Alchemy by Sundial x Charms: Cardano-Native Bitcoin Treasury Protocol
137 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No5.1M ₳Rationale
Although building the BTCfi (DeFi for Bitcoin) infrastructure offers good scalability, we believe requesting 10,000,000 ADA from Cardano Treasury is too risky.
- Non-exclusive benefits: Charms is a multichain compatible infrastructure with many other UTXO platforms. We believe that Cardano Treasury bearing the entire massive development cost while other ecosystems also benefit (without a commensurate contribution commitment) is not optimal for the network's capital.
- Lack of transparency regarding KPIs: The community and many DReps have pointed out a lack of clarity in the project's KPIs. We find it difficult to determine how these 10 million ADA will be disbursed and what the actual ROI will be.
Given the enormous budget and the high risk inherent in a multi-chain infrastructure, we have decided to vote "No" at this time as the most prudent measure to protect the Treasury, at least until the project has a proposal with a more reasonable budget and stricter KPIs.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- No4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳No rationale
- No4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança "Alchemy by Sundial x Charms: Cardano-Native Bitcoin Treasury Protocol" (gov_action1pa6...2x2sz2), pois, embora reconheçamos a relevância estratégica de desenvolver uma infraestrutura BTCfi nativa na Cardano, entendemos que o valor solicitado, de ₳10.000.000, é elevado para um protocolo que ainda enfrenta riscos significativos relacionados à adoção, liquidez, volatilidade do Bitcoin, dependência de oráculos, pontes entre redes e à própria execução técnica da solução. Reconhecemos que a proposta incorpora mecanismos positivos de governança, controle e transparência, como liberação de recursos por etapas, auditorias independentes, relatórios mensais, segregação dos recursos e regras para pausa das operações e eventual devolução de fundos ao Tesouro. No entanto, avaliamos que esses mecanismos, por si só, não são suficientes para compensar as incertezas inerentes a um protocolo que ainda precisa demonstrar sua viabilidade prática, demanda de mercado e sustentabilidade econômica. Dessa forma, entendemos que a relação entre custo e benefício ainda não está suficientemente comprovada para justificar esse nível de exposição dos recursos da Tesouraria. Consideramos que uma validação mais robusta do produto, acompanhada de evidências concretas de adoção e de um modelo sustentável de operação, proporcionaria uma base mais sólida para uma eventual aprovação futura.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action "Alchemy by Sundial x Charms: Cardano-Native Bitcoin Treasury Protocol" (gov_action1pa6...2x2sz2), because although we recognize the strategic importance of developing native BTCfi infrastructure on Cardano, we believe the requested ₳10,000,000 is a substantial investment for a protocol that still faces significant risks related to adoption, liquidity, Bitcoin price volatility, oracle dependencies, cross-chain bridges, and overall technical execution. We acknowledge that the proposal includes positive governance, oversight, and transparency mechanisms, such as milestone-based funding, independent audits, monthly reporting, segregation of Treasury funds, and clear procedures for pausing operations and returning funds if necessary. However, we do not believe these safeguards alone are sufficient to offset the uncertainties surrounding a protocol that has yet to demonstrate practical viability, market demand, and long-term sustainability. For these reasons, we believe the proposal has not yet established a sufficiently compelling cost-benefit case to justify this level of Treasury exposure. A more mature product, supported by clear evidence of adoption and a proven sustainable operating model, would provide a stronger foundation for future consideration. - No4.1M ₳Rationale
I see the concept as highly unproven as there are already ways to bridge BTC to Cardano which have very little uptake.
More importantly, I have reservations about the deliverability of the project and thus can not support this proposal.
- Yes3.6M ₳Rationale
While the amount is excessive I am "pro" this initiative. If you are concerned about the NCL there are more excessive proposals that target only (important) maintenance and should rather be questioned imho.
- No3M ₳Rationale
I have to vote NO on this proposal. There is an overall lack of clarity as to if this can be delivered, and details that should be finalized by this point (requesting funding) are not.
I have already reached my personal max NCL, and there is very little room left in the current NCL.
I think this proposal should be structured more clearly and broken down better with serious proof of functionality if this much funding is being requested.
Sundial should review the feedback given by DReps and come back next NCL with a proposal that can deliver for 10 Million ADA.
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
I respect the teams behind this proposal but cannot vote YES on it in it's current condition.
Without having clear FTE rates, it's impossible to know what we are paying for. I would recommend making the budget section clearer.
- No2.6M ₳Rationale
私はCardanoのBTCfi基盤構築という方向性は評価します。しかし本提案は、公共インフラ開発とTreasury-backed launch liquidity、さらにFIRE/ICEという構造商品リスクが混在しています。現時点では、Charms/oracle/accountingの監査、legal memo、principal保護、automatic sweep-back、smart contract disbursementの実装詳細が不足しており、10,000,000 ADAのTreasury支出としては慎重に扱うべきだと判断します。
I recognize the strategic value of building BTCfi infrastructure on Cardano. However, this proposal combines public infrastructure development, Treasury-backed launch liquidity, and the structured product risks of FIRE/ICE.
At this stage, I believe the proposal lacks sufficient detail on Charms/oracle/accounting audits, legal review, principal protection, automatic sweep-back, and the concrete implementation of smart contract disbursement.
For these reasons, I believe a 10,000,000 ADA Treasury withdrawal should be approached cautiously.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the Alchemy by Sundial x Charms proposal.
This is not a vote against Bitcoin, BTCfi, Sundial, Charms, or the idea that Cardano should compete for Bitcoin liquidity. I understand the strategic argument that Cardano needs stronger Bitcoin-related infrastructure and that BTC liquidity is one of the largest opportunities in digital assets.
However, I do not believe this proposal is the right use of the Cardano Treasury at this time.
The proposal requests 10,000,000 ADA for a Cardano-native Bitcoin treasury and BTCfi infrastructure layer. The concept is ambitious and potentially interesting, but it is also novel, complex and materially higher risk than the infrastructure, wallet, security and developer-tooling proposals I have supported.
My main concern is that this proposal sits closer to a treasury-backed investment or structured financial product than to essential public-good maintenance. It involves protocol infrastructure, staged launch liquidity, FIRE and ICE assets, Bitcoin-backed exposure, reserve mechanics, integrations, dashboards, legal/compliance work and go-to-market execution.
That may become the type of activity the Cardano Treasury should support in future, but I believe the governance framework should come first.
I recently set out my broader view that Cardano should reform the NCL framework before raising the spending ceiling or using the Treasury in a more active investment-style role:
https://x.com/Cardano_Will/status/2074566189389336964Before approving large BTCfi or treasury-investment style proposals, I believe Cardano should agree clearer rules around shorter NCL windows, category-level budget buckets, sovereign reserves, stablecoin and non-ADA asset policy, risk limits, concentration limits, conflict controls, independent due diligence, reporting standards and accountability for returns and losses.
I am not opposed to the Treasury eventually operating more like a sovereign reserve or VC-style ecosystem investment function. In fact, I think that may be an important future direction. But it should happen within an agreed framework, not through large ad hoc allocations while the NCL is already under pressure.
In the current environment, I am prioritising critical infrastructure, wallet security, self-custody, open-source public goods, developer tooling and protocol readiness. Alchemy is strategically interesting, but it does not clear my bar for a 10M ADA treasury withdrawal at this time.
For these reasons, I vote NO.
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
Supporting BTC DeFi.
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.5M ₳Rationale
Not convinced that this proposal is the best way forward for Bitcoin DeFi.
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on "Alchemy by Sundial x Charms: Cardano-Native Bitcoin Treasury Protocol" because Sundial and Charms publicly announced that they will not proceed with this Treasury proposal at this time. This is not a rejection of BTCfi or of a future revised Alchemy proposal, but a vote against approving 10M ADA for an action its own proponents have withdrawn.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
This proposal relies too much on shaky assumptions about market demand and whether the ecosystem is ready. Without a minimum viable product that shows genuine traction, there’s no reason to allocate ₳10 million from the Treasury. The Treasury isn't a venture capital fund for untested cross-chain financial projects that come with protocol layer and oracle risks.
History serves as a warning: BitcoinOS made similar promises regarding BTC-linked assets and ended up in a scam that harmed trust. Sundial does not have a history that gives me faith this isn’t just another risky attempt to get a lot of money upfront without solid facts or proven buyer interest. Cardano’s funds need to be managed carefully, not thrown into ambitious but unsupported experiments. This proposal needs a much smaller, phased pilot to test its viability before putting ecosystem capital at such risk.
- Abstain986K ₳No rationale
- No968.7K ₳Rationale
We vote NO on this proposal as the team has publicy announced that they are withdrawing their proposal.
- Abstain964.8K ₳No rationale
- No924.5K ₳No rationale
- No883.4K ₳No rationale
- No870.3K ₳No rationale
- No862.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes831K ₳Rationale
ypically, large treasury asks raise red flags regarding sustainable treasury management. However, this proposal mitigates those risks through exceptional economic structuring. The division of funds into a productive, yield-returning liquidity pool (Pool 1) and a strictly audited development pool (Pool 2) sets a premier standard for how Cardano Treasury funds should be utilized. Furthermore, the integration of Intersect as a milestone administrator ensures the community maintains oversight, with clear clawback potential if milestones are missed.
Unlocking secure, native BTCfi is a strategic priority for Cardano if it is to remain competitive with other layer-1 protocols. The technical specifications, combined with the commitment to return yield to the treasury and open-source the underlying infrastructure, make this a highly beneficial endeavor for the global network.
- Yes799.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain795.2K ₳No rationale
- No626K ₳Rationale
NO, Applicants withdrew. 10M ADA for unproven BTCfi protocol with no working product. No open-source guarantee, no Cardano-specific demand evidence. Treasury should not act as VC. Applicants correctly read the room and stepped back.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The applicants have publicly withdrawn this proposal, acknowledging that the community's current priorities lie elsewhere. Even before the withdrawal, the DRep and Constitutional Committee votes rendered a clear verdict against it. The proposal asked for ten million dollars for an unproven Bitcoin treasury protocol with no working product, no user base, and no revenue. While the treasury protections were thoughtful and the risk register was honest, the core problem was that this was a commercial venture dressed as public infrastructure. The Treasury should not act as a venture capitalist. There was no explicit open-source license guarantee for the protocol code, no delivery track record for Alchemy specifically, and no evidence that Cardano users actually want Bitcoin finance products. The safety zones and economic model for the Fire and Ice assets were theoretical and untested. For a future Bitcoin finance proposal to earn my support, it would need a working prototype, explicit open-source licensing, a smaller pilot ask, and clear evidence of Cardano-specific demand. The applicants made the correct call by withdrawing. Building first and returning with evidence is the right path.
- No620.1K ₳No rationale
- No597K ₳No rationale
- Yes590.2K ₳Rationale
Would have much preferred Pogun to be approved, but for similar reasons believe this will bring value and attention to Cardano. We are going for #1
- No577.8K ₳No rationale
- No565.3K ₳Rationale
Check out Fluid many teams developing true native UTXO support for bitcoin x Cardano. The market is big enough to feed the competition and may the best ones win. No funding needed
- Yes480.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes445.5K ₳No rationale
- No415.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.4K ₳No rationale