[Community Activation RFP 2 – Extension] ZK Stack Content Program

Token Mechanics Community Activation Program
1

[Community Activation RFP 2 – Extension] ZK Stack Content Program
Initiative Title ZK Stack Content Program – RFP 2 Extension
RFP Category Product Marketing and Community Activation
Duration 13 weeks (March 16 - June 12)
Budget 1,000,000 ZK
Recipients Selected from RFP 2 cohort (no open submission required)

Background

This post formalises the extension of Community Activation RFP 2 ZK Stack Content Experiment, following the Foundation’s decision to build on the outcomes of that program.

RFP 2 ran as an 8-week experiment to test scalable, community-driven content models for ZKsync. It successfully identified a cohort of high-quality creators and validated a set of narratives with demonstrated reach and engagement. Rather than reopening a competitive process, the Foundation is extending the program run by the same administrator, with refined deliverables and elevated targets aligned with the increased budget and longer timeline.

This post sets out the scope, deliverables, and success metrics that will be used to evaluate the extension at its conclusion.

Program Goals

The extension has three primary goals:

  1. Sustain narrative momentum built during RFP 2, with particular focus on:
    • ZKsync Privacy & Prividium (incorruptible, institutional-grade finance)
    • ZKsync as Bank Stack / institutional infrastructure
    • ZKsync beyond L2 (ZK tech superiority, ecosystem breadth, speed)
    • MiCA-readiness of the ZK token and Prividium for European and global institutions
  2. Scale reach and consistency: moving from an experiment to a reliable, always-on content presence that can respond rapidly to ecosystem developments and sustain ZKsync’s share of voice in the market.
  3. Demonstrate ROI at scale: with a 3x+ increase in budget over RFP 2, the extension must produce proportionally stronger outcomes, and provide a clear template for any future programs.

Participating Creators

Allocation of the 1,000,000 ZK budget across participants will be confirmed separately. The administrator is responsible for selecting participating creators, managing disbursements and ensuring accountability against the deliverables below.

Scope & Deliverables

Each participating creator is expected to deliver:

  • Minimum 20–30 high-quality content pieces per month, comprising a mix of:
    • Original posts and threads
    • Short-form video or visual content
    • Memes, infographics, and QRTs
    • Rapid-response content tied to news and ecosystem events
  • Consistent daily/weekly presence on X (Twitter) as the primary platform, with cross-posting to YouTube, Telegram, or other platforms encouraged but not required.
  • Narrative alignment: All content should clearly reinforce one or more of the target narratives identified above. Generic or off-narrative content does not count toward minimums.
  • Mid-program report: Due April 29, 2026, covering content output, engagement data, and any narrative or strategic adjustments.
  • Final report: Due June 18, 2026, with full performance data, qualitative assessment of what worked, and recommendations for any future program.

Success Metrics

The extension will be evaluated against the following KPIs, measured across the full cohort on a monthly basis:

Metric Monthly Target
Total views ≥ 400,000
Total likes ≥ 5,000
Total comments ≥ 800
Total RTs / QTs ≥ 500
Content output 100% of creators meeting 20-piece minimum
Follower growth ≥ 10% increase per participating account over program duration

Qualitative indicators will also be assessed:

  • Positive sentiment and educational value in comment sections
  • Clear reinforcement of target narratives (tracked via mentions of Privacy/Prividium, Bank Stack, MiCA, “beyond L2”)
  • Cross-platform amplification
  • Community feedback and organic resharing

Timeline

Milestone Date
Program start March 16 2026
Mid-program report April 16, 2026
Program end June 12 2026
Final report due June 18 2026
Foundation evaluation July 2 2026

Evaluation

At the conclusion of the program, the Foundation will evaluate performance against the deliverables and metrics set out above. The final report submitted by the administrator and creators will form the primary basis for that evaluation, alongside any publicly verifiable engagement data.

This evaluation will also inform the design of any future community activation programs.

Questions welcome in the thread below.

2

This proposal honestly makes the situation look even worse.

Another 1,000,000 ZK from the treasury — not for product development, not for ecosystem incentives that create real usage, but for a content program designed to push specific narratives on X.

Let’s call this what it is: treasury-funded propaganda.

The token has been under constant selling pressure for months. Large unlocks continue, staking participation remains weak relative to supply, and the market clearly has little confidence in the token’s current economic model.

And the response from the Foundation?

Spend even more tokens paying people to post threads, memes, and “narratives”.

The proposal literally and shamelessly states that creators must produce 20–30 posts per month aligned with pre-approved narratives such as:

* “ZKsync as institutional infrastructure”
* “Bank Stack”
* “MiCA readiness”
* “beyond L2 superiority”

So instead of fixing the actual token economy, the treasury is now funding a coordinated messaging campaign to manufacture sentiment.

Meanwhile the real questions remain completely unanswered:

Where are the buybacks or burn mechanisms tied to protocol revenue?
Where is the clear value accrual model for ZK?
Where is the alignment between the team and the token holders?

Instead we get vanity metrics like views, likes, and follower growth — metrics that are trivial to farm and meaningless in terms of long-term value.

Even worse, this extension doesn’t even open the program to the broader community. The same group of creators simply gets another 1M ZK allocation.

So the pattern is becoming very clear:

Treasury tokens →distributed to influencers → influencers push narratives → token continues to bleed.

At some point the community needs to ask a very simple question:

Is the treasury being used to build the ecosystem, or to manage the optics while the token is being diluted and sold into the market?

Because right now, from the outside, this increasingly looks like a narrative management machine funded by the very token holders who are being diluted.

If the technology is truly as strong as claimed, it should not require millions of tokens spent on coordinated social media messaging to maintain confidence.

Focus on fixing the token economy and value accrual.
Stop burning the treasury on narrative campaigns while the token keeps getting dumped.

3

I hear your concerns regarding the tokenomics, and those are valid discussions for the DAO. However, viewing content creation as propaganda misses the fundamental reality of this industry: Technology doesn’t drive adoption in a vacuum; people do.

Even the most superior tech fails if no one understands its utility. Our role isn’t just pushing narratives it’s about translating complex institutional infrastructure, like the Bank Stack or MiCA compliance, into a language that builders and partners understand. This isn’t vanity metrics; it’s about mindshare. In a crowded market, if you lose the narrative, you lose the developers and the liquidity. This program ensures that while the core team builds the tech, the community builds the awareness. One cannot succeed without the other.

1 Like
4

I addressed these concerns in detail in the original thread, including the specific numbers on treasury deployment (183M of 6.14B minted, ~3% deployment rate), the source of the community activation funds (recovered tokens, not new supply), the actual USD cost of the program (~$20K for 3 months), and the current state of ZKnomics.

On the specific points raised here:

The claim that buybacks, burns, and value accrual are “completely unanswered” is factually incorrect. ZKnomics Part I (November 2025) proposed a governance-controlled mechanism that uses interop fees and enterprise licensing revenue to buy ZK from the market and allocate it across token burn, staking rewards, and ecosystem funding. ZIP-14 already upgraded the token with a burn function and a 21B hard cap. The Staking Pilot is live. These proposals are progressing through governance. The detailed posts are here [Part I] and here [Part II].

The topics being covered by the content program, institutional infrastructure, MiCA readiness, the ZK Stack, are not manufactured narratives. They describe technology that shipped in 2025 and is in production with partners including Deutsche Bank, Cari, and UBS. Communicating what the ecosystem is actually building to the broader market is a basic operational function, not propaganda.

I’d encourage reading the full response in the other thread before concluding these questions are unanswered.

2 Likes
5

Hello Akamal,

I will briefly clarify a few points. In the experimental (pilot) RFP, we achieved a CPM of $7.5, which is very solid for social content, especially for crypto on X.

Other protocols could only dream of such terms.For some context, marketing agencies in crypto usually charge an average CPM of $100.

You can find the details and report from the pilot here: Final Report: ZK Stack Content Experiment (Community Activation RFP #2)

I also love the fact that you care about the community and would like some answers. Here, I’d like to point out that the key participants in this RFP are long-standing ZKsync community members who have been active for 3–4 years. They are previously known for their educational efforts and have served as ZKmentor Captains.

Their motivation to educate others and drive discussions about ZKsync, its development, and progress is now also rewarded with small ZK token allocations.Hopefully this helps you see the program from a slightly different angle.

If you have any more questions regarding the program details, feel free to reach out, you can send me a DM on X or Telegram (@madmaxx_eth).

4 Likes
6

I don’t agree with your views. I’ve been following all the news about ZKSYNC for years, and they’ve been forming great partnerships and making progress even when the crypto market was generally in a bad phase. Especially while many projects were struggling to survive.

In my opinion, ZKSYNC is already on the verge of entering its final phase. Everything is practically ready. It’s just that the market is bad. For these reasons, instead of scaling back marketing activities, they must do the exact opposite and ramp them up.

Crypto projects spend money on many things. And many projects are putting money into their own pockets instead of focusing on survival.

If ZKSYNC is still allocating funds for marketing activities even during such a period, I want to commend the team. Because they could have kept that money for themselves instead.

As a big ZK holder, I want to see exponential growth in both technological advancements and partnerships, as well as major marketing activities.

If you don’t spread the narrative, no one will know about it. Technology won’t matter to anyone. Strong technological efforts combined with strong marketing lead to success.

@Akamal

1 Like
7

Let’s be honest , calling this “not propaganda” is straight denial.

The same people defending this narrative spend were the ones promising utility, buybacks, burns, and real value accrual months ago, before the “shiny new” RFPs of November 2025 were even a thing. That whole tokenomics pivot toward revenue‑backed buyback & burn wasn’t invented in november 2025 in the “proposal of Alex”! It was spread by these paid propaganda months before that.

So here’s the real problem:

You say it’s about “mindshare” , but millions of ZK from the treasury are being paid to people to echo pre‑approved talking points, and then we’re supposed to call that organic community engagement? This is exactly what ordinary people call propaganda, because it is paid, structured messaging disguised as grassroots enthusiasm.

Meanwhile the token keeps bleeding and no enforced utility actually exists yet , despite repeated promises from leadership that this shift was coming. It’s embarrassing that treasury funds are being used to manufacture sentiment instead of *delivering utility that actually supports the price.

If you actually believe this is normal or healthy for holders, then answer this:

Why create a token at all if it isn’t going to capture value but is going to spend millions paying people to hype it?

Paid posts don’t create fundamentals ,they mask weakness.

Call it what it is.
This is propaganda funded by holder dilution and defending it makes you look like the PR department, not the community.