A Decade-Old Coin, Zcash Faces Midlife Crisis
In early January, the core development team behind $ZEC chose to leave collectively. This was neither a technical issue nor a short-term market fluctuation, but rather the culmination of long-standing governance conflicts.
$ZEC was born early, with privacy being its core selling point from the beginning. Yet reality has always shown a gap between technological ideals and actual usage. Over the years, the product has failed to establish widespread daily use cases, relying instead on narratives and beliefs. It wasn't until recently, as privacy-related discussions resurfaced and prices strengthened, that the project was brought back into the spotlight.
It was precisely at this stage that the issues became impossible to ignore. The development team wanted to push a more market-oriented approach around the core product, while the governance structure remained stuck in a nonprofit logic focused on 'risk prevention.' Those executing the work needed efficiency, while leadership emphasized compliance and constraints—goals that were not fully aligned.
When the project had little value, such differences could be overlooked; but when the asset and its access points began to hold real-world value, every ambiguity was forced into the open. The team ultimately chose to leave, continuing to advance their original direction in new forms.
This is not just an isolated case of one project, but a recurring structural issue in the crypto industry: nonprofit organizations excel at stability but struggle to support long-term expansion; startup teams need room to grow but are constrained by governance frameworks. The fate of $ZEC merely brought this contradiction to the surface earlier than usual.
The chain is still running, but one phase has come to an end.
