Before we start, an important warning: this may hurt some sensitivities. Not because I want to provoke, but because what I'm about to say contradicts the comfortable, superficial narratives that are repeated like dogma in today's crypto ecosystem.
If someone is very attached to the idea that "everything must be multichain" or believes in the mantra "mix Zcash with any other network and it's always good," what follows won't please them. And that's fine. This is my personal stance, based on what I understand, what I observe, and what I value about Zcash.
If you're still reading, great. Just don't say I didn't warn you.
That said, let's continue without anesthesia:
I've been noticing a dangerous trend for a while: people trying to integrate Zcash with everything that exists—bridges, foreign rollups, wrapped tokens, interoperability, experiments that only serve to turn Zcash into an accessory for chains that neither share our purpose nor our philosophy.
I don't support it. I don't celebrate it. I don't want it.
Not because I'm against innovation, but because there's a very clear line between improving Zcash and distorting it to fit models that don't respect its cypherpunk essence.
I'll explain why.
1—Zcash is valuable precisely because it is NOT like the others
Zcash exists for a reason: to protect the user in a world that wants to expose them.
My reading of Zcash's original purpose prioritizes privacy over extensive interoperability; that's why I oppose integrations that subordinate it.
When you mix it with chains whose main goals are liquidity, TVL, speed, or speculation, the focus breaks. Zcash stops being a tool of freedom and becomes a plugin in a multichain circus that lives off layers, bridges, and third parties.
I'm not here to defend a plugin. I'm here to defend a sovereign network.
2—Mixing networks doesn't add privacy: it destroys it
Every external integration adds:
- more intermediaries
- more points of failure
- more opportunities to leak data
- more vectors for de-anonymizing users
- more logic foreign to our original design
Nowadays, it's trendy to add layers, proxies, bridges, adapters, "intents", relayers, oracles.
All of that sounds modern. But from a cypherpunk perspective it's simple: more intermediaries mean less privacy.
Zcash doesn't need more intermediaries. It needs fewer.
3—Bridges have repeatedly shown failures and centralization points that put user privacy and funds at risk
This isn't a prediction. It's statistics:
- bridges break
- custodians get corrupted
- multisigs are compromised
- contracts fail
- external chains impose new rules
- users pay the price
When a bridge falls, nobody holds the dev accountable. The one who loses is the user who trusted it.
Zcash wasn't born to depend on foreign contracts or to become wrapped ZEC. That would be voluntarily giving up what makes us strong.
4—I don't want to see Zcash invaded by external logics
I don't want external chains using Zcash as a toy, an experiment, or merely a "privacy layer" for their systems.
If you want real privacy, use Zcash. If you want DApps, use your chain.
But don't come trying to glue the two together as if it were harmless. It isn't. Never was. Never will be.
5—Useful integrations yes, invasions no (I mean things like Solana, Mina, etc.)
There are specific integrations like NEAR's Intents that improve user experience without compromising network sovereignty or turning Zcash into a secondary piece of someone else's ecosystem.
That's fine.
But it's very different to try to hook Zcash into architectures where:
- privacy is not the priority
- it depends on external validators
- everything passes through centralized pools
- or requires Zcash to become a wrapped, delegable, or third-party controlled token
- And yes, I'm talking about models like:
Solana: where everything ends up in supervalidators and programs that need permission.
Mina: where its "privacy" depends on external proofs, and the integration would turn Zcash into a subcomponent of their pipeline.
And any chain that wants to use Zcash as a "privacy module," when our strength is being an independent network, not an accessory.
Putting Zcash in that kind of ecosystem isn't collaboration: it's dilution, subordination, and distortion.
And that's a hard no from me.
6—I don't want Zcash to become what it isn't
Zcash doesn't need to become:
- a bridged token
- a loose piece of the multichain
- a backend for experiments nobody asked for
- an accessory for ecosystems that don't respect privacy
- a wrapped contract depending on foreign validators
Zcash needs to remain what it was designed for: truly private digital cash.
That's enough. That's valuable. That's what makes it unique.
7—ETFs and institutionalization (and why they make my stomach turn)
Seeing ETFs around ZEC gives me a strange feeling: I don't want privacy turned into a financial product for funds and custodians.
ETFs mean custodians, massive KYC, external audits, and a direct bridge into structures that historically aim to monitor, control, and filter money flow. That clashes with the idea of default privacy, which is the heart of Zcash.
Yes, institutional vehicles exist that allow exposure to ZEC. Yes, it's "more accessible." But accessible… for whom?
For sovereign users, no.
For institutions that want to control everything, yes.
And the worst part: this institutional exposure isn't real Zcash adoption:
- They buy it
- They lock it in custody
- They tokenize it inside a trust/ETF
- They use it as a financial asset
- They report everything to the SEC
That is not participating in the ecosystem. That is not using ZEC. That is collecting a ticker.
- They don't use shielded transactions.
- They don't use Z-addresses.
- They don't promote privacy.
- They don't integrate ZEC into private flows.
- They don't contribute to decentralization.
For them, Zcash is just a regulated product, not a tool of freedom.
Furthermore, media speculation about "ZEC ETFs" only pushes a dangerous narrative: that the network should adapt to please regulators, fit compliance frameworks, and, at worst, become acceptable to the traditional financial system.
And that's what makes my stomach turn.
Because an ETF:
- turns ZEC into a third-party custodied asset
- subjects its philosophy indirectly to external regulations
- opens the door to pressure to "audit the private"
- completely dilutes the cypherpunk spirit that gives it meaning
In short: I don't mind a manager wanting ZEC in their portfolio. My problem is that it ends up pushing the network toward a model where privacy becomes a regulated privilege, allowed only through "official" channels.
Accepting that would be joining the system, being absorbed by what Satoshi sought to avoid—and yes, that would betray the spirit of the whitepaper.
Zcash was born to protect people, not decorate an institutional balance sheet.
8—My stance, plain and simple
Zcash's strength is in its identity, not its compatibility.
Indiscriminately integrating it with other networks dilutes its purpose, exposes users, and strays from the original cypherpunk path: delivering direct privacy without intermediaries.
Whoever wants to experiment can experiment. But I don't want to see those experiments trying to become "the new direction" of Zcash.
I defend Zcash for what it is. And that's why I oppose these kinds of integrations.