Vitalik Buterin Warns Against Zcash Token Voting

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin is urging the Zcash community to avoid adopting token-based voting for governance.

In a November 30 post on X, he said token voting would push the system toward short-term price incentives at the expense of the long-term civil liberties the project aims to protect.

Buterin Flags Governance Risks to Privacy

Buterin linked his position to arguments he outlined in a 2021 essay on decentralized governance, noting that token-weighted systems carry vulnerabilities such as unbundled rights that make covert vote buying possible.

I hope Zcash resists the dark hand of token voting.Token voting is bad in all kinds of ways (see ); I think it's worse than Zcash's status quo.Privacy is exactly the sort of thing that will erode over time if left to the median token holder.

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) November 30, 2025

He added that these mechanisms tend to concentrate influence among whales while leaving smaller holders with little accountability. Many smaller participants may vote without regard for the outcome if they believe their individual impact is negligible.

He described token voting as “bad in all kinds of ways,” saying it would be worse than Zcash’s existing structure.

“Privacy is exactly the sort of thing that will erode over time if left to the median token holder,” Buterin said.

Buterin’s remarks land amid a broader debate over how Zcash should select the Zcash Community Grants committee, a five-member group that reviews and approves major grants across the ecosystem.

Community Members Argue on Decentralized Governance

Some community members argue the current committee-based framework is outdated and should be replaced.

Mert Mumtaz, CEO of Helius and a pro-Zcash investor, said the debate underscores a broader governance issue.

Mumtaz argued that markets provide built-in correction mechanisms because poor decisions are punished through falling prices, shifting governance influence, and updating collective knowledge. He noted that committees lack that feedback loop and can remain detached from real-world outcomes.

He likened this separation to what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls the “interventionista,” a bureaucrat making consequential decisions without bearing the associated risks.

By contrast, he noted that ancient Roman generals operated on the front lines, where survival depended directly on the quality of their decisions.

While acknowledging the flaws in token voting, Mumtaz said static committees present a deeper problem because they are “uncriticizable and account to no one.” He added that systems grounded in market dynamics adapt over time, whereas committees do not, arguing that “evolution wins long-term.”

Community members have echoed related concerns. Naval, a user on X, said third-party overseers introduce structural security flaws regardless of their independence.

Another user, Darklight, argued that market-based systems tend toward plutocracy and may fail to preserve civil liberties.

The governance dispute comes as Zcash attracts renewed market attention.

Data from BeInCrypto show the token has risen more than 1,000% in the last three months, reaching a high of $723 before retreating to current levels. Zcash trades near $448 at press time after falling more than 20% in the past week.