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.