Turbine Cash (ZKFG)

In hindsight, a proposal with just $18K in traded volume will have an outsized impact on @MetaDAOProject.

In November 2025, the ZKFG team submitted a proposal to burn their team package (their vested ZKFG allocation), on the logic that the DAO would adequately compensate the team if it succeeded.

Reasonable on paper. But the moment it passed, ZKFG stopped being the alignment unit between tokenholders and the team.

It created an asymmetric setup where both sides lost alignment:

(i) With the team package burned, the team has to amplify its claims on the treasury to capture upside (performance bonuses in USDC, higher monthly allowance).

(ii) With no token-based incentive, the DAO will always feel it's overpaying:

"would the team have accepted a 40% raise instead of 60% on the monthly allowance if their real upside was unlocking the team package? if I sign off on 60%, am I overpaying?"

Burning the team package degraded the token's seat on the value spectrum.

The current dual-token structure for Zinc isn't tenable. The value leakage between the two tokens weakens both, and Zinc team doesn't win in this setup either.

Takeaway: the token must be the preferred alignment unit, and the only one.

🚨JUST IN: @zinc_cash says it is trying to block @MetaDAOProject's ZKFG 007 proposal, which would let Zinc holders and its founder buy out solana:ZKFHiLAfAFMTcDAuCtjNW54VzpERvoe7PBF9mYgmeta holders at $0.15 and take Turbine Cash DAO LLC private if escrow is funded.

The pushback comes after ZKFG 006, a similar $0.15 buyout proposal from the Zinc side, passed but could not be executed because it lacked escrow, unclear IP transfer terms and invalid onchain instructions.

ZKFG is the ownership token for the project that raised $969K through MetaDAO as ZKLSOL. The same team later shifted to Zinc, a private proof of work mining game built using ZKFG treasury funds. Under Zinc’s own tokenomics, part of protocol revenue is meant to flow back to the ZKFG treasury.