Anyone can stand for election, including existing members seeking re-election. In addition, any community member may nominate someone else by encouraging them to run and/or submitting a post on their behalf (with that person’s consent).
To nominate yourself, simply post a candidacy announcement (ideally five paragraphs or fewer) in the #governance:zcg-elections category. Your post should outline your vision, priorities, and reasons for wanting to serve on ZCG.
ZCG members must sign an independent contractor agreement in order to receive the monthly payment ($1,725 USD + 10 ZEC, paid in shielded ZEC). No IC agreement is required if the payment is declined.
No formal KYC process is required.
ZCG currently meets for a brainstorm session every Friday at 12:00 UTC (5am PST, 8am EST) and a formal minuted meeting every other Monday at 12:00 UTC (5am PST, 8am EST). Days/times subject to change based on the geographic make-up of the committee.
To Run or Nominate Someone:
Post the candidacy in the #governance:zcg-elections category. Reply to this thread with a link to the candidacy announcement, and we will add you to the @ZCG_Candidates group.
We will edit this post to include a link to each candidacy announcement on this top post, in the order the candidates announce. All candidates will receive the title “ZCG Candidate” during the duration of the campaign so forum users can easily identify users that are standing for election.
If potential candidates have any questions about the role or the election process, please post them in this thread.
Any questions for the individual candidates should be posted in their individual candidacy topics to avoid everyone asking/answering questions in this thread. Thank you!
I would like to propose that in the upcoming election there’s a question to approve or disapprove a proposal to add 2 more seats to ZCG so it goes from 5 to 7
Could that be possible?
My rationale is that there’s been an increase of the influx of proposals and that the committee had been structured and thought of in a context that was way different than today’s
Thank you for that suggestion, @pacu. I can try to answer it based on what I have seen within ZCG over the past year. You know, I don’t think there is any need for that, and I believe that five people are enough to make a balanced decision. During 2025, there does not seem to have been a single divergent decision by ZCG in the minutes, but there was a powerful discussion internally. I admit, these could be quite long debates, very long and sometimes even emotional. But we are fortunate to be on a team where all members know how to listen and hear each other. It was a multifaceted and productive dialogue, and I am grateful to everyone. It was also great to receive much-needed feedback, including yours, which can already be considered additional seats on the ZCG team. Currently, there are more applications and it has become more interesting for us, but it is still a high-quality discussion and I can assure you that each participant takes the common task as seriously as possible. And when expert help is needed, we always get it.
I think ZCG is on its peak. It is a fast turnaround, open all year long grants program like any other in crypto. It works exceptionally well, has very good reputation and has proven its resilience over the years. However, having an election potentially renewing a majority of the committee has a disruptive potential that can be operationally detrimental.
My proposal of expanding ZCG from 5 to 7 seats is mostly to expand the number of seats and reduce the % of the votes renewed on each election.
I’m not an expert on this matter so my proposal can be inaccurate.
I appreciate your proposal, but I agree with @artkor that expanding ZCG from five to seven seats would make the committee less efficient because coordination becomes more difficult with a larger group. More people means more schedules to manage, more complex group discussions, and a greater chance of slow decision-making.
Generally speaking, increasing the size of a committee does not automatically improve performance. It can dilute responsibility, add friction to discussions, and make it harder for members to agree on priorities. I think the end result for ZCG would be slower decision-making on grants and a committee that is more difficult to operate.
As I mentioned to you privately, this discussion reminded me of something Coinbase’s COO, Emilie Choi, recently said on X:
The relevant part to your proposal is, “In the vast majority of cases, spreading authority across multiple people is inefficient. And once you’ve added an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to something, it’s harder to remove.” It’s a good reminder that well-intended changes can introduce bureaucracy that slows things down.
If your concern is operational support, it is worth remembering that FPF handles much of the administrative load. Alex and Danika provide excellent support, which gives ZCG continuity regardless of who is elected to the committee.
Overall, I think the better way to strengthen ZCG is to encourage more strong candidates to run. Each election usually only has a small number of qualified nominees, and expanding that pool will likely have a bigger positive impact than increasing the number of seats. With a small candidate pool, adding more seats increases the likelihood of electing members who do not really add value to the committee.
Thank you for this thorough and thoughtful response. I think you presented very good counter arguments. I realize that my idea is deeply rooted in optimism but that it may lack the necessary context.
You are totally right on this which is not an optic I had considered.
Is the ability to speak English a fundamental requirement for ZCG candidates? Do the meetings offer an environment where members can communicate via real-time text messages instead of speaking? Thank you.
ZCG meetings are conducted in English so some understanding is necessary. @artkor has been an extremely effective ZCG member by utilizing various communication tools to participate in meetings and discussions. We suggest reaching out to him for his perspective.
I have a certain language barrier, as I have never lived in an English-speaking country, but it is gradually diminishing. It manifests itself in poor listening comprehension, especially of colloquial expressions that you know you can only hear from native speakers. I’m pretty good at reading, so I needed subtitles from the start, which are now available in almost all meeting software. But gradually, I’m starting to adapt to most phrases because we have meetings quite often.
From the very beginning, when I took on the task of accompanying the Zcash mission in Russian, I was far from being able to communicate in English. It was simply a desire to provide a news feed for the Russian-speaking audience, and of course, since then, I have greatly improved my skills. I think you understand what I’m talking about.
I don’t think it’s possible to discuss grant issues productively via chat, but that shouldn’t be a reason to limit yourself if you already have basic English translation skills. We have an agenda that is set in advance, and I prepare for it by writing down all my thoughts in English, which I practice pronouncing beforehand. This way, you can improve your skills more and more.
Given the current state of technical linguistic tools and with certain skills, this shouldn’t be a problem in principle. The atmosphere created at ZCG is as favorable as possible, and anyone who would like to participate in this role should simply give it a try. And when the real need arises, I will share all the resources that can help you with this.
@FPF Financial Privacy Foundation is paid by the Zcash Community Grants Committee for services:
Administrative Support (Election Process Services)
Finance Support
Community Activities Support
Strategic Support
for the Zcash Community.
In order to evaluate the Fair Election Process Services currently being conducted. Can the Financial Privacy Foundation communicate to the Zcash Community. Who are the FPF Supervisor, staff and board of directors currently responsible for providing the Fair Zcash Community Grants Election?
Thank you in advance
FPF is an independent Cayman Islands incorporated not-for-profit foundation administered and governed by a board of directors and a Supervisor (Cayman required)
@kworks the Superivisor is a Cayman required role performed by a licensed lawyer authorized by Cayman authorities. Kurt Opshal and Amber Baldet are FPF’s board members and Alex and Danika provide administrative and operational support. All decisions are made by the board, there are no executive officers.
Alex Bornstein - Zcash Foundation Executive Director
Danika Delano - Zcash Foundation Chief Operatoring Officer
@FPF
How can the Zcash Community know when the Executive Director and COO of Zcash Foundation are FPF support or Zcash Foundation executive officers providing Fair Election Services?
The Zcash Community Grants committee pays FPF for administrative services it appears that FPF had $20 329usd in expenses for ZCG Support completing 39 transactions for ZCG for Q3 2025. How much does FPF expect the Zcash Community Grants Election will cost?
How will the Zcash Community know the difference if these are Zcash Foundation expenses or FPF expenses as the individuals providing the Services are the same people?
ZIP 1015 - Zcash Community wishes to develop a new Zcash Development Fund
3: Centralization Concerns: The current model centralizes decision-making power within a few organizations, contradicting the decentralized ethos of blockchain technology. Traditional organizational structures with boards and executives introduce single points of failure and limit community involvement in funding decisions.
There are no ZF expenses related to ZCG/FPF. The time Danika and Alex use to support FPF is their own, much like many other community members that provide support and have involvement in multiple groups/orgs. As FPF has stated multiple times in the past, we would happily support other groups that are interested in providing the support FPF provides in order to create competition, however, they would need the appropriate operational and administrative expertise and operational infrastructure.
This has all be discussed on the Forum before, nothing has changed. FPF continues to provide excellent support to ZecHub and ZCG and we will happily continue to do so as long as our expertise is required.
I am very interested in the position and plan to apply shortly.
I understand candidates may remain anonymous (except to the FPF), which I am comfortable with. Given that interviews are conducted via video, could you please confirm whether maintaining anonymity, for example, by keeping the camera off or using a pseudonym/avatar, would put me at any significant disadvantage?
Thank you for your clarification.
Camera off, using a pseudonym/avatar and any other method of obfuscation is permitted. Totally up to you how you approach your community-facing identity. Many candidates over the years have chosen an anon approach.
Same goes for your interactions with other ZCG members in brainstorm and grant voting meetings. You can choose whatever level of privacy you are comfortable with.