ZCG Committee Member Pay

Alongside the upcoming ZCG election, I’d like to raise the issue of ZCG committee member pay. All of us Zcash users and ZEC holders rely on the committee to make exceptional funding decisions to support the continued adoption of Zcash and the value of our ZEC.

In my time as ecosystem security engineer, I’ve learned that it is truly a full-time job just to stay on top of all the goings-on in our community. ZCG members have to do much more. Not only do they have to stay on top of all that’s happening in the Zcash world, they need to understand what’s finding success in the wider cryptocurrency space, do deep-dives into grant proposals to understand if they’re good bets, and be forward-thinking to write RFPs that help our ecosystem grow.

These are the kind of skills you’d find in people who are CEOs, board members, technical engineers, and successful fund managers. As such, I propose we make the roles full-time and increase their pay to at least $100,000 USD/year. Given the amount of funds being managed and the importance the committee serves to our community, I could even argue for higher pay, but let’s start here.

With the recent ECC layoffs, this feels all the more urgent.

What do y’all think? Would this be a poor use of funds? Would it help attract incredible people onto the committee? Would you be more likely to run for a seat or retain your seat if this kind of funding was available? Do you think it would lead to better or worse grant funding decisions?

(Disclosure: I’m a ZCG grant recipient, but you shouldn’t fear bias with regard to that as I’ve expressed this opinion previously, before I even considered applying for a grant.)


I agree with everything @earthrise has said here.


Something does feel off in this picture doesn’t it?

1 Like

The current funds available to the ZCG (Zcash Grants Committee) are $3,246,155 - $1,238,933, equating to $2,007,222 USD. With an annual inflow of 105120 ZEC at $30 each, the ZCG receives approximately $3,153,600 USD.

I am in agreement with @earthrise on the issue of member compensation. The current stipend for ZCG members, while standard for grant committee volunteers, may not be sufficient given the unique responsibilities of the ZCG. This committee not only holds a significant portion of ecosystem funding, but also contributes to Zcash Improvement Proposals (ZIPs), sets and implements strategic direction, prepares Request for Proposals (RFPs), manages and actively engages in networking events, among other duties. These are not common responsibilities for a typical grants committee.

These excessive number duties with the low amount of compensation could potentially lead to high turnover rates and difficulties in filling positions. As such, I firmly believe that offering a larger stipend or even considering part or full-time positions might lead to better outcomes for the committee and the Zcash community.

However, before adjusting compensation, it’s important to officially acknowledge the extended responsibilities of the ZCG. Given that the ZCG’s annual “income” is around $3 million USD, if we were to spend $130,000 USD per member (totaling $650,000), it would account for over 20% of incoming funds—a substantial proportion.

Consequently, I propose three potential solutions:

  1. Reevaluate the mission of the ZCG to accurately reflect the scope of its work. This would involve redefining the roles and expectations of ZCG members, potentially expanding the definition of “Zcash Community Grants”, and considering salaried positions for the ZCG members.
  2. Retain the current structure of the ZCG but increase the stipend two- or three-fold to better compensate members for their time and commitment.
  3. Create Chair and Vice Chair positions within the ZCG. This structure would maintain the five elected community members while also adding two leadership roles. These positions, offering increased responsibilities, would be determined by a vote among the five ZCG members. This could offer an official recognition and compensation for those who naturally assume these roles.

Please note that while I feel that $100,000 USD is inadequate, I’ve suggested a minimum of $130,000 USD as a more suitable compensation.

Disclaimer: I plan to nominate myself for a position on the ZCG in the near future

Edit: I would vote to do both 2 and 3 but keep discussions open for doing 1 with the hope of making a decision before the next election.


I agree that they should be compensated well but I suggest people with this level of skill are not available full time for $100k. Instead, the community might consider creating a clear framework including the 1) the skill mix and level needed, and 2) pursue candidates who are willing to participate part time at lower compensation than the equivalent of $100k, with compensation coming in the form of ZEC.

Alternatively, the community might consider restructuring ZCG in such a way that allows for different members to perform different functions, requiring different time and compensation. For example, one team focused on engineering evaluation and another on outreach and alliances, under the direction of a team equipped to provide overall treasury management and strategic direction.


yes maybe few full time people and some half time dependin on tasks