Vitalik Buterin Challenges Zcash Governance Direction as Debate Over Token Voting Widens

• Buterin warns token voting could weaken Zcash’s long-term privacy safeguards.
• Zooko highlights ZCG’s independence and rising concerns over grant-funding integrity.
• Naval and Darklight expose a fundamental split over on-chain vs. committee governance.

A renewed debate over Zcash’s governance structure intensified this week after Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin urged the community to reject a transition toward token-weighted decision-making. His comments, issued on social media, described token voting as structurally unsuited for safeguarding long-term priorities such as privacy.

Buterin stated that token voting performs poorly in areas where the “median token holder” would impact outcomes affecting the protocol’s core principles. He argued that Zcash could experience a gradual erosion of privacy protections if authority shifted toward token-weighted governance. His remarks followed recent posts from Zooko, who reflected on Zcash’s governance trajectory and the committee’s internal processes.

Zooko noted that the system has developed over several years and is built around individuals who often disagree yet share aligned goals. He confirmed his intention to seek re-election, citing encouragement from colleagues and sufficient capacity to continue contributing. He also pointed out that Zcash’s changing market environment introduces new risks for treasury spending, including an increase in questionable grant applications, and highlighted the need to maintain careful review practices.

ZCG Independence and Operational Challenges Highlighted

In addressing committee operations, Zooko said the Zcash Community Grants (ZCG) body functions independently and retains full authority over funding decisions. He pointed to the importance of long-term contributors, stating that fairness remains central to evaluating proposals. He referenced major initiatives, such as the Brave partnership, and explained that theoretical and exploratory work have become more feasible due to the expansion of financial resources.

Zooko also commented on the broader context, noting rising attempts at dishonest grant submissions and the need to protect the interests of long-standing supporters. He argued that the committee’s responsibility is to ensure decisions serve the community rather than satisfy all applicants, adding that he had no regrets about past approvals or rejections.

Naval and Darklight Clash Over Governance Philosophy

The governance discussion broadened as Naval Ravikant described ZCG’s structure as an outdated model that should give way to on-chain systems. He said decentralized protocols should rely on private, on-chain governance and argued that committees resemble small groups controlling outcomes.

A contrasting view was presented by Darklight, who stated that research and development require judgment that cannot be automated. He warned that on-chain funding systems often default to capital-weighted outcomes or low participation and argued that ZCG acts as a necessary filter for quality and continuity.