Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect
Discussed in the Governance Review for epochs 653 to 655.
37 DReps voted · 19 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
Voting concentration
2 of 37 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 41.2%, top 5 combined 74.3% of 1.1B ₳ voted.
- No445.8M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on "Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect".
1.The core deliverable duplicates work the treasury has already funded. The IO Developer Experience Initiative (₳3,601,926, enacted in May) promises "an OpenZeppelin-style collection of ready-to-use smart contracts" and "at least 5 ready-to-audit smart contracts" (Vesting, Programmable Tokens, DEX, Swap, Lending) as Q3 2026 deliverables. On September 8, the main author of that library (a PM at IOG) publicly asked why the treasury should pay for the same thing again.
2.As of September 14, I have found no answer from the proposers, either in the proposal text or on their official channels. The proposal mentions collaboration with Input Output and feedback on existing tooling, but does not address the overlap with the library already under development.
3.I do not doubt OpenZeppelin's capability. I will reconsider a resubmission that clearly divides roles with the existing library, or one re-scoped as auditing, extending and co-maintaining it.
「Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect」にNOを投票します。
1.中核の成果物が、国庫がすでに資金提供した案件と重複しています。5月に執行済みのIO Developer Experience Initiative（₳3,601,926）は「OpenZeppelin流のすぐ使えるスマートコントラクト集」と「監査に出せる状態のスマートコントラクト5本以上」（Vesting・プログラマブルトークン・DEX・Swap・Lending）を2026年Q3の成果として約束しています。9月8日、そのライブラリの主著者（IOGのPM）自身が「なぜ同じものに再び支払うのか」と公に問うています。
2.9月14日時点で、提案本文にも公式チャネルにも、提案者側からの回答は確認できていません。提案はInput Outputとの協力や既存ツールへのフィードバックには触れていますが、すでに開発中のライブラリとの重複には答えていません。
3.OpenZeppelinの力量を疑うものではありません。既存ライブラリとの役割分担を明示した再提案、あるいは既存ライブラリの監査・拡張・共同保守として範囲を組み直した再提案であれば、改めて検討します。 - No112.5M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on “Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect.”
I recognize OpenZeppelin’s strong track record and support the overall objective of creating secure and reusable development infrastructure for Cardano.
However, several matters required to assess value for money remain insufficiently defined, including the division of responsibilities with existing Cardano initiatives, the technical scope, the detailed budget, the delivery structure, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.
Similar work is already underway within the Cardano ecosystem, but the proposal does not clearly explain how existing deliverables will be used or what additional value this engagement will provide. Approving 11,787,063 ADA without that clarity creates a risk of duplicated spending and further fragmentation of Cardano’s development infrastructure.
I support the objective, but the level of uncertainty remains too high relative to the amount requested. I would reconsider a revised proposal with a clearly defined scope, budget, delivery structure, and relationship with existing initiatives.
「Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect」にNOを投票します。
OpenZeppelinの実績と、本提案が目指す方向性は評価しています。安全で再利用可能な開発基盤は、Cardanoの成長にとって重要です。
一方で、既存のCardanoプロジェクトとの役割分担、採用する技術構成、詳細な予算、実行体制、長期的な保守責任など、費用対効果を判断するための重要事項が十分に確定していません。
特に、すでに類似する取り組みが進行している中で、既存成果物をどのように活用し、本提案が具体的に何を追加するのかが明確ではありません。この状態で11,787,063 ADAを承認することは、重複投資や開発基盤の分断につながるリスクがあります。
提案の目的には賛同しますが、要求額に対して不確定要素が大きく、現時点では国庫支出を正当化するだけの明確性が不足していると判断しました。
既存プロジェクトとの役割分担、技術範囲、予算、実行体制が明確になった再提案であれば、改めて検討します。
- No93.1M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote NO on the proposal: Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect
Our rationale:
The proposal's direction is correct. A credible library with audited reference implementations could lower the barrier to entry for Cardano developers and improve confidence among institutional integrators.
However, the current proposal does not provide enough evidence that the proposed work is sufficiently differentiated from ongoing Cardano ecosystem initiatives.
There is a significant risk of duplication or fragmentation. The Input Output contracts-library repository already describes an OpenZeppelin-like reusable Cardano contracts library, including on-chain and off-chain components. Its public roadmap includes areas such as governance, upgradeability, CIP-113-related work, vesting, and DeFi compatibility.
The Cardano Foundation is also working on CIP-113 programmable-token infrastructure and regulated-asset reference implementations.
These projects are not identical to the OpenZeppelin proposal, but they demonstrate that important parts of the proposed infrastructure are already being developed elsewhere.
The proposal states that the specific Cardano smart-contract language will be selected during the initial evaluation phase. This means DReps are being asked to approve a large budget before the core technical architecture, language choice, and exact deliverables are finalized.
The choice between Aiken, Plutus-based approaches, and off-chain frameworks directly affects staffing, implementation costs, testing methodology, auditability, and long-term maintenance. A budget cannot be meaningfully assessed when a central technical decision is deferred until after funding.
The proposal does not provide a meaningful cost breakdown. There are no clear details of the number of full-time equivalent contributors, hourly or daily rates, long-term maintenance, etc.
OpenZeppelin has extensive experience with EVM-based smart-contract infrastructure and does have relevant non-EVM UTxO-related experience through its Midnight/Compact work. However, this is not the same as a demonstrated track record of delivering Cardano eUTxO contracts using the Cardano toolchain, including Aiken or Plutus.
At a minimum, a resubmission should include:
A public gap and overlap analysis covering the IOG contracts-library, Cardano Foundation CIP-113 work, CF regulated-asset references, and other relevant ecosystem projects.
A fixed technical scope before funding, including the selected language and frameworks.
A complete budget showing named roles, FTE allocation, rates, etc.
A named Cardano technical team with demonstrated Aiken, Plutus, and eUTxO experience, together with declared availability and responsibility for each deliverable.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66...skqwqpBuy me a beer:
https://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0 - No87.8M ₳Rationale
I am unconvinced this is a prudent use of Cardano Treasury funds given the current trajectory of the treasury toward zero within a decade.
- Yes65.2M ₳No rationale
- No55.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. This year's Net Change Limit (NCL) has been set well above the level I consider sustainable. Under my published voting framework, an appropriate NCL is roughly 15% of the previous year's staking rewards (on the order of 82M ADA), whereas the NCL currently in force is several times that amount. Because the treasury is already authorized to disburse far beyond my personal NCL threshold, I am voting No on all treasury withdrawal proposals until aggregate withdrawals are brought back within a sustainable limit — regardless of the individual merits of any single proposal. This vote reflects a position on total treasury spend, not a judgment on the value of your specific project. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/\n\n[Japanese version follows]\n\n本提案に反対票を投じます。今年のNet Change Limit（NCL）は、私が持続可能と考える水準を大幅に上回って設定されています。公開済みの投票フレームワークでは、適正なNCLは前年のステーキング報酬の約15%（82M ADA）ですが、現行のNCLはその数倍に達しています。トレジャリーは既に私のpersonal NCL（個人として許容する上限）を大きく超える出金が認められている状態にあるため、出金総額が持続可能な範囲に戻るまで、個別提案の良し悪しに関わらず、すべてのトレジャリー出金提案に反対票を投じます。本投票はトレジャリー支出全体に対する立場の表明であり、貴提案の価値そのものを否定するものではありません。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Abstain40.2M ₳Rationale
While I agree with the intent, I would like to wait and see the results of the review regarding the reasonableness of the costs and the technical approach.
- Yes36.9M ₳No rationale
- No34.5M ₳Rationale
No. The 11,787,063 ADA package commits too much before technical choices and Cardano adoption are validated. Its milestone controls are useful, but a 20% upfront delivery payment and limited external adoption requirements favor a smaller initial scope.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Vote: No
I do not support the 11,787,063 ADA OpenZeppelin Stack withdrawal as proposed. Audited libraries and reference applications could help Cardano developers, but the scale and payment structure of this engagement require stronger evidence of Cardano-specific demand and a narrower initial commitment.
The HOSKY Cardano First framework puts Economic Sustainability and Adoption at the center of this decision.
Pillar analysis
Economic Sustainability (lead pillar)
The proposal allocates 11,443,750 ADA to delivery and 343,313 ADA to administration. It releases 20% of the delivery budget at contract signature, subject only to legal sign-off. At the proposal's reference conversion rate, that is 2,288,750 ADA, or $366,200, before the first technical milestone is accepted.
The remaining payments are gated by delivery evidence, and money remaining at contract expiry returns to the treasury. Those controls have value. They do not recover money already paid for completed outputs that may see limited use. I would prefer an initial engagement that establishes the toolchain, validates demand and delivers a smaller audited library before committing to all three reference applications and the wider tooling package.
Adoption (mixed)
The proposal names concrete applications: liquid staking, self-repaying loans and a tokenized money market fund. It also includes developer education, documentation and workshops. These are credible routes toward adoption.
The acceptance criteria primarily establish that code, testnet demonstrations, tests and documentation exist. The third milestone requires feedback from at least one independent Cardano developer. That is a low external-validation requirement for an engagement of this size. The published milestones do not establish comparable requirements for independent teams integrating the releases or operating applications built with them.
OpenZeppelin's experience deserves consideration. The treasury still needs to assess the likely use of this particular Cardano stack, including whether builders want these interfaces and applications enough to adopt and maintain them.
Governance Transparency (mixed)
Public repositories, published audit findings, milestone evidence and administrator approval make this more accountable than an unrestricted grant. My objection is not an absence of milestones.
The smart-contract language remains to be selected during the initial evaluation, and parts of the component list are preliminary. Those are material decisions for interoperability and developer adoption. A discovery-stage commitment would let the community assess the resulting architecture and demand evidence before funding the full implementation programme.
Decentralization
Open-source releases would allow others to inspect, reuse and extend the work. That is a benefit. To turn it into a durable public resource, I would want a clearer path for independent maintainers and production users beyond the first year. A proposed second-year continuation is not yet evidence of sustainable maintenance by the wider ecosystem.
Risks I'm accepting with this No
1. Delayed security and tooling benefits
Rejecting the package may delay useful audited components and leave developers rebuilding common functionality. I accept that risk in seeking a smaller first commitment with stronger evidence of likely use.
2. A weaker commercial opportunity
A narrower engagement may be less attractive to OpenZeppelin or may cost more in separate stages. The integrated package has coordination benefits, but they do not outweigh the need to validate the scope before committing the full amount.
Decision
The proposal contains useful work and real delivery controls. I would support reconsidering a smaller initial scope with settled technical choices and stronger independent adoption commitments. I do not support this full withdrawal. No.
- No23.6M ₳Rationale
Too much overlap with the funded DevX proposal. Coordinate with the existing team and collaborate.
- No20.3M ₳Rationale
I appreciate the initiative of OppenZeppelin, however their prior work has already launched an effort to replicate this on Cardano and I would rather have OpenZeppelin join this effort and collaborate than to work on this on their own, see https://github.com/input-output-hk/contracts-library
Before approving this, I would at least need an analysis of the existing effort and why this does not suffice. - No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No6.8M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳Rationale
From our point of view there is too much fragmented activity in this field (which is undoubtedly relevant). Instead of having differnt initatives all trying to reinvent the wheel and producing additional work and cost, we would like to see coordinated, concerted action in this area - especially since we are talking about open-source solutions here.
- No5.5M ₳Rationale
Since the NCL amount is about to be depleted, this is not a priority in my opinion
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳Rationale
OpenZeppelin plays a prominent role in blockchain, although at the current stage of Cardano, with the amount of funding that has already gone towards Commercially Critical Integrations, infrastructure, research, and more development-related ventures, I must lean on fiscal conservatism for the benefit of ADA holders.
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
私はOpenZeppelin Stackの戦略的価値と、Cardanoに標準化されたコントラクトライブラリを整備する意義を高く評価しています。しかし、現在の提案では、為替差額と1%換金手数料の負担、余剰資金の返還方法、採用するスマートコントラクト言語、独立した第三者監査、12か月終了後の保守体制が十分に確定していません。
これらは軽微な説明事項ではなく、Treasury資金の保全と成果物の長期的信頼性に関わる重要条件です。私はOpenZeppelinのCardano参入を歓迎し、期待しています。これらの条件を明確にした修正版の再提出を促すため、現行提案にはNOと投票します。
I recognize the strategic value of the OpenZeppelin Stack and the importance of establishing a standardized contracts library for Cardano. However, the current proposal does not clearly define who bears the exchange-rate gains or losses and the 1% conversion fee, how surplus funds will be returned to the Treasury, which smart contract language will be used, how independent third-party audits will be conducted, or how the project will be maintained after the initial 12 months.
These are not minor details. They are important conditions for protecting Treasury funds and ensuring the long-term reliability of the deliverables. I welcome and look forward to OpenZeppelin’s involvement in Cardano. To encourage a revised submission that clearly addresses these issues, I vote NO on the current proposal.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The problem of fragmented contract patterns, a lack of reusable eUTXO components, and poorly documented paths for institutional DeFi is one I fully grasp and support. Because having open-source reference code and security know-how could cut down on redundant work and boost developers’ assurance in this field. So, without a doubt, the strategic direction is relevant.
Looking at the value proposition, though I think it’s substantially weaker than the headline suggests. As far as I know, Cardano already has active contract frameworks. It also has audited application code, ecosystem standards, developer tooling, and on top of that various teams working on interoperability, governance, credentials, and DeFi infrastructure. I’m not an expert here, but even more so, I’d expect a proposal asking for no less than 12M ADA to establish and show beyond a reason of doubt through a rigorous gap analysis what existing repositories cannot provide, how OpenZeppelin’s output will be technically superior, or why all three proposed financial products should be bundled into one treasury-funded engagement… when I and so many other DReps have publicly and on social media for more than a year now opposed the bundling of divergent work packages time and again.
We’re talking about almost 2M USD here, and I for one think, that it’s quite an ask that requires more detailed budget evidence, rate cards, subcontractor assumptions, and independently validated scope. That’s best business practice. I’ve operated under these conditions for more than three decades, and I’m shocked each time how laissez-faire this grant tourism in the Cardano ecosystem is.
I would prefer, and indeed can only approve if I do my DRep job properly, a smaller, independently scoped discovery grant followed by competitive, separately approved workstreams.
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No884K ₳No rationale
- No866.8K ₳No rationale
- No772.5K ₳Rationale
Vote: NO
I support OpenZeppelin coming into Cardano. A reusable, audited contracts library would raise the baseline quality of what gets shipped here, and the trust OpenZeppelin already has with EVM developers is not something Cardano can create on its own. I am voting against this proposal, not against the firm, and not against the work itself.
1. Overlap with work already funded
The treasury is not choosing between two sketches. IO’s Developer Experience Initiative (₳3,601,926) was enacted on May 29, 2026. The Q3 2026 deliverable is explicit: a
ContractsLibrary"inspired by OpenZeppelin’s role in the EVM ecosystem," with at least five ready-to-audit contracts. The public repo (input-output-hk/contracts-library) says the same thing.- About 3.6 million ada is already committed to an OpenZeppelin-style library.
- This proposal asks for another 11,787,063 ada for a second library of similar scope.
The text mentions working with IO, but it does not publish a gap analysis, nor does it specify which library teams should treat as the standard. Q3 2026 is when the first library is due. The sensible order is to evaluate what that grant actually delivered, then decide whether a second library is worth buying. Until those questions are answered, this is not complementary work so much as the risk of paying twice.
2. The smart contract language is still unset
Workstream B states that the specific smart contract language will be decided during the initial evaluation phase. For a contracts library, that choice is close to the core product itself — it determines who can import the code and whether it fits the toolchain teams are actively using.
The proposal requests USD $1,831,000 upfront while leaving the language selection until after funding is secured. With the language unset, there is no reliable way to assess whether the library will align with what developers are actually building.
3. Surplus from the stablecoin conversion is not addressed
The budget uses USD $0.16 per ada as a reference rate. The full delivery amount of 11,443,750 ada converts at contract signature, rather than converting only the necessary amount to reach USD $1,831,000. At a recent spot price near USD $0.196, that conversion yields approximately USD $2.24 million — roughly USD $410,000 (22%) above the stated delivery budget.
A conservative reference rate is reasonable, but converting the entire ada amount regardless of spot price is a distinct financial choice that the proposal fails to explain. It specifies only two mechanics:
- The full delivery amount converts at signature.
- Unused funds sweep back to the treasury at expiry.
Sweep simply means the smart contract returns remaining funds when the term ends — it is not an immediate swap or return mechanism. What happens to the surplus generated at conversion (returned immediately, retained in the contract, or made accessible to the vendor) is completely unwritten. Until this gap is closed, the treasury is being asked to approve an over-provision with no formal rule governing the extra capital.
4. The security retainer is a vendor self-review
Workstream C is scoped exclusively to OpenZeppelin-produced code. Audit costs sit within overhead, pointing to Intersect’s administration fee as oversight. However, Intersect handles disbursement and milestone verification — not an independent technical review of the contracts. This withdrawal sets aside no dedicated capital for a third-party code audit.
Note: This point does not rest on Article II.7.4 (which governs periodic financial/fund-use audits). My view is distinct: for a USD $1.83 million library intended for ecosystem-wide adoption, vendor self-review is insufficient. Independent technical audits should be scoped and funded separately, rather than folded into the vendor's internal security retainer.
Conclusion & Next Steps
OpenZeppelin has explicitly stated that if this proposal does not pass, they will gather community feedback and submit a revised version. A NO vote is therefore inexpensive — it requests a clearer scope and a tighter financial/technical structure without asking OpenZeppelin to leave Cardano.
I welcome a revised submission. At a minimum, a revised text should:
- Spell out the division of scope with the already-funded IO
ContractsLibrary, specifying which standard teams should adopt. - Finalize the smart contract language prior to requesting funds.
- Convert only the ada required at spot rates upon milestone release, returning any conversion surplus immediately.
- Fund an independent third-party technical audit separately from the vendor's internal security review.
- Stage the three workstreams sequentially rather than bundling them into a single all-or-nothing engagement.
- No622.2K ₳Rationale
I genuinely see the value in strengthening Cardano’s developer infrastructure, and I appreciate the work OpenZeppelin has done in the broader blockchain ecosystem.
However, as a DRep, I have to look beyond the reputation of the organization and ask whether the treasury is getting sufficient value for the amount being requested.
11,787,063 $ADA is a significant amount of treasury funds. My concern is not that the proposed work has no value, but that the request feels very large.
My position is not a rejection of OpenZeppelin or the opportunity itself. It is a call for how we commit treasury funds.
At this stage, I am leaning toward voting No.
As DReps, we have a responsibility to support valuable initiatives while also being careful stewards of the community’s treasury.
- Yes570.3K ₳No rationale
- No569.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes366.8K ₳No rationale
- No357K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no for two reasons. First, there's no way for the treasury to earn any of this back. The budget is 100% delivery plus the admin fee. No revenue share, no equity, no repayment. The thing being built, an audited open-source contracts library, is OpenZeppelin's actual product on other chains. We would be paying 1.8M for a copy of a product they already sell, with no slice of the return coming back.
Second, the adoption bar is one developer. Milestone 3's acceptance criterion is word for word "at least 1 independent Cardano developer has reviewed and provided feedback on the library components (written confirmation)." That is the only Cardano-side usage requirement in a $1.8M contract. The 85% market share and $110B TVL numbers are optimism substituting for arithmetic: they describe other chains, not Cardano. - No285.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes275.9K ₳No rationale
- No100.8K ₳No rationale
- No90.5K ₳Rationale
OpenZeppelin gets many things right and its strong brand and developer reach could benefit Cardano. My main concern is the unclear distinction from the existing IOG Contracts Library that was recently funded.
I would like a clearer explanation of which additional gaps this work fills and how duplication will be avoided. Thank you for approaching this discussion with such an open mind.
- No6.8K ₳No rationale
- No166.8 ₳Rationale
Voting NO on Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect.As an elected Cardano Civics Committee member, Unified Cardano Student Club President in Nigeria, and a DRep focused on transparent, sustainable treasury use, I respect the services OpenZeppelin wants to offer. Audited libraries, reference implementations, and developer enablement would be valuable for builders and real-world adoption, including in emerging markets.That said, I cannot support this withdrawal. ₳11.79 million is too high given the current state of the treasury. Cardano’s treasury has been under heavy demand, and I believe it needs time to recover rather than taking on another large spend right now even for good work.I remain open to a leaner, more tightly scoped version later. For now, fiscal discipline comes first.