Foundry Zcash Pool Hits 29% Hashrate in One Month

Context

Foundry Digital's launch of a dedicated Zcash mining pool achieved a 29% share of pool hashrate within its first month of operation, a rapid redistribution of mining power that was reported on Apr. 14, 2026 (Cointelegraph, Apr. 14, 2026). The entry materially reduced the previously dominant ViaBTC pool's share from around 65% to 37% over the same interval, a shift equivalent to a 28 percentage-point decline for ViaBTC (Cointelegraph, Apr. 14, 2026). That pace of reallocation is notable in an industry where pool market shares typically evolve over quarters rather than weeks, and it raises immediate governance and centralization questions for the Zcash network.

The move follows a broader trend of mining-service firms expanding across proof-of-work altcoins after consolidating operations in Bitcoin mining. Foundry's ability to capture nearly a third of identifiable pool-level hashrate in under 30 days signals either substantial onboarding of existing miners, targeted incentives, or superior routing/fee economics relative to incumbents. For institutional observers, the development is relevant not just for Zcash (ZEC) network security metrics but for how mining infrastructure firms can quickly alter competitive dynamics across smaller proof-of-work blockchains.

From a market-structure perspective, the change places Zcash closer to commonly observed concentration levels in Bitcoin where the largest pools often command 25–40% of pool hashrate at any given time. That comparison—while imperfect—helps frame the event: a 29% share is significant but not unprecedented across crypto mining markets, and the key issue becomes the direction of future share movement and the durability of Foundry’s position. For ongoing coverage and data-driven commentary on mining-market structures and protocol risk, see Fazen Markets research.

Data Deep Dive

Three concrete data points anchor this development. First, Foundry's Zcash pool reached 29% of reported pool hashrate in its first month (Cointelegraph, Apr. 14, 2026). Second, ViaBTC's share fell from roughly 65% to 37% over the same period (Cointelegraph, Apr. 14, 2026). Third, the change implies a 28 percentage-point reduction in ViaBTC's pool dominance, a material reallocation by industry standards. These figures are sourced from the Cointelegraph report published on Apr. 14, 2026, which monitors pool-level distribution trackers for the Zcash network.

Interpreting these numbers requires care: reported pool hashrate percentages reflect miner choice at the pool level and can fluctuate intraday depending on payout timing, fee changes, and miner software configuration. The 29% figure is a pool-level share, not a measure of total network hashrate, and therefore does not directly translate into total hashpower control absent corroboration from on-chain block attribution metrics. Nonetheless, pool share is the standard proxy used by market participants and researchers to assess centralization risks and to infer potential mining cartel dynamics.

Comparisons to historical snapshots are instructive. Prior to Foundry's entry, a single pool (ViaBTC) had been responsible for approximately two-thirds of pool-attributable hash activity—an elevated concentration by mid-2020s altcoin standards. The new distribution, with Foundry at 29% and ViaBTC at 37%, still leaves roughly one-third of pool-level hashpower spread among smaller pools, but it reduces single-node concentration risk. For quantitative trackers and historical charts on pool concentration across chains, institutional readers can consult third-party block explorers and pool-monitoring services and cross-reference our research hub for methodology notes.

Sector Implications

For miners and infrastructure providers, Foundry's rapid penetration underscores the commercial opportunity in servicing undercapitalized proof-of-work chains. Foundry benefits from scale in payments, settlement, and customer onboarding, and its expansion into Zcash suggests similar deployments may follow for other mid-cap altcoins. That dynamic could compress margins at incumbent pools that rely on sticky miner relationships rather than differentiated service offerings or pricing.

For exchanges and custodians that interact with ZEC liquidity, shifts in pool dominance alter the risk profile around mining reorgs and block finality. While a 29% pool share does not by itself constitute a 51% attack threat, concentrated pool shares increase the theoretical attack surface compared with a more fragmented mining landscape. Institutional market participants who factor protocol risk into custody and listing decisions will be watching whether Foundry's share stabilizes, grows beyond 30–40%, or contracts back toward incumbency levels.

For the Zcash community and governance stakeholders, the redistribution presents both an opportunity and a governance test. Greater competition among pools can lower fees and improve miner economics, but it can also empower large infrastructure firms to influence network-level decisions indirectly through client software support and economic coordination. The net effect on decentralization depends on whether miners remain economically responsive to pool incentives or revert to single-pool strategies for operational simplicity.

Risk Assessment

Short-term market risk centers on potential operational consolidations and fee wars. If Foundry pursues aggressive fee reductions, smaller pools may exit the market or consolidate, potentially restoring a smaller number of larger pools. Such consolidation can reduce patchwork resiliency on a technical level even as it benefits miners through lower fees. From a protocol security standpoint, the risk increases if miners migrate en masse to a small set of pools run by single operators.

Counterparty and regulatory risk also merit consideration. Mining pools that expand quickly become more prominent targets for legal or regulatory scrutiny, particularly in jurisdictions tightening crypto-mining oversight. Rapid growth may expose Foundry to new compliance obligations if it assumes custody-like functions or offers hosted-mining products in regulated markets. Institutional participants should model scenarios where pool operators face operational interruptions or legal constraints that force sudden redistributions of hashrate.

Finally, there is reputational and governance risk for the ecosystem. If changes in pool composition coincide with contentious protocol upgrades or economic policy debates within the Zcash community, pool operators could become focal points for lobbying or coordinated action. The 28-percentage point decline in ViaBTC’s share is large enough to change voting leverage in informal governance conversations and could alter coalition dynamics on contentious issues.

Outlook

Over the next three to six months, market participants should focus on two observable metrics: the trajectory of Foundry’s pool share and the behavior of independent miners. If Foundry's share stabilizes in the high-20s to low-30s, the network will have moved to a multi-polar pool distribution. If Foundry's share continues to climb above 40%, centralization and attendant protocol risks will rise materially. The monitoring window that matters is 90 days, during which seasonal miner re-deployments and reward cycles typically play out.

A medium-term scenario to watch is horizontal expansion: Foundry could replicate its Zcash strategy across multiple altcoins, leveraging pooled infrastructure to capture incremental shares rapidly. That would change cross-chain miner allocation dynamics and could produce correlated liquidity and security events across mid-cap proof-of-work tokens. Institutional observers should track correlation of pool share movements across assets as an early warning indicator of systemic concentration.

Operationally, watch for software-level changes—pool payout methodology, difficulty adjustment settings, and default miner preferences—that could entrench or unwind current distributions. Market participants and researchers can use on-chain analytics and pool-reported data to triangulate the durability of these shifts and to quantify potential contagion scenarios into broader crypto market volatility.

Fazen Markets Perspective

Fazen Markets assesses this development as a signal that mining infrastructure firms with scale and institutional backing can rapidly re-shape pool markets for mid-cap proof-of-work networks. A contrarian implication is that rapid concentration under a reputable operator like Foundry may reduce some short-term operational risks (e.g., fewer small, unreliable pools) even as it heightens systemic governance exposure. In other words, larger, more professionalized pool operators can be both stabilizing for miner economics and destabilizing for protocol decentralization.

A non-obvious insight is that miners themselves may prefer a stable, low-fee operator even if it nudges the network toward centralization, because the marginal economic benefit of lower fees and predictable payouts can outweigh abstract decentralization preferences—especially for GPU and small-scale ASIC operators with limited operational bandwidth. This behavioral asymmetry means that policy prescriptions aimed at decentralization (e.g., miner education or incentive redesign) must address miner economics directly if they are to be effective.

From an asset-pricing lens, the immediate market reaction is likely to be muted; pool-share shifts are a backend infrastructure story with second-order price effects unless accompanied by network-level disruptions or governance standoffs. That said, investors tracking protocol risk for custody, listing, or ETF eligibility should incorporate pool-concentration metrics into their due diligence frameworks. For detailed methodology on measuring pool concentration and protocol risk, see our research portal.

FAQ

Q1: Does 29% pool hashrate mean Foundry controls the Zcash network? No. A 29% pool share indicates Foundry is the largest single pool but does not equate to 51% control of the network. Network-level control requires a majority of total mining hashpower, not merely pool-attributed share. Pool-level metrics are proxies and can under- or overstate centralized control depending on miner behavior and solo-mining activity.

Q2: How quickly could this reallocation reverse? Reallocation speed depends on miner economics, fee changes, and external shocks such as regulatory actions or hardware redeployments. Historically, pool market shares can move meaningfully in weeks if operators change fee structures or if a major hosted-mining provider shifts strategy; conversely, they can be sticky for months when miners prefer operational stability. The current 30-day window is rapid but not unprecedented.

Q3: Should protocol stakeholders alter governance mechanisms because of such shifts? Protocol governance adjustments are a strategic response that requires community consensus. Options include technical changes to reduce pool-attribution risk or economic incentives to fragment mining. Any changes carry trade-offs and must be evaluated against historical precedents from other networks; decisions should be informed by rigorous modeling of miner incentives and potential unintended consequences.

Bottom Line

Foundry’s quick capture of 29% of Zcash pool hashrate and ViaBTC’s fall from ~65% to 37% in the same interval materially reshapes short-term miner economics and governance dynamics; the critical question is whether this redistribution proves durable or transient. Institutional participants should add pool-concentration metrics to protocol-risk frameworks and monitor the next 90 days for consolidation or further dispersion.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.