Ethereum's co-founder recently raised concerns about something he calls the 'dark hand' effect in token-based governance systems. His target? Zcash's voting mechanism.

Here's the issue: when governance relies purely on token voting, there's a hidden risk. The very thing that makes Zcash special—its privacy features—could actually get compromised. Why? Because voting on-chain might expose patterns. Holders face a dilemma: participate in governance or maintain anonymity.

This isn't just theoretical nitpicking. Privacy coins walk a tightrope. Their governance models need to protect the same privacy they promise users. Token voting sounds democratic on paper, but it creates traceable footprints. Those footprints? They could unravel the privacy guarantees that attracted users in the first place.

The 'dark hand' metaphor captures this contradiction perfectly. What appears as decentralized decision-making might actually be undermining the core value proposition. For Zcash and similar privacy-focused protocols, this presents a genuine design challenge: how do you govern without exposing your governors?