Zcash Community Grants Meeting Minutes 8/31/2026

Community Grants Community Grants Updates
1

Grant Dashboard

Zcash Community Grants Committee Google Meet Meeting: August 31, 2026

This is part one of two posts due to the length of the minutes. Second part is first comment below.

Attendance:

  • Artkor

  • Zerodartz

  • Paul

  • Hanh

  • Gguy

  • Alex (FPF resource, notetaker)

All votes unanimous except ZECsy (Hanh voted against), Zcash Arabia (Zerodartz and Artkor voted against). Paul recused himself from the PGPZ discussion.

Key Takeaways:

Open Grant Proposals

  • Constant-Time Hardening and Explicit Timing Semantics for Zcash Rust Cryptography

    • This proposal requests a grant for a documentation-first constant-time hardening audit of librustzcash — making timing semantics explicit (labeling constant-time vs. intentionally variable-time paths, documenting threat model assumptions, introducing compile-time guards and regression tests) without forcing constant-time behavior universally. Requesting $10,000.

      • Gguy: This has been approved. The applicant has come back with suggestions for how to make the grant more broad across more of the ecosystem. I’ll go back to the applicant with the suggested changes to do that work.

      • Hanh: We said we approve the upgraded grant but he has to set the first one as a milestone one. He’s waiting for a reply.

      • Gguy: I’ll respond.

      • Approved async

  • Test-Effectiveness Audit for Zebra: an independent regression witness for consensus-critical code

    • Applicant requests a grant to build a targeted mutation testing layer for Zebra’s consensus-critical code paths — using operators derived from real Zebra defect shapes (not random mutation), manual adjudication of surviving mutants, and a verified negative-control regression test for every confirmed gap, addressing the pattern of test-exists-test-passes-defect-recurs documented in four Zebra security advisories. Requesting $45,000.

      • Artkor: Based on ecosystem feedback and our discussion, I don’t support this proposal.

      • Hanh: The feedback was that there’s a lot of false positives and the tool doesn’t really do that well, at least on this codebase. The tool has been tried. The feedback was not impressive and created more noise than value.

      • Declined

  • Rvess Pay ZEC to Mobile Money Integration

    • Applicant requests a grant to add Zcash shielded payment infrastructure to an existing Cardano-piloted mobile money off-ramp platform, targeting KES, UGX, and TZS payouts via Relworx, with a Rust scanning service consuming compact blocks via lightwalletd, diversified Unified Addresses per quote, ZIP-321 payment URIs, and an idempotent state machine — with real-fund launch conditional on provider approval and KYC/AML controls. Requesting $32,000.

      • Artkor: In its current form, the proposal appears to involve building much of the payment infrastructure from scratch, despite existing solutions for accepting and processing Zcash payments. I think the integration itself could be valuable, but the applicant should first consider whether existing components can be reused rather than rebuilding the entire stack. For this reason, I am not ready to approve the proposal in its current form.

      • Hanh: Agreed.

      • Declined

  • Zcash WalletConnect Integration

    • Applicant proposes a browser wallet for Zcash with WalletConnect v2 integration — enabling wallet discovery, QR code/link connections, and shielded transaction signing from dApps — plus Zcash lending as a planned ecosystem feature. Requesting $50,000.

      • Gguy: I’m excited about this team and I think they’re capable of moving this integration into something useful, hopefully more broadly across Zcash. But given this will be a first for the Zcash ecosystem, I think there’s probably a little bit of experimentation that has to be within the Zcash ecosystem post grant to see where this is useful across the ecosystem.

      • Paul: I agree I think I’m hopeful that this team would be able to deliver it. So I’m excited about it as well. I approve.

      • Artkor: Even if WalletConnect is not an obviously high-demand feature for Zcash today, I am happy to approve this proposal. It is a well-established and convenient standard for connecting web applications with user wallets, and for Zcash I see it as a useful complement to ZIP-321. Importantly, I expect the result to be more than a Noir-specific integration: it should provide a reusable Zcash integration layer that other wallet and service developers can adopt. I also see potential for this to work well with projects such as ZcashNames. Given that, and the team’s strong track record, I support approving the grant.

      • Zerodartz: While I don’t see immediate super cool use cases for it, I’m sure community developers can get more creative uses for this later. And since this team has a good track record already, then I think they can do it and the budget is quite reasonable also. I’m happy to approve.

      • Hanh: This has two parts. One part is the technical aspect to implement the wallet connect protocol. There’s an SDK on several different platforms. Integration should go fairly well. I don’t foresee technical problems. The challenge is to find an entry point in the wallet connect ecosystem which is dominated by Ethereum and Ethereum ERC20 tokens. I am looking forward to seeing how they get that part done. It’s challenging, but feasible (TON is integrated). We need a strong team to move the needle in this area.

      • Approved

  • Reusable Halo2 Verifier Security Testing Infrastructure (ZKCG Reference Implementation)

    • Applicant requests a grant to build Halo2 verifier security testing infrastructure — a production test suite for ZKCG’s own verifier (fuzzing harness, 50+ malformed-proof test cases, replay/domain-separation tests, differential Halo2/RISC0 verification) plus a generalized, reusable halo2-verifier-security-patterns/ module that any Halo2-based project can adopt without rediscovering the methodology. Requesting $4,500.

      • Hanh: I asked them what they mean and I’m not quite satisfied by their answer because first they think that they would have called the Orchard bug, but I think afterwards they backpedaled a little bit. In reality, it would be testing the current implementation against itself. It cannot catch logic bugs in circuits. It may catch serialization/formatting bugs in the proof but that has a low chance of success.

      • Artkor: Additionally, after all the testing and review already carried out around Ironwood, I do not see a clear unmet need for this proposal. I reject.

      • Gguy: I also am unsure of the usefulness of this the way it’s currently described. I’m happy to be proven wrong if the applicant wants to provide evidence but my understanding of how this testing would show errors within a Halo 2 implementation doesn’t quite match up. Given we can’t see anybody asking for this right now, it’s hard to approve it.

      • Hanh: I think it’s similar to the one grant that was done a few months ago about fuzzing the zebra transaction parser. They actually found some issues. My recommendation for this one is for them to use this tool themselves. If it uncovers any problem then I’m more than happy to reassess my opinion and even do a retroactive Grant.

      • Gguy: While this technique could be useful in some instances. My understanding is it’s less useful in this instance, but if I can be proven wrong. I’m more than happy to revisit if we see value.

      • Declined

  • SHPH (Post-Quantum Censorship-Resistant Network Layer)

    • Applicant proposes a post-quantum, censorship-resistant transport layer in Rust — hybrid ML-KEM-768 + X25519 key encapsulation, discrete packet size bucketing for DPI evasion, atomic firewall killswitches, and SOCKS5 underlay routing — positioned as a privacy-preserving networking channel for Zcash nodes and users in censored environments. Requesting $25,000.

      • Hanh: The scope is very large and the problem we try to solve is very complex. This is like reinventing the wheel up to the F1 car, and they don’t have much of a track record to do that.

      • Gguy: Yeah, I think when it comes to security, reputation does carry some weight unfortunately.

      • Artkor: I agree.

      • Zerodartz: I also don’t see the benefits of this compared to TOR or NYM. I reject.

      • Declined

  • ZECsy Community Building: 12 Months of Zcash on the Ground

    • Applicant requests a 12-month full-time in-person events program: 4 mainstream crypto/tech events (Devcon 8 Mumbai, ETHDenver, CCC Camp, Blockchain.Rio), 4 Exxxotica activations with a ramped sponsorship tier approach (NJ booth → Miami seminar sponsorship → Chicago/Minneapolis larger activations), a standalone AEE/AVN scouting activation, 8 weekend workshops, and ZODL Summit attendance — staffed by a 4-person crew at crypto events, 6-person crew at Exxxotica, and the ZECsy Apprentice Program throughout. Requesting $550,000.

      • Gguy: I’d first like to share my view of what makes things like this worth funding. For me I try to think about how impactful will these efforts be when the grant stops. Will this grant contribute to organic growth in the future? I care less about how many wallets have been installed or how many people have been talked to in the moment. I care more about how many of those people are going to tell their friends, colleagues, or community about Zcash and how many of them will also use it. I have concerns about whether this grant will provide this everlasting impact. Will this team’s efforts be successful in helping foster new communities or groups? I’m not ready to approve this today, but if others do vote to approve, I would recommend that we only approve the first 9months so we can assess the team’s impact. I would hope 9months is long enough to see how impactful this team can be.

      • Paul: I really have a lot of confidence in this team. There’s aspects of what they’re doing that I think are extraordinarily valuable reaching different segments of other communities. And one of the things that comes to mind is what Emersonian posted at one point about the team saying that he recalls that he met me and Josh at a conference industry conference, I think it was mainnet in New York a few years ago, and because of that meeting and because of the booth we had and the discussions we had that brought him into the ecosystem. So even though I would agree that I would love to see a lot of organic growth coming out of this in ways that are very clear even in 9 months. I think that just because of their technical competence, their track record, that even if they only bring on someone like Emersonian, it would be worth it to me to have them out there doing the work that they’re doing. So, I personally would like to approve for 12 or nine. You know, if the committee’s more comfortable with nine, that’s fine. But I would like to give my full approval for whatever the committee is willing to do.

      • Artkor: After our meeting with this team I feel much more comfortable with approving this proposal in full. I’m ready for it.

      • Hanh: I will be rejecting. These are my notes/research for this grant:

Pros:

  • targets demographics that are usually under-represented

    • sex workers

    • adult industry

    • reliable attendance to events is hard to achieve

    • motivated

    • team well-liked by the community

Cons:

  • grant benefits too few people

    • grassroot movement:

      • in person conversations

      • hands on wallet installations

    • outcome unclear

      • what is the retention?

      • do these conversations lead to cascading impact? no evidence

    • trip reports are unconclusive, focus on # of activations in the order of 100.

    • are sex workers likely to become zcash supporters? no evidence

  • costs have escalated

    • no justification why some events would cost

      • “Each event carries a flexible side-event allowance, letting the team
        shape the right activation for each city, whether that is a walking
        tour in Amsterdam or a Späti takeover in Berlin.”

      • $85,000 in booth/side-event costs are undefined or inconsistent: $52,000 sits in a line the applicant’s own spreadsheet labels “flexible, TBD”

    • Travel costs are 1/5th - 100k

      • high and do not align with a grassroot effort

    • Staff Labor on top of their compensation

      • Who is this staff?

    • swag 36k

    • booth 37k

  • Can the grant become Business Dev?

    • We ask during a ZCG call

    • Grant was updated, but most of the grant remains grassroot activation

    • Marketing/BD Consultant (Kate), ~10hrs/month $12,000
      The only line explicitly tagged “BD”

    • Team does not seem to have the proper experience and qualification

    • No success metric for growth

Conclusion:

  • overhead is too large, impact too small

  • approving 500k for what is essentially local engagement is out
    of line compared to the local communities. It would not be fair to other grant and would show double standards

  • Zerodartz: I’ve been going back and forth on this proposal but if we approve for nine months that would make sense to me. They already have some momentum and it does not make sense to me to not have them at any events at all. While the budget is quite large, I think the newer proposal that they revised is more in line with most of our vision and I think they’re doing the right thing. We haven’t seen perfect results quite yet, but I think we could see improvements going forward. I approve for 9 months, but I would say that it’s not the strongest proposal, but worth it to keep them going to events for the near future to then reevaluate the impact.

  • Hanh: Do you guys have any feedback for the reports they should provide so we can decide whether we continue after 9 months or not.

  • Gguy: For myself, I’d hope that by 9months this team can show evidence that their efforts have contributed to new communities and groups adopting and spreading real world use of Zcash, not just a wallets installed metric.

  • Hanh: I would need to see more than the reports they share right now which are like the number of conversations people they meet, what they install.

  • Zerodartz: I can give some feedback on this Hanh because I was at one of Violet’s small workshops and the way she described Zcash and how to use it, I think it was very simple and easy to understand for people who are not always crypto native. So I think that’s one of their main strengths.

  • Paul: Both V and Milo are quite technical and they have experience in cryptography so they’re able to speak from that perspective with a lot of authority. I think that just makes them somewhat unique. And on the issue of not being fair to some of the other groups that are asking for funding, you know, I don’t know that there’s any other group asking to do this work of traveling around to these conferences and doing this kind of evangelism at the grassroots level and in particular with these kind of different communities. I think that’s actually quite unique, we don’t have anyone out there targeting a particular community that is a likely user that you know will be using our tools and using Zcash. So I really think that even though you know it may not be perfect and I do I think you’ve done some good analysis and I think that’s very helpful for me I think it’s good enough and especially given my firsthand knowledge and experience having talked to the team at a few events myself I’m still very much in favor of this grant

  • Gguy: Given the votes today we’ve got one at 9 months and 2 at 12 months.

  • Zerodartz: I’d prefer nine months.

  • Artkor: I think nine months is a good middle ground.

  • Paul: Nine is fine with me.

  • Approved through nine month milestones

Post is too long, continues below.

2 Likes
Grant Application SHPH: High-Assurance Post-Quantum Network Layer for Censorship Resistance
[Grant Application] Reusable Halo2 Verifier Security Testing Infrastructure (ZKCG Reference Implementation)
Grant Application: Rvess Pay ZEC to Mobile Money Integration
Test-Effectiveness Audit for Zebra: an independent regression witness for consensus-critical code
2

Part 2:

  • BTCPayServer Multi-Store GraphQL Client

    • Applicant proposes to rearchitect the plugin from the deprecated zcash-walletd RPC API to the Zkool GraphQL API, adding multi-store support (removing admin wallet requirement), integration/cheatmode testing in CI, and a merchant wiki covering solution selection and zecd/zcash-wallet-rpc migration guidance. Requesting $16,800.

      • Artkor: I generally want to support initiatives that improve Zcash payment infrastructure. It is important to me that Zcash stays focused on real-world payments and does not move too far away from that idea, as I think happened with Bitcoin. So I see practical work that makes ZEC payments easier, more reliable, and more accessible as useful for the ecosystem. This may sound like a very general view, but it explains why I usually want to support proposals like this. So I want to support this one.

      • Hanh: I will support even though I think it should have been done before. The amount is fairly low and it’s most likely going to be the last one. So just finish it up.

      • Gguy: I’m happy to approve this one as well.

      • Zerodartz: Zcash needs more than 1 payment system. BTCPayServer is used already and this update can broaden the amount of merchants who could accept ZEC. I’m ready to approve.

      • Paul: I approve.

      • Approved

  • Pretty Good Policy for Zcash

    • Applicant proposes to serve as the Zcash ecosystem’s dedicated policy representation organization — maintaining federal policymaker relationships, educating legislators and regulators about shielded transactions and selective disclosure, coordinating ecosystem-wide policy positions, producing public materials, responding to legislative/regulatory developments, and building coalitions with aligned organizations. Requesting $750,000.

      • (Paul has recused himself from this discussion)

      • Gguy: This is our second large grant today where we have to assess the potential impact these types of efforts can have. This is the type of grant where I can see the impacts rippling into the future of Zcash. Any foundations this team can establish, even if small and sometimes less obvious, that can be built upon, can have a sustained impact long after their efforts. PGP has already shown there is space for these efforts to occur. Hopefully this funding will help establish these strong foundations that can provide everlasting value. I approve.

      • Hanh: Yeah, me too. At first, my question was whether ZCG was allowed to use funds for, not the right term but talking with regulators directly, members of the government directly. But it seems like it’s okay. So I think that in that respect the proposal is very strong and the team is experienced. The plan is well defined and has good metrics, achievable, so for me it’s a big plus. I mean nothing may happen but at least it seems like people thought about how to make it happen. And sure we cannot guarantee success but the plan in place is in the right direction. And if it cannot succeed then probably nobody would have.

      • Zerodartz: Since this is one of the biggest grants we’ve seen in a while I think it’s an important one since there’s not basically any other organization that is meaningfully fighting for private money legislations and I think the main risk here is not funding it. Because normal people need to be made sure that they can use private money in everyday payments and they’re not criminals because of using it. Also I would like to see more regions covered but I understand that these are in the future plans. So it makes sense that the US is the main one right now and the expansion can come later. I’m ready to approve.

      • Artkor: For me, this work has historically been closely associated with ECC, and I think moving it into an independent, community-level structure is both timely and justified, particularly from the standpoint of transparency and accountability. I also consider the requested amount a reasonable level of funding given the tangible policy, educational, and advocacy outcomes we should expect from an initiative of this scale. So I’m happy to approve this grant.

      • Approved

  • Zcash Hack-to-Dark At Devcon 8, Mumbai

    • Applicant proposes a curated 75-person Zcash hackathon in Mumbai on November 3–4, 2026 (Devcon 8 week), targeting real ecosystem gaps (POS reference implementation, shielded payouts, WebZjs TypeScript layer, Ironwood tooling), with milestone-based prize structure (half at announcement, half after 30-day polish sprint), pre-loaded testnet funds, hand-reviewed applications, and in-house content production. Requesting $38,580.

      • Gguy: I think the last event went really well. I think the impact that these events have are meaningful. I imagine that by continuing to fund events like this we will hopefully see the impact these events can have continue.

      • Hanh: I think after the success of the previous one I think we should continue with similar events around the world. I approve.

      • Paul: I agree, approve here too.

      • Zerodartz: I’m ready to approve since they’ve shown good previous organization of the Berlin event which went quite well. I recently learned there were some communication problems between two teams, but I think that can be avoided or cleared up in the future if just people communicate during the event when something goes not as planned so they can still adjust or find alternative solutions.I think that the team is good and we need more of this type events and this hackathon might bring some new developers to Zcash. That would be a really nice turnout.

      • Artkor: Last time they provided a lot of content about Zcash so I support this proposal too.

      • Hanh: I’m thinking about working with ZecHub to bring some ZSA to the hackathon.

      • Approved

  • Zcash Arabia (August to December 2026)

    • Applicant proposes to scale an existing Arabic-language Zcash education and community initiative across the MENA region, expanding educational content, user onboarding, and developer engagement for Arabic-speaking audiences. Requesting $27,000.

      • Hanh: I think they have delivered on the stuff we asked so I’d approve this time. In particular what I was interested in was not the online thing like growing Telegram numbers and followers but the in-person events and the things that are a bit different from the other crypto projects such as the community activities. For me, it shows that they want to do something special, not the standard cookie cutter things.

      • Gguy: In a world with AI it’s refreshing to see that team continue to make a human effort to support Zcash. Having said that, I would encourage this team to continue to engage within their communities and engage across the Zcash ecosystem. I think the more that our teams work together the more impact we can have. The more collaboration we see across the ecosystem the better. Having said that, I think this team is improving. I think their impact is slowly growing over time as well. Therefore I would like to support this grant and see what impact they can have for the rest of the year.

      • Artkor: I’ll just say it since it’s already been approved. It seems that, at this point, my initial impression of this applicant has changed quite significantly. For someone who appears to rely very heavily on generated content, he has managed to do reasonably well and produce a visible amount of activity. But I no longer believe this is the kind of work that should be funded at the level being requested. More importantly, after a more detailed review of the photo materials presented as evidence of the Zcash Arabia community meetup in Algeria, I am confident that AI-generated or manipulated images were used by the Zcash Arabia account. I consider this unacceptable. Presenting generated or manipulated images as evidence of real-world community activity is a material misrepresentation to ZCG and to the community. For that reason, I support rejecting the current proposal. Speaking personally, I would also support disqualifying this applicant from further participation in the Zcash Community Grants application process, including barring them from submitting further grant proposals.

      • Zerodartz: Maybe we could ask them to provide the originals to us privately so we can check if they were manipulated or not with AI. Maybe that’s the best way. Otherwise, I think this team has improved their activities which is good. I’m not ready to approve quite yet.

      • Hanh: When you say manipulated, you mean totally generated or you mean like edited?

      • Zerodartz: It could be edited, but yeah, they should mention it or provide privately the photos without manipulation so we can see that they did use AI just to cover the faces. They can cover the faces manually if they want to. It’s one option that would prove they didn’t do the AI edit on purpose. Right now it’s a reject from me.

      • Artkor: For me personally I mean totally generated.

      • Hanh: You should ask them. It’s like if you are a teacher and you have a student and you think that they cheated and use AI to write the essay, I think we need at least to give them a chance to prove otherwise, right? Because you want to give them a zero and fail them. Tthis may not be right. I think at the minimum it would be opening a dialogue and to understand what happened. I agree that there are some suspicious material though.

      • Gguy: I’m not interested in seeing the originals, I’d like to approve this today.

      • Paul: I will approve as well, I really do appreciate community work like this. The group has been receptive and responsive to us.

      • Approved (Gguy, Paul, Hanh voted yes, ZD and Artkor voted no)

  • Taking Zcash to the Streets: Education & Real-World Feedback in Türkiye

    • Applicant proposes a 10-part Turkish Zcash YouTube education series published on the Crypto Epoch channel, followed by a 3-day Istanbul street interview campaign gauging crypto/Zcash awareness and directing interested participants to the series, with small Zcash-branded rewards for engagement. Requesting $6,955.

      • Remains open

  • Recoverify: Pre-Loss Backup Recovery Verification for Zcash Wallets

    • Applicant proposes an open-source Rust CLI and local web UI that generates a non-secret Recovery Record from a working wallet, then later verifies a saved backup against that record — testing whether the backup reproduces all recovery-relevant state (accounts, addresses, derivation ranges, pool coverage) before the original wallet is lost, with classified results (Verified / Incomplete / Additional material required / Unable to verify / Verified empty). Requesting $2,990.

      • Gguy: I have concerns about this one and about its usefulness and safety. I’ll be reviewing this one closely but I have my concerns.

      • Remains open

  • Zcash World, Mumbai (Devcon 8 week)

    • Applicant proposes a multi-phase Devcon 8 week program anchored by a one-day fully shielded ZEC environment (registration requires a wallet, Z-BAZAAR accepts only shielded ZEC, 250–300 wallet onboards, live device benchmarking on entry-level Android hardware), followed by merchant onboarding of 20 Mumbai businesses during Devcon week, ecosystem engagement on the Devcon floor, and content capture throughout — with the benchmarking dataset released open-licensed and an after-movie published within 72 hours. Requesting $20,300.

      • Remains open

  • Zcash Privacy Literacy Lab Canada

    • Applicant proposes a free, account-free web learning module with 12 interactive privacy scenarios (transparent vs. shielded transfers, viewing keys, selective disclosure, exchange touchpoints, metadata limits), a Rust scenario generator using real Zcash libraries on regtest/testnet, and a dated Canadian regulatory source map (30+ records covering recordkeeping, reporting, and consumer protection) — with independent technical and Canadian legal review, public correction log, and MIT/MIT-compatible licensing. Requesting $15,000.

      • Remains open

Additional Discussion

  • State of Zaino (Gguy): ZCG is at a bit of a crossroads right now looking at what software and development needs to be funded in the coming months and years. ZCG is assessing how Zaino fits into that ecosystem. We are aware that the ecosystem is moving very fast and there are lots of alternative projects being released and deployed even in critical infrastructure environments. ZCG will review current software development funding and which infrastructure and projects do not have a current user or provide a value beyond what’s already available. What specific features does Zaino provide to end users that current projects don’t already provide? How can we maximize the impact of development teams? When necessary this might require us to rethink or pivot projects and teams. ZCG will be reaching out to teams to find out the use cases and usefulness of projects like Zaino. Does anyone else have anything to add?

    • Hanh: They have requested milestone 3 so making a decision is upcoming. I think we’ve established was about having the product ready, audited and reviewed

    • Gguy: Part of my concerns are around the last 3-month grant that is meant to be focused on the stabilization of Zaino. It appears that rather than moving towards a stable, reliable product that is trusted across the ecosystem, the product is actually going to go through a significant refactor. Traditionally that’s a significant move away from stabilization into something that’s more experimental and changing. If ZCG is going to fund this type of innovation and work I think we need a better understanding of what the use cases are and who benefits from this work. Who’s going to find this implementation useful and who’s going to want to deploy it?

    • Hanh: Concretely, what is the decision of the committee regarding the payment of this milestone? FPF is waiting for approval for the payout. We have zero thumbs up so far.

    • Gguy: I’m going to be reviewing the current milestone, I’m very aware that it doesn’t meet the criteria set by the milestone as stated. But I also appreciate that the team has made improvements from a month ago. So, I appreciate the work that they’ve done. We just need to check we are accelerating in the right direction.

    • Hanh: This is the last one approved.

    • Gguy: Yes, Zaino has no funding agreement in place after the milestone 3 payment is made. ZCG is aware that ZingoLabs may submit an application for more funding for the ongoing development of Zaino. It’s my understanding that Zallet has a hard dependency on Zaino. Let’s discuss with these teams and work out why we are building this. What the actual use case for these products and where does it differ and provide value over the alternatives.

    • Hanh: I think for the sake of the Zaino team this conversation should be done sooner than later because they are on the premise that they are going to be approved and they are working as business as usual. So their management hasn’t told them that there’s a good chance they are not getting funded. So that would not be very fair. I mean, I’ve been in their position and this it’s not a good position to be in.

3 Likes
3

Thanks everyone for taking the time to look at SHPH and discuss it. I really appreciate the honest feedback, I think the concerns about scope and track record are fair, especially for something security-critical which was the main concern ofcourse something evolving cryptography.

We’re still pretty early, so I guess the answer is simply to keep building, get more eyes on the code, and build that track record over time.

Thanks again for the consideration, and hopefully we’ll come back with a much stronger SHPH in the future.

2 Likes