Sewa
September 19, 2026, 1:53am
20
palmar:
1- Zooko : I think that the significant increase in the fund (in fiat terms) shouldn’t lead to a radical change in how the ZCG is managed. However, I agree that some adjustments can be made to keep pace with the growth.
In the chart you shared , we can see that in Q3 2025 the capital allocation was $0.53M, while in Q4 of the same year it rose to $2.32M. All of this happened under the same committee (same structure, members, and processes), which shows that what we currently have works, is flexible, and can adapt to increases or decreases in grant demand. The allocation grew more than 4x from one quarter to the next, and everything was handled smoothly and well within the capacity of the five committee members. While there may come a point when the workload exceeds the capacity of five people, what I’m trying to highlight is that the current growth has remained within a manageable range . It’s also important to remember that while the fund has grown in fiat terms, it can also shrink, so we must be prudent with projections.
If I were to propose an improvement, I would support Batuhan’s idea of separating the evaluator structure into two sides: one for technical matters and another for community matters. I would frame it as two wings:
Protocol Wing (technical matters involving code deployment, software, development, etc.)
Ecosystem Wing (everything non-technical: communities, events, marketing, education, etc.).
This would allow each wing to specialize. Regarding concerns about significantly increasing the number of committee members, we could consider adding just one more member (bringing the total to six), so each wing would have three evaluators. (Would that be too many or too few?)
This way, the technical wing would be freed from reviewing community, event, and marketing grants , allowing them to dedicate more time to thorough reviews of technical proposals for a more effective result. And if demand for technical grants increases even further, they would simply return to today’s workload, but now fully focused on technical grants. Something similar would happen with the Ecosystem Wing . When both wings coordinate well and do their jobs effectively, Zcash can soar even higher.
It’s crucial that the ZCG always leans toward appointing prominent community members who have demonstrated honesty, a strong track record, and the ability to help Zcash fulfill its mission. Ultimately, the amount of budget allocated each quarter will depend on the quantity and quality of the grant proposals received and approved. This responsibility falls on the judgment of the committee members, which is why it’s so important to elect people who understand Zcash in its full scope and are aligned with the project to make the best decisions. I believe the current committee meets this standard.
According to Zcash Grant Hub , technical grants outnumber non-technical ones, so this should be taken into consideration.
@Palmar , I re-read your June candidacy post, and this actually connects directly to something you proposed then. You suggested separating ZCG into a Protocol Wing and an Ecosystem Wing so technical and non-technical grants could be evaluated by people with the appropriate expertise.
At the time, you suggested six members, three per wing. Another possibility would be five members on each side, which would be a much more significant expansion from the current five-member committee. It makes me wonder whether the bigger question is not simply whether ZCG should grow, but what structure gives each type of grant enough expertise, diversity of perspective, and due diligence without creating unnecessary bureaucracy.
I think your original Protocol/Ecosystem idea is worth revisiting here. Maybe the question now is: if you still support that structure, what would you change or develop further after what you’ve learned since June?
-Carmen