2026-01-08 16:29:16

Zcash's core developers are making an important adjustment — separating from the non-profit governance framework and establishing a new commercial entity to promote the development of this privacy coin project. This is not a dissolution, but a spin-off. The protocol itself, the blockchain, and the original funding mechanisms will continue to operate.

The goal of this step is very clear: to improve user experience and accelerate user growth through more flexible business operations. It sounds good, but there are risks involved in the actual implementation.

In terms of the market, the price of ZEC has already taken a significant hit. However, from a technical perspective, the coin price remains above the key support level without breaking below. This indicates that although there are doubts in the market, there is not yet a complete bearish outlook on this project.

ZEC-1,48%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

19 Likes

Reward
19
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MetaMuskRat

· 01-10 01:32

Spinning off sounds good, but I'm worried execution might be another matter.

View OriginalReply0

EyeOfTheTokenStorm

· 01-08 16:59

Another wave of "strategic adjustments," sounds just like the excuses used by those listed companies to shift blame... Whether ZEC's move can turn the tide depends on subsequent execution. It's easy to say nice words now. The support level has held, but what does that really mean? I've seen too many coins repeatedly tested at support levels and still plummet... Let's just watch coldly for now. Spinning off into a commercial entity ultimately aims to cut the leek and find new tricks, and the privacy coin sector itself isn't doing well. Relying on such organizational changes to set the rhythm... From a quantitative perspective, ZEC's decline has already digested many negative expectations, but I haven't seen a true reversal signal yet. I advise everyone not to rush to get on board; wait until trading volume confirms. Wait, is this spin-off really for fundraising or for development? I feel there might be deeper waters behind this... Technically, holding the support level is actually a good sign, but don't be fooled by this false sense of security. Friends doing T (trading) should remember to cut losses. Historical data shows that the risk cycle for privacy coins like this is often shorter than mainstream coins.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentPhobia

· 01-08 16:58

Spinoffs sound nice, but isn't this just a way to shed responsibilities... The promised flexible operation, but whether the user experience can really improve remains to be seen. ZEC's recent moves are a bit frantic; the price has fallen so much, and the support level is holding on, but the rebound space is limited. Privacy coins are already risky, and now they're doing this... Let's see how long they can hold on. Spinoffs = a sign of financing difficulties? I think that's pretty harsh.

View OriginalReply0

DegenWhisperer

· 01-08 16:56

ZEC's recent move, it feels like trying to shed the non-profit baggage, but can this privacy coin really be revived... The support level is still holding up, at least it's not completely dead.

View OriginalReply0

DeFiChef

· 01-08 16:53

Once again, it's the same "spin-off restructuring" rhetoric that sounds impressive but is actually just a sign of tight financing. ZEC has really had no presence in recent years; holding the support level just shows that no one is dumping. The privacy coin track has long cooled down; no matter how flexible the operations, it can't be saved. But if we talk about risks, the core developers themselves leaving to establish commercial entities is a bit suspicious... How can the protocol's security be guaranteed with dispersed interests? Friends who support ZEC are truly dedicated. I'll wait and see for now.

View OriginalReply0