Zcash Community Grants (ZCG) withdrew its proposal to redirect approximately 98,000 ZEC toward future mining rewards on November 3, following community criticism over spending and funding transparency. The decision preserves the committee’s existing funding arrangements while leaving competing proposals to reshape Zcash’s development financing unresolved.
ZCG retreats after community opposition
ZCG introduced its proposal on October 29, seeking to transfer treasury funds and reduce future allocations. However, community members questioned the committee’s continued automatic funding as its reserves grew. On November 3, the five-member committee confirmed it would abandon the plan.
🚨ZCASH COMMUNITY GRANTS DROPS PLAN TO REDIRECT ~98,000 ZEC TO MINING REWARDS!
ZCG said it will no longer pursue the proposal it floated on October 29 after community pushback.
The plan would have moved ~36,200 zcash:native from its treasury into the Network Sustainability… pic.twitter.com/9ukwat1Khh
— Crypto Banter (@crypto_banter) November 4, 2026
“We’ve decided not to take this proposal forward,” ZCG said in its forum statement. It added that the community should determine future changes through Zcash’s established governance process.
The proposal combined two funding adjustments. ZCG wanted to transfer 36,200 ZEC from its treasury into the Network Sustainability Mechanism (NSM). The committee also planned to cut allocations so that more resources would be directed toward mining rewards as block subsidies decline.
The committee held approximately 91,500 ZEC when it introduced the plan. After the proposed transfer, its treasury would have retained roughly 55,200 ZEC.
The withdrawn proposal would have reduced projected ZCG income before the 2028 halving from approximately 109,000 ZEC to 47,000 ZEC. Further reductions would have continued toward the 2032 halving.
Together, these changes accounted for the proposed redirection of approximately 98,000 ZEC. At a price to $1,310 that number was equal to, around $128.4 million. However the number had included planned amounts, not only the current treasury holdings.
Competing plans challenge automatic funding
The dispute gained momentum before ZCG announced its withdrawal. Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe had called for an end to the committee’s automatic funding stream, arguing that its existing reserves could sustain operations for years.
Bowe subsequently joined Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox in supporting a separate proposal developed by Tachyon Group and Shielded Labs. Their draft would require ZCG to contribute 50,000 ZEC to the NSM within 30 days of community acceptance.
At an assumed price of $1,300 per ZEC, the contribution would be worth approximately $65 million. The committee would retain around 41,453 ZEC, alongside its dollar-denominated assets.
The alternative would also end ZCG’s future allocation of 8% of newly issued ZEC. Instead, the funding would support a development and legal-defense lockbox under proposed rules requiring a later network upgrade.
Meanwhile, developer Daira-Emma Hopwood has backed another approach. Her proposal would preserve ZCG’s allocation while directing grants more closely toward broader ZEC adoption.
None of these proposals has received final approval. Therefore, ZCG continues receiving approximately 144 ZEC daily until governance changes take effect.
Spending dispute raises accountability questions
The funding debate has also attracted criticism from Gemini co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss. In October, the brothers questioned ZCG’s spending priorities and called for stronger accountability.
Their criticism intensified after a ZCG-funded outreach project, ZECsy, promoted private cryptocurrency payments at an adult-industry convention in New Jersey. Critics asked if the spending matched what the community wanted most.
Supporters said the plan was good because sex workers often have trouble using banks. They said keeping money private can help people who don’t get help.
The argument shows a problem, for crypto networks. Grant groups need money to help with building keeping things safe and getting more people to use the system When money is given automatically some people who own the tokens might not agree with the choices or want more checking.
Zcash’s funding structure makes that tension particularly significant. ZCG approves grants without requiring a separate coinholder vote for every award, while its recurring allocation continues regardless of individual grant decisions.
Governance now determines Zcash’s funding future
ZCG’s withdrawal leaves the next funding decision within Zcash’s established governance process. The committee has not confirmed when community members might resolve the competing proposals.
Zcash also operates a separate funding program controlled through coinholder voting. That program receives 12% of block rewards and previously approved $8.39 million for 17 projects covering security research, protocol development and related work.
Its next proposal window runs through November 13, with voting scheduled for December 17–29. However, those dates concern the existing grant round and do not confirm a vote on ZCG’s disputed funding arrangements.
ZEC traded near $1,310 on November 3, with market data indicating a gain of more than 12% over 24 hours.The price change gives information about the market. Doesn’t prove that the governance fight led to the rise.
The recent disagreement has. There is no new funding deal, in place. Zcash’s community must now weigh continued development financing against treasury accountability and long-term mining sustainability.
