Electric Coin Company team behind Zcash quits over governance clash – Why?

ambcryptoPublicado a 2026-01-09Actualizado a 2026-01-09

Resumen

Electric Coin Company (ECC), a key developer of Zcash, has resigned due to a governance dispute with the nonprofit Bootstrap. ECC CEO Josh Swihart cited a "clear misalignment" with Zcash's mission, making it impossible to work effectively. ECC will form a new company, but the Zcash protocol remains unaffected. Bootstrap defended its position, stating the conflict arose from legal compliance concerns regarding ECC's plan to privatize the Zashi wallet, which could risk lawsuits and damage credibility. Despite initial market confusion causing a 22% drop in ZEC's price, it later recovered by 10% as the team announced a new wallet, CashZ, and reinforced long-term commitment. Sentiment improved, with 61% of Binance traders turning bullish on ZEC.

Electric Coin Company (ECC), one of the key developer teams behind the Zcash network, has called it quits over a governance dispute with Bootstrap, a nonprofit that governs it.

According to ECC CEO Josh Swihart, the nonprofit moved into a “clear misalignment” with Zcash’s mission. Swihart added that the Bootstrap board made it impossible to work “effectively and with integrity.”

He said that they’ll form a new company with the same team, reiterating that the Zcash protocol remains unaffected.

“The Zcash protocol is unaffected. This decision is simply about protecting our team’s work from malicious governance actions that have made it impossible to honor ECC’s original mission.”

All about Bootstrap’s position

In response, the Bootstrap board defended itself, stating that the disagreement is instead due to compliance issues. The contentious plan reportedly involves the privatization of the Zcash-based Zashi wallet via alternative structures.

As a nonprofit organization, the board believes the plan to privatize Zashi could attract lawsuits from its donors. Bootstrap also believes that the legal limitations can’t be overlooked, despite the proposed Zashi plan being apt.

“Their (ECC) commitment to the project is real, and their frustration with the constraints of nonprofit governance is understandable. But good intentions do not satisfy legal requirements, and urgency does not excuse a flawed process.”

According to the board, its stance is not a disagreement with the Zcash mission, adding that a hurried restructuring would dent the protocol’s trust.

“A restructuring done in a way that invites scrutiny, even if well-intentioned, would damage that credibility and set back the cause of privacy and financial freedom.”

Here, it’s worth pointing out that a few hours later, former ECC CEO Josh Swihart announced CashZ – A new Zcash wallet to scale the protocol to mass adoption.

For his part, Dragonfly Managing Partner Hasseb Qureshi billed the Swihart-led team as “true believers” and an overall bullish rating for ZEC coin. He said,

“Say what you will about them, the Zcash team are true believers and cypherpunks. When a project is driven by conviction, it survives where others would wither.”

ZEC sees mixed results

Initially, the ZEC coin dumped by 22% from $490 to a low of $381 as the market wrongfully interpreted the update as core developers abandoning the protocol entirely.

However, it was just an organizational change. In fact, at press time, ZEC had rallied by 10% to a high of $438 after the team unveiled a new wallet and reinforced long-term conviction.

Meanwhile, the number of traders bullish on ZEC jumped to 61% on Binance at the time of writing, underscoring renewed positive sentiment.


Final Thoughts

  • Electric Coin Company CEO blamed Bootstrap nonprofit for “clear misalignment” with the Zcash mission.
  • However, the nonprofit maintains that the ECC disagreement is only based on legal and compliance issues.

Criptos en tendencia

Lecturas Relacionadas

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbitHace 10 min(s)

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbitHace 10 min(s)

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbitHace 11 min(s)

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbitHace 11 min(s)

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight NewsHace 21 min(s)

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight NewsHace 21 min(s)

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbitHace 38 min(s)

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbitHace 38 min(s)

Trading

Spot

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar ONE

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar Harmony (ONE) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar Harmony (ONE) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu Harmony (ONE)Después de comprar tu Harmony (ONE), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear Harmony (ONE)Tradear fácilmente con Harmony (ONE) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

328 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2024.12.12Actualizado en 2026.06.02

Cómo comprar ONE

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de ONE (ONE).

活动图片