[TPP Draft] Revocation of Remaining TPP-18 Capped Minters

Token Mechanics Draft TPPs
1

[TPP Draft] Revocation of Remaining TPP-18 Capped Minters

Status

Draft Proposal – Request for Community Feedback

This proposal is submitted for discussion before any formal on-chain vote.

I welcome feedback from delegates, Matter Labs, the ZKsync Foundation, and the broader community.
Summary

This proposal requests that the Token Assembly exercise the authority explicitly reserved under TPP-18 to revoke all remaining monthly capped minters that have not yet been distributed.

This is not a proposal to reverse past distributions, nor is it intended to oppose continued development of ZKsync or Matter Labs.

Rather, it asks whether the assumptions under which TPP-18 was approved continue to justify automatic monthly treasury allocations.

If governance concludes that additional funding remains appropriate, Matter Labs should always be free to submit a new proposal with updated justification, milestones, and accountability.
Background

TPP-18 explicitly states:

“The Token Assembly retains the right to revoke any future monthly minter at any time.”

That safeguard was included for a reason.

Governance recognized that a twelve-month funding commitment should not become irreversible if circumstances changed.

This proposal asks the Token Assembly to exercise that authority because, in my view, the circumstances surrounding TPP-18 have materially changed since it was approved.

Why Reconsider TPP-18?

1.The roadmap and assumptions have materially changed

When TPP-18 was presented, one of its central justifications was that institutional adoption would ultimately contribute to protocol activity and governance-controlled fee mechanisms.

Since then, Matter Labs has explained that previously anticipated fee mechanisms remain deferred and subject to future governance decisions, without a committed timeline or defined activation criteria.

As a result, the connection between institutional growth and direct token-holder value accrual remains uncertain.

Institutional deployments also have different technical and commercial requirements than originally envisioned.

Whether those engineering decisions were correct is not the question before governance.

The governance question is simpler:

Should an automatic twelve-month treasury allocation continue unchanged after the strategic assumptions supporting it have evolved?

I believe governance should reassess that commitment.

2. Commercial success changes the funding discussion

Matter Labs has publicly explained that its enterprise business generates commercial revenue through managed services, enterprise deployments, licensing, and Prividium.

A successful commercial business is positive for the ecosystem.

However, it is reasonable for governance to ask whether the development of commercially monetized products should continue to rely on recurring treasury issuance to the same extent once those products generate independent revenue.

As commercial activity matures, funding those efforts increasingly from commercial revenues rather than continued token issuance may represent a healthier long-term alignment between the company and token holders.

This proposal is not an argument against Matter Labs earning revenue.

It is an argument that treasury funding should evolve alongside the project’s commercial maturity.

3.Governance should reassess recurring dilution

Each remaining monthly capped minter increases the circulating supply of ZK.

Governance accepted that trade-off when approving TPP-18.

However, recurring dilution should remain justified by current circumstances—not only by assumptions made months earlier.

The purpose of the revocation mechanism was to allow governance to make exactly that reassessment.

4. Accountability is stronger than automatic funding

If Matter Labs requires additional funding to continue developing ZKsync, governance can evaluate new proposals based on the current roadmap rather than past expectations.

Those proposals could include:

Updated budgets.
Clearly defined milestones.
Transparent reporting.
Measurable deliverables.
An updated explanation of how requested funding benefits both the protocol and long-term token holders.

This proposal does not seek to eliminate future funding.

It seeks to ensure future funding reflects current realities and receives fresh governance approval.

Why Act Now?

Every month another capped minter becomes available under TPP-18.

If governance believes the original assumptions should be revisited, delaying that discussion simply allows additional allocations to proceed before the community has exercised the authority that TPP-18 intentionally reserved.

The revocation mechanism exists so governance can respond when circumstances evolve.

This proposal asks the community whether now is the appropriate time to do so.
Proposed Action

If supported by the community, a formal governance proposal would:

  1. Revoke all remaining TPP-18 capped minters that have not yet been activated.

  2. Leave previously distributed allocations unchanged.

  3. Preserve Matter Labs’ ability to request future funding through new governance proposals.

  4. Encourage future funding requests to include updated milestones, reporting, and justification reflecting the current roadmap.

Questions for the Community

I would appreciate feedback on the following:

  1. Have the assumptions underlying TPP-18 changed sufficiently to justify exercising the Token Assembly’s revocation authority?

  2. If not, what specific milestones or conditions should governance wait for before reconsidering the remaining monthly allocations?

  3. Should future protocol funding rely more heavily on milestone-based governance approvals rather than recurring allocations?

  4. Are there additional accountability mechanisms that should accompany future funding proposals?

Conclusion

TPP-18 deliberately preserved the Token Assembly’s authority to revoke future monthly minters.

That safeguard exists because governance should retain the ability to reassess long-term funding commitments when circumstances materially change.

This proposal asks the community whether that moment has arrived.

I look forward to constructive feedback from delegates, Matter Labs, the Foundation, and the broader ZKsync community.

3 Likes
Proposal Review Call July 22
2

Discussions and questions about the zk token and ZKSync project have been heating up intensely on Twitter lately, but the team has ignored them all. Honestly, their attitude has already spoken for itself. Whether this proposal passes or not, its appearance was necessary. I will vote for the option I consider correct.

3 Likes
3

I agree that these conversations are important for the future of the ZK token and the ZKsync ecosystem. Givernance only has value when the community actively reviews decisions, asks questions, and participates in meaningful discussions.
I encourage everyone to read the proposal , consider the arguments, and share their perspective. If you believe this discussion is valuable, helping bring more community members into the conversation through social platforms is an important part of making governance more open and informed.

4

Thank you, @Anwar for this timely proposal. I completely agree and will absolutely be voting FOR the revocation of the remaining TPP-18 capped minters.

The team has materially drifted from the original roadmap. With fee mechanisms deferred indefinitely, the original assumptions that justified this funding no longer exist.

We cannot continue to subsidize Matter Labs’ private commercial ventures through automatic token dilution while token holders receive no clear value accrual. If they are successfully monetizing enterprise products, they should fund their growth from those revenues—the community shouldn’t be paying their bills while they take the biggest slice of the cake.

Revoking this is not about cutting off support; it’s about restoring accountability. Any future proposals must include:

  • Defined, measurable milestones.
  • Clear budget breakdowns.
  • Direct, tangible benefits and value-accrual mechanisms for $ZK token holders.

The Token Assembly is not a passive funding source. It is our responsibility as delegates and community members to protect the treasury and manage dilution. The circumstances have changed, the strategic path has drifted, and it is time to hit the reset button.

I look forward to voting YES on this proposal to bring back the accountability this ecosystem deserves.

5

@Anwar @junkui.eth @KryptoRitter Stop struggling in vain. Check out my previous views.

The community’s opinions have never been taken seriously—it was like that before, and it’s still like that now.

Focus your energy elsewhere. There are plenty of other good projects out there. Prosperity, freedom, decentralization—these are just slogans; don’t take them seriously.

Given the current weighting of delegates’ votes and the alignment of their interests with those of the teams, the community stands no chance of winning.

Although I still hold a large amount of ZK, I gave up on it a long time ago.

On twitter, I completely agree with this member’s point of view. _gabrielShapir0 on X: "As L2 tech teams compete for enterprise/institutional business, every L2 tokenholder will get rugged and all value will accrue back to ETH. There is no value accrual story for tokens like ZK, OP, etc., anywhere sufficient to give them meaningful value. Those labs teams are going" / X

@gluk64 The three-month deadline has long since passed. I hope you’ll be careful with what you say and do. If you can’t do it, don’t say it.

The community has gradually lost its remaining trust in ZKsync and you. ALEX | ZK on X: "Watch closely what happens in the next 3 months." / X

What we’re seeing is that the ZKsync and Matter Labs interest groups are constantly reaping profits, but please don’t shift all the risk onto $ZK investors.

Of course, I certainly hope ZKsync keeps getting better, but reality has taught me not to harbor any illusions.

2 Likes
6

Just a quick side note.

Team members, foundation members, and association members—do you dare to disclose your $ZK holdings?

@gluk64 ALEX | ZK on X: "https://t.co/4vkw90fwtZ" / X Would you dare?

If your interests are not aligned with those of the community, the ultimate outcome for $ZK is predictable.

4 Likes
7

rather than us trying to explain to the team why they should be creating value to the token , a simpler question to ask is why should anyone buy the token? they are raising capital for free and with no return to anyone. the way the governance is structured the tradable float even with full unlock retail wont ever have governance majority, they are basically robbing us point blank and explaining to us how all technicalities were covered.

2 Likes
8

@Lisanc

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I understand why you’ve become frustrated, and I see most community members have concerns about governance, trust, and the long-term value proposition of the token.

That said, my intention with this proposal isn’t to argue that governance has already failed or that the outcome is predetermined. TPP-18 explicitly reserved the Token Assembly’s authority to revoke future capped minters, which suggests governance anticipated that circumstances could change and that the community should have the opportunity to reassess the remaining allocations if needed.

I also don’t think this is an issue that only smaller holders should care about. Every remaining capped minter represents additional token issuance, so the question of whether that issuance is still justified affects anyone with meaningful exposure to ZK—whether they’re a retail holder, a delegate, or a large token holder. Regardless of voting power, everyone has an interest in ensuring treasury resources are allocated in a way that best supports the protocol’s long-term success.

Another reason I believe this discussion is timely is that Matter Labs is no longer solely an early-stage development team. It has publicly stated that it generates commercial revenue through enterprise deployments, managed services, licensing, and products such as Prividium. I view that as a positive sign of maturity. As any business grows and develops sustainable revenue streams, it is reasonable for governance to ask whether commercially monetized activities should increasingly be supported by those revenues, rather than relying on continued token issuance from the treasury. That isn’t an argument against funding Matter Labs—it’s an argument that the funding model should evolve alongside the project’s commercial maturity.

My proposal isn’t about opposing Matter Labs or undoing past distributions. It’s about asking whether automatic monthly funding should continue unchanged now that the roadmap and funding context have evolved, or whether future funding should instead be considered through fresh governance proposals with updated milestones, reporting, and justification.

Whether delegates ultimately support or reject the proposal, I believe it’s a discussion worth having. The revocation mechanism exists precisely so governance can reassess long-term funding commitments when circumstances change, and I hope all stakeholders evaluate the proposal on its merits and in the long-term interests of the ecosystem.

@kiki
I think you raise an important question. A clear value-accrual story is something every ecosystem should continue to work toward, and it’s understandable why token holders ask what role the token plays in capturing the network’s long-term success, especially following Alex’s announcement that the ZK token would remain a governance token without additional utility for the foreseeable future.

That said, my proposal is intentionally narrower than the broader tokenomics debate. Rather than arguing about the entire value proposition of ZK, I’m asking whether the remaining automatic allocations under TPP-18 should continue unchanged given how the roadmap, funding assumptions, and commercial context have evolved since the proposal was approved.

One factor I believe governance should also consider is that Matter Labs has publicly stated that it generates revenue through enterprise deployments, managed services, licensing, and other commercial offerings. That’s a positive development for the ecosystem. At the same time, as commercial revenue grows, it’s reasonable to ask whether a greater share of ongoing development costs should gradually be covered by those business activities, rather than continuing to rely on recurring treasury issuance and token dilution. That’s a normal progression for a maturing business and doesn’t prevent governance from approving additional funding when it’s clearly justified.

If Matter Labs continues to require ecosystem funding, this proposal doesn’t prevent that. It simply suggests that future funding should come through new governance proposals supported by updated milestones, reporting, and justification, allowing governance to evaluate current needs rather than relying solely on assumptions made months ago.

I hope delegates and token holders consider this proposal from that perspective. Regardless of where each of us ultimately lands, I believe it’s healthy governance to periodically reassess long-term funding commitments when the circumstances that justified them may have changed.

9

Unfortunately governance tokens have been only a medium to transfer wealth from retails to VCs.

I think, and I hope to be wrong, that matter labs at this point, considering the amount of institutions and banks that are being involved in Prividium, are trying to clean their history about the $ZK token.

The more the token is useless the more they are clean and most likely not accused to have generated an unregistered security.

Banks would never get involved with an entity involved in such a scheme.

And I still do not understand how people don’t realize that private companies will have a lot of problems if they start doing things that accrue value to the token they emitted based on the company performances.

So, as far as this sucks, it’s obvious that all these L2s tokens generations, were just a mean to give VCs an easy and quick way to become future share holders, and at the same time recoup their investment in the first 12-24 months by launching at high FDV low float dumping on retails that were sold an unrealistic dream.

Token holders will hold nothing when zksync will make an IPO and launch on wall street.

On the other hand every VC that invested in matter labs will receive their fair amount of shares as per the original contract of investment.

I really hope that gluk finds a way to keep the company revenues, and the company clients separated enough from the zksync era economics, so that it will be possible they keep operating as a private entity and at the same time the elastic chain can start a flywheel and funnel value into the $ZK token without them having to fear about the SEC and other global regulators and banks strict rules.

But at the moment I don’t see that happening.

It can only happen if the token distribution becomes decentralized enough that the DAO effectively begins working as a decentralized organization, because right now the regulators consider the De Facto controllers of the DAO to be responsible, meaning that if just a bunch of entities own the vast majority of the tokens, they are held responsible, it doesn’t matter if the protocol is called a DAO…

This said I think this proposal is good, but I doubt it will pass, because the actual main entities that hold the token are VCs that have interest to further dilute the token to make it useless and harmless for the future business of zksync/prividium and its relations with banks.

I hope to be proven wrong, because I’m a holder, but this is what I’m seeing lately, especially after they posted the upcoming Omar’s summit speech:

”Should protocols have Shareholders instead of Tokens Holders ?”

Also the recent $ZK token audit they performed, is probably something that was demanded by some of the banks they are involving, to be sure that they have acted inside the legal framework, and that the token is a useless asset with no value accrual logic or utility/ demand.

1 Like
10

@kaiser.eth

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I genuinely value your contribution to this discussion.

I think many people in the community share your concerns. You are not alone in feeling that trust has been seriously damaged. Over the past months and years, many holders have become deeply frustrated with Matter Labs’ leadership because of what they perceive as broken expectations, changing narratives, decisions that prioritized certain business interests over the long-term community, and a growing disconnect between leadership and token holders.

Regardless of where people stand on the broader questions around regulation, token value accrual, or the future structure of ZKsync, one thing is clear: trust has weakened, and ignoring that reality will not solve it.

Where I disagree is with the idea that we should simply accept the situation because the outcome may be difficult.

Passivity has not protected us.

For years, many holders waited patiently. We trusted the process, gave more time, and hoped that things would eventually improve. But while we waited, many people suffered significant losses, and the concerns that were raised repeatedly remained unresolved.

Silence and inaction are not a strategy. They only allow decisions to continue without meaningful community challenge.

If governance rights exist but the community is afraid to use them, then those rights become meaningless.

TPP-18 explicitly reserved the Token Assembly’s authority to revoke future capped minters. That mechanism exists because governance recognized that circumstances can change and that long-term commitments should remain subject to review.

This proposal is not about revenge, stopping development, or preventing future funding. It is about asking a simple governance question:

Are the assumptions that justified automatic monthly allocations under TPP-18 still valid today?

If the answer is yes, governance can explain why. If the answer is no, governance has the ability to reconsider.

Either way, the community deserves that discussion.

I believe this is the moment for holders and contributors to become active participants rather than passive observers. Waiting quietly has already shown us its limits. If we want different outcomes, we need different actions.

I encourage everyone who has an opinion on this proposal to participate. If you support it, explain why. If you disagree, explain why. Healthy governance requires open discussion from all sides.

But discussion alone is not enough. We also need organization.

If you believe this proposal deserves to move forward, please reach out to me directly. I would like to create a working group of contributors who are willing to help with:

-Talking with delegates and sharing the proposal with the wider community

- Reviewing information and helping strengthen the arguments

- Helping communicate the proposal clearly to other holders

- Collecting feedback and suggestions from the community

- Coordinating next steps if there is enough support to move forward

People who prefer not to use forum private messages can contact me at:

revoketpp18@atomicmail.io

The goal is not to create conflict. The goal is to make sure this proposal receives a fair evaluation and that all relevant stakeholders have the opportunity to consider it.

The next practical challenge is reaching delegates . An on chain proposal requires a delegate who meets the required threshold or is willing to sponsor the proposal, so we need to engage as many delegates as possible, understand their views, and give them the opportunity to evaluate the arguments.

I encourage everyone who believes this discussion matters to help spread awareness:

  • Share the proposal with other holders.
  • Reach out respectfully to delegates.
  • Encourage more community members to read and comment.
  • Help bring more informed voices into the discussion.

No governance proposal succeeds because of one person. It succeeds because enough people decide that participation matters.

We have waited long enough. Now is the time to organize, participate, and use the governance tools that exist.

1 Like
11

Hey @anwar - Please note that the post above has been edited by the ZKsync Association to remove the “zkgov” email. This is a known risk related to phishing and confusion with official ZKsync emails and Governance Team contact information.

Please provide a different way for Delegates to reach out in your post. For example, you can link your X, Farcaster, LinkedIn, or other social accounts.

12

@theshelb

I disagree with this decision. The email address is my own contact information, so I don’t see why it was removed.

Can you point me to the specific policy that prohibits delegates from listing their own email addresses?

Also, why do you feel you’re in a position to dictate that I should use X, LinkedIn, or other social platforms instead of my preferred contact method?

1 Like
13

Update: I have requested time to present and discuss this proposal during the upcoming Delegate & Proposal Review Call. At this stage, my request for a presentation slot has not been accepted, and I have asked for clarification regarding the criteria being applied.

I believe proposals involving governance decisions of this significance should have the opportunity to be presented and discussed openly with delegates and the wider community.

I will continue working through the process and will share updates here:

14

It’s very clear that they are trying to obstruct us from presenting this proposal and this is outrageous. In your thread @theshelb you clearly wrote what i quoted above.

So tell us what specific requirements distinguish a developing proposal from an RFC in the published guidelines, and which requirements does the developibg proposal currently fail to meet?

15

Anwar:

Matter Labs adjusts engineering priorities based on partner and user needs in order to fulfill the TPP-18 aim:

“… to execute the 2026 Prividium roadmap and convert the active institutional pipeline into deployed chains and a growing institutional network ”

Changes to ZIP-16 follow from this: scope and roadmap changes based on ZKsync partner feedback.

Private interop has been prioritized for the near-term in response to this feedback. Public interop remains on the roadmap; it remains available through future governance and any implementation steps required at that time. Additional information regarding the change has already been shared in a separate forum thread.

You can also find more information on work executed in 2026 on the Q1 Deliverables & Q2 Deliverables reports posted on the forums. These quarterly reports are also available for 2025.

16

This is nothing but wordplay. No decision to abandon has been made yet, which means abandonment remains a possibility going forward

17

What you have done over the years has destroyed all trust between us