Zcash rally is a marketing story, not a fundamentally strong coin

The recent price surge of Zcash is mainly driven by marketing narrative rather than genuine fundamental strength. That is the view of analyst Satofishi, who points to serious problems in the history and structure of the project. Despite a market capitalisation on a par with Solana and Hyperliquid, Zcash lacks the concrete use cases that those two projects have built.

In short:

• Zcash is benefiting from a rally that is mainly narrative-driven
• The project struggles with an unfair launch, internal conflict and a four-year-old security bug
• Privacy was optional instead of standard, which undermines the project

Unfair launch with Founders’ Reward

The criticism starts with the way Zcash was launched. For the first four years, the project received 20% of every block reward as the so-called Founders’ Reward. This money went to founders, employees, advisers and early investors. In total, it amounted to 2.1 million ZEC, or 10% of the total supply of 21 million coins.

This differs fundamentally from Bitcoin, which pays miners for their work. In addition to miners, Zcash also paid a company and its investors. When this arrangement was about to end, a similar 20% cut returned as the so-called development fund. According to Satofishi, a coin that has written itself into the block reward cannot be presented as neutral money.

Optional privacy and internal conflict

Privacy was the core promise of Zcash, but it was made optional. Public addresses remained the easiest route for exchanges and standard wallets. For most of Zcash’s existence, the majority of coins therefore stayed in public view. This turns privacy into marketing rather than protocol-level protection.

Internally, the project shows structural problems. Constant power struggles have surrounded Electric Coin Company, the Foundation, Bootstrap, the brand name, the wallet and the question of who receives which share of the rewards. In January 2026, the entire ECC team left, saying they had been pushed out. Satofishi does not see this as a side issue, but as a symptom of fundamental disorganisation.

Serious security bug in privacy pool

The security problem undermines Zcash’s value as hard money. In May 2026, a serious bug in the Orchard privacy pool came to light that had remained unnoticed for around four years. In theory, it could have been used to create fake ZEC without a clear trace on the blockchain.

Because the pool is private, no one can prove that fake coins were never created. Ironwood closed the old pool in July and forced coins through an upgrade. This is damage control, not a reason for a top-10 price. A currency whose private supply cannot be audited in the way Bitcoin’s can, and which required an emergency fix after four years, cannot be regarded as hard money.

Satofishi concludes that Zcash does not deserve a legitimate place among the largest crypto projects. An unfair launch, a team conflict without corresponding product delivery, years of internal drama and a four-year-old hole in the privacy pool tell the story of a speculative project, not of a real network.