{ZKP-cryptography course}

1. Executive summary and decision snapshot

Mathematical Academy requests $5,000 for the fourth edition of its ZKP & Cryptography Course, led by Marija Mikić. The proposed delivery is ten sessions, consultations, and an in-person hackathon in Belgrade in April 2027. The request remains under review; the applicant’s corrected funding structure is $0 upfront and $5,000 milestone-based. [1][4][6]

The strongest capability evidence is the team’s stated academic and cryptography experience and its reported delivery of three previous editions reaching more than 150 participants. These are applicant-reported credentials and results. [1][4]

Decision inference: The central question is whether this established educational activity offers sufficiently concrete Zcash benefits—not simply general ZK education—to justify sponsorship. Payment conditions, co-funding, and measurable outputs warrant particular attention. [1][4][6]

2. Applicant and team track record

• Marija Mikić: The application identifies her as a mathematics PhD, University of Belgrade assistant professor and department head, former Attic42 cryptography researcher, and researcher on Ethereum Foundation–supported projects. Her responsibilities include coordination, teaching, homework evaluation, and chairing the hackathon. [1]
• Teaching team: Mihajlo Srbakoski is described as a teaching assistant, PhD student, and former Attic42 researcher. Andrija Novaković is described as an applied cryptographer with Geometry, Bain Capital Crypto, and previous Ethereum Foundation experience. Both would develop content, teach, and mentor practical work. [1]
• Organizational experience: The Academy reports seven years of educational activity, including advanced mathematics, physics, cryptography, and university preparation. [4]

For independently corroborated course-completion rates, assessed learning gains, or prior ZCG-funded performance: No grounded evidence found. This does not establish that no prior ZCG grants exist.

3. Proposal scope, milestones, budget, technical approach, and dependencies

Scope and approach: The curriculum combines mathematical foundations with implementation: SNARKs/STARKs, elliptic curves and pairings, PLONK, Circom, Semaphore/MACI, security bugs, and application-building. It also covers Ethereum versus Solana and a session combining Zcash/private transactions, stealth addresses, lattice topics, and fully homomorphic encryption. [4]

Funding dependency: The application says Geode is providing partial support and that the Academy seeks an additional sponsor to deliver the course. The supplied evidence does not specify Geode’s contribution or the total program cost. [1]

Milestones and budget: The applicant says the first milestone date was adjusted to reflect the review timeline. For the revised date, individual milestone deliverables and payment amounts, acceptance criteria, and itemized expenditure: No grounded evidence found. The commitment to milestone-based funding therefore cannot yet be evaluated against a complete delivery schedule. [6]

4. Community discussion, arguments, responses, and resolution

Strongest argument in favor: A community participant welcomed the combination of theory, practical learning, mentoring, and a hackathon. The participant identified potential value beyond Serbia through reusable materials and an alumni teaching network. [4]

Strongest substantive challenge: The same participant asked whether materials could actually be shared and whether former students had continued into ZK/privacy work. These questions test enduring educational value rather than attendance alone. No substantive community argument explicitly opposing funding appears in the supplied discussion. [4]

Applicant response: Mikić said structured materials, exercises, and assignments already exist and that the Academy welcomes adaptation elsewhere. Regional expansion is the nearer-term ambition. She reported alumni entering cryptography-related graduate study, research, engineering, and Web3, while describing alumni mentoring and teaching as future goals. [5]

Resolution: These responses clarify direction but do not establish publication commitments or quantified alumni outcomes. Separately, a reviewer identified duplicated funding entries; the applicant acknowledged the mistake and reported correcting it. The arithmetic objection is addressed by that clarification. No explicit remaining disagreement is documented; the substantive issue is how intentions become accountable deliverables. [5][6][7]

5. Relevant precedents and documented outcomes

• Zcash Privacy Academy — $7,000, declined: This is the closest comparison by educational format and funding scale. ZCG’s documented reasons included overlap with ZecHub, insufficient demonstrated audience, and weak differentiation from readily available educational information. Inference: Mathematical Academy’s reported existing cohorts and practical mentoring distinguish this proposal, but evaluators still need evidence of incremental Zcash value. [11][4]
• ZecHub 2025 — $247,438, approved: Relevant as an established Zcash education funding precedent, although substantially larger than this request. The supplied record marks the grant and nine milestones complete. For substantive outcome evidence demonstrating reach, learning, or adoption: No grounded evidence found. Those completion labels cannot establish educational impact or provide a reliable cost-effectiveness benchmark. [10]

6. Material risks and execution considerations

The following are evaluation inferences, not documented failures:

• Zcash benefit may be diffuse. Zcash is one component of a broad, multi-ecosystem curriculum; educational success would not automatically demonstrate Zcash-specific contribution. [4]
• Depth versus breadth: Ten sessions cover extensive mathematics, cryptographic systems, development tools, and practical projects. Prerequisites, teaching hours, and assignment design could materially affect whether participants become capable builders. [4]
• Cash-flow exposure: No upfront ZCG funding, combined with reliance on another sponsor, makes the Academy’s ability to finance delivery before milestone acceptance relevant. [1][6]
• Coordination concentration: The lead holds teaching, administrative, assessment, and hackathon responsibilities. Other lecturers provide technical capacity, but continuity arrangements would strengthen execution confidence. [1]

7. Material gaps and questions for the applicant

• What specifically will ZCG buy? Identify Zcash learning objectives, practical exercises, expected project outputs, and who will assess their relevance and quality.
• What are the payable milestones? Provide deliverables, dates, amounts, acceptance evidence, and the revised first milestone deadline.
• Is the program fully financed? Supply the total budget, allocation of the requested funds, confirmed Geode support, and the delivery plan if sponsorship or attendance falls short.
• Who will participate, and what constitutes success? Specify recruitment commitments, prerequisites, cohort target, completion target, and learning-assessment methods.
• What demonstrates prior effectiveness? Provide representative previous projects, completion figures, and verifiable examples supporting the alumni progression claims.
• What will become reusable? Commit to publication timing, licensing, language, access arrangements, and responsibility for maintaining teaching materials.

8. Neutral decision considerations

Inference: A committee willing to fund general ZK talent development could give weight to the applicant’s teaching history and specialist team. A committee requiring direct Zcash contribution would need more explicit project requirements and follow-through measures. [1][4]

Possible funding conditions—not an approve-or-reject recommendation—include:

• An agreed milestone schedule with objective acceptance evidence.
• Confirmation of the full financing plan before delivery commitments.
• A defined Zcash practical component and public educational outputs.
• A final report distinguishing enrollment, completion, learning results, and subsequent ecosystem participation.

These conditions would separate paying for course delivery from claiming longer-term impact.

9. Numbered source list

• [1] Grant Application - {ZKP-cryptography course} — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/386
• [4] Grant Application: ZKP & Cryptography Course – 4th Edition — posts 1–5, part 1 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/grant-application-zkp-cryptography-course-4th-edition/57698/1
• [6] Comment on #386: Grant Application - {ZKP-cryptography course} — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/386#issuecomment-5888315268
• [5] Grant Application: ZKP & Cryptography Course – 4th Edition — posts 1–5, part 2 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/grant-application-zkp-cryptography-course-4th-edition/57698/4
• [7] Comment on #386: Grant Application - {ZKP-cryptography course} — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/386#issuecomment-5750121540
• [11] Grant Application: Development of the “Zcash Privacy Academy” Course — comparison summary — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/20
• [10] ZecHub 2025: An Education Hub for Zcash — comparison summary — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/9