Buterin warns Zcash that token voting is bad news for privacy foundations
Share:
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has warned the Zcash community against adopting token-weighted governance, stating that such a shift could expose the network to long-term structural risks.
His remarks come as Zcash stakeholders debate leadership continuity, committee independence, and the implications of a changing market environment.
Buterin argued that token voting can weaken privacy protections when decision-making power concentrates among token holders, stating that the model performs poorly in areas where long-term preservation is crucial.
Vitalik Buterin’s warning sparks governance debate
Buterin referenced earlier analyses in which he described token-based voting as susceptible to short-term incentives. He stated that the mechanism is “worse than Zcash’s status quo”. He noted that privacy could erode if the protocol’s future depended on the preferences of what he called the “median token holder.”
I hope Zcash resists the dark hand of token voting.
Token voting is bad in all kinds of ways (see https://t.co/Cvl7CFVgtc ); I think it's worse than Zcash's status quo.
Privacy is exactly the sort of thing that will erode over time if left to the median token holder. https://t.co/NbRqGLOrpj
— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) November 30, 2025
His comments followed a set of statements by Zooko highlighting the evolution of Zcash’s governance system. According to Zooko, the structure is built around independent participants who share a common mission despite frequent disagreements. He urged voters to read candidate positions entirely and stressed the idea that the system has built the power of the debate, failures, and input over the years.
Zooko also discussed the next election cycle. He affirmed that he will run again next year, citing that he was initially hesitant since he perceives himself to be more effective in a crisis. Nevertheless, in an interview with other committee members, he said he is ready to proceed and has ample time available to make Zcash his priority.
He further stated that the committee has been experiencing a surge in dubious grant applications and that it expects the number to continue growing. Nevertheless, he stated that he is determined to conduct a thorough scrutiny of proposals and that he will still treat ZCG funding decisions with the same principles that he applied in previous cycles.
He also referred to the increase in the price of ZEC as a new test of governance, because more resources generate both possibilities and threats. He warned that those increased funding levels might result in spending decisions being way too easy.
He added that he is still living the way he lived before the price rise lest he lose his discipline. Zooko claimed that there are still some developers who have not been funded to continue their work, and that he believes long-term involvement is crucial to the community’s stability.
Competing views on on-chain and committee-based structures
Zooko reiterated that he supported various protocol upgrades, such as Crosslink, NSM, and the introduction of ZSA. He referred to these changes as improvements but stated that they must happen at a time that would show the overall judgment of the community.
According to him, ZCG is a five-member committee that is fully independent, and no external party interferes with funding approvals. He pointed out the internal functions where Jason worked on the organization, and Zerodartz helped in community activities.
These comments by Buterin led to further commentary by Naval Ravikant and community member Darklight. Naval claimed that trusted intermediaries are structural and asked all the decentralized protocol governance to be on-chain and private.
Darklight did not agree and said that ledgers needed to be trustless. However, research and development decisions were based on the judgment that automated systems cannot deliver. He claimed that on-chain funding is governed by trends of capital domination or voter apathy and stated that, in his opinion, ZCG serves a filtration purpose in quality control.
Sharpen your strategy with mentorship + daily ideas - 30 days free access to our trading program
In This News
Share:
In This News
Share:
Read More
Arthur Hayes raises alarm over Tether's big interest-rate bet
Bitcoin remains under macro pressure after enduring worst monthly drop since June 2022
Buterin warns Zcash that token voting is bad news for privacy foundations
Share:
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has warned the Zcash community against adopting token-weighted governance, stating that such a shift could expose the network to long-term structural risks.
His remarks come as Zcash stakeholders debate leadership continuity, committee independence, and the implications of a changing market environment.
Buterin argued that token voting can weaken privacy protections when decision-making power concentrates among token holders, stating that the model performs poorly in areas where long-term preservation is crucial.
Vitalik Buterin’s warning sparks governance debate
Buterin referenced earlier analyses in which he described token-based voting as susceptible to short-term incentives. He stated that the mechanism is “worse than Zcash’s status quo”. He noted that privacy could erode if the protocol’s future depended on the preferences of what he called the “median token holder.”
I hope Zcash resists the dark hand of token voting.
Token voting is bad in all kinds of ways (see https://t.co/Cvl7CFVgtc ); I think it's worse than Zcash's status quo.
Privacy is exactly the sort of thing that will erode over time if left to the median token holder. https://t.co/NbRqGLOrpj
— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) November 30, 2025
His comments followed a set of statements by Zooko highlighting the evolution of Zcash’s governance system. According to Zooko, the structure is built around independent participants who share a common mission despite frequent disagreements. He urged voters to read candidate positions entirely and stressed the idea that the system has built the power of the debate, failures, and input over the years.
Zooko also discussed the next election cycle. He affirmed that he will run again next year, citing that he was initially hesitant since he perceives himself to be more effective in a crisis. Nevertheless, in an interview with other committee members, he said he is ready to proceed and has ample time available to make Zcash his priority.
He further stated that the committee has been experiencing a surge in dubious grant applications and that it expects the number to continue growing. Nevertheless, he stated that he is determined to conduct a thorough scrutiny of proposals and that he will still treat ZCG funding decisions with the same principles that he applied in previous cycles.
He also referred to the increase in the price of ZEC as a new test of governance, because more resources generate both possibilities and threats. He warned that those increased funding levels might result in spending decisions being way too easy.
He added that he is still living the way he lived before the price rise lest he lose his discipline. Zooko claimed that there are still some developers who have not been funded to continue their work, and that he believes long-term involvement is crucial to the community’s stability.
Competing views on on-chain and committee-based structures
Zooko reiterated that he supported various protocol upgrades, such as Crosslink, NSM, and the introduction of ZSA. He referred to these changes as improvements but stated that they must happen at a time that would show the overall judgment of the community.
According to him, ZCG is a five-member committee that is fully independent, and no external party interferes with funding approvals. He pointed out the internal functions where Jason worked on the organization, and Zerodartz helped in community activities.
These comments by Buterin led to further commentary by Naval Ravikant and community member Darklight. Naval claimed that trusted intermediaries are structural and asked all the decentralized protocol governance to be on-chain and private.
Darklight did not agree and said that ledgers needed to be trustless. However, research and development decisions were based on the judgment that automated systems cannot deliver. He claimed that on-chain funding is governed by trends of capital domination or voter apathy and stated that, in his opinion, ZCG serves a filtration purpose in quality control.
Sharpen your strategy with mentorship + daily ideas - 30 days free access to our trading program
In This News
Share:
In This News
Share:
Read More
Arthur Hayes raises alarm over Tether's big interest-rate bet