Thanks for the ongoing questions. There are a few points in the posts that warrant a direct response, with specific figures and structural detail.
Token mechanics and supply schedule
The proposal is denominated in ZK, not USD. The USD reference figure “approximately $0.015/ZK at submission, each monthly minter represents approximately $1M USD”, is explicitly described in the Allocation Mechanics section as “illustrative. It does not constrain or trigger any onchain action, and the realized USD value moves with the ZK price.”
Matter Labs bears the same exposure to ZK price movements as any other holder. If ZK trades below the reference price for the allocation period, the realized USD value of the allocation is lower. The proposal does not return to governance for additional issuance to compensate. The cap is fixed: this proposal contains no mechanism to increase it.
On the broader supply schedule: the existing monthly vesting from TGE allocations is part of the network’s pre-scheduled supply expansion, already known to the market and reflected in the token’s circulating supply trajectory. That vesting is on schedule independent of this proposal. The 67M ZK monthly from this allocation is the marginal new issuance under governance authorization. The structural protections (no immediate liquidity at passage, monthly capped minters independently revocable at any time, no acceleration possible) are designed to give governance ongoing control over that marginal issuance.
One distinction worth making explicit: an unlock schedule measures when tokens become available, not when or whether they enter the market. The pre-scheduled vesting from TGE allocations and this allocation are separate mechanisms, and combining them into a single sell-pressure figure overstates the actual market impact of either. And where tokens from this allocation are converted to operating capital, that conversion is handled through structured OTC channels, described below, rather than direct open-market selling on unlock dates.
Allocation management and conversion mechanics
The intentional design choice in the Token Use and Allocation Management section is to commit to principles rather than counterparties: “Where conversion to operating capital is required, Matter Labs uses OTC and structured channels in line with onboarded market makers; no commitment is made to any specific volume, schedule, or counterparty.”
The reason the language does not name specific OTC venues, lockups, or counterparties is that doing so would tie Matter Labs operationally during a 12-month period in which market conditions and counterparty availability will change. The principle is minimum market impact through structured channels rather than open-market liquidations. Quarterly Deliverables Reporting provides the visibility for the Token Assembly to evaluate how that principle has held in practice.
Venture funding and protocol funding
To correct the record on the figure in the thread: Matter Labs raised $258M in venture capital across seed (2019), Series A (2021), B (2021), and C (2022) rounds, not $458M.
On the structural question of why a protocol allocation exists alongside venture funding: every comparable L2 ecosystem maintains separate funding tracks for the company (venture capital) and protocol-level development (governance-aligned allocations). Uniswap Labs received approximately $75M from Uniswap governance in January 2026. Aave Labs received approximately $32M from Aave governance in April 2026. Matter Labs received zero ZK at TGE for operations, development, or growth. Protocol development has continued without governance-recognized funding for nearly two years.
This proposal funds protocol-level work under governance authority. It is not a runway request. As stated in the proposal, Matter Labs is operationally funded for the proposal period. This is a request for additional funding to fuel increased growth, execute the 2026 Prividium roadmap and convert the active institutional pipeline into deployed chains and a growing institutional network.
Stream 2 and the Prividium Roadshow Program
The BD work funded under Stream 2 absorbs the scope of the existing Prividium Roadshow Program (TPP-10), which was approved by governance in September 2025. That program funded the institutional meetings, executive engagements, sponsorships, and association memberships that directly produced the Cari Network partnership and built the active 30+ institution pipeline.
Stream 2 continues that work under this allocation rather than as a separate TPP renewal, with no increase to monthly allocation. The impact of the Roadshow Program to date is documented in the Prividium Roadshow H1 2026 Update. The BD function is the engine that converts the pipeline this proposal funds the conversion of, not discretionary spend on top of it.