ZECsy Community Building: 12 Months of Zcash on the Ground

1. Executive summary and decision snapshot

The ZECsy Team requests $588,000 for a 12-month, in-person Zcash community-building programme from September 2026 through August 2027. The proposed work combines crypto/technology conference presence, adult-industry outreach, and recurring hands-on workshops. [1][4][5]

Delivery would be led by Mylo Bennett (“readymouse”) as full-time programme manager and Violet “Vi” Parr (“fabacab”) as lead educator, supported by a rotating field crew including a veteran and apprentice at major activations. [1][5][6]

The intended annual output is:

• Eight crypto or technology events;
• Four adult-industry activations; and
• Eight weekend workshops. [4][5]

Payments are proposed as one startup payment followed by 11 monthly milestones, with each subsequent payment contingent on the prior month’s delivered work and forum report. [6]

Decision snapshot: The request has a coherent delivery model, a team with prior event activity, and at least one cited quantitative result—912 unique attendees at the Berlin Zcash Privacy Späti. However, the funding request is large relative to the documented evidence supplied, the proposed event calendar remains largely uncommitted, and no detailed line-item budget, milestone amounts, or independently documented adoption/retention outcomes are present in the supplied evidence. [6]

2. Applicant and team track record

The named applicants are Mylo Bennett and Violet Parr, operating as the ZECsy Team. Mylo is presented as programme lead responsible for coordination, outreach strategy, event and workshop design, budget management, partnerships, and apprentice mentorship. Violet is presented as technical educator responsible for workshops, technical communication, developer relations, content, and community support. [1]

The team reports previous Zcash-related activations at ETHBoulder/ETHDenver, ETHCC Cannes, Exxxotica Chicago, Berlin Blockchain Week, and DWeb Camp, and states that Cypherpunk Week Amsterdam is upcoming. [1][6]

The strongest specific claimed delivery evidence is the Berlin Zcash Privacy Späti, which the team reports drew 912 unique attendees. The team also reports that more than 600 people visited its Exxxotica Chicago booth over three days, where apprentices practised Zcash onboarding conversations. [6]

A prior $30,000 ZECsy Team in Amsterdam grant was approved in July 2026. Committee members cited positive feedback and engagement from prior events, the team’s apparent traction with potential users, and the value of outreach to communities with high potential use for financial privacy. [10]

Evidence limitation: The supplied evidence documents the prior Amsterdam grant’s approval and committee rationale, but no completed-grant report or measured outcomes from that grant are available. Approval is not proof of impact. [10]

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

The programme is designed around a repeating three-month cadence of two mainstream crypto/technology events, one adult-industry activation, and two weekend workshops. Event selection would be finalized roughly 90 days in advance based on cost, speaker or booth acceptance, and audience fit. [4][5]

Planned activities include:

• Event booths, demonstrations, speaker opportunities, onboarding, and relationship-building;
• Privacy and Zcash workshops, followed by Signal support chats;
• An apprentice programme pairing newer field participants with experienced team members;
• Feedback collection for Zcash protocol, wallet, point-of-sale, on-ramp, and payroll/accounting teams. [5][6]

The technical demonstration component depends on CipherPay. Zach M. is identified as developing the CipherPay iPad demonstration toward a point-of-sale and merchant-acceptance flow for ZEC. [6]

The team proposes tracking new shielded wallets by event, conversations, workshop attendance and completion, wallets created during workshops, support-chat participation, partnerships, apprentice development, and monthly spending. [6]

The proposal states that a full line-item budget and actuals from past events are attached to the GitHub issue, but those figures are not included in the supplied evidence. Milestone deliverables and individual payment amounts are likewise absent. No grounded evidence found for the allocation of the $588,000 among compensation, travel, event fees, merchandise, workshops, technical development, or contingency. [6]

4. Community discussion, arguments, responses, and resolution

Arguments supporting the request: Community commenters from ZecHub and CipherPay expressed support. ZecHub characterized access to the adult industry as a significant opportunity. CipherPay’s developer vouched for Mylo and Violet’s field use of its point-of-sale demonstration and described a meaningful feedback loop between users and ecosystem builders. [7]

The applicant’s strongest substantive case is that trusted, repeated in-person engagement can connect Zcash with privacy-sensitive communities, create practical onboarding opportunities, and train additional community educators through the apprentice model. [4][5][6]

Arguments against or unresolved: No substantive critical community comments are contained in the supplied discussion. Nonetheless, the proposal itself leaves material decision questions unresolved: the event list is a candidate list rather than a committed calendar; the requested budget is not visible in the evidence; and the stated KPIs do not include targets or an attribution method demonstrating durable Zcash use after onboarding. [5][6]

Applicant clarifications: The applicants explain that up-front monthly funding is intended to reduce travel and shipping costs, enable earlier bookings, and meet speaker-application timelines. They also commit to monthly reports and activation reports. [6]

Resolution: The forum discussion supports the team’s credibility and the general opportunity, but it does not resolve budget sufficiency, event-selection criteria, outcome targets, or the relationship between activity metrics and sustained Zcash adoption. [5][6][7]

5. Relevant precedents and documented outcomes

ZECsy Team in Amsterdam — approved, $30,000. This is the most relevant precedent because it involves the same team and a short-term, in-person outreach programme at a privacy-focused event. The approval rationale cited prior positive feedback, engagement, and apparent traction with potential Zcash users. It supports confidence that the committee previously saw value in this delivery style and team. No documented post-grant outcomes are supplied. [10]

Zcash Open Learning Lab Space — declined, $15,000. This is relevant as a cautionary precedent for ongoing, in-person community-building commitments. The committee cited high delivery risk, insufficient demonstrated local activity, limited evidence of applicant engagement with the Zcash community, uncertainty over adoption, and concern about longer-term in-person commitments. [14]

Inference: ZECsy differs favorably from the declined Learning Lab because it has demonstrated prior Zcash event activity and a defined team. However, the current request is much larger and longer than the approved Amsterdam activation, so it would benefit from funding conditions that make continued payments depend on demonstrated results. [6][10][14]

6. Material risks and execution considerations

• Scale and value risk: $588,000 funds a broad, mobile programme rather than a single bounded activation. Without the absent line-item budget and milestone amounts, committee members cannot assess cost per event, attendee, onboarding, or retained user. [1][6]
• Outcome-measurement risk: The team identifies useful activity KPIs but provides no annual targets, baseline, retention definition, or evidence that past wallet creation translated into continued use. [6]
• Event-selection risk: The team plans to choose from candidate events approximately 90 days ahead. This provides flexibility but leaves audience quality, costs, and confirmed access uncertain. [5]
• Dependency risk: Merchant demonstrations depend partly on the CipherPay point-of-sale development path; the supplied evidence does not establish its delivery schedule, maturity, or reliability at planned events. [6]
• Operational concentration risk: Mylo is described as full-time lead across calendar, budget, logistics, partnerships, and reporting. A broad programme may be sensitive to availability of this central role and rotating personnel. [5][6]

7. Material gaps and questions for the applicant

8. Provide the complete $588,000 line-item budget, including compensation, travel, event fees, merchandise, workshops, technical work, contingency, and each milestone payment amount.

9. Define acceptance criteria for the startup payment and all 11 monthly milestones, including which outputs and outcome evidence are required before the next payment.

10. Set quantified annual and per-activation targets for shielded wallets created, workshop completion, support-chat participation, returning users, and apprentices advanced.

11. Explain how wallet-creation and retention metrics will be collected, attributed to events, protected from duplicate counting, and distinguished from temporary onboarding.

12. Identify which events, booth opportunities, workshop venues, partnerships, and speaker slots are already confirmed or applied for, and specify the fallback plan if priority events are unavailable.

13. Clarify CipherPay’s planned readiness, ownership, maintenance expectations, and the contingency plan if the point-of-sale demonstration cannot be used.

14. Provide documented results and spending from prior ZECsy-funded or community-funded events sufficient to evaluate cost, reach, onboarding, and lessons learned.

15. Neutral decision considerations

Factors supporting consideration include a defined leadership pair, reported prior field experience, a model that combines outreach with practical education, community endorsements from relevant ecosystem participants, and a monthly reporting concept. [1][6][7]

Factors warranting scrutiny include the request’s scale, incomplete budget visibility, flexible rather than committed event planning, dependence on a developing demonstration tool, and absence of documented long-term adoption outcomes in the supplied evidence. [5][6]

Inference: A committee could consider whether the proposal’s strategic value lies primarily in relationship-building and privacy-community access rather than immediately measurable adoption. If so, funding conditions should still require measurable evidence of both activity and post-event user engagement, so the programme can be evaluated on more than attendance and conversations. [4][6]

9. Numbered source list

• [1] Grant Application - ZECsy Community Building: 12 Months of Zcash on the Ground — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/383
• [4] Grant Application - ZECsy Community Building: 12 Months of Zcash on the Ground — posts 1–5, part 1 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/grant-application-zecsy-community-building-12-months-of-zcash-on-the-ground/56890/1
• [5] Grant Application - ZECsy Community Building: 12 Months of Zcash on the Ground — posts 1–5, part 2 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/grant-application-zecsy-community-building-12-months-of-zcash-on-the-ground/56890/1
• [6] Grant Application - ZECsy Community Building: 12 Months of Zcash on the Ground — posts 1–5, part 3 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/grant-application-zecsy-community-building-12-months-of-zcash-on-the-ground/56890/1
• [10] ZECsy Team in Amsterdam - decision minutes — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zcash-community-grants-zcg-meeting-minutes-7-20-2026/56763
• [7] Grant Application - ZECsy Community Building: 12 Months of Zcash on the Ground — posts 1–5, part 4 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/grant-application-zecsy-community-building-12-months-of-zcash-on-the-ground/56890/2
• [14] Zcash Open Learning Lab Space — comparison summary — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/31