DRep

HOSKY

drep1yf2j...cgrxn7ns

32,335,203 ₳Voting power1,669Delegators0.62%Influence

Voting power trend0.1%vs last epoch

Badges (10)

Shows the Work

Silver

Identified

Hard Fork Voter

All badges →

As the founder of HOSKY, I have been actively involved in the Cardano community since 2017, driven by a commitment to the principles that make Cardano unique: decentralization, security, scalability, transparency, and sustainability. My journey in the Cardano ecosystem is built on the belief that governance should be responsible, transparent, and rooted in long-term success for the community.

Motivations

HOSKY’s primary motivation is to ensure Cardano’s long-term success by prioritizing decentralization, security, scalability, and fiscal responsibility in governance. The goal is to preserve Cardano's core values while fostering growth and sustainability in a way that benefits the entire community.

Qualifications

With strong involvement in Cardano since 2017, I have been a dedicated advocate for the principles that make Cardano unique: decentralization, security, scalability, transparency, and sustainability. Over the years, I have actively educated the community on the importance of these core values. My commitment is demonstrated through my support for 25 Single Stake Pools, where I continually push for decentralization and prioritize Cardano’s best interests. Additionally, my experience with HOSKY, one of Cardano’s most recognized community-driven projects, has provided me with a deep understanding of governance, fiscal responsibility, and project sustainability. These qualifications position me to contribute effectively as a DRep, ensuring that Cardano remains secure, scalable, and accessible for all.

Payment address: addr1qylv...rq47zmuj

On-chain data as of 2h ago.

Forum activity (0)

No forum posts yet.

Voting stats

100 votes

Yes 51 (51%)
No 10 (10%)
Abstain 39 (39%)

Rationale 95 of 100 votes with rationale 95%

Participation Voted on 97 of 120 concluded actions 81%

Voting history (100)

YesReduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5Epoch 642RationaleRatified17d ago

Yes. Lowers committeeMinSize from 7 to 5 so a single empty Constitutional Committee seat cannot halt all ratification, as happened in epoch 597 when the Atlantic Council resigned. Seats stay at 7 and elections still target 7; the 5 is a contingency buffer, not a reduction.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

This lowers committeeMinSize from 7 to 5 to give Cardano governance an operational buffer against a single empty Constitutional Committee seat halting the entire ratification pipeline. It does not shrink the committee, it does not change the elected seat count, and it leaves elections targeting 7. The Cardano First framework reads as a Yes led by Governance Transparency, with the Decentralization trade-off named and judged acceptable.

The case is not hypothetical. When the Cardano Atlantic Council resigned from the Constitutional Committee in epoch 597, active membership fell to six against a minimum of seven, and ratification of governance actions stalled until a snap election restored the seat. This parameter change is the structural fix for exactly that failure mode.

Pillar Analysis

Governance Transparency (lead pillar)

The pillar engaged here is the resilience and continuity of the governance system itself. Under the current setting, the minimum and the actual membership are the same number, so the system has zero slack: one departure and every CC-gated action freezes. That is a single point of failure sitting on top of the most consequential parts of governance, treasury spend, parameter changes, constitution updates, and hard forks. Moving the minimum to 5 while keeping 7 seated converts a zero-slack configuration into a two-seat buffer, so a resignation or term expiry no longer takes the whole pipeline offline while a replacement is elected. The proposal is explicit that this is a floor, not a target, and the Intersect-run election process continues to maintain 7 seats. That is the right separation: keep the working committee full, but stop a transient vacancy from becoming a governance outage.

Decentralization (contested)

The honest trade-off is that a lower minimum changes the math on rejection. At 5 seated members, the inactivity of one leaves room for another to veto an action, and 2 unconstitutional votes block ratification versus 3 at a 7-member body. A smaller committee is, at the margin, easier to deadlock. I am treating this as contested-but-acceptable rather than disqualifying for three reasons: the change is a minimum, not a mandate, so the committee is not actually being reduced; the floor of 5 still sits comfortably above the guardrail hard floor of 3; and the realistic alternative, leaving a zero-slack minimum in place, is the more centralizing outcome in practice, because a stalled committee hands disproportionate power to whoever can delay refilling a seat. A buffer that keeps the system running is more decentralizing than a brittle threshold that periodically shuts it down.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

Easier to block at the floor

If membership ever did fall to 5, the threshold to reject an action drops to 2 votes, so a single absent member plus one objector could stall ratification. I am accepting this because 5 is a contingency floor the system passes through briefly during a vacancy, not a steady state, and elections are structured to return the body to 7.

Standing minimum reduction

Lowering the constitutional minimum is a real reduction in a safeguard, and it would matter at the moment of any future reversion: reverting to 7 only bites if the committee then has fewer than 7 members. I am accepting this because the proposal keeps 7 as the operating target, the change is reversible, and the buffer's upside (no repeat of the epoch-597 stall) outweighs the narrow downside.

Bottom Line

A two-seat buffer that stops a single Constitutional Committee vacancy from freezing treasury, parameter, constitution, and hard-fork ratification, with the committee still seated and elected at 7. The reduced rejection threshold is the cost, and on balance keeping governance operational wins. Yes.

YesIO: HydraEpoch 642RationaleRatified17d ago

Yes. 5,100,781 ADA to harden Hydra v2, Cardano's only production-grade Layer 2 (sub-second finality, near-zero fees), already running live workloads for Delta DeFi, Masumi, Intersect, and others. Milestone-gated via Intersect's TRSC with independent assurance, now unbundled and judged on its own.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

5,100,781 ADA to harden Hydra v2 into a feature-complete, production-grade Layer 2: sub-second finality, near-zero fees, and high throughput, with Cardano L1 as the settlement backstop. This action has been separated out from the broader bundled IO ask, which is the right call and part of why it earns a clean Yes: Hydra can now be judged on its own merits rather than carried or dragged by unrelated workstreams. The Cardano First framework reads strongly, led by Scalability.

Hydra is important and needed. It is the only production-grade L2 Cardano has, and it is already running real workloads rather than asking the treasury to fund a hypothesis.

Pillar Analysis

Scalability (lead pillar)

This is as direct a Scalability case as the framework gets. Cardano L1 finalises in minutes to hours at roughly $0.17 per transaction and 7-10 TPS, and high-performance verticals (DeFi, agent micropayments, gaming, consumer payments) exclude Cardano at the selection stage because of it. Leios and Peras will expand the base layer, but by the constraints of the scaling trilemma the L1 cannot reach the zero-fee, sub-second envelope that these applications require. Hydra closes that gap today as an L2 that extends L1 rather than competing with it, anchoring activity back to L1 through head opening and settlement. Funding v2 hardening is funding the one scaling lever that is already live in production.

Adoption

The adoption evidence is concrete and on-chain, not projected. Delta DeFi runs its entire perpetual-DEX product on Hydra, Masumi runs live agent-to-agent commerce with co-signed snapshots, Glacier Drop routed more than 30 million users through it, and Intersect's own voting infrastructure runs on it, with Blockfrost, VTech Labs, and Midgard building on top. A hardened v2 lowers the integration barrier for the provisional users under evaluation (Bodega, Atlas DeFi, Wingriders, and others). This is infrastructure with a real and growing user base.

Governance Transparency

The disbursement structure is the standard milestone-gated Intersect TRSC pattern with independent third-party assurance, and the unbundling itself is a transparency win: DReps vote on Hydra as a discrete, accountable line item with its own milestones and KPIs rather than as one strand of a multi-workstream bundle. The KPI alignment (TVL, transactions, active users, throughput, reliability, protocol revenue) gives the community measurable acceptance criteria.

Economic Sustainability (contested)

At 5,100,781 ADA this is a grant, not a loan, so it carries the usual mark against the pillar: no contractual principal return. Two things make it acceptable. The amount is modest relative to the infrastructure it hardens, and the design explicitly supports routing a portion of in-head fees to the L1 treasury on settlement, so Hydra activity can reinforce rather than only consume the base-layer economy. The milestone gating and Intersect administration bound the downside in the standard way.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

IOG-led core infrastructure

The proposer is Input Output, so this deepens reliance on the largest incumbent for a critical piece of the scaling stack. I am accepting this because Hydra is open-source core infrastructure with an external user base already depending on it, the work is administered by Intersect rather than self-administered, and the alternative (leaving the only production L2 under-resourced) is worse for the ecosystem than the concentration cost.

Grant with no repayment

Recovery depends on milestone non-delivery sweeping funds back, not on revenue or repayment. I am accepting this because production scaling infrastructure is a public good in the same category as the core tooling withdrawals HOSKY has already supported, and the optional L1 fee-routing mechanic gives it a sustainability story that pure grants lack.

L2 settlement and security assumptions

Hydra's guarantees rest on participants co-signing snapshots and on correct L1 settlement; a feature-complete v2 is still maturing security-critical paths. I am accepting this because the funding is specifically for hardening and operational excellence, with independent assurance gating the milestones.

Bottom Line

The only production-grade L2 on Cardano, already carrying real workloads, now unbundled so it stands on its own, funded at a modest milestone-gated ask to harden v2. Scalability and adoption are unambiguous, the grant economics are the cost. Yes.

AbstainTweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027Epoch 641RationaleEnacted17d ago

Abstain. 18.26M ADA for Tweag to deliver Peras mainnet finality, History Expiry, and conformance testing. The engineering is real and the 2026-2027 reshape improved on the 2026-2028 version HOSKY voted No on, but a large non-separable grant with no repayment keeps it short of an affirmative Yes.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Abstain

18,263,496 ADA for Tweag to bring Peras to mainnet, ship History Expiry, and extend conformance testing. The engineering is real, core, and needed: Peras finality and History Expiry are genuine protocol priorities, and Tweag has the track record to deliver them. This is a reshaped successor to the 39.8M ADA 2026-2028 Tweag withdrawal that HOSKY voted No on, now a shorter horizon and a smaller number, which removes the multi-year-structure objection that drove that No. It does not, on balance, clear the bar for an affirmative Yes. Under the Cardano First framework the engaged pillars pull in opposite directions, and the honest landing is Abstain.

Pillar Analysis

Scalability (lead pillar, supportive)

This is the side that pulls toward Yes. Peras moving from undeployed to production on mainnet is a real finality improvement, and History Expiry directly protects node economics as Leios raises throughput, keeping full-history requirements from becoming prohibitive for SPOs. Conformance testing is the correctness scaffolding that de-risks both. As pure protocol engineering, the work is well-scoped and squarely on Cardano's critical path. If the vote turned only on technical merit, it would be a Yes.

Economic Sustainability (contested, the reason this is not a Yes)

This is the side that holds the vote back. 18.26M ADA is a large grant with no repayment, and the proposal is explicitly structured as a single non-separable pipeline, so DReps cannot fund the highest-value package (Peras mainnet) without also funding the rest. The reshape from the 2026-2028 version improved the horizon and the headline number, but the core concern that drove the prior No, committing a large multi-package treasury sum in one indivisible block, is reduced rather than resolved. The valuation basis ($176/hour, 0.25 ADA/USD) is reasonable, but the size plus the all-or-nothing packaging is enough to keep me from an affirmative endorsement.

Decentralization (mixed)

History Expiry cuts toward decentralization by lowering the storage cost of running a full node, which is a real and welcome SPO-health benefit. Cutting the other way, the delivery model concentrates around the incumbent: IOG is the primary maintainer of the target repositories and the mandatory code reviewer, so a large treasury grant to a second vendor still routes architectural control back through IOG. That tension is part of why the framework reads as inconclusive rather than clearly positive.

Governance Transparency (adequate)

The administration is the standard Intersect milestone-based fixed-price pattern with No Witness Labs as independent assessor, open-source deliverables, and public milestone tracking. This is not where the reservation sits. The structure is accountable; the disagreement is about the size and indivisibility of what is being funded, not about how it is administered.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Abstain

Not blocking needed core engineering

An Abstain does not stand in the way of Peras mainnet delivery or History Expiry, both of which I regard as genuinely needed. I am comfortable that if the wider community supports the ask, this vote does not obstruct it, while still declining to put HOSKY's affirmative weight behind the grant structure.

Not endorsing the single-pipeline grant

By abstaining rather than voting Yes, I am declining to endorse an 18.26M ADA non-separable grant as the right way to fund this work. The risk I accept is that a future ask of the same shape reads this Abstain as acceptance; it is not. A modular structure that let DReps fund Peras mainnet on its own merits would move this toward a Yes.

Bottom Line

The engineering is core and needed, and the reshape fixed enough of the prior version to take a No off the table, but a large indivisible grant with no repayment is not something I will affirmatively endorse. Not blocking it, not backing it. Abstain.

Yes5am.earth Trust Layer Targeting Vision 2030 KPIsEpoch 640RationaleEnacted17d ago

Yes. 10M ADA hard cap for an open Cardano-anchored agricultural trust layer reaching 500k farmers across India, Cambodia, and Kenya, already live on Mainnet via Project Swaminathan. Milestone-gated 5/2/3 through Intersect's TRSC, five-entity oversight, surplus returns.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

10,000,000 ADA, hard cap, to fund an open agricultural trust layer that turns farmer identity, land, crop, and satellite data into verifiable on-chain records, with three concrete application paths (certification, traceability, credit) built on top during the funded period. The money buys infrastructure and integration, not loan capital or speculative greenfield code.

The Cardano First framework reads strongly here. The lead is Adoption: this is real-world utility at a scale the ecosystem rarely sees in a Treasury ask, and it is already running on Mainnet rather than promised on a slide.

Pillar Analysis

Adoption (lead pillar)

The mechanic is "verify once, use many times." A shared, Cardano-anchored record of farmers, farms, crops, and credentials that lenders, insurers, buyers, certifiers, and government programmes can all build against, instead of each one re-onboarding the same smallholder from scratch. That is a network-effect play, and the demand for it pre-exists the infrastructure: roughly 500 million smallholder farmers sit outside formal trust infrastructure today.

What moves this from thesis to evidence is Project Swaminathan. It is live on Cardano Mainnet now, 10,500 registrations at 500 a day, a pilot that validated over a thousand farms at full success and absorbed a same-day production patch with zero downtime. The funded-period KPIs (500,000 registered farmers, 2 million on-chain transactions, $2 million in lending disbursed over Cardano stablecoin rails by M3) are concrete and gated. The 2030 projections sit further out, but the base case for this vote rests on the funded-period numbers, and those are credible because the pipeline already works.

Governance Transparency

This is the strongest part of the structure and the reason I am comfortable with a ten-million-ADA grant. Funds route through Intersect's standard TRSC/PSSC framework on the Sundae Labs contracts, audited by TxPipe and MLabs, with a five-entity independent Oversight Committee (Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, Xerberus, NMKR) co-signing the meaningful actions. Disbursement is milestone-gated against mixed evidence, on-chain artifacts for what is on-chain, field reports and independent audit for what is not. There is a public, monthly-refreshed on-chain KPI dashboard, independent audits at M2 and M3, quarterly DRep-facing reports, and monthly Forum updates. The accountability surface is wide and the disbursement controls are enforceable.

Economic Sustainability (contested)

This is a grant, not a loan, so the Treasury does not recover principal on a contractual schedule. That is the honest mark against the pillar. What pulls it back to positive: a hard 10M cap with no price-driven top-up, surplus above the $3.5M scope-elasticity band returning to Treasury, unspent funds sweeping back at contract level, and a credible self-sustaining path by 2028 where the Foundation runs on commercial and institutional revenue rather than returning to the well. The proposers also held the line through a 50%+ ADA drawdown mid-delivery on their Catalyst Fund 13 work without coming back for more, which is the behaviour you want to see priced in. Treasury value returns here as ecosystem activity and projected protocol revenue, not as repaid capital, and for an infrastructure build of this type that trade is acceptable.

Scalability

Engagement is indirect but real. The trust layer drives genuine demand-side load onto L1, with funded-period throughput in the millions of transactions and a satellite-oracle and attestation path that other applications can reuse without rebuilding. The integration patterns (DID stack, oracle, smart-contract substrate, tokenisation) are designed to be consumed by future use cases (insurance, carbon, government delivery) rather than rebuilt per project. That is throughput growth tied to actual utility, not synthetic volume.

Decentralization (mixed)

The design point is a neutral Foundation stewarding an open trust layer that no single commercial actor captures, with a multi-vendor consortium and an open source layer, all of which cut toward distribution of control. The offsetting concern is the same one every TRSC withdrawal carries: Intersect as the named administrator concentrates administrative power in an incumbent. The five-entity Oversight Committee and the multi-signature permission thresholds are the structural answer to that concern, and they are the same controls I have accepted on prior administered withdrawals.

The administrative pattern here matches precedent I have already voted Yes on: the Pebble TypeScript-core withdrawal (Yes, 2026-05-29), milestone-gated escrow on audited contracts with independent oversight and contract-level sweep of undelivered funds. The shape is familiar and the controls are sound.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

Front-loaded first tranche

5,000,000 ADA, half the ask, releases on approval before any milestone is evidenced. If the Foundation under-delivers after that draw, the Treasury's recourse on the first tranche is weaker than on M1 and M2. I am accepting this because the first tranche funds exactly the stand-up work (Foundation registration, partner procurement, architecture lock) that has to happen before any milestone can exist, the funds sit in the TRSC under multi-signature control and auto-abstain delegation until Funded to a PSSC, and the remaining 5M is hard-gated on observable evidence.

Grant economics, no principal recovery

The Treasury does not get its 10M back on a schedule. Return comes as ecosystem utility and projected protocol revenue, both of which are real but neither contractually guaranteed. I am taking the grant trade because the deliverable is shared open infrastructure, the hard cap and surplus-return mechanics bound the downside, and the self-sustaining-by-2028 design means this is establishment funding, not a recurring line.

Forward projections and an unregistered Foundation

The 2030 headline numbers (3 million farmers, $900M TVL, 16-20M ADA annual protocol revenue) are forward-looking and not the gate for this vote, and the 5am.earth Foundation is not yet a registered legal entity (it registers at M1, carried until then by co-promoters Elk GMBH and HashPoint Consulting). I am accepting both because the vote rests on the funded-period KPIs rather than the 2030 figures, and because legal-entity transfer is itself an M1 acceptance condition with the contract held by Cardano Development Holdings and administered by Intersect in the interim.

Bottom Line

Real-world adoption already live on Mainnet, the strongest transparency and oversight structure in the current Treasury queue, a hard cap with surplus return, and milestone gating on audited contracts. The grant economics and the front-loaded first tranche are the costs, and the structure prices them in. Yes.

YesEternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)Epoch 638RationaleExpired1mo ago

Yes. ₳1,680,000 for 12 months of Eternl wallet operations and the Pro plan transition, with a conditional repayment commitment (100% of Pro plan surplus until $420k USD returned, 50% donation tier beyond). Funded because Eternl is the broadest independent in-app DRep tooling on Cardano.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

₳1,680,000 for 12 months of Eternl wallet operations and the planned Pro plan transition, paid through a conditional repayment commitment that goes beyond what a typical treasury grant carries.

Eternl is one of the few Cardano wallets that has shipped continuously for over five years across four platforms with no VC dependency, and is currently the most comprehensive in-app governance client in the ecosystem. The HOSKY Cardano First framework reads strongly across multiple pillars.

Pillar Analysis

Governance Transparency (lead pillar)

Eternl is currently the only Cardano wallet offering a full in-app DRep voting and proposal-browser experience, and a meaningful share of DRep voting traffic flows through it, including HOSKY's own DRep submissions. Reduced funding for the wallet that the governance system runs on top of is a direct hit on participation infrastructure.

The repayment commitment is itself a transparency artifact: every Pro plan purchase recorded on-chain with metadata, repayment transaction hashes published, public company wallet for monitoring stablecoin reserves. The right shape for a public-good operating budget.

Adoption

Eternl serves about 130,000 installs across browser extension and mobile, ships in 66 languages, and supports the broadest hardware-wallet matrix on Cardano (Ledger, Trezor, OneKey, Keystone, with Bluetooth and additional vendors in progress).

The proposer's claim of 10-18% mainnet transaction share is large enough that ecosystem adoption metrics move with this wallet's reliability. Cross-platform shipping and continuous CIP work (CIP-30, NFT standards, future L2 connectors) is the integration plumbing that keeps Cardano accessible.

Decentralization

The Cardano governance layer is more resilient when client tooling has multiple independent implementations rather than concentrating around one provider. Eternl is one of the few wallets currently providing that diversity.

Economic Sustainability (contested)

The repayment structure is the strongest part: USD cap (only $420,000 in stablecoins retained, ADA surplus returned at conversion), bi-annual assessment, 100% of surplus directed to treasury repayment until the full USD value is returned, plus a 50% surplus-donation tier beyond.

Structurally closer to a debt instrument than to a grant, even though the obligation is contingent on Pro plan adoption rather than legally enforceable.

Set against the second consecutive year of asking and the unproven Pro plan migration, the conditional-repayment design is a reasonable middle path: the ecosystem funds critical wallet infrastructure through a thin market while the team executes a paid-plan transition, with explicit downside accounting if that transition fails.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

Repayment is contingent, not contractual

Binding only to the extent that Pro plan adoption succeeds and the team chooses to honor it. No escrow, no smart-contract lockup, no third-party administrator with enforcement authority. Closer to a public-record good-faith commitment than to a loan.

The formula also excludes existing Tastenkunst service-fee and overhead income from the threshold calculation, so the $420,000 repayment trigger sits at the team's stated operating cost rather than at any independently verified number. If Pro plan revenue never crosses that threshold, nothing is repaid.

Second consecutive treasury draw without a proven sustainability path

The 2025 proposal funded Eternl operations on the same promise of a future paid-plan model. The Pro plan was deferred at that time. A third consecutive draw on the same logic would be much harder to justify.

Self-administered, not milestone-gated

Tastenkunst GmbH administers its own treasury draw. No Intersect TRSC milestone structure, no third-party Assurer, no tranche-gated disbursement. Mitigation is the public stablecoin wallet and on-chain Pro plan metadata, but reliance on operator integrity is higher than for the Intersect-administered pattern.

Non-open-source main UI

Libraries get npm-published, but the main Eternl UI stays proprietary. Treasury-funded software that is not open-source caps how much the broader community can salvage if the team disengages from Cardano, and sets a precedent for treasury draws supporting closed-source infrastructure that is worth being explicit about.

Closed-loop voting position

The proposer has stated they will vote on the proposal. Permitted, but worth naming.

Bottom Line

Independent governance-tooling surface, structured repayment, second-year exception for a thin-market bridge. Yes.

Show 95 moreShow less

NoTweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028Epoch 635RationaleExpired1mo ago

No. ₳39.8M (~$9.95M) committed across 2026-2028 in one withdrawal pre-allocates treasury capital across multiple annual budget cycles, escaping yearly re-authorization. The Peras finality engineering is strong; the multi-year structure is the problem. Re-scope to an annual tranche.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting No. ₳39,787,316 (~$9.95M) for Tweag by Modus Create to deliver core infrastructure work across a two-year 2026-2028 timeline, with Peras mainnet finality as the headline. The engineering is the kind of L1 work the treasury should fund. The objection is the funding structure: committing roughly $10M across three calendar years in a single withdrawal, rather than the merit of the work. Read against the Cardano First framework:

Economic Sustainability: Lead concern. A single withdrawal spanning 2026-2028 pre-allocates treasury capital across multiple annual budget cycles. The treasury is budgeted year by year, and a three-calendar-year lump ask removes the annual checkpoint where the community re-authorizes spend against current priorities and a current Net Change Limit. Milestone gating controls when funds disburse, but the full ₳39.8M is committed up front against budgets the community has not yet set. The parallel Amaru "Treasury Withdrawal 2026" shows the right shape: scoped to a single year.
Governance Transparency: The 2026-2028 horizon escapes annual re-authorization. Even with Intersect as administrator, milestone-based fixed-price contracts, and proportional return of unspent funds, locking three years of scope now reduces the DRep body's ability to course-correct as Peras, Leios, and the hard-fork roadmap evolve. Multi-year asks should return to the voting body each year, not commit the body once for the whole span.
Scalability: This is the strongest part of the proposal and the reason this is a reluctant No. Peras mainnet finality, History Expiry, and the conformance and adversarial testing work are real L1 improvements I want funded. The structure is the problem, not the engineering.
Decentralization: Neutral to positive, and not a factor driving the No. Tweag by Modus Create is a non-incumbent core vendor, and open-source, publicly tracked deliverables are the right default.

Risks I'm accepting with this No:

Peras and the HFC window. The proposal argues the two-year span aligns Peras v2 with a Hard Fork Combinator window. Forcing a re-scope to annual tranches risks delaying Peras v2 or missing that window. I accept that risk in exchange for preserving the annual budget checkpoint.
Penalizing a well-structured ask. Tweag uses Intersect-administered fixed-price milestones with proportional refunds, which is among the better-governed budget proposals. Voting No on duration alone risks signaling that disciplined vendors gain little from good structure. The signal I intend is narrower: structure the duration annually.
Strong technical work stalls for non-technical reasons. If this structural concern is widely shared, essential finality work fails to fund and has to find another path. I accept that in preference to normalizing three-year lump withdrawals.

The engineering is exactly what the treasury should back. The three-year, roughly $10M single withdrawal is not the way to back it. Re-scope to an annual 2026 tranche that returns to the DRep body for 2027 and 2028 and this becomes a likely Yes. No.

YesPebble & Ecosystem maintenance: TypeScript core of CardanoEpoch 635RationaleEnacted1mo ago

Yes. ₳4.6M over 12 months for HLabs to build Pebble (TypeScript-syntax smart-contract language) and maintain the TS stack behind Mesh, Lucid Evolution, and Midgard. Milestone-gated SundaeSwap escrow, independent oversight, public UPLC-CAPE benchmarks, quarterly financial audit.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting Yes. ₳4,600,000 over 12 months for Harmonic Laboratories across two tracks: Pebble, an imperative smart-contract language compiling to UPLC, and ongoing maintenance of the TypeScript stack that production projects already depend on. Gerolamo is funded under a separate action and voted independently. Strong fit across the Cardano First framework:

Adoption: Lead pillar. Pebble gives the TypeScript and Web2 developer pool a familiar imperative syntax that compiles to on-chain code, the highest-leverage onboarding lever Cardano has. The maintenance half matters as much: the HLabs stack (cardano-ledger-ts, ouroboros-miniprotocols-ts, plutus-machine, uplc) already sits under Mesh, Lucid Evolution, and Midgard, so this is infrastructure the existing builder base ships on today, kept synchronized with each hard fork.
Decentralization: HLabs is an independent, Cardano-native R&D firm, not an incumbent. Funding a second serious tooling lineage outside the IO, CF, and Intersect orbit reduces single-vendor concentration in the parts of the stack developers touch daily. Same logic as my Yes on Amaru, Dingo, and Pebble + Gerolamo.
Scalability: Pebble compiles to optimized UPLC that, per HLabs' published benchmarks, outperforms Aiken and stays competitive with Plutarch. Smaller, cheaper scripts are a direct execution-efficiency gain. The proposal commits Pebble to public UPLC-CAPE benchmark submissions, so the performance claim is verifiable against Intersect's suite rather than self-reported.
Economic Sustainability: Contested. ₳4.6M is a grant, not a loan, so no capital returns directly. What makes it acceptable: the ask follows the Amaru FTE-valuation standard (5 FTE at $200k, 0.25 ADA/USD, 15% contingency), every quarter is gated on accepted deliverables, and non-delivery sweeps funds back rather than spending them anyway.
Governance Transparency: Funds sit in the audited SundaeSwap treasury.ak / vendor.ak escrow and release only as an independent oversight committee co-signs each milestone, against public artifacts (tagged npm release, UPLC-CAPE submission, green CI log) rather than self-reported progress. Milestone 0 draws only ₳400,000 at kickoff, contingency is held back across the engineering quarters, and an independent third-party financial audit runs quarterly plus a final assessment.

Splitting Gerolamo into a separate action means this ask funds a tighter scope than the earlier combined HLabs budget did.

Risks I'm accepting with this Yes:

Greenfield language adoption. Pebble is pre-production, and the thesis that TypeScript-shaped syntax pulls new builders onto Cardano is unproven on-chain. Aiken already holds the functional-programming segment. If Pebble fails to attract developers, the language half underdelivers.
Single-vendor dependency. Funding HLabs deepens reliance on one firm for critical TypeScript infrastructure; if HLabs stalls, Mesh, Lucid Evolution, and Midgard inherit the exposure. Milestone gating protects the money, not the concentration in the dependency graph.
Grant with no repayment. Recovery depends on the non-delivery sweep, not revenue or repayment. I accept that the public-good nature of core tooling justifies a grant structure, the same way prior core-infrastructure withdrawals have been treated.

Critical TypeScript infrastructure the ecosystem already runs on, a new on-ramp for the largest developer pool on earth, milestone-gated escrow with independent oversight. Yes.

YesRevised Cardano Summit 2026 SingaporeEpoch 634RationaleExpired1mo ago

Yes. ₳7.8M for Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore (Oct 5-6). 22% cut, TOKEN2049 decoupled, CF put $130k more skin in the game. Foundation listened. Also, HOSKY isn't forfeiting the 5-in-a-row community award streak by not showing up.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

₳7.8M for Cardano Summit 2026 in Singapore, October 5-6. How else is HOSKY supposed to defend the 5-in-a-row community/meme award streak.

Pillar Analysis

Adoption (lead pillar)

Singapore, scheduled immediately before TOKEN2049, two days, builders on day one and enterprise/institutional/regulatory on day two. The Foundation is tracking 250 enterprise MQLs and 50 post-event strategic meetings, which is a real scoreboard rather than attendance theatre. The Summit puts Cardano in the room where the checks get written. That is the whole adoption pillar in one event.

Economic Sustainability

The original ask was $2.5M. The revised ask is $1.95M. HOSKY voted No on the original because TOKEN2049 was bundled in at full freight. The Foundation cut 22%, decoupled the TOKEN2049 sponsorship into its own separate proposal, dropped from three stages to two, and put $130,000 more of CF internal resource on the table. That is what listening looks like.

Governance Transparency

CF administers, KPI framework with structured post-event reporting on MQLs, strategic meetings, demos, and integration follow-ups. Same shape as the Cardano Ecosystem Pavilions at Exhibitions ask HOSKY voted Yes on.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

KPI delivery is self-reported

250 MQLs and 50 post-event meetings are the Foundation's own targets. The next Summit ask should be explicitly conditioned on whether this one actually delivered them.

Annual event-funding pattern

Third consecutive Summit funded by the treasury. At some point a flagship event needs a self-sustaining sponsorship model rather than an annual treasury ask.

Bottom Line

Foundation listened, HOSKY rewards follow-through, and the 5-in-a-row meme-award streak is not defending itself. Yes.

YesIO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and UsabilityEpoch 634RationaleEnacted1mo ago

Yes. ₳11.88M for Plutus: language capabilities (CIP-0156, CIP-0168, Data casing), Agda metatheory + property-based conformance enabling alternative node clients, and a standalone Plinth compiler removing Nix and C deps. Foundational L1 work that pays back to every DApp on Cardano.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting Yes. ₳11.88M for three workstreams on the Plutus smart-contract platform: language capabilities and primitives, formal verification and conformance, and developer experience. Plutus is the execution layer for every DApp on Cardano. Strong fit across the Cardano First framework:

Scalability: Lead pillar. Cheaper execution per script means more transactions fit into the same block, the L1 throughput lever that does not require a hard fork or an L2. Casing on Data and the new built-ins (already-ratified CIP-0156 multiIndexArray, CIP-0168 BuiltinValue) replace verbose on-chain loops with single primitive calls. Scope-check removal (subject to Dijkstra hard-fork timing) recovers about 25% of script preparation overhead with no security cost.
Decentralization: Workstream 2 extends the Plutus metatheory in Agda and builds a property-based conformance framework. This is what lets alternative node clients verify their Plutus evaluator agrees with the canonical one on edge cases. Compounds as Cardano's node diversity grows. Same logic as my Yes on Amaru, Dingo, Pebble + Gerolamo.
Adoption: Workstream 3 replaces the GHC-plugin-based Plinth compiler with a standalone toolchain that does not require Nix or hand-installed C libraries. That has been the first-day stumbling block for developers coming from EVM or Web2 ecosystems. Single-command installation removes the friction.
Governance Transparency: Standard Intersect 2025 TRSC pattern: milestone-gated disbursement, third-party Assurer, unspent funds return to Treasury.

The VacuumLabs co-venture distributes Plutus maintenance across two expert teams rather than concentrating it in one. CIP-0156 and CIP-0168 are already community-ratified; this funds the implementation that closes those governance decisions.
Risks I'm accepting with this Yes:

Hard-fork-gated deliverables. Scope-check removal and new cost-model built-ins need Dijkstra to land. If Dijkstra slips, those deliverables are complete but economically inert until activation. The funded engineering still has standalone value.
Workstream 2 overlaps the Maintenance Initiative. The Plutus evaluator security audit and conformance maintenance also appear in the ₳62.1M IO & Ensurable Systems scope. The boundary is not perfectly clean.
Self-reported impact metrics. Cost-reduction and node-diversity claims need community measurement; the structural deliverables (CIP implementations, Agda formalization, standalone compiler) are independently verifiable.
Slate aggregation. Part of the ~₳141.9M IO slate across seven actions. Each action stands alone.

Foundational L1 work. Yes.

YesIO: Cardano High Assurance Technical CollaborationEpoch 634RationaleEnacted1mo ago

Yes. ₳13.08M for Blaster (automated formal verification scaling from single-script to DApp-level, integrated with Aiken, Pebble, Scalus, Futura) and CBDE (containerized Plinth toolkit replacing days of Nix with one-command setup). Multi-team consortium delivery.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

₳13.08M for two workstreams that operationalise Cardano's security-and-correctness differentiator for the broader developer pool.

Blaster, IO's automated formal verification tool, scales from single-script to full DApp-level verification with native integration into Aiken, Pebble, Scalus, and Futura. CBDE (Container-Based Developer Environment) replaces a multi-day Nix setup with a one-command containerized Plinth toolkit. The HOSKY Cardano First framework reads strongly across multiple pillars.

Pillar Analysis

Adoption (lead pillar)

CBDE eliminates the Nix-and-C-library setup step that the proposal characterizes as the source of 60-70% developer onboarding attrition; the target is under 20%. Blaster's VS Code extension, language integrations, and Common Vulnerability Library mean formal verification stops being a specialist activity and becomes a default in the standard developer workflow.

Both shift Cardano's security promise from "available to teams with formal methods budgets" to "available to every Plinth developer by default."

Decentralization

The Blaster work is structured as a real multi-team consortium: Lantr (Scalus), Harmonic Labs (Pebble), SAIB (Futura), Midgard Labs, IO (Aiken), No.Witness Labs, and TxPipe each own defined work packages. The Common Vulnerability Library and the Universal Annotation Language are delivered as shared public infrastructure that any future language team can integrate against.

Same logic as my Yes on Pebble + Gerolamo and Dingo on distributed stewardship.

Scalability

The equivalence checking tool enables aggressive UPLC optimization with machine-checked semantic preservation, which is the kind of compounding tooling improvement that pays back to every contract. Reducing execution-unit consumption per transaction is a complementary throughput lever to Leios, not a substitute. Lean-Blaster as an automated formal verification backend for Lean 4, with formal UPLC semantics and a CEK machine formalization, is genuine research-grade infrastructure that the optimization work compounds against.

Governance Transparency

Standard Intersect 2025 TRSC pattern: milestone-gated disbursement, third-party Assurer, unspent funds return to Treasury.

Cardano's claim to be the chain for serious applications rests on formal methods being usable in practice. This proposal funds the work that makes that claim operational for the developer pool that does not bring a formal methods background.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

Blaster pivot from IO-internal to public infrastructure

Blaster has been an internal tool used on IO-led DApps (Djed, USDCx). Restructuring as a multi-team consortium with cross-language integration is a real shift. The consortium model is the right structural shape but execution risk exists.

CBDE depends on the already-funded cardano-init

CBDE integrates with the cardano-init Setup CLI from the Developer Experience proposal. Cross-proposal dependency that sits outside this proposal's scope.

Self-reported KPIs

"3-5x increase in active Plinth developers within 12 months" and the 60-70% to under 20% drop-off reduction are proposer-estimated. The structural deliverables (Blaster integrations, CBDE container, VS Code extension, Common Vulnerability Library, equivalence checker) are independently verifiable; the downstream adoption claims will need community measurement.

Formal methods adoption is downstream of education and culture

Funding the tooling does not guarantee community uptake. Developer training and DApp-team buy-in are the harder parts and not in scope here.

Slate aggregation

Part of the roughly ₳141.9M IO slate across seven actions. Each action stands alone.

Bottom Line

Cardano's security differentiator becomes real only when formal verification is a default option in the standard developer workflow. Yes.

YesIO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance InitiativeEpoch 634RationaleEnacted1mo ago

Yes. ₳62.1M for 9 months of continuous Cardano platform maintenance (Q3 2026 - Q1 2027): node, DevOps, monitoring, performance, QA, release, component upkeep. IO + Ensurable Systems consortium, Intersect milestone-administered. Foundational L1 work every other slate action depends on.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

₳62.1M for continuous Cardano platform maintenance from Q3 2026 to Q1 2027, covering nine functional areas: node bugfixing and architecture, DevOps and infrastructure (including CIP-135 disaster recovery), mainnet and mempool monitoring, the Cardano Blueprint specification project, open-source community support, performance optimization, quality assurance, release management with L1/L2/L3 incident response, and component upkeep across Plutus Core, DB-Sync, guardrails scripts, APIs, and CLI tools.

This is the foundation that every other proposal in the IO slate depends on. If the underlying platform is not maintained, nothing else ships cleanly. The HOSKY Cardano First framework reads strongly across multiple pillars.

Pillar Analysis

Decentralization (lead pillar)

The work is structured as an IO + Ensurable Systems collaboration, the same distributed-stewardship shape as the Plutus + VacuumLabs co-venture elsewhere in this slate. Ensurable Systems is a specialist infrastructure firm contributing alongside IO rather than IO carrying the maintenance load alone.

The Cardano Blueprint deliverable is the standout Decentralization artifact: implementation-independent specifications across consensus, network, ledger, and Plutus that lower the barrier for alternative node implementations. Direct enabler for Amaru, Dingo, Pebble + Gerolamo, and any future client. Same logic as my Yes on each of those.

Adoption

L1/L2/L3 incident response, mainnet and mempool monitoring with public data publication, GitHub triage and external contribution review, multi-testnet maintenance for DApp developers to validate against. The maintenance layer is invisible when it works and devastating when it does not. Reliable platform operation is what lets DApp builders and SPOs commit to Cardano as production-grade infrastructure.

Scalability

The Performance workstream covers systematic ledger optimization, system-level node optimizations (block production, diffusion, timeliness), benchmarking at integration level to safeguard releases and hard forks, and continuous improvement of the node's tracing, logging, and metrics. These are the throughput levers that compound across every transaction on Cardano, independent of any single feature ship. Direct safeguard for the Leios path of release.

Governance Transparency

Standard Intersect 2025 TRSC pattern: milestone-based smart-contract disbursement, independent third-party Assurer, transparent on-chain dashboards, unspent funds return to Treasury. Same shape as Pebble + Gerolamo, Dingo, Amaru, and the Plutus collaboration.

Continuation precedent: HOSKY voted Yes on the 2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development proposal in July 2025. This proposal is the 2026 equivalent under a new co-stewardship structure with Ensurable Systems. The pattern is consistent with how core platform maintenance gets funded: continuously, annually, not as a one-time spend.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

Largest single line item in the IO slate

₳62.1M is the biggest individual ask in the seven-proposal IO slate. The cost breakdown by collaborator (IO vs Ensurable Systems) is not provided in the proposal. Implicit trust that Intersect's third-party Assurer catches mispricing or scope-creep at the milestone level.

Continuous deliverables, weaker milestone gating

The proposal explicitly states there is no sequential phasing or quarterly gating: maintenance activities are ongoing and parallel. That is honest about how maintenance actually works, but it reduces the leverage Intersect milestone-gating provides. Gating is per-functional-area rather than per-deliverable.

Scope overlap with sibling IO actions

Plutus Core interpreter maintenance, DB-Sync consistency, and High Assurance tool maintenance appear here and also in the Plutus, High Assurance, and Upgrades proposals. The boundary is not perfectly clean. The mitigation is that Intersect-administered milestone smart contracts settle the boundary at execution time, not at vote time.

Ensurable Systems portion not quantified

The proposal asserts an IO + Ensurable Systems consortium but does not specify what fraction of the work or budget Ensurable owns. Same observation as the VacuumLabs partnership in the Plutus proposal. Structural shape is right; specifics are loose.

Self-reported impact metrics

Reliability uptime, performance gains, and alternative-node-implementation enablement claims are proposer-stated. The structural deliverables (Cardano Blueprint, CI/CD, monitoring infrastructure, release process, component upkeep) are independently verifiable; downstream impact claims will need community measurement.

Slate aggregation

Part of the roughly ₳141.9M IO slate across seven actions. Each action stands alone.

Bottom Line

The platform underneath every other initiative in the slate. Without continuous maintenance, none of the feature work in Consensus, Plutus, High Assurance, Upgrades, or Developer Experience lands cleanly. Yes.

YesIO: Consensus InitiativeEpoch 634RationaleEnacted1mo ago

Yes. HOSKY Cardano First names Leios by name under Scalability. ₳27.7M funds path from testnet to release candidate. Hard-fork-vote risk and coarse cost detail flagged.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting Yes. The HOSKY Cardano First framework names Leios by name under Scalability: "prioritize solutions like Ouroboros Leios, Hydra, Plutus V3, and ZK Rollups that increase throughput while preserving decentralization." This action funds the path from public testnet to mainnet-ready release candidate. That's the work the platform asks for. Cardano 2030 targets about 27M monthly transactions versus today's ~800k. Sustainable utilization at that level needs at least 6x current L1 capacity. Leios gives 10x at the floor of the envelope. The 10–65x technical range is not a promise; budget around 10x. The design builds on Ouroboros Praos instead of replacing it, and SPO operability is called out as a design constraint, so decentralization comes out neutral on net. Throughput is a precondition for the verticals the chain wants (DeFi at scale, AI-agent micropayments, gaming, payments). Same logic as my Yes on Increase Memory Units. ₳27.7M is proportionate to the work: RC engineering, conformance testing, adversarial validation, hard-fork enablement across DB-Sync, Mithril, Blockfrost, wallets. Two flags. Per-milestone cost detail is coarser than the ask warrants. And the acceptance criteria leave out the community hard-fork vote because IO doesn't control it. Reasonable framing, but if the RC ships and the hard-fork vote then fails, some of the money is stranded. A Yes here is not a Yes on the hard-fork vote. Same Cardano First logic as Dingo (Blink Labs is building Leios alongside IO) and Increase Memory Units. Strongest pillar fit in the IO slate. Slate aggregation sits at about ₳141.9M across seven IO actions; each stands on its own. Yes.

YesIO: Cardano UpgradesEpoch 634RationaleEnacted1mo ago

Yes. ₳13.10M for CIP-159 (account address deposits, micro-fees, L2 reserves), CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury CIP design, and Babel Fees (pay tx fees in any native asset). Removes the "need ADA first" barrier for BTC and stablecoin onboarding; enables wallet micro-fee economics.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

₳13.10M for three coordinated platform-level upgrades: CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement, CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury CIP design, and Babel Fees. Each removes a concrete barrier to adoption and ecosystem economics.

The HOSKY Cardano First framework reads strongly across multiple pillars.

Pillar Analysis

Adoption (lead pillar)

Babel Fees lets users pay transaction fees in any Cardano native asset (USDC, bridged BTC, stablecoins) instead of requiring ADA first. For Bitcoin holders bridging in and stablecoin users entering DeFi, this removes the most concrete friction point in onboarding.

CIP-159 lifts the minUTxOValue floor that today blocks wallets from charging micro-fees, which directly enables wallet product-market fit on Cardano fees. Cheaper batcher and aggregator economics follow from the same change.

Economic Sustainability

CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury begins the CIP design work to let the Cardano Treasury hold stablecoins alongside ADA, which directly addresses ADA-price-volatility exposure on multi-year treasury budgets. The Eternl proposal in the broader budget surfaces exactly this problem ($133k short of the proposed USD amount due to ADA price decline). Multi-Asset Treasury is the structural fix.

Babel Fees creates a new SPO revenue stream (10 to 50% markup on fee conversions), broadening SPO economics beyond staking rewards.

Scalability (indirect)

CIP-159 provides the account primitives that L2 solutions need to manage user-deposited ADA reserves cleanly. Not a throughput pillar in itself, but the L1 plumbing that L2 economics require. Direct enabler for the Midgard-class rollup workstream and any future Cardano L2 that manages user funds.

Governance Transparency

Standard Intersect 2025 TRSC pattern: milestone-gated disbursement, third-party Assurer, unspent funds return to Treasury. Same shape as Pebble + Gerolamo, Dingo, Amaru, and the Plutus collaboration.

The IO and Ensurable Systems collaboration distributes delivery between two teams. CIP-159 Phase 1 is targeted for Dijkstra (cardano-node-12.x, Q3 2026); Babel Fees rides on top of the separately funded CIP-118 Nested Transactions primitive; CPS-23 design feeds into a future implementation cycle.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

Bundle of three workstreams at different maturity levels

CIP-159 is concrete protocol work targeted for a specific era. WS2 (Multi-Asset Treasury) is CIP design only, not implementation. Babel Fees depends on separately funded CIP-118 Nested Transactions. The legs deliver standalone value but the bundle hides cross-leg dependency risk.

Hard-fork timing

CIP-159 needs Dijkstra to actually land. If Dijkstra slips, the engineering is complete but economically inert until activation. The funded work has standalone value either way.

WS2 is design, not implementation

Multi-Asset Treasury is the CIP specification work; the actual treasury changes are downstream and will need separate funding. A Yes here is not a Yes on the future implementation ask.

Babel Fees deployment is contingent on CIP-118

Babel Fees is built on top of Nested Transactions. If CIP-118 implementation is delayed, Babel Fees cannot deploy regardless of what this proposal funds.

Slate aggregation

Part of the roughly ₳141.9M IO slate across seven actions. Each action stands alone.

Bottom Line

Foundational L1 work that pays back to every wallet, DApp, and onboarding flow on Cardano. Yes.

YesIO: Developer Experience InitiativeEpoch 634RationaleEnacted1mo ago

Yes. Smallest IO slate ask at ₳3.6M. Funds dev onboarding: cardano-init CLI, contracts library, Developer Portal. Bounties go to ecosystem teams. Self-reported KPI flagged.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting Yes. This is the only piece of the IO slate that goes hard at the Adoption pillar. The work is concrete. A cardano-init setup CLI. An OpenZeppelin-style contracts library. A consolidated Developer Portal. A bounty program that pays existing ecosystem teams (Aiken, Pebble, Scalus, Lucid Evolution maintainers) to do what they already do best. That's the right shape for the pillar. At ₳3.6M it's the smallest ask in the slate, milestone-gated via the Intersect 2025 TRSC, with anything unspent going back to Treasury. Two things to flag. The 30% dev-growth-rate target is IO's own number, so future reports need an independent verifier and a clear source dataset. And six months won't be the end of it: bounty continuity, Portal maintenance, and CLI upkeep all imply follow-on asks. None of that changes the call. Same logic as my Yes on Pebble (TS/Web2 devs) and Dingo (Go devs). Onboarding new builders is the lever. Slate aggregation across the seven IO actions sits at about ₳141.9M, but each action stands alone. Yes.

AbstainPogun: Capital Without CompromiseEpoch 633RationaleExpired1mo ago

Abstain. ₳12.29M for a BTC credit market, yield app, and BitVM bridge. The 20% then 5% perpetual return is the right precedent, but Cardano already has BTC DeFi live (Indigo iBTC, Wanchain wanBTC, Liqwid, Fluid Tokens) so the policy bet is too speculative to endorse. Structure deserves to ride.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Abstaining. ₳12.29M treasury withdrawal for a BTC credit market, yield app, and BitVM bridge, with a 20% EBITDA return to the Cardano Treasury until USD-equivalent funding is repaid and 5% in perpetuity thereafter. The repayment structure is the right precedent and the policy bet is too speculative to endorse. The Cardano First framework reads in opposite directions across pillars:

Economic Sustainability: Lead reason for not voting No. The 20% EBITDA, then 5% perpetual, return is the bar every large treasury withdrawal should meet from here on. Pogun is the first proposal in this slate that ties the recipient to the treasury's long-term P&L rather than only to a delivery milestone. The return is contingent on Pogun reaching positive quarterly EBITDA, which is uncertain given the existing Cardano BTC DeFi stack.
Adoption: Lead reason for not voting Yes. Cardano is not virgin territory for BTC DeFi. Indigo Protocol's iBTC has been live for over a year and provides synthetic BTC exposure without bridging. Wanchain's wanBTC has been on Cardano since 2023 and gives the chain a working BTC bridge today. Liqwid is the established Cardano money market and already handles BTC-pegged collateral. Fluid Tokens is already running peer-to-peer lending on Cardano, the exact category Pogun's non-margin credit market is positioned in. Pogun's differentiation (BitVM-based trust-minimized bridging, unified credit-plus-yield-plus-bridge product) is real but not yet production-grade.
Scalability: The Q4 2026 bridge delivery is gated on BitVM3 maturing past research. The §6.5 refund trigger covers the binary "fundamentally infeasible" case but not the partial-failure mode where the bridge ships but never reaches the institutional security profile the thesis requires.
Governance Transparency: Standard Intersect 2025 TRSC pattern (milestone-gated disbursement, third-party Assurer, five refund triggers, auto-abstain delegation). Same shape we voted Yes on for Pebble + Gerolamo and Dingo. Pillar engaged and clean.

Risks I'm accepting with this Abstain:

Perpetual-return precedent unanchored at the DRep level. A Yes here would have entered the 20% + 5% perpetual return shape onto the record as DRep-endorsed. Abstain is silent. The precedent will need to be re-established by the next proposal that adopts it.
Withholding capital from an action whose administrative structure is sound. The Intersect 2025 TRSC framework here is the same shape we voted Yes on for Pebble + Gerolamo and Dingo. An Abstain on a structurally-compliant action signals that policy concerns can outweigh administrative soundness.
Asymmetric treatment of risk-bearing proposals. This is a "late-into-a-locally-served-niche" call against incumbents already shipping, not a blanket rule against ambition.

The structure is the right precedent and deserves to ride. The policy bet is not, and we do not yet have the evidence to endorse it at the DRep level. Abstain.

AbstainBlockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation IndexingEpoch 633RationaleExpired1mo ago

Abstain. Cayley advances decentralization, but Blockfrost is a commercial service HOSKY already pays for. Treasury shouldn't subsidize a paid product's free tier.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Abstaining. Project Cayley has merit. Decentralized slice indexing lowers the barrier for SPOs and smaller operators to run data-serving infrastructure, which lines up with the HOSKY Cardano First decentralization pillar. The problem is the ask itself. $1M is for Cayley, the new product roadmap. $0.9M is an operational subsidy for the free tier that Blockfrost has funded out of commercial revenue since inception. Blockfrost is a commercial service. HOSKY pays for it. A service that's been covering its own free tier for years on commercial revenue can keep doing that, or reprice the free tier, or charge what the market supports. What it shouldn't do is fold a treasury subsidy into a commercial product's economics. The Cardano First framework reads the Economic Sustainability pillar as: reject financial models that depend on subsidy when there's a viable commercial path. Treasury-subsidized commercial infrastructure isn't sustainable, it's a dependency. And the precedent matters more than $0.9M. Fund one commercial provider's free tier and the same ask comes back from every other commercial provider next cycle. Cayley deserves to be funded on its merits as public-good architecture. The free-tier subsidy doesn't belong in the same envelope. Since the two are bundled at the vote, I won't vote No on the Cayley work itself, but I won't endorse the subsidy either. Abstain.

AbstainIO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability InitiativeEpoch 633RationaleExpired1mo ago

Abstain. ₳10.43M bundles Hydra hardening, shared L2 data availability, and Midgard mainnet launch. Hydra and DA deserve Yes; Midgard mainnet is speculative for a pre-testnet rollup with operator-discretionary treasury return. Bundle forces a single vote. Resubmit Hydra separately.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Abstaining. ₳10.43M bundles shared L2-agnostic data availability infrastructure, Hydra production hardening for live adopters (Delta DeFi, Masumi), and the mainnet launch of Midgard. The Hydra hardening leg deserves Yes; the Midgard mainnet leg is speculative on the current record. The bundle forces a single vote on three workstreams with materially different maturity profiles, and the Cardano First framework reads in opposite directions across pillars:

Adoption: Lead reason for not voting No. The shared L2 data availability workstream has real value across the Cardano L2 stack and would be defensible on its own. Hydra hardening directly supports live production deployments. Delta DeFi has bet a product roadmap on Hydra and Masumi requires Hydra-class infrastructure for machine-to-machine micropayments. These legs deserve to live. A No would penalize work that should be funded.
Economic Sustainability: Lead reason for not voting Yes. Compare to Pogun: hard-coded 20% of EBITDA paid to the treasury until USD-equivalent is repaid, then 5% in perpetuity. Midgard's mechanism is described as one that "allows L2 operators to allocate a portion of sequencer revenue back to the Cardano treasury." Operator-discretionary is not the same as enforced. Ethereum L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum, Base) have generated multi-billion-dollar sequencer revenue with minimal structural flow back to L1 ETH economics. The proposal cites that comparison favorably; the treasury-stewardship reading is the opposite.
Scalability: Mixed read. Hydra is research-mature and production-emerging today. Leios (~400 TPS) and Peras (~2-min finality) are funded for L1 through other actions in this same slate. The proposal's framing that "L2 is the only path to close the throughput and finality gap in the current cycle" understates what L1 is already funded to deliver. Funding the mainnet launch of a third L2 (Midgard, optimistic rollup, pre-mainnet, approaching testnet) while Leios is still pre-mainnet is the wrong sequencing for the speculative leg, even if the Hydra and shared-DA legs are well-timed.
Decentralization: Midgard's open-participation operator design is better than centralized-sequencer rollups, but the proposal does not specify operator concentration limits or anti-collusion mechanics. "Anyone can lock a bond" without operator-set sizing constraints is a known failure mode.

We would prefer this proposal resubmitted as two separate actions: Hydra hardening plus shared DA would get our Yes; Midgard mainnet belongs in a research-stage round with a measurable mainnet-readiness gate before treasury exposure. Abstain is the honest position when the bundle forces a single up-or-down vote on three workstreams that should be evaluated independently.
Risks I'm accepting with this Abstain:

The bundle's Yes-worthy legs go unfunded. Delta DeFi and Masumi depend on Hydra hardening this proposal would have funded. The shared L2 data availability infrastructure would have benefited every current and future Cardano L2. An Abstain does not vote those legs up onto the record; they wait for a resubmission that separates them from the Midgard mainnet leg.
Silent vote on bundled speculative funding. A clean No would have anchored a position against unbundled mainnet funding for pre-testnet L2 designs with discretionary treasury return; an Abstain does not. The next bundled L2 ask of this shape will need the same case made fresh.
Signalling ambiguity. Abstain on a mixed-quality bundle reads as a procedural objection to bundling, not a substantive position on L2 strategy. UTXO-native rollups are research worth doing; Midgard's single-party-fraud-proof architecture is a real technical contribution. The substantive position is in the pillar bullets and the Risks block above, not in the vote direction alone.

The Hydra and shared-DA legs deserve to ride. The Midgard mainnet leg does not yet, and we will not endorse it as part of a bundle. Abstain.

NoCardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 SingaporeEpoch 630RationaleExpired3mo ago

HELL NO!

Cardano Foundation claimed 2025 Summit pricing was set to make events sustainable, yet returns to treasury for $2.5M in 2026. Only $313K revenue offset on $2.8M gross cost. No binding KPIs. Treasury should not perpetually subsidize Cardano Foundation flagship events.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting No. The Cardano Foundation positioned the 2025 Summit as a step toward event self-sustainability, justifying premium ticket pricing and sponsorship tiers on the basis that the Summit should not be perpetually treasury-funded. Coming back to the treasury for $2.5M one year later contradicts that stated goal and signals that the sustainability model failed or was never seriously pursued.

Economic Sustainability: This is the central failure. The Cardano Foundation's own 2025 messaging set the expectation that higher ticket prices and sponsor revenue would reduce or eliminate treasury dependence for future Summits. The 2026 budget deducts only $313,000 in revenue carried over from 2025 - a negligible offset against a $2.8M gross cost. If the Summit cannot generate meaningful revenue after years of iteration, the treasury is subsidizing an event that the Cardano Foundation should be funding from its own substantial reserves or through a credible commercial model. The treasury is not an events slush fund.
Governance Transparency: No binding KPIs tied to the spend. The proposal lists objectives (institutional exposure, B2B networking, ecosystem showcase) but none are measurable commitments with consequences for underperformance. A $3.66M ask should come with hard accountability metrics - partnership conversions, on-chain activity targets, sponsor revenue benchmarks for 2027 - not aspirational bullet points.
Adoption: I acknowledge the strategic logic of co-locating with TOKEN2049 in Singapore and the visibility that a title sponsorship provides. The TOKEN2049 component (EMURGO, $1.16M) is at least a clear marketing spend with measurable reach (25K+ attendees, mainstage keynote, booth). But visibility is not adoption. There are no binding commitments, partnership conversions, or on-chain activity targets tied to this spend.
Decentralization: The Cardano Foundation is a well-funded entity with its own treasury. Requesting community treasury funds for its flagship event while holding significant reserves raises a legitimate question about whether the Cardano Foundation is externalizing costs it should bear. The community treasury should fund ecosystem-wide public goods, not subsidize the operational events of a single foundation.
Scalability: No direct impact on protocol scalability or technical infrastructure.

The Summit has value. TOKEN2049 title sponsorship has value. But the Cardano Foundation committed to making this sustainable, and one year later it's back asking for the same money. No until the Cardano Foundation demonstrates a credible path to event self-funding or, at minimum, a year-over-year reduction in treasury dependency with hard revenue targets.

YesPebble + Gerolamo - HLabs 2026 BudgetEpoch 628RationaleExpired3mo ago

Yes. Gerolamo (TypeScript alt node) advances client diversity KPI; Pebble lowers smart-contract barrier for TS/Web2 devs. Milestone-gated escrow with independent oversight board. Consistent with Amaru and Dingo Yes votes.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting Yes. This proposal scores strongly across the Cardano First framework:

Decentralization: Gerolamo is a TypeScript alternative node implementation. Direct contribution to the Cardano 2030 client-diversity KPI. Same logic that drove my Yes on Amaru and (separately) Dingo.
Adoption: Pebble lowers the smart-contract barrier for the massive TypeScript / Web2 developer pool. Onboarding new builders is the highest-leverage adoption lever we have.
Economic Sustainability: SundaeSwap treasury-contracts escrow with milestone-gated disbursement, plus an independent oversight board (Santiago Carmuega, Lucas Rosa, Chris Gianelloni). Funds delegated to auto-abstain.
Governance Transparency: Constitutionally compliant, public deliverables, monthly reporting cadence.

Strong on Decentralization and Adoption pillars with credible execution structure. Yes.

YesApprove Cardano Foundation as New Managing Entity of Project CatalystEpoch 626RationaleClosed3mo ago

Yes. Non-spend Info Action transferring Catalyst admin from IOG to CF. Protects grantee continuity, returns Fund 15-16 allocations to treasury, no NCL impact.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting Yes. This is a non-spend Info Action required by CFC's Cayman statutes to formally transfer Project Catalyst administration from IOG to the Cardano Foundation.

Continuity for grantees: Without approval by end of May, Catalyst operations face an undetermined pause and Funds 10-14 milestone payouts stall. Existing grant recipients should not bear the cost of an administrative handoff.
Returns capital to treasury: If approved, CF and Intersect will return the previously-allocated Fund 15-16 treasury allocations to the Cardano Treasury. Net positive for treasury balance.
No new spend: Info Action only - no withdrawal, no NCL impact.
Governance Transparency: The handoff process is being executed in the open, through on-chain governance, exactly as the constitution intends.

The responsible path forward to resolve legacy obligations and protect the treasury. Yes.

YesDingo: a Production-Grade Block Producer in Go by Blink LabsEpoch 625RationaleEnacted3mo ago

Yes. Go-language alt node by Blink Labs advances client diversity (Cardano 2030 KPI), opens node ecosystem to 5M+ Go devs, supports Leios throughput roadmap. Milestone-gated escrow, independent oversight board. Consistent with Amaru Yes vote.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting Yes. Direct parallel to Amaru (which I supported) - this is the Go-language alternative node, and the same Cardano First logic applies:

Decentralization: Dingo is a production-grade Cardano block producer in Go. Another point on the client-diversity curve, directly aligned with the Cardano 2030 KPI. Network resilience comes from heterogeneous implementations, not redundant copies of the same codebase.
Scalability: Blink Labs is building Leios alongside IO Engineering. Yes also signals support for the throughput roadmap.
Adoption: Go is the language of cloud-native infrastructure (Kubernetes, Docker, Prometheus, Terraform). Dingo opens Cardano's node ecosystem to 5M+ Go developers and DevOps practitioners - a developer pool we cannot reach with Haskell alone.
Economic Sustainability: Same SundaeSwap treasury-contracts escrow framework as Amaru, with an independent oversight board (Pi Lanningham, Santiago Carmuega, Lucas Rosa). Priced lower per-ADA than Amaru's previous cycle ($0.30 vs $0.50 reference), and the team has a track record (Blink Labs has been shipping Cardano Go tooling for years).
Governance Transparency: Open source, milestone-gated, oversight board, auto-abstain delegation. Standard constitutional alignment.

Consistent with my Amaru and HLabs Yes votes - alt clients are non-negotiable infrastructure for Cardano's long-term health. Yes.

YesCardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1Epoch 625RationaleEnacted3mo ago

Upgrading to Yes. Resubmission addresses prior constitutional concerns: compliant with Art I Sec 6-7, 0.23% NCL, 5-of-9 multisig, explicit refund triggers, monthly transparency reports, and tDAO override. Legal infrastructure for DeFi liquidity initiative.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Upgrading to Yes on this resubmission. My prior abstain explicitly stated I would support a version "resubmitted in full compliance with the required governance and constitutional standards." This version delivers on that condition:

Constitutional Compliance: Section 5 documents compliance with Article I, Section 6 (Governance Action Standards) and Article I, Section 7 (Treasury Withdrawals 7(1)–7(6)). NCL impact 0.23% - well within limits. Funds delegated to auto-abstain per 7(6).
Economic Sustainability: Tight scope (legal entity setup + audit + multisig contract). Walkers (Cayman) LLP for the Foundation Company, Invariant0 for the smart-contract audit, Sundae Labs for Amaru contract setup. Smart contract development contributed at no cost by UTxO Company and Sidan Labs.
Governance Transparency: 9-person Interim Committee with 5-of-9 multisig. Six explicit refund triggers (non-performance, cost savings, legal/technical impossibility, governance changes, completion remainder). Monthly transparency reports. Cost-denominated-in-USD discipline so excess ADA returns to treasury.
Adoption: Bootstraps the legal infrastructure for the broader stablecoin DeFi liquidity initiative previously approved (>67% support under prior constitution).
Decentralization: Memberless Cayman FC with tDAO override (DReps can impeach committee, disable contract).

The structural concerns from my prior abstain have been addressed. Yes.

YesCardano x Draper Dragon: Orion FundEpoch 624RationaleEnacted3mo ago

Yes. 50M ADA Tranche One of a structured VC fund managed by Draper Dragon. Treasury-first repayment waterfall via Arouet Holdings, tranche-gated (future tranches need separate votes), 175M ADA hard cap. Institutional adoption play with real return mechanics.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting Yes. This is the largest single treasury withdrawal I've voted on, so I want to be explicit about why it clears every pillar of the Cardano First framework.

Adoption: This is the highest-leverage adoption play currently on-chain. Draper Dragon brings institutional VC infrastructure, deal flow, and a founder pipeline (via Draper University) that Cardano has never had. Direct investments into Cardano-native and Cardano-integrated startups, an in-house venture studio, and equity-based accelerator programs attack the post-Catalyst capital gap from the supply side. The stated ambition - growing TVL from $300M to $3B+ across RWA and DeFi - is aggressive but directionally correct. Even partial delivery materially changes Cardano's competitive position.
Economic Sustainability: The fund structure is designed to return capital to the treasury, not just spend it. Arouet Holdings (memberless Cayman FC) acts as LP with the explicit objective of increasing the treasury. The waterfall is treasury-first: all capital deployed for Ecosystem Support & Investments ($13.65M of Tranche One) must be fully repaid to Arouet before the GP takes any profit share. After repayment, the split is 80/20 (Arouet/GP). Management fee is discounted from the industry-standard 2% to ~1.3%. This is not a grant - it's a structured investment with a repayment obligation.
Governance Transparency: Tranche-based design is the right approach. This vote approves only $15M (Tranche One). Future tranches ($30M each in years 2 and 4) require separate governance actions - the community evaluates performance before approving more capital. Total ADA withdrawals are hard-capped at 175M ADA over six years. Arouet Holdings will have a Community-elected director. The side letter with Arouet will be published publicly. Monthly reporting cadence. Constitutional compliance documented per Article I, Section 7.
Decentralization: The Cardano Foundation plays a supporting role (ecosystem/technical know-how, administrator) but does not manage the fund or make investment decisions. The GP is Draper Dragon - an external, independent fund manager. This brings outside institutional capital and credibility into the ecosystem without concentrating power in any existing Cardano entity.
Scalability: Indirect but real. Portfolio companies building on Cardano will drive on-chain transaction volume, TVL growth, and developer tooling. More builders shipping production apps means more demand for throughput improvements (Leios, Hydra, ZK Rollups) and more real-world validation of the eUTXO model.

Risks I'm accepting with this Yes:

ADA price risk. The $15M target is based on $0.30/ADA. If ADA drops significantly post-withdrawal, the fund's purchasing power shrinks. The GP can defer capital calls by up to six months, but the risk is real.
VC return timelines. 6-8 year fund horizon means the treasury won't see returns for years. This is standard for venture but novel for Cardano governance.
Execution risk. Draper Dragon has a track record in broader crypto VC but not specifically in the Cardano ecosystem. The Cardano Foundation's supporting role and the Community Director on Arouet mitigate this somewhat.
Precedent risk. Approving a $15M VC fund sets an expectation for the $60M in future tranches. DReps must evaluate each tranche independently and be willing to vote No on Tranches 2-3 if Tranche 1 underperforms.

The treasury is not a savings account - it's a growth engine. This is the first serious attempt to deploy treasury capital as structured investment rather than grants or operational budgets. The protections are adequate (tranche gating, hard caps, treasury-first waterfall, community director, public reporting), and the upside - institutional deal flow, founder pipeline, and a credible path to TVL growth - justifies the risk. Yes.

YesIncrease Transaction and Block Memory Units (Part 1 of 2)Epoch 614RationaleEnacted4mo ago

👍

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

👍

Abstain4b10e5793208cb8f228756e02113227c91602248eac4d992681a0ee760b6c4e2#0Epoch 614RationaleExpired4mo ago

Deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Committee, I nevertheless believe this could represent a responsible use of funds if it demonstrably drives meaningful adoption and is resubmitted in full compliance with the required governance and constitutional standards.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

YesName Protocol Version 11 hard fork - van RossemEpoch 613RationaleClosed5mo ago

Yes.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

No brainer, this is a common practice to honor those who have poured their lives into Cardano.

YesDeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (₳1,500,000)Epoch 610RationaleClosed5mo ago

Vote YES. This InfoAction supports expanding real Hydra use cases beyond demos and aligns with a Cardano first approach to scalable infrastructure. A production grade Hydra DEX strengthens Layer 2 adoption and testing. Catalyst could serve as a prudent step.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

YesCARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.4Epoch 609RationaleEnacted6mo ago

Voting YES

Cardano Constitution v2.4 is a clear improvement. It removes non binding language, tightens definitions, enforces immutability of proposal documents, and extends audit and accountability safeguards to all treasury withdrawals, strengthening clarity, integrity, and governance efficiency.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting YES

AbstainCardano 2030: Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework and KPIsEpoch 608RationaleClosed6mo ago

Abstain. This InfoAction captures broad community input but remains a high level vision with no binding commitments, prioritization, or accountability. As a non executable signal, it does not yet translate into concrete governance actions or measurable outcomes.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

YesAdd Constitutional Committee Member - ChristinaEpoch 607RationaleExpired6mo ago

Voting YES.

Expanding the Constitutional Committee above the minimum size improves continuity and resilience. If a member resigns or is unavailable, the CC can still function without delays, ensuring uninterrupted constitutional review and governance stability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting YES. Expanding the Constitutional Committee above the minimum size improves continuity and resilience. If a member resigns or is unavailable, the CC can still function without delays, ensuring uninterrupted constitutional review and governance stability.

YesWithdraw ₳70,000,000 for Cardano Critical Integrations BudgetEpoch 606RationaleEnacted6mo ago

YES. Funds critical infrastructure (stablecoins, custody, oracles) needed for real adoption. Milestone-based drawdowns and oversight reduce risk. Large spend, but justified if integrations deliver measurable Layer 1 impact and long-term sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Yes2025 Net Change Limit ExtensionEpoch 604RationaleClosed7mo ago

As the 4th Unofficial Founding Entity (apparently the only one who reads dates), I’m voting YES on this NCL extension because it is the only constitutionally compliant path that ensures the Critical Infrastructure action can be enacted.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Rationale:
As the 4th Unofficial Founding Entity and apparently the only one checking expiration dates, I am voting YES on this Net Change Limit extension because it is the only constitutionally valid way to prevent the Cardano Treasury from becoming unusable at the epoch boundary.

The situation is clear.
The existing 2025 Net Change Limit ends at the conclusion of Epoch 604.
Any Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action that is ratified in Epoch 604 would not enact until the Epoch 605 boundary, which occurs after the current Net Change Limit expires.
Under Article IV, Section 3 of the Cardano Constitution and the Treasury Guardrails, withdrawals cannot be enacted without a valid Net Change Limit in effect at the moment of execution.
Without an extension, no Treasury Withdrawal enacted after Epoch 604 would be constitutional, which would cause an immediate disruption in Treasury management.

This Governance Action extends the previously adopted 2025 Net Change Limit for eight additional epochs, moving the end of the term to the close of Epoch 612 in early February 2026.
All previously accounted spending continues under the same framework so that constitutional continuity is maintained and community expectations remain intact.

Most importantly, this ensures the Critical Infrastructure action that the entire community supports can actually happen.
Without this extension, that action simply cannot be enacted.

For constitutional integrity and for uninterrupted Treasury operations:

I vote YES.

You are welcome.

YesAdd Constitutional Committee MemberEpoch 602RationaleEnacted7mo ago

Voting YES! This action enacts the DRep-supported outcome of the snap election, restoring the Constitutional Committee to full operating capacity and ensuring Cardano governance can continue without disruption.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

As a DRep, my responsibility is to ensure Cardano’s governance system remains functional and reflects the will of the participating stake.

The recent snap-election on Ekklesia demonstrated clear support from DReps for Cardano Curia, who received the highest stake-weighted backing among participating representatives. This governance action simply enacts the outcome chosen by DReps during that process.

Cardano currently lacks the minimum number of active Constitutional Committee members required for governance to progress. Without filling this seat, key governance actions cannot move forward, leaving the system partially stalled.

AbstainLoan ₳5,000,000 to Expand Cardano's Global ListingsEpoch 598RationaleEnacted7mo ago

This proposal is constitutional, but withholding a detailed cost breakdown is a cop out that limits transparency and prevents proper evaluation of Treasury spending. The structure is sound, but disclosure is inadequate for accountability, so I am voting Abstain.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This proposal is constitutional and fits within the approved budget framework, but as a DRep I am not satisfied with the level of transparency provided. Relying on the justification that a detailed cost breakdown cannot be shared for “strategic” reasons feels like a cop out, and it prevents delegators from evaluating whether this is a responsible use of Treasury funds. Even though the administrative structure and repayment model look sound, the lack of clear cost allocation makes it impossible to properly assess proportionality or expected impact. Because the process is valid but the disclosure is insufficient for meaningful accountability, I am voting Abstain.

YesSecuring Generic Top-Level Domains for the Cardano EcosystemEpoch 597RationaleClosed7mo ago

👍

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

👍

YesReimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.Epoch 597RationaleClosed7mo ago

Reimburses early governance participant for a protocol bug loss, fulfilling Cardano’s fairness and value preservation principles while adhering to Info Action and Treasury standards. Strengthens community trust in decentralized governance.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Reimbursing the Ikigai Info Action deposit honors early governance participation and corrects a protocol-induced loss, aligning with Cardano’s Tenets of fairness, preservation of value, and community recognition. The proposal follows constitutional Info Action requirements and responsibly requests a modest Treasury allocation, reinforcing trust in Cardano’s decentralized governance.

AbstainConstitutional Committee Compensation Epochs 581-653Epoch 596RationaleClosed8mo ago

Abstain because of conflict of interest but support fair CC compensation to ensure unbiased and professional governance.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am abstaining from this vote as it involves compensation for Constitutional Committee members, which would be a conflict of interest given my current position. I still support the intent behind this proposal since fair compensation ensures qualified and unbiased individuals can dedicate the necessary time and attention to their duties.

Paying members for their service encourages fairness, accountability, and professionalism. It allows capable contributors to focus fully on governance responsibilities and strengthens the ecosystem’s integrity.

YesCARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.3Epoch 593RationaleExpired8mo ago

Voting YES to v2.3 update for simplifying governance and budget processes, removing unnecessary complexity, and strengthening efficiency, accountability, and sustainability across the Cardano ecosystem.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

The Cardano Constitution v2.3 update simplifies the governance and budget processes while maintaining alignment with the ecosystem’s core principles of decentralization, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.

This revision removes unnecessary complexity and redundant sections, improving readability and operational efficiency without weakening constitutional safeguards. The streamlined budget process enhances accountability and enables more agile decision-making in the management of community resources.

By focusing on clarity, sustainability, and efficiency, the v2.3 update strengthens Cardano’s governance framework and supports long-term ecosystem growth. Therefore, the vote is YES.

YesWithdraw ₳1,150,000 for GovTool 12 months active maintenance and developmentEpoch 591RationaleExpired8mo ago

I am voting yes because GovTool is vital to Cardano’s self governance. It keeps participation open to everyone prevents centralization and ensures the tools for decision making remain community owned and transparent.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

As a DRep under the Cardano First platform I support this proposal because it funds the continued maintenance and development of GovTool which is the foundation for how the community engages in governance.

Keeping GovTool open source and community controlled protects Cardano from reliance on private systems and ensures long term accessibility for all ada holders. This approach aligns with fiscal discipline and transparency by funding a proven public good that already serves thousands of users.

Supporting this withdrawal strengthens decentralization encourages contributor participation and ensures Cardano’s governance remains transparent inclusive and accountable to its community.

AbstainDefining the Cardano 2030 Vision & StrategyEpoch 590RationaleClosed8mo ago

Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem continues to suffer from shallow stablecoin liquidity, limiting user adoption and real-world usability. This proposal establishes a 50 million ADA budget to bootstrap stablecoin depth across the ecosystem, helping strengthen on-chain markets and long-term ecosystem stability

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Cardano needs deeper and more reliable stablecoin liquidity to compete with other ecosystems and support real economic activity. This proposal directly addresses that gap by deploying treasury funds through transparent smart contracts and dRep-supervised governance.

The framework keeps funds under community ownership, introduces monthly audits and reporting, and uses liquidity to both stabilize markets and generate modest returns for the treasury.

From a Cardano First perspective, this aligns with fiscal conservatism and responsible growth, using treasury resources to solve a structural weakness rather than fund speculation.

YesStablecoin DeFi Liquidity BudgetEpoch 589RationaleClosed8mo ago

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

The framework keeps funds under community ownership, introduces monthly audits and reporting, and uses liquidity to both stabilize markets and generate modest returns for the treasury.

From a Cardano First perspective, this aligns with fiscal conservatism and responsible growth, using treasury resources to solve a structural weakness rather than fund speculation.

YesBudget: ₳5M Loan for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by SnekEpoch 587RationaleClosed9mo ago

Voting YES on the Info Action for the ₳5M Snek loan. Constitutionally solid and structured as a loan, not a grant. But success of a future withdrawal depends on verifiable transaction growth, clear arbitrage data, repayment safeguards, and setting the highest precedent.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting YES on the Info Action for the ₳5M Snek Loan proposal.

Constitutionally, the proposal is well structured. It includes oversight through Intersect, provisions for independent audits, and most importantly is presented as a loan with repayment and interest rather than a grant. That accountability makes it far easier to support at this stage than a straight ₳5M withdrawal.

That said, support for the Info Action does not automatically translate into support for the actual withdrawal. Treasury governance sets precedents, and those precedents must meet the highest standards possible. To ensure the success of any withdrawal request, the Snek team must address several key concerns.

Transactions vs Volume

For the sustainability of the treasury and measurement of real network activity, the only metric that matters is on chain transaction counts. Dollar values or ADA denominated trading volumes are irrelevant if they do not translate into raw transactions feeding treasury growth.

CEX Arbitrage Impact

The claim that arbitrage from Tier 1 listings drives adoption must be backed by verifiable data. What matters is the number of transactions generated, not the size of trades in ADA or USD terms. The team should provide a breakdown of transaction counts since the other Tier 1 listings went live to demonstrate measurable impact.

Collateral and Repayment Safeguards

Currently, there is no collateral backing this loan. The core response of trust us is insufficient. A core principle of crypto is dont trust, verify. Relying on trust alone is not a good precedent, particularly when repayments may fall due during a bear market. Clearer collateral structures, repayment plans under stress scenarios, and enforceable remedies for default are necessary.

Precedent and Community Trust

Governance actions are not just about the proposal at hand but about the precedents they set. If treasury loans are to become a viable model, they must begin at the highest possible standard. Transparency, humility in messaging, and accountability in execution will determine whether this path strengthens or undermines community trust.

Conclusion
I am voting YES on this Info Action to allow the conversation to move forward. However, the threshold for an actual withdrawal is higher, and success there will depend on the Snek team addressing the issues above with data, safeguards, and humility. If they can do so, this proposal has the potential to set a strong precedent for responsible use of the treasury.

YesCardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth.Epoch 586RationaleClosed9mo ago

This proposal funds a regional strategy to grow Cardano in Oceania through grassroots activation, hackathons, education, and partnerships. It aligns with the HOSKY Cardano First platform by strengthening decentralization, driving adoption, and ensuring responsible treasury use.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

t is time Cardano focuses on areas it has previously neglected. Supporting this proposal directs attention and resources to Oceania, an underrepresented region where community-driven growth can flourish. This aligns with the HOSKY DRep Platform’s commitment to decentralization by ensuring diverse voices and geographies contribute to Cardano’s global resilience.

The initiative invests in education, pilots, and storytelling that showcase tangible use cases, consistent with HOSKY’s emphasis on adoption through real-world solutions rather than speculative or vanity projects. By engaging universities, businesses, and civic organizations, it brings new expertise and partnerships into the ecosystem.

Fiscal conservatism is upheld through milestone-based funding, transparent reporting, and independent auditing, ensuring resources are allocated responsibly with measurable outcomes. This reflects HOSKY’s core principles of accountability, sustainability, and prudent treasury management.

By funding this work, Cardano corrects its imbalance by focusing on a region it has long overlooked, creating inclusive growth that strengthens decentralization, adoption, and long-term sustainability.

For these reasons, I will vote YES on this proposal.

YesReplace Interim Constitutional CommitteeEpoch 581RationaleEnacted11mo ago

This governance action transitions the Constitutional Committee from interim appointees to elected members It upholds decentralization respects constitutional procedures and ensures continuity in Cardano’s governance fully aligning with the HOSKY Cardano First dRep platform.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Summary

Rationale

Alignment with the HOSKY dRep Platform Cardano First

This proposal supports the core tenets of the HOSKY dRep platform which prioritizes decentralization fiscal responsibility and transparent governance

Decentralization
Replacing the appointed interim committee IOG Cardano Foundation EMURGO and Intersect with elected members selected through an open DRep election advances the principle of community-led governance and reduces centralized control

Transparency
The election process was conducted on-chain with public audits and full documentation of candidate applications and results This matches the platform’s call for clear verifiable decision-making

Sustainability
Implementing staggered term lengths for committee members ensures operational continuity and avoids governance bottlenecks Key to maintaining stable and secure decision-making structures

The governance process was inclusive verifiable and aligned with the values of open governance and community oversight

Constitutionally Compliant

This action fulfills Article VII Section 2 of the Cardano Constitution which requires staggered elections and defines term limits for Constitutional Committee members The process also reflects Section 3 which calls for a transparent and community-endorsed election mechanism

The expiration of the interim committee at epoch 580 necessitates timely ratification to avoid a governance vacuum This proposal ensures seamless succession and preserves the checks and balances defined in the Constitution

Strategic Importance

Approving this action secures the legitimacy of Cardano’s evolving governance system It formalizes a decentralized committee and prevents the ecosystem from entering a state of no confidence which would halt progress on treasury withdrawals upgrades or constitutional enforcement

Voting yes is a vote for procedural integrity transparent transition and community control

YesCARDANO BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM CONSTITUTION v2.0Epoch 581RationaleExpired10mo ago

Voting YES on the Cardano Constitution v2.0. This update streamlines governance processes, strengthens treasury safeguards, improves clarity across definitions and procedures, and preserves Cardano’s core governance principles. It's a net positive step toward a more efficient and accountable system.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Rationale Statement

The Constitution v2.0 proposal introduces meaningful improvements without undermining Cardano’s foundation.

Streamlined Treasury Processes
Removing the budget Info Action requirement simplifies treasury withdrawals while retaining necessary oversight, audits, and Net Change Limits. This allows the community to fund initiatives more efficiently without sacrificing accountability.

Stronger Treasury Safeguards
Every withdrawal must specify purpose, delivery timeline, cost breakdown, refund conditions, and recipient details. Large requests over 1M ADA require independent audits, designated administrators, and auditable undelegated accounts. These protections are clearer and more enforceable than in v1.0. Despite my own sudo-anonymous role, I fully support these strict requirements for anyone seeking treasury funds. Accountability for public resources is non-negotiable.

Improved Clarity and Consistency
Expanded and refined defined terms bring precision to governance actions. Simplified language across Articles I–III ensures consistency and transparency, making it easier for the community, DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee to operate within clear rules.

Clearer Guardrails
Appendix I now separates “must” rules from “should” guidelines, giving the community predictable enforcement while maintaining flexibility for complex situations.

Simplified Roles for DReps and SPOs
By removing unenforceable codes of conduct, v2.0 clarifies expectations: DReps and SPOs must vote, disclose compensation, and avoid pay-for-delegation practices. This narrows their responsibilities to what is actionable and transparent.

Transparency in Governance Actions
Governance proposals must follow a standardized and immutable format, including title, abstract, justification, and supporting materials. This reduces manipulation and improves accountability.

Conclusion

Constitution v2.0 is a positive evolution of Cardano’s governance framework. It makes the system easier to navigate, introduces stronger treasury protections, and maintains safeguards that uphold decentralization and fiscal responsibility.

For these reasons, I will vote YES.

NoCardano Global Listing Expansion - Powered by SnekEpoch 580RationaleExpired11mo ago

Cardano Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek Rationale

Summary

SNEK is a successful and high-impact community token within the Cardano ecosystem. However, this treasury withdrawal request does not meet constitutional requirements. While my vote as a DRep is not based on constitutionality alone, I also serve on the Interim Constitutional Committee and take that perspective seriously. For that reason, I will vote NO on this proposal.

Rationale Statement

This vote is not a dismissal of anything the Snek team has accomplished. On the contrary, the achievements listed, Tier 1 exchange listings, perpetual integrations, physical products, and millions in self-funded investments, demonstrate they are a highly capable and successful project.

That success raises a question: Why is this request for public treasury funding even necessary? Treasury funds should be reserved for initiatives that meet clear constitutional standards and provide open, ecosystem-wide benefit.

While as a DRep I am not responsible for determining constitutionality, I also serve on the Interim Constitutional Committee, and in that role, I do evaluate the constitutional compliance of proposals. This one fails on several fronts:

Article IV Section 3: The proposal does not appear to be part of an approved Cardano ecosystem budget
Article IV Section 4: No allocation is made for independent audits or defined oversight mechanisms
Article IV Section 5: The proposal does not specify that the receiving wallet is undelegated or delegated to the auto-abstain option

These are not optional details. They are requirements designed to protect the treasury and uphold decentralized governance.

For these reasons, I cannot support this request. Treasury governance must remain aligned with constitutional constraints and ecosystem-wide priorities.

Snek is clearly a leading Cardano token. But projects with strong private funding should not be the first in line for public treasury spending, especially when the proposal fails to meet the fundamental requirements for constitutional compliance.

NoWithdraw ₳5M for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by SnekEpoch 580RationaleExpired11mo ago

Cardano Global Listing Expansion Powered by Snek Treasury Withdrawal Rationale

Summary

Rationale Statement

Article IV Section 3: The proposal does not appear to be part of an approved Cardano ecosystem budget
Article IV Section 4: No allocation is made for independent audits or defined oversight mechanisms
Article IV Section 5: The proposal does not specify that the receiving wallet is undelegated or delegated to the auto-abstain option

These are not optional details. They are requirements designed to protect the treasury and uphold decentralized governance.

For these reasons, I cannot support this request. Treasury governance must remain aligned with constitutional constraints and ecosystem-wide priorities.

YesWithdraw ₳750,000 for Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Carda...Epoch 578RationaleEnacted10mo ago

Supporting this proposal advances Cardano’s long term health by replacing the founder set roadmap with a process owned by the community. This is fully in line with the HOSKY DRep Platform’s commitment to decentralization by giving a diverse range of stakeholders direct influence over Cardano’s strategic direction.

The initiative invests in structured research across the ecosystem, addressing a critical gap in understanding user needs, market opportunities, and barriers to adoption. This supports HOSKY’s emphasis on real world adoption and solving meaningful problems rather than speculative or vanity projects.

Oversight is built into the execution through audited smart contracts, independent third party assurance, and a multi signature governance model. This ensures fiscal conservatism, transparency, and accountability, which are core tenets of HOSKY’s governance philosophy.

By funding this work, the treasury supports an inclusive and evidence based vision that strengthens Cardano’s decentralization, scalability, and sustainability while protecting against waste and centralization risks.

For these reasons, I will vote YES on this proposal.

YesWithdraw ₳889,500 for Cardano Ecosystem Pavilions at ExhibitionsEpoch 578RationaleEnacted10mo ago

Discover Crypto is NOT Cardano Foundation, thus I am voting YES!

NoWithdraw ₳3,126,000 for Ecosystem Exchange Listing and Market Making service...Epoch 578RationaleEnacted10mo ago

While this proposal lists HOSKY as an eligible token for treasury funded market making, the principle of Cardano First means prioritizing the long term health and responsible use of community resources over short term gains even if those gains could directly benefit my own project

Exchange listing fees and market making costs are primarily a private benefit to the projects being listed as they stand to gain the most from the liquidity exposure and trading opportunities such listings provide. These costs should therefore be borne by the projects themselves their investors or their communities and not by the Cardano Treasury which exists to fund initiatives that deliver broad ecosystem wide benefits

Using public funds to subsidize exchange listings risks setting a precedent for the treasury to cover corporate and market access expenses for individual projects regardless of their private funding capacity. This is fiscally irresponsible and does not align with the HOSKY DRep Platform’s commitment to fiscal conservatism and responsible treasury management

For these reasons I will vote NO on this proposal. The Cardano Treasury should not carry the burden of exchange listing costs for individual projects no matter how prominent or beneficial they may b.

AbstainWithdraw ₳592,780 for Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improvin....Epoch 578RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

Summary
To ensure timely progression of proposals that meet constitutional thresholds, I am temporarily casting abstain votes on all active governance actions while I continue to review them individually. This avoids delaying enactment due to quorum issues and allows careful evaluation of each on its own merits.

Rationale Statement
As a DRep, I take seriously my responsibility to evaluate each proposal in alignment with the HOSKY Cardano First platform, prioritizing decentralization, responsible treasury use, and the long term integrity of Cardano

Rather than rush through the volume of proposals or risk being a bottleneck for those that meet required thresholds, I am temporarily abstaining on all proposals. This ensures that governance actions with sufficient community support can move forward without being held up by my pending vote

This abstention is not a sign of indecision or neglect. It is a reflection of my commitment to deliberate, well considered governance. I am reviewing each proposal carefully and will cast definitive YES or NO votes with rationale in the coming days

This approach allows me to maintain transparency, uphold voting integrity, and respect the time sensitive nature of decentralized decision making. It is a temporary mechanism to preserve network momentum while continuing to uphold the standards set by both the Constitution and the HOSKY dRep Platform

AbstainWithdraw ₳605,000 for A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano DevelopersEpoch 578RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

NoWithdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real EstateEpoch 577RationaleExpired11mo ago

The Tokenized Real Estate proposal lacks demonstrated alignment with Cardano’s long-term goals, shows insufficient justification for treasury reliance, and presents unclear benefits for the ecosystem. For these reasons, I will vote against this proposal.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Tokenized Real Estate Treasury Withdrawal Rationale
Author: HOSKY

Summary
The Tokenized Real Estate proposal lacks demonstrated alignment with Cardano’s long-term goals, shows insufficient justification for treasury reliance, and presents unclear benefits for the ecosystem. For these reasons, I will vote against this proposal.

Rationale for Voting Against the Tokenized Real Estate Proposal
Cardano First: Ecosystem Commitment and Intent
The Haus project describes an ambitious plan to tokenize home equity and has highlighted interest from other blockchains. However, the team has stated they are “giving Cardano a chance” despite having received larger offers elsewhere. This framing signals an opportunistic approach rather than a committed partnership with Cardano.

The dRep Platform supports builders who treat Cardano as their home base for innovation. Treasury funds should not be used to entice teams who may shift ecosystems based on funding size rather than long-term alignment.

Financial Position and Treasury Expectations
With over $25 million in assets under management and $150 thousand in annual recurring revenue, Haus has a proven business foundation. Yet the proposal requests three million ADA without clearly explaining why treasury funding is needed at this scale.

The dRep Platform upholds responsible treasury stewardship. Public funds should be reserved for efforts where other financing options are limited or unavailable, not as a shortcut for scaling established ventures.

Ecosystem Value and Delivery Clarity
While the proposal outlines a technical migration and token launch, it lacks detail on how this effort will actively strengthen Cardano’s existing developer, user, or DeFi communities. There is no evidence of community engagement, partnerships with native projects, or infrastructure contributions beyond token deployment.

The dRep Platform prioritizes initiatives that grow Cardano’s core capabilities and ecosystem resilience. Projects that treat Cardano as a utility layer without meaningful integration fall short of this standard.

Smart contract disbursement and milestone tracking are positive aspects, but delivery assurance is not enough on its own. Impact matters, and in this case, the long-term impact on Cardano remains vague.

Conclusion: A Vote Consistent with the dRep Platform
The dRep Platform commits to:

Supporting builders who choose Cardano as their primary ecosystem

Promoting fiscal responsibility grounded in clear public benefit

Backing proposals that deliver measurable value to the community

Ensuring transparency and accountability in all funding decisions

This proposal does not meet those criteria.

For these reasons, I will vote against this proposal.

NoWithdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zer...Epoch 577RationaleExpired10mo ago

This proposal’s Extended Quadratic Funding model introduces a voting power formula that deviates from the principle I have always stood by — one ADA equals one vote.
While it is presented as a complementary mechanism to Project Catalyst, the square root weighting of donations combined with reputation scores shifts governance influence away from proportional ADA ownership.

HOSKY’s Cardano First platform is grounded in decentralization and fiscal conservatism. This model undermines the simplest and fairest measure of governance weight which is stake by adding alternative scoring layers that could dilute direct representation of ADA holders. Regardless of the intended benefits, such changes to how voting influence is calculated create a precedent for moving governance power away from stake weighted voting, risking both fairness and transparency in decision making.

From a treasury stewardship perspective, I cannot support allocating community funds to build or operate a system that promotes a governance model contrary to these principles. Protecting stake based proportional voting is essential to maintaining Cardano’s decentralization and integrity. For these reasons, I will vote No.

AbstainWithdraw ₳12,000,000 for Cardano Builder DAO administered by IntersectEpoch 577RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳6,000,000 for Unveiling the First Unified Global Events Marketing S...Epoch 577RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳300,000 for Ledger App Rewrite administered by IntersectEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳220,914 for Dolos: Sustaining a Lightweight Cardano Data NodeEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

YesWithdraw ₳1,161,000 for zkFold ZK Rollup administered by IntersectEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Voted YES on zkFold and ZK Bridge. Both use zero-knowledge tech to scale Cardano and enable secure cross-chain interoperability. These complementary proposals align with the HOSKY DRep Platform’s focus on decentralization, real adoption, and responsible treasury use.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

zkFold & ZK Bridge Treasury Withdrawal Rationale

Summary

Both zkFold and ZK Bridge proposals support foundational infrastructure for Cardano's growth using zero-knowledge technology. zkFold scales Cardano from within via ZK rollups, while ZK Bridge opens secure channels to other blockchains. These proposals align with the HOSKY DRep Platform's core values: decentralization, responsible treasury use, and real adoption. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of both proposals.

Rationale Statement

The zkFold and ZK Bridge proposals are complementary investments in Cardano’s future. One addresses scalability, the other interoperability. Both use cryptographically sound zero-knowledge technology to enhance the ecosystem.

zkFold enables a general-purpose Layer 2 rollup system that compresses transaction load, reduces fees, and minimizes congestion. It increases throughput while maintaining the decentralization and security of the Cardano Layer 1.

ZK Bridge delivers a trustless and modular interoperability layer, allowing Cardano to connect with external blockchains without relying on centralized or multisig bridges. This enables cross-chain liquidity and composability while preserving Cardano’s independence.

Together, these two initiatives move Cardano forward by scaling up and out. They are strategically aligned, technically sound, and governed under the same administrative oversight.

Rationale for Voting in Favor of the zkFold & ZK Bridge Proposals

Cardano First: Decentralization and Integrity

The HOSKY DRep Platform centers on protecting Cardano’s decentralized structure. Both proposals stay true to this principle

zkFold maintains Cardano’s L1 as the final settlement layer while expanding throughput through ZK-based rollups

ZK Bridge avoids trusted third parties by leveraging ZK proofs for secure message verification between chains

Neither project introduces governance risk or central points of failure

Scalability and Interoperability with Accountability

Scaling Cardano must not sacrifice its neutrality or resilience. These proposals meet that bar

zkFold reduces mainnet load and improves user experience without changing L1 rules

ZK Bridge allows horizontal scaling across ecosystems without custody tradeoffs

Both provide measurable infrastructure gains without compromising decentralization

Fiscal Responsibility and Oversight

The HOSKY DRep Platform supports treasury withdrawals only when they meet clear standards of accountability and transparency. Both projects meet these standards

Milestone-based disbursements ensure payment for delivery, not promises

Intersect provides oversight with third-party assurance and auditable contracts

On-chain treasury tooling from Sundae Labs enables community visibility and enforcement

Both proposals comply with Article IV of the Constitution and meet the constitutional requirement for budget-based withdrawals

Strategic ZK Investment

These proposals are not one-offs. They are part of a broader strategic push for zero-knowledge technology across the Cardano ecosystem

zkFold provides the infrastructure needed to build scalable rollup-based dApps and services

ZK Bridge sets the foundation for future privacy apps, asset portability, and cross-chain state verification

Together, they support long-term innovation while staying aligned with Cardano's security model

Real Adoption Through Foundational Infrastructure

Both projects create leverage for other builders in the ecosystem

zkFold helps dApps scale while lowering user costs

ZK Bridge enables Cardano to access external liquidity and networks

These are not speculative ideas. They are implementation-ready systems with real utility that align with the HOSKY standard of funding what matters

Conclusion: A Vote Consistent with the HOSKY DRep Platform

The HOSKY DRep Platform supports proposals that

Preserve and enhance decentralization

Advance Cardano’s scalability and adoption without compromise

Deliver measurable value with transparent execution

Empower real-world use cases through secure and responsible infrastructure

The zkFold and ZK Bridge proposals meet these criteria. They strengthen Cardano from within and connect it to the outside without sacrificing its principles

For these reasons, I will vote in favor of both proposals

AbstainWithdraw ₳130,903 for Lucid Evolution Maintenance administered by IntersectEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳220,914 for UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain IntegrationEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳220,914 for Pallas: Sustaining Critical Rust Tooling for CardanoEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳104,347 for MLabs Research towards Tooling for Elliptical Curves...Epoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳314,800 for PyCardano administered by IntersectEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳199,911 for OpShin - Python Smart Contracts for CardanoEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳26,840,000 for Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor...Epoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳4,000,000 for Expanding Stablecoin / Cardano Native Asset Support...Epoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳424,800 for Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by IntersectEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

YesWithdraw ₳6,000,000 for Cardano Summit 2025 and regional tech eventsEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

The Cardano Summit 2025 Treasury Withdrawal aligns with the HOSKY Cardano First platform by promoting global adoption, developer onboarding, and decentralized growth while ensuring fiscal responsibility and transparency. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this proposal.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Cardano Summit 2025 Treasury Withdrawal - Rationale

Author: HOSKY

Summary

Rationale for Voting in Favor of the Cardano Summit 2025 Proposal

Cardano First: Decentralization and Community Growth

The Summit is a globally distributed event with regional hosts in Europe, USA, Africa, LATAM, and India. This prevents centralization of control and supports the diverse growth of the Cardano ecosystem.

Regional partners include EMURGO, WADA, Rare Evo, Catalyst Africa Town Hall, and ADA Solar. These partners strengthen decentralization by spreading leadership across regions.

The Summit fosters collaboration between developers, SPOs, entrepreneurs, and regulators, aligning with the HOSKY platform's emphasis on community growth and decentralization.

Scalability and Real-World Adoption

The Summit includes global Dev Days and hackathons that onboard new developers and increase network participation. This supports HOSKY’s focus on real-world adoption.

The events highlight real use cases in industries like finance, supply chain, and healthcare, helping Cardano expand practical adoption in meaningful ways.

Layer 2 scaling solutions are addressed, but the focus remains on strengthening Layer 1 through education and collaboration.

Fiscal Responsibility and Transparency

Intersect manages treasury disbursement using audited smart contracts with oversight from Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, NMKR, Xerberus, and DQuadrant.

Milestone-based funding with a third-party assurer ensures that funds are only released upon delivery, consistent with HOSKY’s fiscally conservative approach.

Vendor contracts include clear delivery schedules, dispute resolution, and public reporting, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Transparency and Open Reporting

All Summit plans, KPIs, and budgets are published publicly via IPFS and on-chain metadata. Community dashboards will track funds and delivery progress.

This supports HOSKY’s commitment to open governance and full transparency in spending.

Conclusion: A Vote Consistent with the HOSKY DRep Platform

HOSKY’s DRep platform commits to:

Decentralization without compromise
Adoption through real-world use cases
Fiscal responsibility and milestone-based funding
Transparent reporting and accountability

The Cardano Summit 2025 proposal meets all of these standards.

Also, let’s be honest. Without the 2025 Summit, how will HOSKY win its fourth Summit Award in a row? 😉

For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this proposal.

YesWithdraw ₳15,750,000 for a MBO for the Cardano ecosystem: IntersectEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Voting yes. While Intersect is not perfect, it's the only funded entity with formal community representation. Under Jack’s leadership it’s taken big steps toward transparency and decentralization. This aligns with HOSKY’s Cardano First governance platform.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Intersect Treasury Withdrawal Rationale

Rationale Statement
As a DRep, I place community voice and decentralized governance at the center of every vote. While Intersect has drawn criticism in the past, I also recognize and appreciate when an entity begins to meaningfully include the community it is meant to serve.

Under Jack Briggs' leadership, Intersect has demonstrated a renewed commitment to transparency and inclusion. The organization now includes two community-elected board members, with plans to expand community representation further. This is a tangible step toward decentralizing what was once a more opaque entity.

More importantly, Intersect is currently the only governance-facing organization with formal community representation and infrastructure coordination responsibilities. It is actively stewarding the Cardano node repositories, coordinating hard forks, supporting 30+ working groups, and facilitating the roadmap and budget processes, all while beginning to trial formal stipends for elected committee members.

This request is in line with the approved ecosystem budget, includes a structured legal contract, 3rd-party milestone assurance, and on-chain treasury management via Sundae Labs smart contracts. These mechanisms satisfy the constitutional requirements for transparency, accountability, and responsible use of treasury funds.

As a dRep aligned with the Cardano First platform, I value decentralization, responsible treasury management, and giving voice to the community. Intersect’s trajectory is finally aligning with those principles.

For these reasons, I am voting Yes on this request. Intersect is evolving in the right direction, and deserves the opportunity to continue doing so.

AbstainWithdraw ₳212,000 for AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorerEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳1,300,000 for Blockfrost Platform community budget proposalEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳266,667 for Cexplorer.io -- Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer...Epoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳657,692 for Scalus - DApps Development PlatformEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳583,000 for Eternl Maintenance administered by IntersectEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

YesWithdraw ₳700,000 for ZK Bridge administered by IntersectEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

zkFold & ZK Bridge Treasury Withdrawal Rationale

Summary

Rationale Statement

Together, these two initiatives move Cardano forward by scaling up and out. They are strategically aligned, technically sound, and governed under the same administrative oversight.

Rationale for Voting in Favor of the zkFold & ZK Bridge Proposals

Cardano First: Decentralization and Integrity

The HOSKY DRep Platform centers on protecting Cardano’s decentralized structure. Both proposals stay true to this principle

zkFold maintains Cardano’s L1 as the final settlement layer while expanding throughput through ZK-based rollups

ZK Bridge avoids trusted third parties by leveraging ZK proofs for secure message verification between chains

Neither project introduces governance risk or central points of failure

Scalability and Interoperability with Accountability

Scaling Cardano must not sacrifice its neutrality or resilience. These proposals meet that bar

zkFold reduces mainnet load and improves user experience without changing L1 rules

ZK Bridge allows horizontal scaling across ecosystems without custody tradeoffs

Both provide measurable infrastructure gains without compromising decentralization

Fiscal Responsibility and Oversight

The HOSKY DRep Platform supports treasury withdrawals only when they meet clear standards of accountability and transparency. Both projects meet these standards

Milestone-based disbursements ensure payment for delivery, not promises

Intersect provides oversight with third-party assurance and auditable contracts

On-chain treasury tooling from Sundae Labs enables community visibility and enforcement

Both proposals comply with Article IV of the Constitution and meet the constitutional requirement for budget-based withdrawals

Strategic ZK Investment

These proposals are not one-offs. They are part of a broader strategic push for zero-knowledge technology across the Cardano ecosystem

zkFold provides the infrastructure needed to build scalable rollup-based dApps and services

ZK Bridge sets the foundation for future privacy apps, asset portability, and cross-chain state verification

Together, they support long-term innovation while staying aligned with Cardano's security model

Real Adoption Through Foundational Infrastructure

Both projects create leverage for other builders in the ecosystem

zkFold helps dApps scale while lowering user costs

ZK Bridge enables Cardano to access external liquidity and networks

These are not speculative ideas. They are implementation-ready systems with real utility that align with the HOSKY standard of funding what matters

Conclusion: A Vote Consistent with the HOSKY DRep Platform

The HOSKY DRep Platform supports proposals that

Preserve and enhance decentralization

Advance Cardano’s scalability and adoption without compromise

Deliver measurable value with transparent execution

Empower real-world use cases through secure and responsible infrastructure

The zkFold and ZK Bridge proposals meet these criteria. They strengthen Cardano from within and connect it to the outside without sacrificing its principles

For these reasons, I will vote in favor of both proposals

AbstainWithdraw ₳11,070,323 for TWEAG's Proposals for multiple core budget project...Epoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳243,478 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: PlutarchEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳578,571 for Gerolamo - Cardano node in typescriptEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳5,885,000 for OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model...Epoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳600,000 for Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart...Epoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainTempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025Epoch 576RationaleClosed11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nixEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

AbstainWithdraw ₳99,600 for BloxBean Java Tools Maintenance and EnhancementEpoch 576RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Temporary Abstention Rationale

YesWithdraw ₳69,459,000 for Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output: Advancing De...Epoch 575RationaleEnacted11mo ago

Catalyst has driven Cardano’s growth by funding real builders and startups. It is not perfect, but it has evolved and remains critical for ecosystem innovation. Continued funding ensures Cardano’s community-led innovation engine remains active and decentralized.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Catalyst 2025 Treasury Withdrawal Rationale

Author: HOSKY

Summary

Catalyst has been a pivotal part of Cardano’s growth, serving as the ecosystem’s primary innovation funding engine. It has funded startups, supported builders, and driven adoption. Without Catalyst, Cardano would not be where it is today. Is it perfect? By no means. But it has evolved with each round, becoming an integral component of Cardano’s community-led funding system. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this proposal.

Rationale Statement

Catalyst has been critical to Cardano’s growth by funding real builders and startups. It is not a governance tool but an innovation engine that supports community-led funding. Without Catalyst, Cardano’s ecosystem would not be where it is today. While not perfect, it has evolved and improved with each round, becoming a cornerstone of the community funding process. This proposal continues that mission while introducing improvements in voting mechanisms and transparency. It aligns with the HOSKY DRep Platform’s commitment to decentralization, fiscal responsibility, and real adoption. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this proposal.

Rationale for Voting in Favor of the Catalyst 2025 Proposal

Cardano First: Decentralization and Integrity

HOSKY’s DRep platform prioritizes Cardano’s long-term health over short-term gains. Funding innovation in a decentralized manner is critical to that mission. Catalyst 2025 reinforces this by

Supporting community-driven funding rounds where participation is open to all
Launching Quadratic Voting and DRep delegation for Catalyst funding to reduce concentration of voting power in innovation funding decisions
Providing infrastructure to scale Catalyst while maintaining transparent and decentralized processes

Catalyst is not a governance tool for protocol parameters or constitutional decisions. It is focused on growing Cardano’s builder ecosystem through community-led funding.

Scalability Without Sacrificing Security

Cardano must scale its innovation engine without compromising security or decentralization. Catalyst 2025 supports this by

Delivering device-agnostic interfaces for proposal submission, voting, and participation
Keeping funding flows and decisions on-chain and auditable
Supporting multiple voting mechanisms to broaden participation in funding rounds

This aligns with HOSKY’s view that funding and growth mechanisms should scale in a way that strengthens Layer 1.

Responsible Treasury Management

HOSKY’s DRep Platform demands fiscal responsibility and transparency. Catalyst 2025 meets this standard by

Using milestone-based disbursements tied to clear deliverables
Employing third-party assurance from independent reviewers to reduce delivery risk
Managing funds with audited smart contracts and transparent community dashboards
Enforcing legal agreements for accountability and dispute resolution

This ensures that Cardano’s treasury is protected and that funds are used responsibly to grow the ecosystem.

Real Adoption, Not Theoretical Solutions

HOSKY supports funding for real-world use cases, not experimental tech for its own sake. Catalyst has consistently delivered this by

Funding hundreds of startups and builders that create real ecosystem value
Lowering barriers for new participants to build on Cardano
Supporting projects that create tangible adoption and utility

Catalyst drives practical adoption by empowering developers, entrepreneurs, and community projects.

Continuity of Catalyst: Why It Matters

Catalyst has been integral to Cardano’s growth. It is the primary mechanism for funding innovation, not governance. Without Catalyst, many of the projects that make up today’s ecosystem would not exist.

Is it perfect? No. But it has evolved and continues to improve with each round. It is a core component of Cardano’s funding infrastructure and must be maintained and supported.

For these reasons, I believe Catalyst must continue to be funded.

Conclusion: A Vote Consistent with the HOSKY DRep Platform

HOSKY’s DRep Platform commits to

Decentralization without compromise
Scalability that benefits the Cardano ecosystem
Fiscal responsibility and transparent treasury use
Real adoption and practical use cases

Catalyst 2025 meets these standards. It is a strategic investment in Cardano’s innovation engine and future builder growth.

For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this proposal.

YesWithdraw ₳96,817,080 for 2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development ProposalEpoch 575RationaleEnacted11mo ago

This proposal aligns with both the Cardano Constitution and HOSKY’s dRep Platform commitments by funding essential scaling and security upgrades with strict oversight, milestone-based payments, and a focus on decentralization and fiscal responsibility.

Ask ChatGPT

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Rationale for Voting FOR the 2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal

Commitment to Cardano’s Long-Term Success

As a DRep aligned with Cardano First principles, my responsibility is to ensure treasury funds are used wisely for the ecosystem's long-term benefit. This proposal supports Cardano’s needs for scalability, security, and decentralization while maintaining fiscal conservatism. It aligns with both the Cardano Constitution and HOSKY dRep Platform commitments.

Strategic Infrastructure Investment

The proposal funds core developments including:

Ouroboros Leios for Layer 1 scalability
Hydra & Mithril for Layer 2 scaling and fast node sync
Acropolis Node Architecture to open node development to more contributors
Plutus High Assurance Tools for safer smart contracts
KES Agent, Minotaur AVS, and Transaction Monitoring for operational security and new decentralized services

These initiatives are crucial for Cardano to remain competitive and resilient.

Vendor and Ecosystem Support

Although this proposal is led by Input Output Engineering, IO actively contracts with and employs numerous other ecosystem vendors. These include software developers, security auditors, and infrastructure partners across the Cardano community.

By funding this proposal, the treasury is not only supporting IO’s roadmap but also funding a wide range of contributors in the broader ecosystem, promoting growth and supplier diversity.

Fiscal Responsibility and Oversight

This proposal includes:

Milestone-based payments tied to specific deliverables
Third-party milestone assurance and audits
Oversight by independent entities: Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, DQuadrant, Xerberus, and NMKR

This ensures funds are released only when value is delivered, aligning with fiscal responsibility principles.

Decentralization and Ecosystem Health

The proposal strengthens decentralization by:

Reducing SPO operational costs with Ledger-HD and KES Agent
Opening node architecture development via Acropolis
Supporting Layer 2 innovations while preserving Layer 1 neutrality

Transparency and Accountability

All progress will be tracked via public dashboards with clear milestone reporting and open communication.

Conclusion: A Vote for Sustainable Growth and Ecosystem Support

For these reasons, I will vote FOR this proposal. It delivers essential scalability and security upgrades while funding not just IO but a broad range of Cardano contributors. The proposal enforces strict accountability, aligns with the Constitution, and follows the HOSKY dRep Platform principles.

I will continue to monitor its execution to ensure community funds are used responsibly.

YesWithdraw ₳2,162,096 for Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by IntersectEpoch 575Enacted11mo ago

NoCardano GovTool Budget - 12 months full active maintenance and developmentEpoch 574Closed11mo ago

YesAmaru Treasury Withdrawal 2025Epoch 571RationaleEnacted1y ago

Supporting this proposal because it delivers critical node diversity, is constitutionally compliant, and aligns with Cardano’s long-term decentralization and infrastructure goals. Transparent, open source, and budget-approved.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Support for Decentralized Core Infrastructure
The Amaru project provides a much-needed alternative block-producing node, strengthening Cardano’s decentralization and resilience. Built in Rust with a modular architecture, it encourages broader developer engagement and reduces systemic reliance on a single codebase. This improves the network’s long-term sustainability and robustness.

Constitutionally Aligned and Budget-Backed
This ₳1.5M withdrawal is consistent with a previously approved budget and complies with the current Net-Change Limit. It includes well-defined scopes, audit trails, metadata tagging (CIP-100), and smart contract-based multisig disbursement with contingency planning. It satisfies Articles IV.1 through IV.5 of the Constitution and aligns with the intent of transparent, accountable fund usage.

Transparent and Multi-Entity Governance
Amaru is governed by PRAGMA, a multi-entity not-for-profit consortium that includes Cardano Foundation, dcSpark, Blink Labs, TxPipe, and Sundae Labs. No single entity holds outsized control, and each scope owner is accountable for their budget. This promotes neutrality and community accountability.

Strategic Ecosystem Value
Infrastructure like Amaru cannot rely on business models without compromising neutrality. Treasury funding enables development that directly supports the Cardano network without external capture, rent-seeking, or dependence on unsustainable token incentives.

Amaru is a textbook example of why the Treasury exists: to fund core infrastructure that advances decentralization, security, and openness. With its transparent governance, robust checks, and clear public benefit, I strongly support this proposal.

AbstainCardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by IntersectEpoch 564RationaleClosed1y ago

I support the intent behind this budget and recognize the effort that went into gathering community input through the signaling process. However, I am abstaining due to concerns about the overall structure and lack of clarity around how funds will be prioritized and measured for impact. While some proposals may offer real value, others are harder to evaluate without more transparency and clear milestones. This abstention reflects support for the community's role in shaping the budget, while also calling for stronger oversight and clearer ROI alignment in future treasury planning.

No4840e305563327358cf70dae5015b2df8f8c35cef03f74521d4f117ac17bc384#0Epoch 563Closed1y ago

Yes2025 Cardano NCLEpoch 561Closed1y ago

No2025 Net Change LimitEpoch 554RationaleClosed1y ago

I am voting no on the proposed 350 million ADA Net Change Limit because it sets the maximum that can be withdrawn from the treasury far too high without clearly defined needs or constraints. While the NCL is not a spending requirement, setting it this high risks framing it as a target rather than a safeguard, which goes against the principle of fiscal conservatism.

My platform emphasizes responsible, impact-driven spending. If we are to spend conservatively, we must also signal restraint at the framework level, and that starts with setting limits that reflect real strategic priorities, not just past inflows. Approving an NCL equal to 100 percent of last year’s treasury income sends the wrong message.

Until we have stronger data on actual funding needs, outcomes, and transaction volume growth, setting the NCL this high is not just unnecessary, it is the opposite of conservative.

YesCardano Constitution to Replace the Interim ConstitutionEpoch 542RationaleEnacted1y ago

I am voting YES to approve the Cardano Constitution because it reflects the will of the delegates who participated at the Constitutional Convention in Argentina, representing a significant step forward in Cardano's governance. While there are aspects I personally disagree with, compromise is essential in any governance process. This constitution provides a strong foundation, and importantly, it allows for future amendments to refine and improve it over time. Moving forward with this document is the right decision to ensure progress while maintaining the ability to adapt as the ecosystem evolves.

YesRename the Chang 2 Hard Fork to the Plomin Hard ForkEpoch 529Closed1y ago

YesShould K increased?Epoch 521Closed1y ago

Abstain15f82a365bdee483a4b03873a40d3829cc88c048ff3703e11bd01dd9e035c916#0Epoch 514Closed1y ago

YesHard Fork to Protocol Version 11 ('van Rossem' Hard Fork)RationaleActive17d ago

Yes. Intra-era hard fork to Protocol Version 11 (van Rossem): new Plutus primitives, unified built-ins across V1/V2/V3, UPLC case-expressions, plus ledger hardening (VRF key uniqueness, CC vote rule as a ledger predicate). No treasury spend, gated on 85% SPO readiness.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

This is the van Rossem intra-era hard fork to Protocol Version 11. It bundles a focused set of Plutus performance and capability gains, ledger-consistency hardening, and node-level security fixes into a single coordinated upgrade, with no treasury spend and no change to transaction shape. The Cardano First framework reads as a clean Yes, led by Scalability.

HOSKY already supported naming this fork, voting Yes on the van Rossem naming action. This vote is the technical follow-through.

Pillar Analysis

Scalability (lead pillar)

This is the heart of the upgrade and the reason it earns a Yes. The new primitives attack real, named bottlenecks rather than adding surface area for its own sake: a constant-time Array type replaces O(n) list indexing, dropList unlocks efficient redeemer-indexing, a native Value type removes the generic-map overhead that sits under most contracts, and case-expressions in UPLC let the interpreter dispatch on Data tags directly instead of chained if/equalsInteger/unConstrData patterns. Each of those is a direct execution-cost reduction. BLS12-381 multi-scalar multiplication and on-chain modular exponentiation make pairing-based zero-knowledge proofs practical on Cardano instead of offloaded off-chain. Because the fork is intra-era, all of this lands without forcing a transaction-format migration on the ecosystem.

Adoption

Unifying the built-in set across Plutus V1, V2, and V3 is the quiet win here. Historically new functionality was reachable only by recompiling to the latest Plutus version; after van Rossem, existing V1 and V2 scripts gain the full built-in set in place. That lowers the upgrade tax on every contract already deployed, and the expanded cryptographic primitives open a class of applications (ZK, advanced DeFi) that were impractical before. More capability for builders at lower cost is the adoption mechanic.

Decentralization

Two things cut toward decentralization. First, VRF key hash uniqueness is promoted to a ledger predicate, so no two stake pools can register or operate with the same VRF key, closing an SPO-level attack vector at the protocol layer. Second, the activation gate itself is decentralized: HARDFORK-04 requires 85% of stake by active stake to be on a capable node before ratification, which puts SPOs, not any single entity, in control of when the fork goes live.

Governance Transparency

Promoting the Constitutional Committee voting restriction from a mempool-only check to a ledger predicate is a governance-correctness improvement. Where an offending vote could previously only be rejected at the mempool layer, it now produces a deterministic on-chain failure that every participant observes identically regardless of submission path. The clearer non-matching-withdrawals predicate and the detailed PPView mismatch reporting are smaller transparency and diagnosability gains in the same direction.

Economic Sustainability

A hard fork carries no treasury withdrawal and the proposal deposit is refundable, so the direct cost to the ecosystem is zero. The lasting effect is the opposite of a cost: cheaper script execution across the board lowers on-chain operating cost for every DApp that uses the new primitives. This is protocol improvement that pays for itself in reduced fees and execution units.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

SPO readiness gate

The fork should only ratify once at least 85% of stake by active stake is on a PV11-capable node (HARDFORK-04). If readiness is short at ratification time, activating anyway would risk a disorderly upgrade. I am accepting this because the gate is explicit, the Constitutional Committee and SPOs verify it, and Intersect's Hard Fork Working Group publishes the readiness reports the verification rests on. The correct behaviour if the threshold is not met is simply not to ratify, and that is built into the action.

Irreversibility

Protocol Version 11 is a permanent change to on-chain ledger rules, and reversion is only possible through the CIP-0135 disaster-recovery process in extreme circumstances. I am accepting this because the testing posture is strong: reports show no behavioural regressions, complete spec-to-implementation conformance on the new ledger rules, security audits on the BLS primitives and on execution costs, and a published performance report showing no regression against PV10. The companion cost-model action is also a live safety valve, the new primitives can be disabled at the cost-model level if a problem appears post-fork.

Companion cost-model dependency

The new Plutus primitives only become usable once the companion cost-model parameter action is enacted, so this fork and that action are coupled in practice. I am accepting this because the coupling is deliberate and protective: separating primitive availability from primitive cost gives governance a clean lever to switch the primitives off without reverting the fork itself.

Bottom Line

Real execution-cost reductions and new cryptographic capability for builders, ledger and SPO-security hardening, deterministic governance rules, zero treasury cost, and a decentralized SPO-gated activation backed by clean testing and audits. Yes.

YesEternl: Path to Sustainability - v2RationaleActive17d ago

Yes. 2,350,000 ADA for 12 months of Eternl, the only wallet with full in-app DRep voting, through the same conditional-repayment structure (USD cap, surplus returned, public wallet) HOSKY backed before. v2 adds the independent-audit clarity the prior version lacked and the Eternl DRep now abstains.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

2,350,000 ADA for 12 months of Eternl operations, paid through the same conditional-repayment structure HOSKY supported before and now backed by the audit clarity the earlier version was missing. This is a Yes consistent with our prior Eternl vote on Eternl's path to sustainability.

Eternl is one of the few Cardano wallets that has shipped continuously for over five years across four platforms with no VC dependency, and remains the most comprehensive in-app governance client in the ecosystem. The Cardano First framework reads strongly across multiple pillars, and v2 is a cleaner version of a proposal we already backed.

Pillar Analysis

Governance Transparency (lead pillar)

Eternl is the only Cardano wallet offering a full in-app DRep voting and proposal-browser experience, and a meaningful share of governance traffic flows through it, including HOSKY's own DRep submissions. Reduced funding for the wallet the governance system runs on top of is a direct hit on participation infrastructure.

v2 also directly answers the transparency gap that sank the previous version: the audit allocation now has explicit scope and timing (independent treasury-fund-use audits in February and August 2027, covering receipt, custody, conversion, spending, balances, and repayment), and the Eternl DRep has committed to abstain on its own proposal, closing the closed-loop voting concern from last time. Combined with on-chain Pro-plan metadata, published repayment transaction hashes, and a public company wallet for monitoring stablecoin reserves, the accountability surface is wider than the version we already voted Yes on.

Adoption

Eternl serves about 130,000 installs across browser extension and mobile, ships in 66 languages, and supports the broadest hardware-wallet matrix on Cardano. The proposer's stated 10-18% mainnet transaction share is large enough that ecosystem adoption metrics move with this wallet's reliability. Cross-platform shipping and continuous CIP work is the integration plumbing that keeps Cardano accessible to newcomers and power users alike.

Decentralization

Non-custodial light wallet, independent of the Cardano Foundation, Input Output, and Emurgo. Independent in-app DRep tooling that does not depend on GovTool, IO products, or any single-vendor governance stack. The governance layer is more resilient when client tooling has multiple independent implementations rather than concentrating around one provider, and Eternl is one of the few wallets providing that diversity.

Economic Sustainability (contested)

The repayment structure is the strongest part: ADA converted to a USD cap (up to $420,000 in stablecoins, ADA surplus returned to treasury), held in an auditable account delegated to the abstain DRep rather than an SPO, with the Pro plan as the path to replacing treasury funding. At a $70,000 FTE rate, the cost basis is conservative relative to comparable proposals. The honest mark against the pillar is the same as before: this is a second consecutive ask and the Pro-plan migration is still unproven, so repayment is contingent on adoption rather than contractually guaranteed. On balance, funding critical wallet infrastructure through a thin market while the team executes a paid-plan transition, now with explicit audit accounting, is a reasonable middle path.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

Repayment is contingent, not contractual

Repayment binds only to the extent Pro-plan adoption succeeds and the team honors it; there is no escrow, smart-contract lockup, or third-party administrator with enforcement authority. I am accepting this because the public stablecoin wallet, on-chain Pro-plan metadata, and the newly specified independent audits make the commitment publicly verifiable even though it is not legally enforceable.

Second consecutive treasury draw without a proven sustainability path

The prior ask funded operations on the same promise of a future paid-plan model. I am accepting another year because the Pro plan is now live-facing and the audit clarification gives the community a concrete checkpoint in 2027 to judge whether the sustainability path is real before any third ask.

Self-administered, not Intersect-TRSC milestone-gated

Tastenkunst administers its own draw rather than routing through an Intersect TRSC with tranche-gated disbursement and a third-party Assurer. I am accepting this because the public wallet, abstain-DRep delegation, on-chain metadata, and the now-scheduled independent audits substitute a transparency-based accountability model for a custody-based one, the same trade I accepted on the prior Eternl vote.

Non-open-source main UI

Libraries are npm-published but the main Eternl UI stays proprietary, which caps how much the community could salvage if the team disengaged. I am accepting this as an explicit, named cost, consistent with how I treated it last time.

Bottom Line

The independent governance-tooling surface Cardano's voters rely on, a conditional-repayment structure with a USD cap and surplus return, and the audit clarity plus self-abstention that the prior version lacked. Same vote as before, on a cleaner proposal. Yes.

YesReimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.RationaleActive17d ago

Yes. 103,000 ADA to reimburse the Ikigai Info-action submitter (100K deposit plus 3K foregone staking rewards) after a Cardano node bug allowed an unregistered stake key and made the deposit unrecoverable. Clean Article II compliance, instant on-chain distribution, within the NCL.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Vote: Yes

This withdraws 103,000 ADA to make whole the submitter of one of Cardano's first post-Chang Info governance actions, who lost a 100,000 ADA deposit not through any error of their own but because of a node bug that allowed an unregistered stake key on the action, leaving the deposit unrecoverable. The extra 3,000 ADA covers staking rewards foregone since. The Cardano First framework reads as a clean Yes led by Governance Transparency.

HOSKY is already on record supporting this. We voted Yes on the earlier Ikigai reimbursement Info action that signalled community will to fix this; this is the binding treasury action that actually does it. The principle is also already established in practice: the community previously reimbursed BigPey 100,000 ADA after he made the same mistake, so this action applies a precedent rather than setting a new one.

Pillar Analysis

Governance Transparency (lead pillar)

The withdrawal is about as clean as a treasury action gets. The loss has a documented technical cause (a node bug permitting an unregistered stake key), the amount is fully accounted for (100,000 principal plus 3,000 in foregone staking rewards at a stated 2% rate), and the constitutional checklist is satisfied line by line under Article II.6 and II.7. There is no administrator overhead, no escrow, and no multi-month delivery to monitor: funds go straight to the named stake address on enactment, and the distribution is verifiable on-chain by anyone. A governance system that can cleanly correct its own early infrastructure faults, in public and on the record, is a more trustworthy system than one that lets the cost of a protocol bug sit permanently on an individual.

Economic Sustainability

This is a one-time corrective payment, not a programme or an ongoing liability. At 103,000 ADA it sits trivially within the Net Change Limit, creates no recurring obligation, and the recipient has taken no prior treasury funding. Treating it as a sustainability question, the treasury is not funding new spend so much as returning a deposit it was never meant to keep. The marginal cost is negligible and there is no tail.

Adoption

There is a soft but real signal value. The submitter was an early governance pioneer who participated in good faith weeks after on-chain governance launched and was penalised by a bug in the system itself. Making them whole tells current and future participants that the cost of Cardano's own infrastructure failures will not be left on the people who showed up first. That is the kind of fairness that keeps people willing to engage with governance.

Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes

Reimbursement precedent

Approving a deposit reimbursement invites the question of where the line sits for future claims. I am accepting this because the facts are narrow: the loss was caused by a protocol-level node bug that allowed an unregistered stake key, not by the submitter's carelessness, an expired action, or a normal cost of participation. The line is also already drawn, the community reimbursed BigPey 100,000 ADA for the same class of accidental deposit loss, so this is consistent treatment rather than a novel one. A reimbursement scoped to losses of this kind is a defensible and limited principle, not an open door to refunding ordinary deposit losses.

Bottom Line

A documented protocol-bug loss, a fully accounted 103,000 ADA, a clean constitutional checklist, instant on-chain distribution, and a position HOSKY already signalled. Correcting the system's own early fault is the right call. Yes.