Mediation brief · Q4 Coinholder-Directed Retroactive Grant Program
How should coinholders evaluate proposals for the Q4 2026 Retroactive Grants Program?
Sources: forum.zcashcommunity.com · 2 replies · Analyzed Oct 30, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC
Position A
Fund based on merit, not personal opinions
- Coinholders should vote based on the merit of contributions.
- Valid contributions should not be rejected due to differing opinions.
Fairness check from this side's view: 9 / 10
Position B
Ensure transparent and verifiable governance
- Retroactive grants fund work that is completed and publicly verifiable.
- The community provides feedback on proposals posted in the forum.
- It would be beneficial to know the number of human voters in coinholder polling.
Fairness check from this side's view: 9 / 10
Common ground
Facts, checked by the swarm
| Claim | Said by | Swarm check | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| B | Consistent · 100% | ||
| B | Consistent · 80% | ||
| B | Consistent · 100% |
Where they really disagree
1. Basis for Coinholder Voting
Options
Vote solely on the merit of completed work
Coinholders should evaluate proposals strictly based on the quality and impact of the completed work, disregarding any personal opinions or past disagreements with the proposer.
5 of 5 rank first
Consider merit alongside community values
Coinholders should consider the merit of the completed work while also reflecting the values they intend to serve within the Zcash ecosystem, as expressed through their vote.
Improve transparency in the voting process
Beyond evaluating proposals, efforts should be made to increase transparency in the voting process, such as disclosing the number of unique human voters.
Swarm's suggested path
Vote solely on the merit of completed work has the highest minimum acceptability across the positions, at 66.
A suggestion for discussion, not a ruling. Verafy doesn't decide value questions; it shows where the disagreement is and which options each side can live with.