Zcash Social Contract

that’s not the way things work in the real world. voting is from governance. you vote by electing people to represent you.

If zero folks bought, earned, or mined ZEC, what’s real is Zcash wouldn’t exist. Anything times zero is zero. But Zcash does exist, therefore, someone bought, earned, or mined it – voted with their wallet, time, skills – and I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

1 Like

For whatever reason, folks do not understand this. Indeed, ZEC is an investment for saving - private digital gold, a Swiss bank account without the Swiss Bank.

And stablecoins may be used to buy coffee and so on.


ZEC can be used as an investment, just like ZEC can be used as private digital cash. Seems like we agree more than disagree, except yall want to limit what ZEC is for some reason?

With ZEC, imho, you vote by the coins you hold. I elect myself, and I hold my keys.

1 Like

btw, now that @joshs is CEO, I think it’s good to hear again what he has to say about Zcash social contract: https://www.youtube.com/live/DMiw7m2Ku78?si=31skWHSL-ioRZwIN&t=27299

To be honest, I find it may be the most qualitative answer and one that I feel quite aligned with.

At the end of the day here’s the critical idea:

IF you are in the camp of Zcash being “Private, fungible, cash for the world”, THEN the market cap should obviously be whatever it takes to enable this objective, period. It’s really simple but apparently most people can’t detach themselves from the magic beans variable, even if at the potential cost of not achieving our objective.

Now, DO NOT misread or misunderstand. Possibly, 21M is what we need; I don’t know. Point is, nobody actually knows until we achieve our objective. But let’s make sure we do pay attention to crypto-economics idea that may entail different issuance models. Not welcoming those may be a mistake that costs us the project’s success.

1 Like

My friend, use it to buy whatever you like with it. It can be used for both. However, ZEC is a bit too volatile for my liking so I save it as an investment. The point is how do we increase the value of Zcash to increase participation and further development. Just understand that the lower the price goes, the more difficult to achieve anything.

Just to add. It can be used for both. The question is will it scale. For all the reasons stated so many times. ZEC does not have the properties to scale for broad scale usage as money to spend. Just like I dont use stocks, or even bonds for day to day spending. They are all to volitle. And for volatile assets who you expect to increase in value and price, you need to hold them over long periods. I believe its going against human nature to use something like ZEC (or stocks/bonds) because people dont like volitility when it comes to money that they accept for payment of goods and services. If you dont see that in yourself, then its really hard to discuss.

We increase the value (and price) of Zcash by leveraging the blockchain and applying the technology to as many assets as we can as well as improving the attributes and properties people want and need from money used for spending, as well as other assets. So, we need to take ZEC out of the sandbox. Its time to use the tech. From what I have seen so far from Josh, it seems like we have hope.


Lol. it is a bit comical to see this concept posited 7 years later. The time to correct Zcash’s issuance scheme should have happened at launch. The creators made a mistake by copy-pasting the Bitcoin issuance schedule. With another halving approaching in ~10 months, and with Zcash SAFE underway, additional theorizing about the issuance seems goofy.


Are you always that pessimistic in life?

Ethereum has changed its issuance model a little while ago. Polkadot is adjusting its validator reward curve whenever needed and did so recently.

@jelly5649 Could you kindly explain how changing the issuance will help to increase the price of ZEC today?

It’s my understanding that the critical problem ZEC faces today is the instantaneously selling of mined ZEC (80%) by miners who need to fund their electricity/other costs (PoW), along with the instantaneously selling of ZEC by ECC/ZF to fund their operations. This mass instantaneously selling causes a never-ending decline in the price of ZEC which is an existential problem because at the present rate, ZEC can and could go to $0.

I have heard some excellent commentary on this forum, especially by @artkor on this specific matter, who does a nice job describing how the transition to PoS (where folks stake & hold, rather than mine & sell), along with the halving, will drastically reduce the total supply of ZEC available for sale. Hence, the price of ZEC can increase.



I never think in those terms, which I generally find short-term minded.

What I am saying is that it is perfectly possible that our issuance and/or token cap of 21M, may not be optimal for Zcash to succeed in becoming “Private, fungible, cash for the world”.

To be clear; on ROI matters, I think a bit like Jeff Bezos. That is, how long before Amazon actually made any money? A long time. Yet, here we are in a world where Amazon is basically part of the infrastructure.

I expect ROI on Zcash only if we succeed at our masterplan. If we fail at it, I don’t deserve ROI. So, really, I don’t see or think of anything but that, the masterplan.

I believe this under the caveat that those who profit from Zcash and don’t contribute any true value (various grants — @Dodger gave me a stern talking to so I can’t name specifics but imagine if someone asked for a million dollars to make [or not?] “educational” videos), deserve to be held accountable by the community in a very public naming and shaming kind of way. Sort of like this thread.

Lots of people are afraid to speak their minds. I’m the opposite.

since you use Amazon as a template for succes, can you explain how zcash makes money? to get more money, we need to raise the zec price, not issue more coins year after year…create value. if you can’t get the price to increase with the current inflation, more coins issued only makes it worse. productive development is the solution and creating products people want; not technology you don’t know how to commercialize and telling people Zcash is cash. people are not stupid. you can’t tell them it’s cash, they buy it, and lose money. zec is not cash. you can say it over and over and it won’t make it true,
advertise it, educate it, and its the same result. the world does not need a one size fits all global fiat currency, it need decentralized collateral based currencies that improve privacy and utility coins. zcash has neither currently. it only has privacy.

you have already failed. that’s why we are rebooting.


Regardless of the specifics of this situation, if you want to name and shame someone for unnecessary spending, I think it would be quite misguided to direct it towards the person doing the creative work.

I am not so sure about that, some people do speak a lot on controversial topics. I would know ahaha. Anyway, glad you speak your mind.


Good, that settles everything then. Cheers,

That’s an interesting point of view. I have run and invested in many businesses (including ECC) and I can tell you that no business has infinite time and money. There is nothing short-term in either my thinking or question to you. If ZEC’s price continues to crater, then ECC/ZF cannot fund the development of Zcash. No $ = no time; No time = no options.

So again, how does changing the issuance schedule help Zcash in your opinion given Zcash does not have the benefit of Amazon’s capitalization?


If the person/group isn’t qualified or sees it as a way to fund their lifestyle (Zcash anthem?), then it’s definitely not misguided. The work isn’t just randomly appearing out of thin air… :grinning:

Zcash needs more ambitious projects funded with teams that have proven industry experience, are familiar with Zcash and passionate about the vision. @hanh and Qedit come to mind.

1 Like

In early 2000s, Amazon was near bankruptcy. Same can be said for SpaceX or Tesla, and many other now successful businesses.

We are in a tough position, it’s true; but we also have very solid foundations that make Zcash resilient.

I understand some want ZC or ECC not to sell the ZEC they have, but it’s literally what the dev fund is for: to pay for their work, which ultimately requires fiat. Now should they prioritize selling their other assets, maybe but Josh is better positioned to assess of that.

Well, like I said, I do not have that answer actually. I have only said that we should welcome suggestions that may involve modifying the max number of tokens and/or issuance. That is because possibly our current model won’t be optimal for the future.

I said this because currently, many people, including at ECC and ZF see the 21M as a variable that shouldn’t ever be touched, but without any economics reasoning behind their judgment.

I understood it for Bitcoin, but find it “funny” for possibly the most mathematically dense blockchain project out there to have a “holy” variable.

Appreciate your response :pray:t3:

The economic reasoning for the 21M cap is scarcity — hence why folks accumulate and hold Bitcoin and its value climbs. Bitcoin is digital gold.

It my understanding that the same logic will apply to Zcash, especially when Zcash transitions to PoS because the 21M cap becomes even more important to incentivizing people to accumulate and hold ZEC versus sell ZEC.

Again, I am open to anything that increases the value of ZEC and like you I think it’s healthy to put everything on the table for discussion.

1 Like

Well, I get that, but then 11M would be even more scarce so I guess it would better then?

But Polkadot has like 10% annual inflation and is multi billion market cap, maybe that’s better then?

The point here is that we need to think more. We can’t just take bitcoin magic bean variable as one of the pillars of our project and pretend that we are different, that we are smarter.