drep1y23tfs3c25kfm...

I am voting YES. I operate a small stake pool and state that interest openly.

A fixed fee falls hardest on operators who earn least. At ~300 ada per block, the 170 ada floor takes ~57% of a single-block pool's reward, against ~3% for a twenty-block pool. At 75 ada that drops to ~25%.

It is also worsening: the single-block penalty fell to ~28% after the 2023 cut, is now above 50%, and reaches 100% around epoch 758 — at which point those delegators receive nothing.

The race-to-the-bottom concern was tested by the 2023 reduction and did not materialise. Input Output Research has since reversed its own position, finding a high fixed fee now favours Sybil fragmentation by large operators rather than deterring it. No operator is compelled to lower their fee.

TSC ratified, notice period satisfied, guardrails addressed, staged rather than straight to zero, with a reversion path. Viable small-pool economics is a precondition for a decentralised operator base.

I am voting NO.

The direction is sound — an audited contracts library and reference implementations could lower the barrier for Cardano developers. But as written, the plan does not meet the bar I require for a treasury withdrawal of this size.

1. The core technical architecture is deferred until after funding. The proposal states the target smart-contract language will be chosen during the initial evaluation phase. Language choice (Aiken, Plutus, or off-chain frameworks) drives staffing, cost, audit methodology, and long-term maintenance. A budget cannot be meaningfully assessed when the central technical decision is unmade.

2. There is no real cost breakdown — no named FTEs, roles, rates, or maintenance commitment behind the $1,831,000.

3. Overlap risk is unaddressed. Input Output's contracts-library work and the Cardano Foundation's CIP-113 and regulated-asset reference implementations already cover material parts of this scope. The proposal includes no gap-and-overlap analysis, creating a risk of duplicated spend and ecosystem fragmentation.

4. No demonstrated Cardano eUTXO delivery record. OpenZeppelin's strength is EVM; its UTXO experience (Midnight/Compact) is not the Cardano toolchain.

I would reconsider a resubmission that fixes language and scope before funding, provides a complete role-and-rate budget, includes a gap analysis against existing IOG and CF work, and names a Cardano-experienced eUTXO team. The milestone gating, published audits, and treasury sweep are good; the under-specification is the problem.

As a small, independent stake pool operator, I am voting YES.

Lowering the saturation point from 1/500 to 1/1000 of circulating ada is a more equitable setting. It causes large pools to reach their reward ceiling at a lower stake level, which strengthens the incentive for delegation to spread across a wider set of pools rather than concentrating in a smaller number of large or already-saturated ones.

I recognize this parameter change does not, on its own, create new operators or guarantee where redelegated stake moves, and that it leaves the total reward pot unchanged. But the direction is right: a lower saturation point improves the structural conditions for smaller independent operators to attract delegation and compete, which supports a healthier distribution of stake across the network.

I support proceeding to a standalone Parameter Change Governance Action raising stakePoolTargetNum from 500 to 1000.