On October 29, ZCG, responsible for managing the Zcash development fund and community grant treasury, presented a major proposal: to reallocate approximately 98,000 ZEC from the existing fund pool, with the proposed uses specified as supplementing miner rewards, increasing block subsidies, or channeling into the NSM, hoped to be a "network sustainability mechanism." On one side is the development and community treasury that has already been described as "capable of supporting several years of work," and on the other side are miners and long-term network incentives sensitive to decreasing block rewards. This proposal essentially brought the resource allocation conflict to the forefront, quickly sparking significant opposition within the community. A few days later, amidst the controversy, ZCG issued a statement around November 3 in the community forum announcing the withdrawal of the approximately 98,000 ZEC fund adjustment proposal, clearly stating that it would not be further pursued, and that any future funding arrangements should return to Zcash's existing ordinary governance processes; on November 4, the media recorded this entire procedure of "proposal—controversy—withdrawal," regarding it as a public game surrounding resource allocation between the development fund/community grant treasury and miner incentives, as well as NSM. The way this game ended clearly delineated the boundaries of checks and balances and procedural legitimacy in Zcash governance.
Where the 98,000 ZEC comes from and where it is to be directed
To understand the tension behind this "proposal—controversy—withdrawal," one must first clarify ZCG's financial resources. Under the current mechanism, ZCG automatically receives 8% of newly issued ZEC from each block, with AiCoin data indicating a continuous inflow of about 144 ZEC daily. According to previous community statements, this income, combined with existing reserves, has led to the general belief that ZCG's treasury is capable of supporting several years of development and community funding work — in other words, this represents a long-term budget allocated under established rules, with a stable pace, specifically reserved for "public construction."
The 98,000 ZEC was proposed to be reallocated from this kind of "reserve pool." According to currently available public materials, the proposal thrown out on October 29 planned to withdraw about 98,000 ZEC from the existing fund pool for two new uses: some of it would return to network security and block generation frontline, as miner rewards or supplemental block rewards; the other part was considered for injection into the network sustainability mechanism called NSM, to lay the groundwork for some future long-term insurance framework. The specific proportions and execution details have not been disclosed more completely or transparently to the outside world, making it possible to establish the direction but difficult to see fine details of the breakdown. If we loosely calculate based on ZCG's current daily revenue of approximately 144 ZEC, this 98,000 ZEC roughly equates to almost two years' worth of new funding, making it a significant chip capable of rewriting the treasury expenditure curve, and it naturally becomes the core number that everyone cannot avoid in the subsequent controversy.
The tug-of-war between the development fund and miner incentives
During the long cycles of diminishing block rewards, the allocation of funds in Zcash itself is a structural choice written on the chain. According to the existing mechanism, 8% of newly issued ZEC is automatically allocated to ZCG, approximately 144 ZEC daily, which is described as sufficient to support several years of development and community funding expenditures. This design essentially "reserved" a portion of network dividends in advance during the issuance phase, intended to support developers and ecological projects rather than fully allocating it to miners maintaining computing power and network security, thus embedding the tension of "how to divide the same cake" from the start.
The proposal to reallocate 98,000 ZEC has brought this structural tension to the forefront. The proposal attempts to draw a portion from the existing ZCG fund pool to repurpose it for miner rewards or supplemental block rewards, or to inject it into NSM viewed as a network sustainability mechanism, thereby formally transferring resources from the "development fund/community grant treasury" side to the "miner incentive/NSM" side. From a research perspective, this is summarized as a resource competition: to continue using the ample treasury to support development and community projects for the next few years, or to pull out the already secured "development share" to provide early subsidies for current miner profits and new mechanism experiments. Given the slow contraction of the total block reward pie, this reallocation is almost inevitably interpreted as a zero-sum game, touching upon the community's sensitive nerve regarding "who should be prioritized to use the money" — some value code and protocol iteration more, while others prioritize computing power and network security, and some place hope on new sustainable paths like NSM. The proposal was ultimately withdrawn amid controversy, the 8% allocation and average daily intake of about 144 ZEC remain unchanged, but the differing interests still do not converge on "what is the long-term sustainable path for Zcash," simply retreating back to their respective stands under the same distribution formula.
The governance boundaries of proposal—discussion—withdrawal
From a procedural perspective, the direction of this 98,000 ZEC was not decided impulsively. On October 29, ZCG, following its routine, threw out the fund adjustment proposal through community channels, placing the question of "should part of the development fund be diverted to subsidize miners or injected into NSM" on the table. Once the proposal was made public, the debate over how to divide resources among the development fund/community treasury, miner incentives, and NSM quickly intensified, with objections focusing on the questions of "whether it exceeded the original authorization of the development fund" and "whether it changed the previous consensus," immediately categorizing it as a typical community governance and funding allocation dispute.
The action that truly delineated power boundaries was the withdrawal itself. Around November 3, ZCG issued a statement in the community forum, clearly stating that "the proposal would not be pursued" and acknowledging that future similar funding arrangements should return to Zcash's established ordinary governance processes for decisions. The proposal was retracted due to significant opposition, but who exactly applied the pressure and with what votes remains unknown to the public; what can be seen in the public trajectory is a still-operating path of checks and balances: someone proposed a reallocation, some debated in the forum, and ultimately, the proposal was not quietly forgotten but formally withdrawn. This "live rehearsal" from proposal to withdrawal allowed Zcash participants to re-confirm a bottom line — under the premise that funds still concentrated in ZCG's hands, the community at least has a governance mechanism capable of pulling back overreaching impulses into the procedural realm.
What to watch next: The exam question of Zcash governance
The withdrawal of the proposal only pauses a specific fund reallocation; the real exam question is pushed to the future: the approximately 98,000 ZEC originally directed to a specific purpose now has no alternative plan or timeline, and NSM remains merely a name in documents. The description of NSM in the briefing is limited to "potential funding direction," with the specific mechanism completely blank, which means that once someone attempts to turn NSM from concept into protocol-level funding distribution tool, the first checkpoint will be — who will clearly write the rules, who will take responsibility for this money, rather than presenting a large-scale reallocation proposal in vague narratives as in this instance.
From an on-chain logic viewpoint, ZCG's cash flow has not changed due to this turmoil, continuing to receive approximately 144 ZEC daily from the 8% new issuance, with the treasury described as capable of supporting several years of work, providing the committee with buffer time to continue issuing funding as usual. However, precisely because there is "no shortage of money" in the short term, the next observation should be how they adjust funding rhythms and proposal strategies: will they first utilize existing income and reserves for more finely detailed, less controversial project support, or will there soon be a new large-scale reallocation proposal concerning miners or NSM drawn from the same accumulated funds? The community's tolerance on similar proposals will also gradually be outlined in the following discussions — for instance, whether large reallocations are only viewed as "compliant attempts" after precise disclosures of mechanism design, risk assumptions, and governance constraints, and whether the "proposal—discussion—withdrawal" path will become a normalized safety valve. Whether Zcash governance is gradually maturing along this path largely depends on whether the next round of debates around the use of funds will be more predictable and procedural than this time.
Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
