Zcash Proposal Would Redirect Grants Funding to Network Reserve

Zcash’s automatic grants allocation could be redirected to a reserve intended to manage the network’s long-term supply. Co-founder Sean Bowe says the Zcash Community Grants program already has enough funding to keep supporting projects without receiving additional block subsidy funds. The proposal raises two connected questions: how much money a grants program needs to do its job, and what the network should do with a subsidy share that would otherwise continue flowing into it.

Bowe said Tuesday on X that ZCG has more than $125 million in funding and will receive millions more before the current stream ends. “The program was never designed to handle this amount of funding,” he said. That concern is about the scale and structure of the program, not a claim that its existing grants should stop. A large balance can provide continuity for projects, but it can also leave the program responsible for administering money well beyond what its original design anticipated.

That distinction matters. A grants program can have ample resources and still face practical questions about how quickly it should distribute them, which projects it should support, and how it should show that decisions are being made responsibly. Those are governance challenges common to large funding pools. The proposal addresses the incoming stream; it doesn't, on its own, settle how ZCG should manage the money it already holds.

Redirecting the subsidy share

A draft GitHub proposal would send ZCG’s 8% share of the Zcash (ZEC) block subsidy to the Network Sustainability Mechanism. The change would leave funds already held by the grants program untouched and apply until the current funding period ends in 2028. In effect, the draft would change where future subsidy funds go while preserving the resources already allocated to ZCG.

The mechanism would keep ZEC out of circulation, then gradually return it through future block rewards. That gives the proposal a supply-management rationale alongside Bowe’s concern about the size of the grants treasury. It also makes the destination of the allocation a substantive part of the debate: the proposal isn't simply to stop funding grants, but to route the subsidy share into a mechanism with a different purpose and release schedule.

Here's the thing: a reserve can change the timing of when tokens circulate, but that doesn't automatically answer whether the network has the right long-term funding model. The draft's stated approach links held-back ZEC to future block rewards. How that arrangement would interact with project needs over time is a separate question for the community to weigh. If you're working in this space, the distinction between funds already available and funds that may circulate later is central to understanding what this change would—and wouldn't—do.

Two large funding pools

ZCG’s dashboard listed 91,453 ZEC and $8.8 million in cash on Wednesday, with $2.4 million in outstanding grant commitments. The ZEC holdings were worth about $111 million at press time. Separately, ZecStats said the network’s development lockbox held 72,351 ZEC, valued at roughly $89 million. These figures describe two distinct pools, and the figures alone don't establish how either one will be spent.

The difference between holdings and commitments is useful context. ZCG’s listed assets are not all uncommitted cash: the dashboard also reports grants that the program has committed to fund. At the same time, the value of its ZEC holdings is tied to the token’s price, so a dollar valuation at one point in time doesn't guarantee the same purchasing power later. The size of the balance is striking. It makes questions about stewardship harder to put off.

The separate development lockbox adds another consideration. It shows that the grants program isn't the only place where funds connected to Zcash development are held. The figures don’t, by themselves, show how the two pools are governed, how their purposes differ in practice, or whether their combined resources would meet future needs. Those details matter if the community is weighing a shift in future allocations against the broader capacity to support development.

A debate about funding and control

The proposal follows a September call from Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi to end the Zcash developer fund when its current funding period expires. Qureshi argued that a fund approaching $100 million risked becoming “politicized.” That concern points to a familiar tension in large grant programs: they can support work that may not have an obvious commercial route, but decisions over a large pool of money can also attract scrutiny and disagreement.

Bowe’s argument focuses on the program’s capacity and the amount it already holds; Qureshi’s warning focuses on the risks that can accompany a fund of that scale. These arguments overlap, but they aren't identical. The practical question is whether changing the flow of new subsidy funds can address concerns about treasury growth while leaving the community with a workable way to support projects.

And yet, redirecting an allocation doesn't make the tradeoff disappear. If the grants program receives less new funding, its existing balance becomes more important to its ability to keep awarding support. The Network Sustainability Mechanism, meanwhile, would take on the incoming share under the draft. The community would need to judge whether that shift fits its priorities and whether the existing funding pool can sustain the work it wants done.

What the proposal could mean

The draft sets up a choice about how Zcash handles an ongoing subsidy allocation during the remainder of the current funding period. It would leave current ZCG holdings in place, direct the 8% share elsewhere, and keep that arrangement tied to the period ending in 2028. That makes the proposal narrower than a decision to dissolve the grants program, while still affecting the resources it receives in the future.

This is more significant than it looks: the decision concerns both a funding destination and the network’s approach to managing supply. Supporters of the change may see a reserve as a way to avoid adding to a grants pool Bowe says is already sufficient. Those who want continued automatic funding could focus on the value of predictable support for projects. The source facts don't resolve that disagreement, and the draft's existence doesn't mean the change has been adopted.

The debate now turns on whether redirecting future allocations can preserve project support while limiting further growth in grant funds. The answer will depend on how the community weighs the existing treasury, outstanding commitments, and the role it wants the Network Sustainability Mechanism to play. For now, the proposal puts those tradeoffs in view. The hard part is deciding what “enough” means.

Related: HOOD’s prediction markets to add $1.7B to revenue, exceed crypto by 2028: Bernstein

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.