How Vitalik’s Warnings Might Save Zcash (or Not) – A Tale of Tokens and Turmoil

by

Dear Readers, gather ’round for a most provocative dispatch concerning the esteemed Ethereum co-founder, Mr. Vitalik Buterin, and his cautions about the impending folly of token voting within the illustrious Zcash community.

On the 30th day of November, Mr. Buterin, in a tone both grave and dripping with sarcasm, implored the good folk of Zcash to abstain from adopting a scheme-token-based voting-which, he asserts, would cast a shadow over the long-standing civil liberties they cherish, in favour of fleeting riches. Ah, the eternal struggle between gold and virtue! 💸🛡️

Buterin’s Elegant Protest: Privacy and Its Peril

He eloquently linked his objection to a 2021 treatise on decentralised governance, warning that such token-weighted systems are riddled with vulnerabilities-unbundled rights and clandestine vote-buying, to name a few. Truly, one might say these risks are as tangible as a ghost in a drawing room, yet as insidious as an uninvited guest in one’s confidence. 👻

“I hope Zcash resists the dark hand of token voting.”

“Token voting is bad in all ways imaginable (see ); I daresay, worse than Zcash’s current arrangements.”

“Privacy, that delicate jewel, will indeed erode if entrusted to the median token holder.”- Mr. Buterin, November 30, 2025

He further laments that these mechanisms tend to consolidate influence among the ‘whales’-the veritable titans of the token seas-whilst leaving the modest smaller holders with naught but a whisper of influence. The small fry, he implies, may cast their votes with indifference, resigned to their insignificance. 🐟

His critique is clear: token voting, in all its guises, is fundamentally perilous and, in his judgment, worse than their current governance arrangements.

“Privacy, that delicate shield, will surely fade if left to the median token holder,” he repeats for emphasis.

This discourse emerges amidst a broader debate-how, indeed, ought the venerable Zcash to select its five wise individuals responsible for the Community Grants? The choice of governance is evidently a matter of some controversy.

The Court of Public Opinion: Old vs. New

Some fervent advocates assert that the present committee system is as antiquated as a powdered wig, advocating instead for a more dynamic, market-responsive approach.

Mert Mumtaz, a distinguished gentleman of some influence, argues that markets possess self-correcting virtues. Poor decisions are punished by the merciless tide of falling prices, crowding out ineffective influence. Conversely, committees lack such feedback and remain as detached as a lord in his country estate-far removed from the consequences of their decisions.

Mumtaz likens this to the bold Roman generals of yore-on the front lines, where victory or demise depended on their own decisions, not the whims of bureaucrats who dwell in ivory towers. 🏛️

He admits token voting has its flaws but insists that unchanging committees are an even graver threat-uncriticisable and answerable to no soul. Ultimately, he champions evolution over stagnation, asserting that systems which adapt thrive over those chained to tradition. 🐢 vs. 🐇

Others, like Naval and Darklight, echo concerns that third-party overseers and systemic designs threaten security and civil liberties, with some warning of a slide into plutocracy-where wealth alone rules the day.

And thus, the saga unfolds as Zcash’s value soars-over 1,000% in three months-reaching heights of seven hundred and twenty-three dollars before wobbling back down. Currently, it stands near the modest sum of 448 dollars, having experienced a tumble of over 20% in a single week. 📈📉

Read More

2025-11-30 22:47