Major VCs Back Zcash Developers With $25 Million After ECC Split

bitcoinist2026-03-10 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-03-10 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL), formed by the team formerly known as Electric Coin Company, has raised over $25 million from major investors including a16z, Paradigm, and Coinbase Ventures. The funding will support the development of Zcash-focused wallets and protocol work without relying on the network’s development fund. According to ZODL, its wallet has driven a 400% increase in shielded pool adoption and facilitated over $600 million in ZEC swaps since October 2025. The team emphasizes continuity, with the full ECC engineering team moving to ZODL. Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox highlighted that the investment involves no new token and no control over the Zcash protocol, suggesting backers are betting on Zcash's broader adoption and long-term importance.

Zcash Open Development Lab, the company formed by the team formerly known as Electric Coin Company, has raised more than $25 million from a roster of heavyweight crypto investors including a16z, Paradigm, Winklevoss Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Cypherpunk Technologies, Maelstrom (family office of Arthur Hayes), Chapter One, David Friedberg, Haseeb Qureshi, Mert, Balaji and others.

What This Means For Zcash

The round lands just months after the ECC team regrouped under a new name, and gives the Zcash-focused builder fresh capital to expand its wallet and protocol work without leaning on the network’s development fund.
Josh Swihart, who now leads ZODL after previously serving as CEO of ECC, framed the raise as a bet on product traction rather than a brand reset. “The name is new, but our team has been building Zcash for a decade,” he wrote. “A couple of years ago, my team and I set out to change the trajectory of Zcash with an uncompromising focus on the user experience for shielded ZEC. We released Zodl (then called Zashi) and have never looked back.”

That pitch is backed by a set of numbers the team clearly wants the market to notice. According to ZODL, its wallet has helped drive adoption of the Zcash shielded pool by more than 400% since launch, while facilitating over $600 million in ZEC swaps since October 2025. Swihart said the company first shipped what he called a “normie-friendly wallet,” then layered in integrations with Flexa for retail spending, Keystone for cold storage and, more recently, NEAR-powered intents for ZEC swaps.

The capital raise is also meant to change how that work gets funded. “This funding allows us to bring these ambitions to life, without relying on Zcash dev fund grants to get there,” Swihart wrote. Alongside Zodl, the company said it is building Zallet, a full-node wallet that will serve as the foundation for new desktop software, with the longer-term goal of creating “a private, decentralized financial system as an alternative to legacy institutions.”

ZODL’s own announcement leaned heavily on continuity. The company said the full ECC team, including the engineers responsible for designing and maintaining some of Zcash’s core systems, moved over earlier this year. It added that protocol development remains central to the company’s work, but argued that future upgrades should stay tied to usability and product-market fit rather than protocol design in isolation.

Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox read the raise as something larger than a routine venture financing. “Twenty-five million dollars is a big investment! For a company that makes a wallet!?” he wrote in a thread reacting to the news. “This set of investors is a signal. They are big, sophisticated, long-standing, and reputable.”

He focused on what the deal does not appear to offer. There is no new token for investors to capture, he noted, and no control over the Zcash protocol itself. “There is no new token that the investors can get a cut of! The ZEC supply is locked in, with a 21M total supply cap, like Bitcoin,” Wilcox wrote. “The investors don’t get control of the protocol! Zcash is permissionless, open-source, and has a huge number and variety of stakeholders.”

From there, Wilcox sketched out a theory of the round: investors may see the wallet business as a monetizable entry point, but just as importantly, some may be underwriting broader ZEC adoption itself. He pointed to public disclosures from Cypherpunk Technologies, which he said already holds more than 1% of ZEC’s eventual supply, and argued that its equity stake in ZODL is smaller than its exposure to the coin.

His conclusion was blunt. “These people are betting that Zcash — not crypto, not privacy, not Bitcoin, not zero-knowledge-proofs — Zcash will be critically important for our civilization,” he wrote.

At press time, Zcash traded at $221.95.

ZEC bounces from the 0.5 Fib, 1-week chart | Source: ZECUSDT on TradingView.com

İlgili Okumalar

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Bitcoin prices declined 13% this week, reversing the recent rebound and signaling a likely transition into the later stages of a bear market. Key on-chain metrics deteriorated, with the short-term holder cost basis falling below the Realized Price—a pattern last seen in early 2022, characteristic of bear market maturity. The rally to ~$82k proved to be a bear market bounce, as evidenced by the 90-day realized profit/loss ratio failing to sustain above the bullish threshold of 2. Daily realized losses surged to $1.35B, including significant selling from long-term holders who accumulated near cycle tops, indicating ongoing supply redistribution. Price was rejected almost precisely at the aggregate US spot ETF cost basis of ~$83k, turning that level into resistance and leaving the average ETF investor underwater again. Spot market selling pressure intensified, with the 7-day volume delta turning significantly negative to its weakest level since February. While a major long liquidation event cleared over $400M in leverage, spot demand has not yet stepped in to absorb the resulting supply. Options markets continue pricing in higher future volatility (elevated volatility risk premium) and maintain a skew toward put options, reflecting persistent demand for downside protection, though not yet panic. Overall, market structure remains fragile. Sustained recovery likely requires a reclaim of the ETF cost basis, a shift back to positive spot demand, and a slowdown in realized loss-taking. Until then, the market risks further downside or extended consolidation within the broader bear trend.

Foresight News15 dk önce

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Foresight News15 dk önce

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Summary: This article explores the perceived "death spiral" risk between MicroStrategy (MSTR), its Bitcoin holdings, and its perpetual preferred stock (STRC), drawing comparisons to the LUNA-UST collapse. While both systems feature price anchors, high yields for holders, and potential feedback loops, their core mechanisms differ fundamentally. The MSTR-STRC structure relies on continuous financing to sustain its high dividend payouts, primarily through stock ATM offerings. A negative feedback cycle could occur: falling MSTR stock price makes raising equity capital harder, increasing pressure to sell Bitcoin, which undermines STRC confidence and further depresses MSTR. However, unlike LUNA-UST's automated, direct linkage, the MSTR-STRC loop is weaker and has brakes: STRC dividends can be deferred or rates lowered, and STRC holders have a $100/share liquidation preference in bankruptcy, providing a price floor. The company's sustainability hinges on its ability to continue financing. Its current ~$900 million USD reserves cover only about 6.3 months of its ~$1.71 billion annual interest/dividend burden. The next six months are critical, aligning with both the potential bottom in Bitcoin's four-year cycle and the depletion timeline of its reserves. While a LUNA-style catastrophic collapse is deemed highly unlikely due to structural differences, the key question is whether MicroStrategy can navigate this period through healthy deleveraging to restart its capital engine.

Foresight News33 dk önce

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Foresight News33 dk önce

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

MicroStrategy's Debt Risk: A Turning Point in the "Never Sell" Strategy As of June 3, 2026, MicroStrategy holds 843,706 bitcoins (valued at ~$53.1B) but faces significant financial obligations. Its capital structure includes $6.75B in convertible notes and $15.48B in perpetual preferred stock (led by the $8.5B STRC series), creating an annual payout burden of ~$1.71B. With software revenue at only ~$500M, interest and dividend obligations far exceed operating income. A critical shift occurred in late May 2026 when the company sold 32 bitcoins for ~$2.5M to cover dividends, breaking CEO Michael Saylor's long-standing "never sell" pledge. This symbolic move triggered a sharp decline in both Bitcoin's price and MSTR stock, reflecting market fears about cash flow sustainability. The core of the strain is the STRC perpetual preferred stock, designed as a "permanent loan" with no maturity date but requiring high monthly dividends (currently 11.5%). Its business model relies on a three-part cycle: issuing new STRC shares, using proceeds to buy more Bitcoin and fund a USD reserve, and using that reserve to pay dividends. This cycle depends on continuous investor demand for STRC and Bitcoin's price appreciation. Analysis shows Bitcoin needs to appreciate at least 2.3% annually to cover the $1.71B in yearly obligations at current holdings. With Bitcoin price down ~22% from March 2026 highs, this pressure has intensified. The company's $900M USD reserve can only cover about 7 months of payments if STRC issuance stalls. Key risks are not immediate bankruptcy or forced Bitcoin liquidation (as BTC is not collateral), but rather: 1) The erosion of MSTR's premium to its Bitcoin holdings (mNAV), which would cripple its ability to raise cheap capital; 2) A vicious cycle where stagnant Bitcoin prices reduce STRC demand, draining the USD reserve and forcing BTC sales, further depressing prices. The period from February 2027 to September 2028 is a crucial test, with over $5.9B in convertible notes facing put options or maturity. In essence, MicroStrategy has evolved from a simple Bitcoin holder into a complex financial entity acting like a "private Bitcoin bank," leveraging its BTC holdings to create layered financial products. Its survival depends on maintaining Bitcoin's price trend, its stock premium, and market appetite for its preferred shares. The recent token sale marks not a betrayal of its Bitcoin thesis, but an admission that the leveraged strategy must eventually be paid for.

marsbit44 dk önce

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

marsbit44 dk önce

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

Anthropic has published an article titled "When AI builds itself," discussing the emerging concept of "recursive self-improvement," where AI begins to actively participate in designing, training, testing, and optimizing its own subsequent versions. The company presents internal data showing that by May 2026, over 80% of code merged into its codebase was written by Claude, its AI model. Claude's capabilities have expanded to handling complex, open-ended engineering tasks, achieving a 76% success rate in such areas, and even contributing to research processes, such as optimizing code performance and conducting AI safety experiments. Anthropic outlines an evolution from human-driven development to AI-assisted workflows, culminating in the current stage where AI agents can autonomously write, run, and delegate code. The company cautions that the path toward a "closed loop," where AI continuously improves itself, is becoming visible. It calls for coordinated global mechanisms to potentially slow or pause frontier AI development to allow safety research and societal structures to catch up. However, the timing of this warning coincides with Anthropic's preparations for an IPO, framing the narrative not just as a safety concern but also as a demonstration of Claude's advanced capabilities and its integral role in accelerating Anthropic's own R&D—creating a potential "flywheel" effect for competitive advantage. This contrasts with OpenAI's recent, more policy-oriented discussion of the same risks, highlighting the competitive dynamics in the AI industry as companies position themselves in both the technological and regulatory landscape.

marsbit1 saat önce

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片