Hi there, I’ll answer the questions raised here directly. First, a correction of the record, because you’re saying that I said something I did not say.
On what I said in the TPP-18 thread:
The claim above: “Voters were explicitly promised by @Golem in the TPP-18 thread that the interoperability fees of v31 would be passed before the first minting occurred, specifically so the token wouldn’t suffer so heavily from this massive dilution.”
What I actually wrote, verbatim [TPP-18 thread reply]:
“A fair point on sequencing. v31 (the ZIP-16 Interop Bundles Upgrade) is currently in its final testing phase. It is expected to be published onchain by mid-June. Once published, the upgrade will go to a governance vote, and upon passage executed. The target for production execution is the end of Q2 2026, ahead of the first monthly capped minter, which activates July 1, 2026. The sequencing is therefore aligned so that v31 is expected to ship ahead of the first minter activation.”
That is a description of the expected timeline as of that date. It contains no promise that interop fees would pass before minting, and it says nothing about dilution. The full exchange is linked above.
Two things from that statement did not hold: v31 did not ship on the timeline I described, which was a target date, and its scope changed. Both are documented in the rescoped proposal [rescoped v31 proposal] and the deprecation notice on the original post [deprecation notice].
Why were the economic features removed?
Because the interop they run on was deferred. Over recent months the team worked directly with the institutions building on ZKsync, and their requirements were consistent: private execution, settlement direct to Ethereum, and atomic interop between their own environments, rather than public interop routed through Gateway. v31 was rescoped to the foundation that path depends on. The Gateway interop code, including the fee mechanics, is complete, audited, and remains in the codebase, inactive. It could be brought into production through a future governance proposal and any implementation steps required at that time.
Who made that decision?
Matter Labs, as the proposal author, based on that partner work. Scoping a release sits with the proposal author. Adopting it sits with governance.
When was the community consulted?
The consultation is the governance vote, and it has not been skipped. It has not happened yet. The rescoped proposal is live now for review, and nothing in v31 executes without passing that vote. If delegates disagree with the rescope, the vote is the mechanism.
Is token utility still coming, or has it been abandoned?
No decision to abandon anything has been made. ZK is the network’s native and governance asset. The fee mechanics exist in the codebase and are inactive. Whether and when any fee mechanism activates is a governance decision, not a team announcement. I will not make forward promises about token outcomes in a forum reply. Those decisions run through governance, where every holder can participate.
If it was delayed, why wasn’t that communicated clearly?
The original post carried the explicit caveat that the date could move, and it did. The scope change should have reached this forum faster than it did. It is now fully documented in the rescoped proposal and the deprecation notice, published in the open as a new proposal rather than a quiet edit, and the proposal thread will be updated as submission and vote dates are confirmed.
Further questions on the release itself belong on the rescoped proposal thread [v31 thread], and I will answer them there.