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

TheNewsCryptoОпубліковано о 2026-02-17Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-17

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit28 хв тому

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit28 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit48 хв тому

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit48 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit56 хв тому

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit56 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片