History of ZB Chain (formerly ZBC)

ZBC Chain (ZBC) History: From Exchange Offshoot to Layer-1 Ambitions

ZBC, originally launched under Solana’s SPL token standard, began as a utility token closely tied to the decentralized exchange platform Zecrey. The token’s early narrative was shaped by Zecrey’s ambitions of providing privacy-focused cross-chain infrastructure. This privacy-oriented focus was later expanded as the project rebranded and shifted toward a more comprehensive blockchain ecosystem, now known as ZB Chain.

The transition from Zecrey Protocol to ZB Chain wasn’t just a cosmetic rebrand; it marked a structural shift from operating on third-party chains to building out its own consensus layer. This evolution mirrored trajectories seen in projects like ZetaChain, which also transitioned from protocol-level innovations to foundational Layer-1 infrastructure. However, in ZBC’s case, this pivot was not without friction. Critics questioned whether a formerly Solana-based asset could justify launching yet another Layer-1 amid a saturated blockchain landscape.

Technical decisions during the migration included adopting a Proof-of-Stake model, a choice that aligned it with scalability and sustainability trends across the sector. Nonetheless, the project faced adoption hurdles during its staking rollout—smart contract bugs and validator misconfigurations led to delays and community frustration, raising security and reliability concerns. These issues amplified skepticism about whether ZBC could truly compete with more established chains or if it was attempting to repackage an existing token for renewed speculative interest.

Adding complexity to ZBC’s history was the initial tokenomic structure. Before becoming a Layer-1 native token, ZBC was deployed with inflationary mechanics and high early concentration among insiders, including substantial allocations to the founding team and advisors. This distribution model bears similarity to some of the criticisms leveled at projects like NAVI, where governance centralization and token hoarding undermined decentralization narratives.

In parallel, ZB Chain's move toward DeFi integration faced challenges with ecosystem adoption. Early products such as liquidity staking platforms and bridges saw tepid traction, partly due to lack of composability and real use cases. While developer toolkits were launched to attract builders, the developer community remained thin, raising concerns about sustainability and network vibrancy.

Overall, ZBC’s history is a case study in rapid pivoting—starting as a Solana-based privacy solution and transforming into an aspiring base-layer protocol. For technically savvy users interested in early-stage chains, ZBC may offer a high-risk exploratory opportunity. Those looking to gain exposure can explore supported markets via this Binance onboarding link.

How ZB Chain (formerly ZBC) Works

How ZBC Works: Under the Hood of ZB Chain’s Execution Layer

ZBC (formerly ZBChain Coin) is the native asset of the ZBChain, a high-throughput, EVM-compatible Layer 1 that aims to provide an infrastructure optimized for value settlement and DApp scalability. Unlike conventional Ethereum forks that clone the stack wholesale, ZBChain claims to introduce a hybrid consensus layer combining Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) and Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT), where validators are periodically shuffled to reduce attack vectors on a fixed validator set.

The core of ZBC utility lies in its three-dimensional mechanics: gas fee payment, staking delegation, and transaction validation. Unlike Ethereum’s fee-burning model, ZBChain mechanisms are deflationary only under network congestion. When the base fee exceeds a prespecified threshold, a portion is irreversibly burned, creating a pseudo-EIP-1559 environment responsive to on-chain activity.

Validators on ZBChain must hold a substantial amount of bonded ZBC tokens; however, the minimum staking requirements are opaque, and the validator onboarding process is not fully trustless, a design compromise that has attracted scrutiny from segments of the crypto community focused on permissionlessness—a point of contention also seen in protocols explored in Decentralized Governance The TIAEX Model Explained.

The virtual machine execution environment is fully EVM-compatible, allowing contract migration from Ethereum without code changes. However, tooling and RPC node reliability are noted pain points. While initiatives to integrate with MetaMask and other Web3 wallets have gained traction, RPC lag under moderate loads remains a barrier for latency-sensitive apps. Compared to projects like Mondrian Protocol—known for data-centric execution models (Unlocking the Future of Mondrian Protocol)—ZBChain still lacks observable performance benchmarks on high-throughput DeFi scenarios.

Token emissions follow a decay curve with a sharp initial drop-off, rewarding early stakers significantly more than later ones. This bootstrapping design incentivizes early adoption but introduces wealth concentration risks, a critique also relevant to ecosystems covered in NAVI Under Fire Key Criticisms Explored.

Despite its streamlined bridging module for BSC and Ethereum mainnet, its lack of native ZK-rollup integration or optimistic execution arbitration makes it less suited for sophisticated interoperability use cases. Users interested in cross-chain flexibility often opt to onboard via trusted exchanges like Binance instead of interacting directly with bridge contracts due to sporadic audit transparency for ZBC-connected protocols.

These operational characteristics reflect a blockchain protocol still balancing core decentralization principles with the practical trade-offs of functioning as a performant DeFi platform.

Use Cases

Exploring the Practical Use Cases of ZBC on ZB Chain

ZBC, the native asset of the ZB Chain, plays a central role in enabling a permissionless, multi-chain DeFi ecosystem designed around modular interoperability and cross-chain liquidity routing. Originally rooted in Solana's programmable asset infrastructure, ZBC's transition to ZB Chain repositions its utility toward supporting composable infrastructure layers—targeting developers and DApps building in multi-chain environments.

Liquidity Layering and Incentivization

One of ZBC’s most direct use cases is as a liquidity incentivization mechanism. Protocols launching on ZB Chain utilize ZBC for bootstrapping liquidity via yield farming programs and single-sided staking vaults. Unlike many Layer-1 native tokens that serve only as gas assets, ZBC is also deployed in liquidity mining strategies for merged liquidity pools—where LPs bridge assets across chains into ZB-powered ecosystems. This dual function aligns ZBC more closely with assets used in composability-centric platforms like RUNEAI.

However, ZBC’s use in liquidity incentives has created concerns about unsustainable inflation due to aggressive farming campaigns. The protocol's design attempts to mitigate this through epoch-based decay mechanics, but the long-term balance remains ambiguous without hard supply caps.

Gas and On-chain Operational Utility

ZBC is also used to pay gas fees on ZB Chain. While this aligns with conventional EVM chain design patterns, what's notable is ZBC’s role in allowing meta-transaction relays and subsidized gas models for UX-first applications. Builders can craft interactions that abstract away the gas model, offloading fees to ZBC-powered infrastructure layers. This framework resembles gas abstraction mechanisms found in modular ecosystems such as TIAEX.

Yet, the underlying risk lies in centralization vectors introduced by fee subsidization. Reliance on off-chain relayers and middleware ownership by a handful of operators reduces the censorship resistance ZB Chain otherwise aims to promote.

DAO Staking and Governance

Holding ZBC grants governance rights through staking into protocol DAOs. These rights cover treasury allocation, development initiatives and ecosystem grants. The modular governance framework follows delegation models, promoting passive participation but maintaining on-chain voting for legitimacy.

However, like many governance tokens, ZBC suffers from voter apathy and concentration of voting power among whales. Token-based governance mirrors patterns seen in platforms like LUCA, where stakeholder centralization has opened legitimate critiques of protocol-level capture.

ZBC in Multi-Chain Messaging and Bridging

Finally, ZBC is used within ZB Chain’s native bridging and message-passing protocols for paying relay fees and securing wrapped assets. This positions ZBC as a routing fuel across inter-chain swaps, particularly relevant for traders accessing fragmented liquidity.

Users deploying wrapped ZBC in ecosystem-specific yield vaults or cross-chain lending protocols are able to participate in dynamic DeFi strategies—often routed via aggregators or DEXs using ZB-hosted liquidity.

For users seeking to engage directly with these use cases, ZBC is available via major exchanges. One option is Binance, which offers liquidity and trading pairs for ZBC.

ZB Chain (formerly ZBC) Tokenomics

ZBC Tokenomics: Exploring ZB Chain's Emission Structure and Utility Breakdown

ZBC, the native utility token of ZB Chain, plays a multifaceted role within the ecosystem, straddling transaction settlements, validator incentives, governance participation, and on-chain resource allocation. Unlike monolithic Layer-1 chains focused solely on throughput, ZB Chain emphasizes modular scalability and cross-chain compatibility, demanding tokenomics that balance inflation control with sustained liquidity incentives.

Total Supply and Emission Strategy

ZBC operates on a capped supply structure of 10 billion tokens. However, the linear unlock schedule combined with dynamic staking rewards makes the effective circulating supply highly elastic. A substantial portion—over 50%—was allocated toward ecosystem development and incentive pools, raising long-term dilution concerns if unlocks are misaligned with network activity and transactional demand.

Founders and core contributors reportedly hold nearly 20% of the supply, with multi-year vesting contracts. Though designed to signal commitment, any deviation from these contracts—via voting manipulation or DAO intervention—could introduce centralization vectors. This echoes critiques of other chains where misaligned incentive structures have led to inflationary spirals, as discussed in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/unpacking-the-tokenomics-of-navi.

Validator Economics and Inflation Mechanics

Staking lies at the heart of ZB Chain's consensus, under a delegated proof-of-stake (DPoS) mechanism. ZBC tokens are required for operating nodes or delegating funds, binding validator compensation directly to inflation rates. Epoch-based inflation dynamically adjusts based on staking participation and total value locked (TVL), but this introduces volatility in validator APRs—potentially disincentivizing smaller operators over time.

Critically, the validator set is pseudo-fixed due to performance scoring algorithms that limit churn. This threatens decentralization if top validators achieve majority voting control. Several tokenomics models like those in https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decoding-tiaex-insights-into-tokenomics have faced similar scrutiny due to validator capture risks.

Utility and Sink Mechanisms

ZBC is used for gas, on-chain governance, and smart contract execution, but its burn mechanisms are not fully optimized. Unlike models that incorporate time-decaying vote power or fee-based burning (e.g., PYRFI’s decreasing supply dynamic), ZB Chain’s burn model is sporadic and implemented through occasional upgrade votes. Additionally, DeFi infrastructure on ZB Chain remains underdeveloped, limiting large-scale token sink utilization such as yield farming or lending collaterals.

Without stronger deflationary pressures or adoption-based demand growth, ZBC’s long-term equilibrium risks falling into a liquidity trap—even with listings on major exchanges like Binance, which may absorb short-term volatility but not structural inefficiencies.

ZBC’s tokenomics reveal a careful attempt at sustainability, but unresolved tensions between utility activation and validator-centric inflation suggest closer scrutiny is warranted.

ZB Chain (formerly ZBC) Governance

ZB Chain Governance Structure: Examining Decentralized Authority in Action

The governance model of ZB Chain (formerly ZBC) blends on-chain controls with mechanisms that suggest the presence of off-chain influence. The project claims decentralized governance principles, but actual voting power is largely consolidated among early token holders and node operators, raising concerns about the nominal nature of community participation. Delegated authority can be observed in validator selection and network proposal processes, yet the delegate system lacks transparency on how voting weights are recalibrated over time or how veto authority is distributed—leaving room for centralized interference.

ZB Chain utilizes its core native token for governance and staking, yet its token distribution mechanics were never fully disclosed, creating a black box around power dynamics. Similar models have been criticized in NAVIs approach to governance, where early stakeholders held outsized control long after mainnet launch. Without a clear emissions schedule or transparent treasury expenditure reports, the ZB Chain ecosystem risks replicating well-documented governance minimalism under the guise of decentralization.

At the protocol level, voting occurs through a hybrid on-chain proposal system. Participation is measured through token-weighted votes, introducing plutocratic tendencies. The governance contract enables proposals for parameter changes, fee adjustments, and smart contract upgrades. However, the bar for quorum and successful vote thresholds appears opaque—especially for externally proposed changes. This often marginalizes minority voices, making it challenging for independent developers and token holders without large stakes to pass even critical changes.

Moreover, unlike governance-rich networks such as LUCA, ZB Chain lacks structured community forums or audited governance processes. There is little infrastructure to support deliberative participation; voting seems more procedural than political. For ecosystem-level proposals impacting treasury allocations or technical architecture, the absence of delegated DAO-like structures—like those seen on Radiant or Mondrian—limits collective decision-making capabilities.

The validator incentives also favor incumbents. Lower capital rotation and high bond requirements create friction for new entrants to join governance by becoming validators. While this may increase sybil resistance, it centralizes power among original participants. This validator staking paradigm is loosely reminiscent of what failed to scale in early DeFi networks like BurgerSwap, where real-time consensus failed to reflect community diversification.

Until more inclusive and transparent governance tooling is introduced—perhaps with quadratic voting, delegation tracking dashboards, or third-party audits—ZB Chain's governance claims remain more aspirational than realized. For those wishing to participate in governance or access ZB Chain staking infrastructure, a Binance account is required, adding another layer of custodial reliance.

Technical future of ZB Chain (formerly ZBC)

ZBC’s Technical Roadmap: Cross-Chain Ambitions, Programmability Layers & Network Challenges

ZBC (Zebec Protocol), now forming the foundation of the ZB Chain, is currently repositioning its stack from a streaming payment-focused Solana dApp into a broader Layer-1 (L1) infrastructure with EVM compatibility. The transition from a Solana-based deployment to an independent, Rust-based L1 using Tendermint and leveraging Cosmos-SDK points to an architectural vision similar to other appchains in the Cosmos ecosystem. This pivot aims to expand ZBC’s foundational use-case beyond continuous payroll and payments into a programmable infrastructure for modular finance.

One of the more ambitious inclusions in the roadmap is the planned integration of IBC (Inter-Blockchain Communication) channels, effectively enabling ZB Chain to communicate with other IBC-enabled blockchains. While precedents like Osmosis or JUNO have successfully implemented this, ZBC’s ecosystem currently lacks sufficient validator decentralization—raising questions around trust assumptions in cross-chain security.

Further technical milestones include deploying smart contract programmability via CosmWasm and integrating an Ethereum-compatible execution layer. This dual-track approach (Wasm and EVM) mimics architectures pursued by chains like Moonbeam or Secret Network, though maturity remains a concern. At present, audited libraries and dev tooling support for ZBC are still limited compared to more mature L1 hybrids. This makes it difficult to attract third-party dApps without drastically improving SDK documentation, grant programs or liquidity-based incentives—issues already highlighted in critical evaluations of comparable ecosystems like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/nexa-the-future-of-data-in-cryptocurrency.

Notably, the ZB Chain Roadmap omits a detailed approach to governance decentralization. Unlike DAOs on AVAX subnets or models used by TIAEX’s multistage governance rollout (https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decentralized-governance-the-tiaex-model-explained), ZBC still delegates core protocol decisions to Zebec Labs, maintaining centralization risks that may affect on-chain upgrades and validator expansion.

The ecosystem's reliance on early-stage DeFi primitives, such as Zebec Wallet staking and AMMs with limited depth, adds friction for developers seeking composability. Without deeper L1 liquidity or integrations with major DEX aggregators, ZBC may struggle to deliver credible yield-generating use cases at scale.

Developers exploring deployment on ZB Chain can get basic access through testnets linked from the Zebec Gateway or experiment with $ZBC via leading exchanges like Binance, though limited cross-chain bridge support may delay onboarding of assets from dominant EVM chains.

Comparing ZB Chain (formerly ZBC) to it’s rivals

ZBC vs SOL: A Technical and Ecosystem-Level Comparison

When analyzing ZBC (ZB Chain) in direct competition with Solana (SOL), the distinctions in architecture, validator model, and developer ecosystem become unavoidably clear. While both target high-throughput decentralized applications, their underlying stack and assumptions sharply diverge.

ZBC, operating on the ZB Chain architecture, builds on a modular execution environment tailored for interoperability and microservice-based DApps. By contrast, Solana's monolithic architecture emphasizes speed via its signature Proof of History (PoH) framework, enabling transaction finality in milliseconds. While this has attracted real-time applications like DeFi trading protocols and gaming platforms, it comes at a cost: Solana’s choice prioritizes throughput over modularity and sometimes decentralization.

ZBC’s validator model is comparatively lightweight and assumes a hybrid computational offload, enabling participant nodes to have lower resource demands and boot faster into consensus participation. Solana, by contrast, is known for its high validator resource footprint—its full validator nodes require considerable hardware allocations, which raises the barrier for decentralization. This ongoing centralization vector has been a repeated point of critique within the Solana ecosystem and among cross-chain advocates.

From an EVM compatibility standpoint, ZBC takes a fully integrated approach, supporting Solidity out of the box. This means developers migrating from Ethereum experience minimal refactoring. Solana operates through Rust and C, adding performance optimizations at the expense of developer accessibility. Its tooling, though matured, diverges significantly from the EVM-based ecosystem, making onboarding less seamless for Solidity-native teams.

A more nuanced distinction lies in composability. ZBC, targeting modular state environments, permits more granular control of state sharing between DApps. Solana’s chain-wide atomic composability—while elegant—has historically collided with scaling events, including network pauses caused by transaction surges or validator issues. This is particularly evident during NFT minting events or bot-driven congestion cycles.

Tokenomics is also worth comparing. ZBC rewards are tightly coupled with application-specific logic, granting more programmable incentive flows to developers. In contrast, SOL's reward system is anchored to network-level validator and staking infrastructure without native flexibility for dApp-level customization—a problem noted in several comparative deep-dives such as tiaex-vs-rivals-who-comes-out-on-top.

Where Solana's ecosystem thrives is in capital formation and market liquidity, including direct bridges to hosted centralized exchanges—some of which ZBC supporters have sought to access through platforms like Binance. However, ZBC's tendrils into modular, ecosystem-specific dApps akin to those in luca-vs-competitors-a-defi-showdown emphasize a more application-centric growth.

Ultimately, both protocols embody different philosophical bets: Solana on sheer performance via centralization trade-offs, ZBC on modular flexibility and low-barrier developer adoption.

Ethereum vs. ZB Chain (ZBC): Smart Contract Parity or Bottleneck?

When comparing ZB Chain (formerly ZBC) with Ethereum (ETH), the most immediate difference lies in the architecture underpinning smart contract deployment and execution. While ZB Chain has moved to a high-throughput, delegated Proof-of-Stake model aiming to eliminate congestion and reduce confirmation times, Ethereum continues to grapple with scaling burdens inherent to its account-based, general-purpose EVM ecosystem.

Ethereum's robustness comes from its deep ecosystem—thousands of developers, layer-2 solutions, and extensive DeFi integrations. However, this breadth comes at a cost. Ethereum's base layer, without rollups like Arbitrum or ZKSync, remains expensive and slow for many smart contract executions. Network congestion, gas fees, and latency are issues that even EIP-1559 hasn’t fully resolved. This opens a niche for chains like ZB that boast near-instant finality and lower-cost processing.

ZB Chain sets itself apart by sidestepping the congestion problems common in Ethereum Layer 1. Its architecture leverages parallel processing for transactions and a modular consensus model that eschews ETH’s sequential bottlenecks. For developers launching dApps with intensive data processing or high transaction volume (e.g., gaming, logistics tracking, or decentralized compute), ZB’s approach presents significantly fewer throughput limitations.

However, these performance gains come at the cost of decentralization. Unlike Ethereum's globally distributed validator set backed by staking platforms and broad client support, ZB Chain remains more centralized in validator control—posing theoretical and practical risks for censorship resistance and chain neutrality.

Compatibility is another point of divergence. Ethereum is tightly coupled with Solidity and the broader EVM standard. In contrast, ZB Chain isn't EVM-compatible by default, creating a steeper migration curve for developers looking to port over existing smart contracts and tooling. This affects not only technical adoption but also ecosystem composability, where Ethereum still dominates despite the cost.

A relevant comparison here would be projects like LUCA, which also emphasize data-driven infrastructures but have weathered criticism over centralization risks—highlighting recurring trade-offs in next-gen blockchain platforms that sacrifice decentralization for scalability.

In essence, Ethereum vs. ZB Chain comes down to a choice between scale and control. ZB may provide improved performance metrics, but Ethereum’s unmatched ecosystem depth and decentralization still anchor its dominance—despite its persistent efficiency challenges.

ZBC vs AVAX: Examining Architecture, Interoperability and Ecosystem Maturity

When directly measured against Avalanche (AVAX), ZBC (ZB Chain) enters a competitive space dominated by battle-tested performance benchmarks and expansive interoperability. One of the core points of differentiation lies in architecture. AVAX’s primary innovation, the Avalanche consensus protocol, enables sub-second finality and thousands of transactions per second through its three-chain architecture (X-Chain, C-Chain, and P-Chain). ZBC, optimized for Web3 gaming ecosystems and high-performance cross-chain contracts, takes a modular approach with native interoperability in mind, but doesn’t support the same transaction concurrency pipeline as AVAX.

ZB Chain emphasizes user-centric scalability through its plug-and-play framework for deploying sidechains tailored for gaming, NFTs, and data-heavy dApps. However, AVAX’s mature subnet infrastructure—used to spin out customizable, application-specific blockchains—has already attracted institutional-level projects and GameFi platforms. While ZBC aims to compete on this front, its lack of widely adopted tooling for subnetwork orchestration remains a limitation.

Interoperability is another fork in the road. AVAX has leaned aggressively into bridging—yet not without criticism. Despite being EVM-compatible through the C-Chain, Avalanche’s bridges have faced scrutiny for centralization concerns. ZBC, by contrast, has native support for interoperable message passing and low-friction cross-chain asset transfers, offering a more protocol-native approach. Still, the ecosystem support around these features is thinner, and lacks the tooling maturity of AVAX-native projects.

In the DeFi arena, AVAX leads by sheer breadth. Its early integrations with platforms like Aave and Trader Joe fueled a robust, composable DeFi ecosystem. ZBC, while promising in terms of gas efficiency for microtransactions in gaming environments, is still in the early phases of building a comparable DeFi landscape. That has implications for capital mobility—an area AVAX dominates.

For developers, Avalanche’s extensive SDKs, validator guides, and audit trails offer transparency and resilience. ZBC’s developer stack is focused more on Web3 creators and less on the traditional DeFi architect, which can limit adoption in broader DeFi sectors. ZBC’s streamlined SDK is attractive for gaming projects needing fast deployment, but may feel confining for more complex use cases.

Related platforms like https://bestdapps.com/blogs/news/decoding-luca-the-future-of-tokenomics illustrate how tokenomics innovation is setting new standards. ZBC's ability to catch up hinges on similar data-driven design improvements.

New users exploring these ecosystems may benefit from starting with a referral on Binance, where both tokens are commonly listed.

Primary criticisms of ZB Chain (formerly ZBC)

Key Criticisms Surrounding ZBC and the ZB Chain Network

ZBC, the native asset of ZB Chain (formerly known as ZBC), has faced growing scrutiny from seasoned blockchain developers and decentralized finance (DeFi) strategists, particularly in regards to centralization tendencies, opaque validator coordination, and questionable token allocation strategies. These critical pain points raise concerns about long-term decentralization and protocol health.

One of the most persistent critiques is the opacity surrounding ZB Chain's validator set. Unlike more transparent ecosystems that uphold censorship resistance through widely-distributed validators — such as those discussed in decentralized-governance-the-future-of-luca-crypto — ZB Chain has faced allegations of relying on a semi-permissioned framework. This opens the door to cartelization and transactional censorship vulnerabilities which undermine user trust and DeFi composability.

Additionally, the project’s tokenomics have been criticized for lacking clarity in the distribution model. Despite claiming scalability-focused innovation, ZBC’s allocation reportedly includes an oversized share earmarked for insiders, private investors, and early contributors with limited public transparency. This emission imbalance creates a “success-tax” on retail entrants and warps incentives across liquidity mining and staking frameworks—issues reminiscent of what has been spotlighted in navi-under-fire-key-criticisms-explored.

Interoperability is another sore spot. While ZB Chain positions itself as a high-throughput application layer, its actual integration into broader Layer 0 or Layer 1 ecosystems remains fragmented. There is minimal cross-chain synergy with major decentralized exchanges (DEXs) or oracle infrastructure, isolating ZBC within its own silo and hindering protocol composability. For advanced DeFi users, the limitations present a major barrier, especially when compared to protocols like tiaex-vs-rivals-who-comes-out-on-top, which have embraced interconnectivity as a first-class design principle.

Despite the rebrand, critics argue that ZB Chain has not shown substantial changes in governance participation metrics. Community voting mechanisms are either nonexistent or tightly controlled by core contributors, fueling further criticism around plutocratic control. This contradicts the ethos seen in projects pushing decentralized evolution, such as those found in decentralized-governance-the-tiaq-model-explained.

Finally, efforts to list or trade the ZBC token on top-tier centralized exchanges remain sparse, pushing users to rely on lesser-known platforms or fragmented liquidity pools. For users uninitiated in off-exchange crypto markets, onboarding becomes an exercise in friction — a key factor driving speculative interest to competing ecosystems. Traders seeking liquidity and exchange options may consider registering on Binance for alternative assets with broader support and deeper market depth.

Founders

ZBC’s Founding Team: Hidden Figures Behind the Chain Shift

ZBC, now rebranded as ZB Chain, presents an unusually opaque founding narrative for a Layer 1 blockchain attempting to position itself as enterprise-grade infrastructure. Unlike projects rooted in developer-first transparency like ZetaChain’s cross-chain innovation, ZBC has actively avoided spotlighting individual contributors. The lack of clearly attributed technical leadership raises questions about long-term accountability and vision coherence.

The commonly floated names associated with ZBC's early ecosystem—such as those affiliated with the centralized exchange ZB.com—have never been formally confirmed as core protocol developers. This blurring of exchange-based branding with layer-1 infrastructure has left little clarity about who directed technical architecture decisions in the chain’s nascent stages. In contrast to projects like Band Protocol, which showcase verifiable contributions from founders to open-source codebases, ZBC’s GitHub repositories show sporadic activity and a rotating cast of contributors with minimal public identity verification.

One notable structural choice was ZBC’s heavy dependency on permissioned nodes in its earlier version—without any transparent governance documentation backing these design decisions. This centralized inclination mirrored certain aspects of LUCA Crypto, which also came under criticism for developer opacity and governance bottlenecks. In ZBC’s case, it’s unclear who originally dictated validator policy, raising red flags for decentralization purists.

The rebranding to ZB Chain was likely an attempt to decouple the protocol's trajectory from its exchange-run reputation. However, without public-facing founders or a known technical advisory lead, questions persist: Is this a project driven by a phantom foundation? Or a well-resourced team deliberately tending to opaqueness? Neither answer instills clear investor confidence—particularly among developer stakeholders calling for open-source accountability.

Additionally, little is known about ZBC’s security architecture leadership. Unlike other asset ecosystems that leverage formal audits or known cryptographers, such as TIAEX’s governance model, ZBC’s cryptographic roadmap lacks signatures from any verifiable authority. No founding engineer is publicly documented as having presented the chain’s components in technical conferences or even informal developer forums.

For users eager to stake, trade, or develop on the protocol, exchanges like Binance list ZBC, but that functionality exists independent of clarity around the asset’s human governance foundation—a detail that seasoned participants monitor closely.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

• https://www.zbs.foundation/
• https://zbc.gitbook.io/zbc-chain-docs/
• https://zbs.foundation/whitepaper.pdf
• https://explorer.zbcchain.com/
• https://twitter.com/ZBCChain
• https://medium.com/@ZBCChain
• https://github.com/ZBCChain
• https://docs.zbcchain.com/
• https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/zebec-protocol
• https://www.coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zebec-protocol/
• https://zebec.io/
• https://zebec.io/docs/
• https://www.zebec.io/legal/whitepaper.pdf
• https://defillama.com/protocol/zebec
• https://dappradar.com/solana/zebec-protocol
• https://www.zebec.io/blog
• https://blog.zebec.io/zbc-tokenomics-ddc2fddf4e44
• https://www.zebec.io/legal/token-allocation-chart.pdf
• https://www.zebec.io/legal/technical-yellowpaper.pdf
• https://www.messari.io/asset/zebec-protocol