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

TheNewsCrypto2026-02-17 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-02-17 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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

İlgili Sorular

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.

İlgili Okumalar

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbit15 dk önce

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbit15 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片