Vitalik Buterin warns about Zcash: why token governance threatens its essence of privacy

Source: CritpoTendencia Original Title: Vitalik Buterin warns about Zcash: why token governance threatens its essence of privacy Original Link: Privacy was never just a feature within the Zcash ecosystem; it was its raison d'être. That's why, when Vitalik Buterin warns that the network should avoid a shift towards token-based governance, his message does not land in neutral territory. It strikes at the heart of the debate over the future of privacy-focused blockchains and the growing tensions between decentralization, incentives, and institutional design.

Espero que Zcash resista la mano oscura de la votación de tokens. La votación de tokens es mala de muchas maneras; creo que es peor que el statu quo de Zcash. La privacidad es exactamente el tipo de cosa que se erosionará con el tiempo si se deja en manos del titular de tokens medio.

In a recent reflection, Buterin was straightforward: token voting is not only deficient but especially dangerous in projects where privacy is the foundational value. In his words, handing critical decisions to the average token holder can erode what Zcash promised to protect from the beginning.

A system that prioritizes incentives, not values

Buterin's reasoning is based on a long-standing criticism: token governance rewards capital, not conviction. Voters do not necessarily represent the ideals of the project, but rather their economic accumulation within the token.

In privacy systems, this poses a clear risk: decisions made by actors with short-term financial interests, not by those seeking to preserve the ethical and technical architecture that made Zcash relevant.

According to Buterin, this type of governance may be worse than the current model used by Zcash, a model with flaws - like all - but that maintains a more direct alignment with the original mission of the project.

For the co-founder of Ethereum, replacing it with a system controlled by the immediate distribution of the token creates a structural fragility that can compromise privacy at its core.

Privacy as a fragile good within Web3

The most critical point of Buterin's reflection is the vulnerability of privacy when subjected to circumstantial majorities. In privacy-focused projects, decisions such as changes in security parameters, adjustments in anonymity mechanisms, or alterations in incentive models can determine the survival of the ecosystem.

“Privacy is especially vulnerable when left in the hands of the average token holder,” he warned. The risk is not abstract: a poorly voted change can weaken the cryptographic guarantees or compromise the anonymity that defines Zcash compared to other models.

The warning also exposes a broader debate within the industry. As Web3 grows, the pressure for projects to adopt more open, rapid or “democratic” governance intensifies. But not all systems support that model well. Zcash, in particular, was built to withstand external pressures, protect the user, and safeguard their privacy in a hostile environment.

The underlying question: efficient governance or non-negotiable values?

Buterin's reflection invites a classic dilemma within Web3: how far can a network be optimized without distorting the principles that originated it? For Zcash, the idea of adopting governance with tokens may seem like a path of modernization, but Buterin reminds us that not all technical advancements are ethical advancements.

In a cycle where everything tends to be “tokenized”, your warning serves as an essential reminder: some decisions should not be left to the mercy of the market.