Zcash Türkiye University Tour 2026 — ZCG Grant Proposal

1. Executive summary and decision snapshot

Zcash Türkiye requests $27,000 for a 10-university pilot tour, delivered by Batuhan, A.bulut7777, and Mutlu. The application is under review. It combines privacy education, Zodl wallet setup, and first shielded transactions. All funding is requested upfront; the sole listed milestone carries $0, with no payment retained against delivery.[1][9]

The strongest concrete capability evidence is the team’s Istanbul Blockchain Week report: 194 unique QR registrations, 250+ stand visitors, and 60+ Telegram connections. These are applicant-reported engagement results, not independently verified sustained adoption.[11]

Evaluation inference: The central trade-off is a team with relevant event experience versus an untested multi-campus rollout. Funding conditions, schedule consistency, technical readiness, and evidence of continued use are more consequential than attendance alone.[1][6][9][11]

2. Applicant and team track record

• Batuhan: Team lead responsible for content, social media, and community. He reports more than six years in cryptocurrency and over a year working with Zcash Türkiye.[1]
• A.bulut7777: Community/social-media contributor with a programming background and claimed event-organizing experience over two to three years. Mutlu: Field support for wallet installation, transactions, and event operations.[1]
• External confidence: In July 2026, ZCG approved the team’s $6,870 RLAY HUB event proposal, with members citing prior contributions and confidence in delivery. One member questioned the limited information about the host event. No grounded evidence found for completed RLAY milestones or measured outcomes in the supplied material; approval is not proof of impact.[13]

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

Deliverables: Ten campus events across six cities; approximately 915 students, 700 wallet setups, at least 550 shielded transactions, and ten campus representatives. Reporting includes updates within three days of each event, a final measurement report, and an online follow-up one month after the tour.[6]

Approach and dependencies: Students use their own devices for hands-on wallet setup and transactions, with wallet-security instruction. University blockchain/technology clubs provide venues, recruitment, and local organization; the team supplies content, technical assistance, incentives, and materials.[6]

Budget: Transportation $3,000; accommodation $3,500; incentives $4,500—including 700 × $5 onboarding payments and $1,000 quiz rewards; merchandise $6,500; operations/coordination $4,000; team compensation $5,500. Accommodation assumes approximately 15 field-travel days. No hardware/software spending or other funding is proposed.[7][8]

Material schedule conflict: The milestone is dated October 25, 2026, but the narrative anticipates events from October’s second week through November’s third week, followed by a November 25 final report. These dates do not define a consistent completion/acceptance point.[9]

Calculated planning ratios: At full target delivery, total funding is approximately $30 per attendee, $39 per wallet setup, or $49 per shielded transaction. These are whole-project ratios—not incremental acquisition costs or retained-user costs.[6][8]

4. Community discussion, arguments, responses, and resolution

Substantive community responses to this request: No grounded evidence found. The supplied discussion text contains the applicant’s proposal, not a documented exchange establishing community consensus or resolving objections.[6][7][8][9]

• Strongest supporting case—applicant’s argument: Campus clubs offer access to relevant audiences; hands-on transactions go beyond presentation attendance; representatives and follow-up aim to make engagement durable.[6]
• Strongest counter-case—evaluation inference: Merchandise consumes approximately 24% of the budget, while durable adoption is not a quantified acceptance target. Full prepayment leaves no financial holdback tied to results.[6][7][9]
• Applicant clarification: This is presented as a separate, one-time project rather than continuation of ongoing community funding. The applicant also explains that upfront funds enable bookings, bulk purchasing, incentives, and coordination.[8][9]

Resolution: Those statements clarify intent and the cash-flow rationale, but do not demonstrate cost separation or establish why the entire budget must precede delivery. No documented resolution or remaining community disagreement can be established from the supplied discussion.[8][9]

5. Relevant precedents and documented outcomes

Zcash Global Turkiye Q2 — $10,400, approved. Relevant as same-applicant education/community work. ZCG cited positive survey feedback finding value in the team’s content and supporting continuation. The record marks milestones and the grant complete, but supplies no quantified adoption outcome; the survey feedback is the stronger substantive evidence, and concerns earlier work rather than proving this grant’s eventual impact.[17]

Taking Zcash to the Streets — $6,955, declined. Relevant as Turkish-language education and incentivized public engagement. ZCG wanted an example episode and evidence that the format could sustain interest before upfront funding; another member questioned added value relative to existing videos.[18]

Comparative inference: Prior community satisfaction supports the Türkiye team’s credibility, while the declined proposal illustrates the importance of demonstrating a new outreach format’s value before committing its full budget. Neither establishes a campus-tour cost benchmark.[17][18]

6. Material risks and execution considerations

• Technical execution: The Istanbul event report says rewards were not yet fully distributed because of technical-infrastructure and supply constraints. No grounded evidence found confirming subsequent settlement. This directly matters for a tour centered on successful on-site transactions.[11]
• Outcome measurement: The proposal promises event-level counts but does not specify privacy-preserving verification, unique-user controls, or repeat-use measurement. Inference: Incentivized first transactions could overstate continuing adoption.[6][7]
• Logistics: The applicant identifies university scheduling, weather, transport delays, attendance variation, and incomplete onboarding as risks, proposing flexible travel time and hands-on assistance.[8]
• Demand certainty: The applicant reports positive responses from 28 university clubs. Named host commitments and confirmed event dates are not supplied. Inference: Positive interest alone does not secure the planned attendance or itinerary.[1][9]

7. Material gaps and questions for the applicant

• Campus readiness: Which ten universities have confirmed venues, dates, recruitment responsibilities, and expected attendance? What substitutions are permitted?
• Acceptance and payment: What is the definitive delivery calendar, and which deliverables trigger acceptance? What minimum deposit is necessary, with the balance payable against verified progress?
• Additionality and cost: How are compensation, coordination, and follow-up separated from existing community funding? What merchandise quantities and supplier quotes justify $6,500?
• Measurement and retention: How will unique wallet setups and completed shielded transactions be verified without exposing student financial information? What 30- or 90-day engagement target will representatives support?
• Technical contingency: Were all Istanbul rewards settled? What tested fallback covers wallet/network disruption, failed transactions, and delayed rewards?
• Financial controls: Who controls incentive funds, prevents repeat claims, reconciles expenditure, and returns or obtains permission to repurpose unused funds?

These questions target the delivery, value, and funding uncertainties above—not administrative cleanup.

8. Neutral decision considerations

Committee options, not an approval/rejection recommendation:

• Evaluate the request as a bounded outreach experiment, with educational reach distinguished from sustained adoption.
• Consider staged funding, an initial campus tranche, or expenditure-backed startup funding rather than treating the proposed payment structure as fixed.
• Set explicit acceptance thresholds, privacy-preserving reporting requirements, contingency rules, and a post-tour retention checkpoint.
• Judge the event-delivery evidence and the case for incremental spending separately.

9. Numbered source list

• [1] Zcash Türkiye University Tour 2026 — ZCG Grant Proposal — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/449
• [9] Zcash Türkiye University Tour 2026 — posts 1–5, part 6 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zcash-turkiye-university-tour-2026/57848/1
• [11] Zcash Marketing at Istanbul Blockchain Week & Community Activation — posts 16–20, part 2 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zcash-marketing-at-istanbul-blockchain-week-community-activation/55271/17
• [6] Zcash Türkiye University Tour 2026 — posts 1–5, part 3 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zcash-turkiye-university-tour-2026/57848/1
• [13] Zcash Turkiye RLAY HUB Event - decision minutes — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zcash-community-grants-zcg-meeting-minutes-7-20-2026/56763
• [7] Zcash Türkiye University Tour 2026 — posts 1–5, part 4 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zcash-turkiye-university-tour-2026/57848/1
• [8] Zcash Türkiye University Tour 2026 — posts 1–5, part 5 — https://forum.zcashcommunity.com/t/zcash-turkiye-university-tour-2026/57848/1
• [17] Zcash Global Turkiye Q2 — comparison summary — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/38
• [18] Taking Zcash to the Streets: Education & Real-World Feedback in Türkiye — comparison summary — https://github.com/ZcashCommunityGrants/zcashcommunitygrants/issues/401