ALEX | ZK

6 reviews, 50% of them positive.50% positive · 6 reviews· Influence factor 135, above 27% of accounts

What people say

“Alex and the zkSync Debacle: A Community Let Down by Disregard and Disappointment”As someone who’s been enthusiastic about the potential of zero-knowledge (ZK) technology and its role in revolutionizing blockchain, I was initially excited about zkSync and its leadership, including Alex Gluchowski, known as gluk64. However, my experience with zkSync and gluk64’s approach to community engagement has left me deeply disappointed. What promised to be a beacon of innovation in the Web3 space has, in my view, fallen short due to a troubling lack of respect for the community and a series of missteps that have eroded trust. Here’s why I believe gluk64 and the zkSync project have let down their supporters.A Community OverlookedOne of the most disheartening aspects of zkSync’s journey under gluk64’s leadership is the apparent disregard for the community that rallied behind it. ZK technology, with its promise of scalable and private blockchain solutions, attracted a passionate group of developers, investors, and enthusiasts who believed in zkSync’s vision. Yet, time and again, the project’s actions—guided by gluk64—have seemed to prioritize corporate interests over the voices of its supporters. For instance, the controversial attempt to trademark the term “ZK” in 2024 was a slap in the face to the broader ZK community. This move, which gluk64 defended as “defensive” to protect users, was widely criticized by other ZK projects like Polygon and StarkWare as an attempt to monopolize a term that belongs to the entire ecosystem. The backlash was swift, with community members and industry leaders calling it anti-cypherpunk and contrary to the open-source ethos zkSync claims to uphold. To me, this felt like a betrayal of the collaborative spirit that Web3 is supposed to embody. The trademark fiasco wasn’t an isolated incident. On platforms like Reddit, community members have expressed concerns about zkSync’s lack of transparency, particularly around the launch of an “unaudited ZK mainnet.” As someone who values the rigor and trust that audits bring to blockchain projects, hearing that zkSync pushed forward without proper vetting was alarming. It suggested a rush to market that sidelined the community’s need for security and reliability. Gluk64, as the face of Matter Labs, didn’t adequately address these concerns, leaving many of us feeling ignored and undervalued. Technical Missteps and Broken PromisesBeyond community relations, zkSync’s technical execution under gluk64’s guidance has been a source of frustration. The project’s ambitious claims about being a “scaling and privacy engine for Ethereum” set high expectations, but the reality has been less inspiring. Developers, including myself, have struggled with issues like those documented on GitHub, where attempts to set up zkSync locally revealed errors such as database connection failures and compatibility issues with tools like Gnosis Safe multisig. These technical hiccups, while not uncommon in early-stage projects, were compounded by a lack of clear communication or support from the zkSync team. For a project led by someone as prominent as gluk64, I expected more robust developer resources and responsiveness to community feedback. The zkSync token airdrop in 2024 further deepened my disappointment. While airdrops are meant to reward early supporters, the zkSync distribution was widely criticized for its opaque criteria and perceived favoritism toward insiders. Many community members, myself included, felt excluded despite years of engagement with the project. Posts on X echoed this sentiment, with users calling out the airdrop as a “cash grab” that rewarded large wallets over loyal contributors. This move not only alienated the community but also reinforced the perception that gluk64 and Matter Labs were more focused on financial maneuvers than fostering a decentralized, inclusive ecosystem.A Vision That Lost Its WayGluk64’s public persona as a champion of the “ZK Credo” and cypherpunk values initially inspired confidence. His GitHub contributions, like the zkNFT proof-of-concept and forks of bellman and plasma_winter, showed technical prowess. But somewhere along the way, the vision seemed to shift. The zkSync project, under his leadership, began to feel more like a corporate venture than a community-driven effort. The introduction of features like FaceID/Passkeys for onboarding, while innovative, raised concerns among privacy-focused users about centralization risks. For a project rooted in zero-knowledge proofs—technology meant to prioritize privacy—this felt like a step backward, and gluk64’s silence on these concerns only amplified the disconnect. The zkSync Elastic Network, billed as an “ever-expanding, verifiable network of blockchains,” promised seamless interoperability and scalability. Yet, the reality has been clunky integrations and a lack of clear documentation, leaving developers like me frustrated. The community expected a leader who would champion open dialogue and iterative improvement, but gluk64’s approach has often felt dismissive, with critical feedback met by vague assurances or defensiveness rather than actionable change. A Personal Sense of BetrayalAs someone who believed in zkSync’s potential to redefine Ethereum’s scalability, my disappointment runs deep. I invested time learning about ZK technology, engaging in AMAs, and following gluk64’s updates, hoping to be part of a movement that valued its community. Instead, I’ve watched as zkSync, under gluk64’s stewardship, prioritized branding and corporate deals over the developers and users who gave it life. The trademark controversy, the unaudited mainnet, and the botched airdrop are not just missteps—they’re signs of a leadership that’s lost touch with its roots.In the end, gluk64 and zkSync had the chance to lead by example in the ZK space, fostering a community built on trust, transparency, and collaboration. Instead, their actions have left many of us feeling sidelined and disillusioned. I still hope for a future where zkSync can realign with its original values, but for now, I’m left with a sense of regret for the potential that’s been squandered and a community that deserved better.

raspon · 1221· 1y ago · negative15

“S tier team lead”Alex is the team leader of matter_labs the team behind zkSync. I don't know him personally, but have had the chance to interact with him several times during my journey with zkSync as a user, and I can just say positive things about him. I've seen how he works, how he took tough decisions in tough times, and I think I definitely would like to work in a team lead by him.

kaiser.eth · 1260· 1y ago7

“Liar, Selfish and Community-Destroying”Former Zksync CEO. I first met him through the zksync project. Until the launch, he assumed a role that seemed to favor the community. After the launch, he turned into someone who distributed all the tokens to himself and his friends. He forgot his promise that the community comes first. He used memes to refer to people who expressed their problems as "get lost." This mindset is the reason the zksync project is in this state and lacks a community.

Erso · 1308· 1y ago · negative5

“Zk-tech leader”I believe that one day the wave that started with the zk airdrop will eventually fade, and people will finally be able to appreciate his contribution to the zk endgame. From a technical standpoint, he’s pushing the industry forward.

sangvin | Delovoy DAO 👔 · 1464· 12mo ago4

“trust issues and betrayal”I'm very sorry to trust zksync and team. Worst project ever.

Daemial · 1284· 1y ago · negative2

“Inventor of Zksync!”a true pioneer in the zero-knowledge space and one of the earliest believers in Ethereum scaling through zk-rollups. He's the co-founder and CEO of Matter Labs, the team behind Zksync. Alex is a great speaker, visionary leader, and a respected voice in the Ethereum community

Dino · 1331· 1y ago2

6 of 6 · most upvoted first