What are you talking about 13% fees? There's a known funding model, set out in the Whitepaper, 3.5% for devs, 3.5% for secure nodes, 5% for DAO, which makes a total of 12%. This to me is the major STRENGTH not weakness of ZenCash. I also thought it was fairer to all parties than a straight up 20% going to devs as in Zcash.
What centralize solution are you talking about? This is a distributed proof of work coin with an ASIC resistant mining algorithm. In what sense is it centralized visa-vis other ASIC resistant coins? How are nodes centralized if they're private people staking their own ZenCash?
I think criticisms of ZenCash should be made, but ones with a basis, like the poster before you, rather than one's just made up.
What I like (more like liked - in the past), about this project was incentive and looking promising with new features.
Now it's looking bad, because - dev gone, fees (almost 13%) and centralized solutions, it wasn't meant to be another ZCash, but it's getting to this point - even praising ZCash, which definately isn't what cryptocurrenies/assets, decentralized should look like.
But seems like they are trying to push it that way. I will always go anytime with decentralized solution and open-sorce, community driven, than centralized, and fees driven. And I think that most of the real cryptocurrency users and fans believe and go with such solution, than centralized, nodes setup.
Decentralization not centralization is a way-to-go.