Zcash’s Original Builders Leave ECC to Launch ZODL Independent Development Entity

TheNewsCryptoОпубликовано 2026-02-17Обновлено 2026-02-17

Введение

The original builders of Zcash have officially separated from the Electric Coin Company (ECC) and formed a new independent development organization called ZODL. This split, the most significant change in Zcash's history, follows a governance dispute between ECC and its nonprofit owner, Bootstrap, regarding control, strategic direction, and development autonomy. The entire ECC staff resigned and regrouped under ZODL. The Zcash blockchain has not forked, and ZEC remains unchanged with normal network operation. However, the core development team behind Zcash's privacy technology and the Zashi wallet (now under ZODL) has moved. ECC continues to exist but without its original team. This shift may influence future upgrades, wallet innovation, privacy features, and governance, but the blockchain itself remains unaffected. The long-term impact will depend on coordination between ECC and ZODL.

The original builders of Zcash have officially separated from the Electric Coin Company (ECC) and created a new development organization called ZODL. This move marks the most significant change in the privacy-focused cryptocurrency’s history. The team has announced that the flagship wallet known as Zashi will now work under the new name called ZODL.

Reason behind this Split

This separation began in January after the governance dispute between ECC and the bootstrap, which is a nonprofit organization that owns ECC. The disagreement is on the control and decision-making authority, the strategic direction of Zcash, and long-term development autonomy. So the entire ECC staff resigned, and instead of leaving the Zcash ecosystem, the team has regrouped under the new name ZODL.

Right now, the Zcash blockchain has not forked, and ZEC remains the same asset with all blocks proceeding normally, and the network will function without any interruption. However, the same development team that built Zcash’s core privacy technology and created the Zashi wallet has shifted from ECC to ZODL. ECC still exists under the Bootstrap ownership, but without the old development team.

Observers have compared this situation with the split between OpenAI and Anthropic in the AI industry. In that case, the engineers have left the company and started forming a new company, which is similar to the Zcash case, in which developers have left the company and formed the same team under a different name to continue work on the blockchain independently.

The future upgrades, wallet innovation, privacy feature expansion, and governance decisions can be influenced by this shift, but blockchain itself remains unchanged. Based on the coordination between ECC and ZODL, the longer-term impact will be known.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Drops 25% in February, Key Support Tested

TagsCryptocurrencyECCZcashZODL

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the name of the new development entity formed by the original Zcash builders?

AThe new development entity is called ZODL.

QWhy did the original Zcash development team separate from the Electric Coin Company (ECC)?

AThe separation was due to a governance dispute over control and decision-making authority, the strategic direction of Zcash, and long-term development autonomy.

QWhat is the new name for the flagship wallet previously known as Zashi?

AThe flagship wallet is now called ZODL.

QHas the Zcash blockchain forked or changed as a result of this organizational split?

ANo, the Zcash blockchain has not forked, ZEC remains the same asset, and the network continues to function normally without interruption.

QWhat industry comparison was made to describe the Zcash team's departure from ECC?

AObservers compared it to the split between OpenAI and Anthropic in the AI industry, where engineers left to form a new company.

Похожее

La Liga Team Bets $1 Million Against Themselves Before Match: Does Using Prediction Markets for Insurance Comply with Sports Regulations?

A Spanish La Liga club, reportedly Osasuna, purchased insurance against relegation and was linked to a transaction of over $1 million on the prediction market platform Kalshi, betting against its own victory in a crucial season-ending match. While Osasuna confirmed buying €1.2 million insurance for a potential €6 million payout in case of relegation through broker Howden, it did not confirm involvement with Kalshi. The reported trade involved intermediaries like Game Point Capital and Greenlight Commodities, with quant firm Susquehanna as the counterparty. This incident highlights the blurring line between financial hedging and gambling in prediction markets. Such markets allow trading on future event outcomes, like sports results. In the US, Kalshi operates as a regulated event contract market under the CFTC. However, Spanish authorities recently initiated penalties against Kalshi and Polymarket, considering their activities unlicensed gambling. The case raises core questions about prediction markets: who can trade, how insider information is handled, and whether participants can influence outcomes, especially in sports where results are human-driven. While leagues like La Liga and Serie A have partnered with Polymarket in North America, the regulatory clash and potential for conflicts of interest, as seen in this club's alleged transaction, present significant challenges as prediction markets evolve toward institutional risk management.

Foresight News7 мин. назад

La Liga Team Bets $1 Million Against Themselves Before Match: Does Using Prediction Markets for Insurance Comply with Sports Regulations?

Foresight News7 мин. назад

From Shouting 150 Dollars to Liquidating HYPE in Just Three Days, How Much Credibility Does Arthur Hayes Have Left?

How much of Arthur Hayes's market credibility remains? Recently, the "godfather of crypto perpetual swaps" and BitMEX co-founder has faced public criticism, including accusations from on-chain investigator ZachXBT about creating exit liquidity for his followers. Starting last week, Hayes executed multiple sudden sell-offs. He had repeatedly publicly predicted the HYPE token would reach $150. After a $100,000 bet defending Hyperliquid on June 1st, he announced just three days later that he had completely sold his HYPE and NEAR holdings, successfully exiting near the peak. He also sold ZEC and WLD. His sale of WLD appeared to be a classic "pump and dump" maneuver. On June 3rd, he publicly set a $10 target for WLD, causing its price to surge over 35%. By June 6th, he announced he had sold his WLD, citing "anomalous" SpaceX pre-IPO price action, which triggered a sharp price drop. On June 9th, Hayes published a lengthy article explaining his actions, citing factors like rising energy costs and a potential AI bubble burst. Consequently, his family office, Maelstrom, now holds positions in US energy producers and only core crypto assets BTC and ETH, having sold AI-related stocks and non-core cryptocurrencies. This pattern is not new. In 2025, he similarly touted HYPE before selling it at what turned out to be a cycle peak, only to repurchase it at the next cycle's low. Similar scenarios played out with tokens like ETHFI and ENA. Long-term observers have developed a strategy: ignore Hayes's public statements but closely monitor his on-chain actions—be cautious following his buys, but decisively follow his sells. If he continues these tactics, especially as seen with the WLD case, his market credibility risks being permanently damaged. As Hayes himself admitted in his latest article, "I remain an unapologetic gambler."

marsbit25 мин. назад

From Shouting 150 Dollars to Liquidating HYPE in Just Three Days, How Much Credibility Does Arthur Hayes Have Left?

marsbit25 мин. назад

Fundraising is Like a Strange Dance: The 'Absurd Drama' of Silicon Valley Founders' Capital Raises

The article details a series of absurd and revealing anecdotes shared by Silicon Valley founders about their venture capital fundraising experiences, sparked by Greg Isenberg's story of pitching to a sleeping a16z partner. Founders describe surreal pitch meetings: one faced a barefoot, peanut-eating investor who offered triple the requested amount after 30 seconds; another performed a pitch in a VC's parked car; a founder discovered his audience understood no English beyond "yes." These stories highlight the often irrational and performative nature of fundraising. Beyond the absurdity, darker power imbalances are exposed. Stories include investors suggesting founders fire co-founders for their equity, blatant market misjudgments, disrespectful behavior from LPs, and discriminatory remarks. A debate also emerges around "Sequoia's" practice of splitting a round into two valuations. However, the thread isn't solely critical. Positive counter-narratives celebrate supportive VCs who offered crucial advice during crises, respected founders' timelines, and showed simple gestures of respect—like a partner personally fetching coffee before a major pitch. Ultimately, the collective sharing acts as a pressure release, illustrating that fundraising is a complex dance of power, trust, and sometimes sheer theater. It underscores that beyond capital, mutual respect and integrity remain the most enduring foundations of the founder-investor relationship.

marsbit39 мин. назад

Fundraising is Like a Strange Dance: The 'Absurd Drama' of Silicon Valley Founders' Capital Raises

marsbit39 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片