing. Than wonder why the topic dried out? As you mentioned your own allready several times, there has been time since january latest to come up with ideas, proposals, discussions, whatever. But that’s not going to happen without haveing the deciding and guidelining entities not actively contributing as well. Outcome: Uncertainity and today’s time pressure as only 10 days are left for submission of proposals and we stil don’t know the ECC’s final stance as we still await the ECC’s response.

Non excisting prepartion for the whole funding discussion and/or funding outcome. While we talk about a mutli-million dollar funding and an allready ongoing founders reward that has created an estiminated $250M someone would await a proper proffesional preperation IF there is a wish to have some kind of further dev funding, which of course makes sense under several options. But hey, again nothing. Why not build up slowly but surely trust, yes i’am talking about trust here, which is way more important than just the advert twitter drums and is what Zcash believers need.
Even with the most simple research i bet that the results would have shown that the biggest beaf people have with Zcash is the founders reward distribution and that the biggest pie doesn’t go into development. That there is a huge lack of transparency, hence a lot of people love the foundations released guidelines now, but wait, there is again uncertainity because the ECC doesn’t come up with a response, something that should have been cleared out allready long bevor the 10-days away deadline. The options here would have been voluntary doing the best to get more trust, voluntary make a re-distrubtion of the founders reward so that at least the biggest part goes into the ECC and foundation, to voluntary change to a non-profit organization to show that they are indeed interested with All-in and willing to be transparent and accountable.

Just some examples what can be done without pump and dump. There are many ways how to influence price and/or price stability with good actions. Always just responding that we can’t do anything price wise is just not correct. There are 1001 ways how a given action influences price positive or negative. No idea why in most cases lately the negative ways are choosen.
This leaves even a bit taste of arrogance by the way.

So yes, in my opinion price has it’s part even in the future of Zcash 2020 thread as it’s the main part on what funding will be available in USD value. What would be a possible 20% dev fund be worth if ZEC is worth $5?


This is all that I say constantly, there is no answer, there are only excuses that this is not their goal, what purpose they do not specify, apparently the goal is what we see now. It starts to bother to say the same thing without an answer. There is a problem that will be obvious very soon but which can no longer be fixed, what is so difficult in understanding reality? There is a chance that this will not happen for some reason, but judging by the development schedule and the schedule of use and price, they go in different directions, why the longer the project exists, the worse it feels and the more problems the company and fund have with it, in my opinion In our opinion, development is always accompanied by success, unless there is a false development, because this is how companies are torn apart, they think that they are on the right track and the opposite is true.

There is a third option, this is complete oblivion, after the price falls below the level for production or interest, everyone turns back and that’s it.

yep, its always an option.)

These are the posts i hate most, lol. Why not correct them or if they are a bit rude and direct, as i know you, just soften them a bit?

1 Like

i deleted them because i felt like i was kicking a baby in the head. no need for me to add more negativity.

The opinion is important, otherwise only praising posts will remain. I think you need to write as it is, your posts make sense, even if not the truth, but we will find out only with time and not from the words of an employee of the company.


hi my name is Fabio, I’m a z-cash miners; I have read the z-cash protocol several times, I think the problem is hinged on the fact that the transactions are totally untraceable. This opinion of mine has led the Z-cash project to move away in numerous countries, which guaranteed greater liquidity; in my opinion we need to add some options, that is to be the user to choose what kind of transaction he wants to execute … in this way we could return to those markets where they sent us away. I think that if we continue with the same protocol as now, more and more nations will continue to ban the use of z-cash, certainly privacy and important for the end user, but I’m sure if we add the option of choice (decide the user) will be better


T-addresses are just as transparent as bitcoin’s and you do already have the option to use them or not


2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Price Speculation

:thinking: Interesting, Bitcoin Cash miners propose to allocate funds from mining rewards to fund development:


Wow. That’s impressive.

But it’s not fair, why does Bitcoin Cash get to have all the vocal miners who write well-reasoned Medium posts about their position? Can’t we have some communicative ones too?


Non-debate theory must be a personal theory because it does not appear to exist elsewhere, I understood that to be despotism but whatevs

I’m a little uneasy watching a minority of Bitcoin Cash miners force themselves over the rest of their peers even if I have some sympathy for their cause. I assume the game-theory is sound but this approach is fundamentally coercive and violent, and therefore repugnant.

I can see thier reasoning (developers need to eat too) but I also agree with your point that a minority of miners should not be able to push an agenda if the majority of the coins community doesn’t support that agenda.


Agreed, and for the record I am not against a devfee but I think there is a way to do it and that process must involve consent. The big difference with ZCash is that we started out with a founding reward, no one was held at gunpoint to join this chain. Heck, there is even a fork that doesn’t feature a FR.

I guess the challenge now is to reach consensus on NU4 and legitimize the devfee. @tromer’s comment made me think (thanks!), and now the more I think about it, the more I agree with him that it is somewhat sad that the miners are apathetic because that decision really belongs to them. As long as the supply schedule is untouched (a sacred oath) then the common user is only impacted in terms of security (devfee eats into mining rentability).

Clearly it is still significant but they are secondary compared to eating your margins (esp. considering halving is coming soon). But if they don’t care, they don’t care. And maybe militant miners would create too much pressure the current governance process can handle. I’m not sure, LMK what you think :smiley:

1 Like

I personally would be more carefully calling them apathic for these reasons:

  • There was no mining pool (not miners!) participating in the first dev fund voting process.
  • Without a single mining pool participating i think it’s safe to say that there was no way that miners have been aware that there is a dev funding debatte and voting.
  • Only mining pools have been contacted directly (from what i know) while an option would have been to contact the biggest miners directly (Bitmain, Innosilicon, such like).
  • There is a language barrier. The big majority due mining centralization is located in china and (former) russian republics and it’s again safe to say that without having announcements in chinese/russian on forums/places these miners use there is not really a way they are even aware what happens on this english forum here, leave alone a complicated voting process in English only.

My personal opinion is that it’s not quiet fair to call a group apathic as long as there is a chance they have and are still not aware about the whole dev fund voting having in mind they even did not have a platform even if they have been aware to input their vote as no mining pool was participating.