No. Everything that needs to be discussed about ZCG can be, and should be, discussed in the town square. Zcash and its community deserve this. Frankly, the stories I've heard about the bad behavior behind the scenes are disappointing to say the least. We don't need to go into the details, but the back channeling, bullying, and intimidation tactics are unacceptable and not going to be tolerated anymore. The best preventative measures going forward are sunlight and transparency, which is to say having all conversations out in the open.

This is incoherent. Zcash does not fit the definition of a public good (i.e., non-rivalrous, non-excludable). If you buy 1 ZEC, its yours and no one else can't have it, and if you want to participate in/use the Zcash network, you have to pay for it. No free-riding. If by public good you mean that Zcash is open-source/available/accessible to everyone, then I agree with you that it is. And I also firmly agree that Zcash is good for society and necessary for it to be free and open. But that should not be confused or conflated with what economists mean by "public good", as in one that cannot be provided efficiently or effectively by the private markets. Zcash does not have such characteristics. It is not a lighthouse or national defense. As a result, it doesn't need a government-like plundering/taxing mechanism to fund its development — especially not one without representation — like ZCG. Development is the purview of the market. In other words, ZCG is not necessary. The market will handle this and handle it better in all respects. I have no idea why or how you think Zcash would be "rendered accessible to only the rich". The trend line for more accessibility has only been increasing rapidly and dramatically (e.g., wallet support, exchange support, exposure via public companies and ETFs, etc.). Maybe you could expand on your argument here so everyone can understand what you are talking about.

Embarrassing, childlike behavior. This is 1 of 5 decision-makers who control the $110 million dollars in ZCG. If you can't even take a little scrutiny on X without resorting to unfollowing/blocking people, you're not qualified to run 110 million dollars with no accountability!

Comparing ZCG to mining is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually illiterate. Miners are the Man in the Arena and mining is the purest market-based competition imaginable. Miners risk their capital and time to enter the race to verify and secure the Zcash network. Execute better than everyone else and the mining reward will be yours. Execute poorly and the consequences are real and brutal. The rules are objective, transparent, and clear. The inputs are GSols/sec, the consensus mechanism is EquiHash, and the finish line is finding a valid nonce and writing the next block to the blockchain faster than anyone else. Bring more compute to bear on the network than everyone else and you will succeed. Falter, and you will wiped out (as we seen many times throughout history of PoW networks). The results are mathematically verifiable and can easily be agreed upon by everyone. The relationship and fidelity between risk, execution, and reward couldn't be more direct or higher. There is no such thing as a truly decentralied crypto network without miners. Mining is not a choice. It is inextricably tied to decentralization and cannot be separated any more than a beating heart can be separated from its body and for that person to still be considered alive. On the other hand, ZCG is a choice. It's optional. It is not existential, intrinsic to, or an ontological basis for a decentralized network. It does not have to exist for Zcash to exist and it should not exist. At its core, ZCG a slush fund with no accountabiility. If all of the dollars deployed are incinerated, nothing changes. Zero consequences. The money pump keeps pumping into the ZCG fund. This can only lead to bad outcomes. ZCG is rife with conflicts of interest and poor incentive structures that all foster moral hazards. The decision-makers have no skin in the game, no limited partners, no shareholders, no fiduciary responsibilities, no liability, no economic risk, and no next fund to raise. Ultimately, they have no consequences or accountability. And Zcash coinholders have no say. This defies all logic and common sense. There is no rational argument to support ZCG.

Zcash Forums are not the town square. @X is the town square. And is so by any and every measure. If you believe in open and transparent dialogue, discourse, and debate, then Zcash discussions should be happening here. Calling that position toxic or blocking people on account of it is instantly credibility-losing.