# Z-addresses usage analysis

**URL:** <https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/z-addresses-usage-analysis/35497>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [November 25, 2019, 3:22am UTC](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/z-addresses-usage-analysis/35497 "2019-11-25T03:22:53Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tromer](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/zcash/user_avatar/forum.zcashcommunity.com/tromer/32/14860_2.png) [@tromer](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/u/tromer)\
**Post date:** [November 25, 2019, 3:39am UTC](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/z-addresses-usage-analysis/35497/2 "2019-11-25T03:39:38Z")

</div>

I agree that merchant adoption needs to get a lot better (e.g., see the [education aspect](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/im-a-merchant-how-do-i-accept-zec/35490) on which I posted earlier today).

But note that the metric you observe doesn’t really say much about who does shielded transactions. It just tells you how funds enter the shielded pool. Even in the hypothetical world where _everybody_ used z→z for _all_ their payments and fund movement transactions, you’d still see block rewards sent to t-addresses and then shielded (by miners and ECC) using t→z transactions.

Also, you can actually expect this metric to improve when the [Shielded Coinbase ZIP](https://github.com/zcash/zips/pull/217/files) gets merged and activated, since using block rewards will no longer require t→z shielding. But this won’t reflect any merchant adoption…

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/z-addresses-usage-analysis/35497)._