good morning @dismad 
1 Like
I have good news for you @dismad - depending on when you checkpoint this, I am not new blood!
I may have not been active in the forums, but I have been very active in Twitter and IRL. I was ZEC posting when the price was $30 and everyone called me a fool for supporting a āzombieā project. Am sure you can relate to that feeling.
I am getting active on the forums now because I have been waiting for THV for ~2 years and am frustrated with the pace of progress, plus the recent successes bring a new level of mission criticality to the governance of funds.
I may be new to you, but you are not new to me. Consider this my unshielding from lurk mode.
gm dismad
4 Likes
Continuity is also valuable. Ideally, to me, there is a mix of people experienced in the role and some new perspectives. Of course, the stagger helps ensure that.
The change in compensation is interesting! On the one hand, it does mean something that people were willing to work for less because of our beliefs. You can tell those people cared about the causeāitās a strong signal. On the other hand it was historically underpaid and that limited who could afford not to spend that time doing something else.
3 Likes
My comments were not necessariy aimed at you thowar2, and I have seen you on twitter over the years. I hope you stay this engaged and more in the forums and elsewhere in the community 
3 Likes
This is a strong argument and I agree. Still, I think it should be viewed from multiple angles! 
1 Like
Indeed itās true.
1 Like
8 Likes
I have a practical question for candidates who already have the opportunity to leave their comments on current grant proposals if they wish. Some have already done so, and I would like to express my gratitude on behalf of the committee.
Very soon, someone will have to make difficult choices every week. Approving or rejecting a grant is always a huge responsibility, first and foremost to the community and, of course, to the applicant. In practice, it is literally a choice between common sense and emotions. And emotions, of course, get in the way. So please give your comments on these topics. What would you do?
FYI @ShieldOrder @thowar2 @VladC @radbro @dontbeevil @Onikhe-biss @Kellyjoe8 @readymouse @Anaximander @frankbraun
I would like to thank everyone who participates in advance.
5 Likes
@hanh special thanks to you Hanh for always doing this!
Thanks for raising this.
I use the same three filters for every proposal:
Impact: whether the work moves the ecosystem forward relative to cost.
Clarity: whether the milestones are defined tightly enough for verification without interpretation.
Alignment: whether the direction matches the long-horizon priorities of the community and the treasury.
On the proposals you mentioned:
Brave: Iāve already commented on the thread regarding scope definition, milestone structure ( Zcash 90-Day Global Privacy Campaign via Brave ā Dec 2025 through Feb 2026 - #5 by ShieldOrder and noted @BraveCarlos ās replies), and the need for a staged rollout Zcash 90-Day Global Privacy Campaign via Brave ā Dec 2025 through Feb 2026 - #8 by ShieldOrder. The audience fit is strong, but a campaign of this size should progress through defined milestone gates, not a single lump-sum structure. The key question is whether it can demonstrate sustained shielded usage and measurable conversion rather than one-time visibility.
ZGo migration: Reviewing now. The main filters here are dependency clarity, sequencing with Zebra releases, and whether the work reduces operational load for ecosystem participants rather than creating new coordination overhead.
Deterministic builds and security tooling: Also reviewing. The focus is on reproducibility, independence of verification, and whether the output strengthens the ecosystemās long-term security posture in a durable way.
The principle is the same in all cases: apply one standard uniformly so applicants and the community know exactly how decisions are made.
ShieldOrder
1 Like
On the Zgo to Zebra migration proposal ZGo Migration to Zebra - Grant Application - I will keep this focused on the core evaluation points.
Impact
Migrating ZGo to Zebra aligns with the long-term direction of the ecosystem. It reduces reliance on deprecated components and improves reliability for applications and vendors that depend on Zcash payments.
Clarity
Two items need tightening for a clean review:
- A clear sequencing of the migration steps.
- A verification path that lets reviewers confirm each milestone independently.
Both are standard adjustments and do not affect feasibility.
Alignment
This work supports Zcashās core mission by strengthening shielded-capable tooling and reducing fragmentation across implementations. It does not introduce new long-term operational overhead.
Treasury considerations
The requested amount is modest and does not create multi-cycle risk. The engineering lift is focused and produces reusable value for the ecosystem.
Based on the current structure, I am inclined to support the proposal, subject to the clarifications noted above.
As a deliberate outsider, I donāt yet have the inside view on these specific applications, but I will approach them through my three non-negotiable rules:
- Net shielded-spending impact is the only metric that counts
- Projects that deliver the highest shielded-spending impact get funded first and fastest, with iron-clad milestones and clawbacks
- A protected slice for loyal long-term builders and visionary research, always within a strict ceiling
In practice the choice is never just a binary āapprove / rejectā.
What we fund and what we donāt fund sends a powerful signal to the whole ecosystem about what we value, and I always try to do it with a growth mindset instead of a zero-sum game.
The how we decide, and especially how we communicate, even when we say no, is almost as important as the yes/no itself. Our words clarify how we think and contribute to the culture of the entire ecosystem.
In my experience there is almost always a third option: work with the applicant to reshape the proposal, change the timing, change the scope, or find a different angle that delivers real impact with lower risk. Every situation is unique and deserves to be treated as such; the same formal criteria must still be applied, but always with flexibility and common sense.
Here my specific thoughts on the three open proposals in separate replies:
1 Like
You raise an interesting and important governance question about the size of ZCG.
I shared a few broader thoughts on governance here: Anaximander for ZCG (December 2025) - #3 by Anaximander
On the specific question of committee size, I can share some direct experience.
I have sat on committees of all sizes, from small technical groups to large international committees (20ā40 or more people) in the context of the Financial Stability Board. Some large ones ran very smoothly, some small ones less so. The decisive factors were not the raw number of seats, but the expertise of the members, the clarity of roles, the stakes involved and how well the discussion was organized when needed.
Seven people is still a small committee. Responsibilities can easily be shared organically and the discussion kept efficient without any formal chairing structure.
The real questions are simply:
ā¢ Is there enough work and enough diversity of tasks to justify two more members?
ā¢ Would two additional high-calibre people bring more value to the ecosystem than the extra cost (including extra coordination) ?
I donāt have the inside view yet to share an opinion.
Happy to discuss further.
1 Like
Here is my candidacy:
1 Like
zerodart launched a pumpfun memecoin for zcash last year called zebrigrade and then dumped it on zec supporters. thats who i wont vote for.
1 Like
Deterministic Builds and Security Tooling Bootstrapped and deterministic builds a la StageX - #2 by aaal
After reviewing this proposal in detail, Iām a clear yes on funding this work. This is exactly the kind of foundational, low-visibility infrastructure the treasury should support without hesitation.
Impact
Reproducible builds remove an entire class of supply-chain risk and make independent verification possible for every downstream team. This strengthens trust in the software pipeline more than most user-facing features.
Clarity
The scope, deliverables, and acceptance criteria are well-defined. The work is incremental, testable, and easy to verify.
Alignment
This directly improves the security posture of the ecosystem without adding long-term operational overhead or introducing new dependencies. Strong alignment with the core mission.
Deliverability
The skillset matches the requirements. The proposal is realistic and sized appropriately for the output.
Recommendation
Support the full amount, structured through straightforward milestones. A simple table mapping each step to a reproducibility check (e.g., Gitian replacement >> integration >> documentation >> handover) to make verification low-friction.
This is high-leverage hygiene work. I would vote yes as written, with the light milestone gating above.
2 Likes
Iām running. T.S. for ZCG (December 2025)
3 Likes
For the community call, I would like to ask all the candidates if they will be showing their faces and or using AI for voice modification/translation. I understand this is a personal choice but I do think there is a strategy component too.
Thank you and GOOD LUCK EVERYONE \o/
5 Likes
I agree. Unfortunately, my confidence that some of these candidate accounts arenāt being run by the same person is incredibly low. I see significant value in ānew bloodā and want everyone to have an equal opportunity to contribute. I suggest new accounts have their cameras on for the best chance of success. Without that visibility, it might be difficult to get elected in my opinion.
1 Like
