Update on the Delegate & Proposal Review Call
I would like to thank everyone who joined the Proposal Review Call and everyone who has taken the time to read, comment on, and discuss this proposal.
This was the first opportunity to present the proposal directly to some delegates and answer questions in a live discussion.
For those who were unable to attend, I would like to summarize the discussion from my perspective.
**
Presentation of the proposal
**
I began by clarifying what this proposal is not.
It is not an attempt to stop development an attempt to reverse previous distributions.
It is not an attempt to stop development of ZKsync.
It is not an attack on Matter Labs.
Instead, I explained that this is fundamentally a governance proposal asking a simple question:
Should the remaining automatic monthly allocations approved under TPP-18 continue under the same assumptions that existed when governance originally approved them?
I also emphasized that TPP-18 explicitly preserved the Token Assembly’s authority to revoke future monthly capped minters. The proposal simply asks governance whether the circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify exercising that authority.
I summarized the four main arguments presented in the forum proposal:
- The roadmap and assumptions have evolved;
- the expected pathway between institutional adoption and governance-controlled value accrual has become less certain;
- recurring dilution should not continue unless it remains justified under current circumstances; and
- if additional funding is needed, governance can always evaluate a new proposal based on the current roadmap with updated milestones, reporting and justification.
Discussion following the presentation
Following the presentation, Shelby asked what I believed had materially changed since TPP-18 was approved.
I explained that my position is based on three developments:
- The roadmap has evolved;
- previously anticipated fee mechanisms remain deferred; and
- the relationship between institutional adoption and governance-controlled value accrual is now less certain than when TPP-18 was approved.
I also explained that this proposal does not attempt to judge whether engineering decisions were technically correct. The governance question is simply whether those changes justify reconsidering the remaining automatic allocations.
Matter Labs’ response
Steven from Matter Labs responded by arguing that nothing material had changed and that TPP-18 continues to pursue its original objective of executing the 2026 Prividium roadmap and expanding the institutional network.
During the discussion, however, he also repeatedly explained that engineering priorities had changed in response to partner feedback and institutional demand.
He stated that Matter Labs had reprioritized work toward private interoperability because this is what partners currently require.
One interesting moment during the discussion was that Steven initially referred to public interoperability as having been “deprioritized” before immediately correcting himself to “reprioritized.” While this was likely an unintentional slip of the tongue, it nevertheless reflected the central point under discussion**: that engineering priorities have changed since TPP-18 was approved.**
The disagreement was therefore not whether priorities had evolved, but whether those changes are significant enough for governance to reconsider the remaining automatic funding.
Public interoperability
A significant part of the discussion focused on public interoperability.
It was acknowledged during the call that both private interoperability and public interoperability are included within Stream 1 of TPP-18.
My position was that the originally planned public interoperability/fee mechanism work was removed from V31 after the roadmap changed in response to partner feedback.
I pointed out that public interoperability/fee mechanism had originally been expected as part of the V31 roadmap and was promised to be delivered by the end of June. That implementation did not occur, and during the discussion no new delivery timeline or commitment was provided. So Technically it has been Cancelled not reprioritized like Steven tried to frame it.
Matter Labs’ position was that public interoperability has not been cancelled, but rather postponed and reprioritized while engineering resources focus on private interoperability.
Whether one describes that as a postponement or a reprioritization, I believe it remains relevant to the governance question because it demonstrates that the roadmap has evolved since TPP-18 was approved.
Returning the discussion to governance
As the discussion became increasingly technical, I made an effort to redirect the conversation back to the actual governance question.
I stated:
“Those technical details may be relevant to a future funding proposal, but the question here is narrower: should the existing automatic allocation continue unchanged, or should governance reassess it?”
I believe this distinction is important.
This proposal is not asking delegates to evaluate engineering architecture or implementation decisions.
It asks whether the assumptions that originally justified twelve months of automatic treasury allocations remain sufficiently unchanged to justify continuing those allocations without renewed governance approval.
Timing
Another point raised by Matter Labs was that TPP-18 has only been active for approximately one month.
While I understand that perspective, I do not believe the passage of time alone determines whether governance should exercise the authority that TPP-18 explicitly reserved.
The revocation mechanism exists precisely so governance can respond if circumstances evolve during the funding period.
The question is therefore not simply how much time has passed, but whether governance believes the underlying assumptions supporting future monthly allocations remain valid today.
Unfortunately, during the final part of the discussion my internet connection became unstable. I was joining the call while away from home and experienced repeated connection issues, which prevented me from responding in greater detail to some of the final points that were raised. Despite those technical difficulties, I appreciated the opportunity to present the proposal and discuss its central governance question with delegates and Matter Labs representatives.
My conclusion after the discussion
Overall, I believe the call was a valuable step in bringing this proposal before a wider audience of delegates and community members.
The discussion also highlighted what I believe is the central disagreement.
Throughout the discussion, Matter Labs argued that nothing had changed in a way that would justify revoking the remaining allocations. At the same time, they explained that engineering priorities had been rescoped and reprioritized in response to partner feedback, with public interoperability being postponed (to unknown date without any promises if delivery) while private interoperability became the immediate focus based on their business partners’ wish.
In my view, those two positions raise the very governance question this proposal is intended to address. My argument has never been that development stopped or that the broader institutional vision disappeared. Rather, it is that governance should consider whether changes to the roadmap, implementation priorities, delivery timeline and expected value-accrual pathway are sufficiently significant to justify reassessing automatic monthly treasury allocations.
For me, the value of this call was therefore not in convincing Matter Labs of that position. Their perspective is already well known. The value was giving delegates and the wider community an opportunity to hear the proposal discussed publicly, examine both viewpoints, and evaluate the arguments for themselves.
The core governance issue remains clear:
TPP-18 included an explicit safeguard allowing the Token Assembly to revoke future monthly minters if circumstances changed. Given the evolution of the roadmap, the reprioritization of key deliverables, and the uncertainty around the original value-accrual assumptions, this proposal asks governance to exercise that authority and reassess the remaining automatic allocations.
That is the question this proposal asks the community to consider.
I encourage everyone who believes this discussion is important to become involved. Read the proposal carefully,watch the recording of the call ( minute 00:26) , participate in the forum discussion, engage respectfully with delegates, and help ensure that as many stakeholders as possible evaluate the proposal on its merits.
Governance only works when the community participates. If you believe this proposal deserves serious consideration, your involvement can help ensure that the discussion reaches more delegates and more community members before any future governance decision is made.
.
I think it’s too late to do researches and analysis, cause many here already in “drawing dead” posision, holding -70-90% losses. Technically almost all holders already zeroed. To be honest, not all the tokens are worthless. HYPE, PUMP, UNI already have some value accrue. So this option exists. But the only way to create value for ZK token is routing some fees that will be earned through private interoperability to ZK token. Its possible, but would never happen I think. Alex today retweeted about why buybacks are useless. So probably this is a hint that ZK token never gets a value. Sad, but it is what is.