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.
- No383.3K ₳No rationale
- No381.2K ₳Rationale
My strong opinion is that treasury ADA should be exclusively used to fund basic technical infrastructure that is available to all people in the Cardano ecosystem.
Providing funding to single for-profit businesses shall in my opinion not be done from the treasury.
- Yes366K ₳No rationale
- No352.6K ₳No rationale
- No341.8K ₳No rationale
- No318.6K ₳No rationale
- No310.2K ₳Rationale
Governance Action Review [EN]
- Introduction
Alchemy is a Cardano-native Bitcoin treasury protocol and BTCfi infrastructure layer proposed by Sundial Protocol and Charms. It aims to provide reusable infrastructure for Bitcoin-backed structured exposure on Cardano, including a shared BTC reserve architecture, composable FIRE and ICE assets, public dashboards, integration adapters, monthly reporting, and staged launch liquidity.
The proposal requests 10,000,000 ada, using an approximate reference value of USD 0.20 per ada, for a planning budget of about USD 2.0 million. The request is divided into two pools: approximately USD 1.0 million for protocol infrastructure and treasury-supported launch liquidity, and approximately USD 1.0 million for delivery, audit, integrations, dashboards, governance reporting, legal/compliance work, and go-to-market execution.
The proposal includes fund separation, staged liquidity deployment, public reporting, audit allocation, ADA price protection, pause rules, refund conditions, and a rollover clause if external investment funds Alchemy development. Intersect is proposed as interim fund administrator, subject to confirmation and final agreement.
- Governance Action Analysis
Positive aspects
Conceptually, the proposal is interesting. There is clear care in demonstrating the strategic importance of a BTCfi layer for Cardano, and the proposal presents a reasonable narrative about the opportunity to attract Bitcoin-related liquidity to the ecosystem. The examples of similar products in other ecosystems, with significant TVL and volumes, help indicate that there is a real and potentially relevant market category.
It is also positive that the proposal tries to structure mechanisms for returns to the Treasury, especially by providing that profits, yield, or returns generated by the Treasury-supported liquidity position would be returned to the Treasury itself.
Negative aspects
These positive points are not sufficient to justify approval of a 10,000,000 ADA withdrawal. The main problem is that the numbers presented about comparable markets and protocols seem to serve more to support an opportunity narrative than to establish objective success commitments. The proposal mentions TVL, volume, and demand in other contexts, but does not convert that thesis into its own KPIs, with clear targets and timelines for Alchemy on Cardano.
Objective targets are missing for adoption, organic liquidity, integrations, users, volume, revenue, Treasury return, or measurable ecosystem impact.
The budget granularity is also insufficient for a request of this scale. Although general allocation categories exist, the proposal does not provide adequate detail on FTEs, rates, number of professionals, seniority, workload, scope by function, or granular cost composition. This makes it difficult to adequately assess cost-benefit, especially in a request that combines development, audit, integrations, go-to-market, and financial structuring.
Another relevant point is possible overlap with other initiatives. Other projects, proposals, and teams already exist that are developing, or seeking to develop, Bitcoin adaptations, Bitcoin DeFi, or Bitcoin-related infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem. For that reason, it would be important for the proposal to present its differentiators more clearly in relation to these initiatives, especially when there are Treasury funding requests for workstreams that may have some degree of overlap.
Without a more explicit comparison, it remains uncertain whether the Treasury would be funding truly complementary infrastructure or multiple initiatives with partially redundant scopes. A clearer explanation of positioning, complementarity, technical differentiators, and limits of overlap would help better assess the need and proportionality of this request.
Risks and concerns
There is a broader concern with using the Treasury as a liquidity provider. The proposal tries to mitigate this point by providing for profits to be returned to the Treasury, but it still shifts to the Treasury a risk role that, under normal conditions, should be assumed by private investors, specialized vehicles, or mechanisms specifically designed for this type of allocation.
Recurring use of the Treasury as a source of initial liquidity for specific financial products may create artificial incentives, distort markets, and harm the organic growth of the ecosystem.
If the market thesis is as promising as the proposal suggests, it is reasonable to expect interest from private capital or from vehicles more appropriate for this type of risk, such as funds or ecosystem investment vehicles focused on commercial and liquidity opportunities. The Cardano Treasury should not automatically be treated as the first-instance funder for promising projects, especially when the public benefit depends on future adoption that has not yet been demonstrated.
- Vote and Rationale
Vote: NO.
The proposal presents a relevant idea and an interesting strategic narrative, but does not offer sufficient impact KPIs, does not present adequate budget granularity, places the Treasury in the position of liquidity provider and risk taker for a specific financial product, and does not sufficiently clarify its differentiation from other Bitcoin-related initiatives on Cardano.
Conditions or signals that could change the vote: Unknown.
- Conclusion
The decisive issues are the absence of sufficient impact KPIs, inadequate budget granularity, the use of the Treasury as liquidity provider and risk taker for a specific financial product, and insufficient clarification of differentiation from other Bitcoin-related initiatives in Cardano.
Revisão de Ação de Governança [PT]
- Introdução
Alchemy é um protocolo de tesouraria de Bitcoin nativo de Cardano e uma camada de infraestrutura BTCfi proposta por Sundial Protocol e Charms. Seu objetivo é fornecer infraestrutura reutilizável para exposição estruturada lastreada em Bitcoin na Cardano, incluindo arquitetura compartilhada de reserva em BTC, ativos composáveis FIRE e ICE, dashboards públicos, adaptadores de integração, relatórios mensais e liquidez inicial em etapas.
A proposta solicita 10.000.000 ada, usando um valor de referência aproximado de USD 0,20 por ada, para um orçamento de planejamento de cerca de USD 2,0 milhões. O pedido é dividido em dois pools: aproximadamente USD 1,0 milhão para infraestrutura de protocolo e liquidez inicial apoiada pelo Tesouro, e aproximadamente USD 1,0 milhão para entrega, auditoria, integrações, dashboards, relatórios de governança, trabalho jurídico/compliance e execução go-to-market.
A proposta inclui separação de fundos, implantação de liquidez em etapas, relatórios públicos, alocação para auditoria, proteção de preço do ADA, regras de pausa, condições de reembolso e uma cláusula de rollover caso investimento externo financie o desenvolvimento da Alchemy. A Intersect é proposta como administradora interina dos fundos, sujeita a confirmação e acordo final.
- Análise da Ação de Governança
Aspectos positivos
Conceitualmente, a proposta é interessante. Há um cuidado claro em demonstrar a importância estratégica de uma camada BTCfi para Cardano, e a proposta apresenta uma narrativa razoável sobre a oportunidade de atrair liquidez relacionada a Bitcoin para o ecossistema. Os exemplos de produtos semelhantes em outros ecossistemas, com TVL e volumes significativos, ajudam a indicar que existe uma categoria de mercado real e potencialmente relevante.
Também é positivo que a proposta tente estruturar mecanismos de retorno ao Tesouro, especialmente ao prever que lucros, yield ou retornos gerados pela posição de liquidez apoiada pelo Treasury sejam devolvidos ao próprio Tesouro.
Aspectos negativos
Esses pontos positivos não são suficientes para justificar a aprovação de uma retirada de 10.000.000 ADA. O principal problema é que os números apresentados sobre mercados e protocolos comparáveis parecem servir mais para sustentar uma narrativa de oportunidade do que para estabelecer compromissos objetivos de sucesso. A proposta menciona TVL, volume e demanda em outros contextos, mas não transforma essa tese em KPIs próprios, com metas e prazos claros para Alchemy em Cardano.
Faltam alvos objetivos de adoção, liquidez orgânica, integrações, usuários, volume, receita, retorno ao Treasury ou impacto mensurável no ecossistema.
A granularidade do orçamento também é insuficiente para um pedido dessa escala. Embora existam categorias gerais de alocação, a proposta não apresenta detalhamento adequado de FTEs, taxas, número de profissionais, senioridade, carga horária, escopo por função ou composição granular dos custos. Isso dificulta uma avaliação adequada de custo-benefício, especialmente em um pedido que combina desenvolvimento, auditoria, integrações, go-to-market e estruturação financeira.
Outro ponto relevante é a possível sobreposição com outras iniciativas. Já existem outros projetos, propostas e times desenvolvendo, ou buscando desenvolver, adaptações de Bitcoin, Bitcoin DeFi ou infraestrutura relacionada a Bitcoin dentro do ecossistema Cardano. Por isso, seria importante que a proposta apresentasse com mais clareza seus diferenciais em relação a essas iniciativas, especialmente quando há pedidos de funding ao Tesouro para frentes que podem ter algum grau de sobreposição.
Sem uma comparação mais explícita, permanece incerto se o Tesouro estaria financiando uma infraestrutura realmente complementar ou se estaria custeando múltiplas iniciativas com escopos parcialmente redundantes. Uma explicação mais clara sobre posicionamento, complementaridade, diferenciais técnicos e limites de sobreposição ajudaria a avaliar melhor a necessidade e a proporcionalidade deste pedido.
Riscos e preocupações
Há uma preocupação mais ampla com o uso do Tesouro como provedor de liquidez. A proposta tenta mitigar esse ponto ao prever retorno de lucros ao Treasury, mas ainda assim desloca para o Tesouro um papel de risco que, em condições normais, deveria ser assumido por investidores privados, veículos especializados ou mecanismos desenhados especificamente para esse tipo de alocação.
O uso recorrente do Treasury como fonte de liquidez inicial para produtos financeiros específicos pode criar incentivos artificiais, distorcer mercados e prejudicar o crescimento orgânico do ecossistema.
Se a tese de mercado é tão promissora quanto a proposta sugere, é razoável esperar interesse de capital privado ou de veículos mais apropriados para esse tipo de risco, como fundos ou ecosystem investment vehicles voltados a oportunidades comerciais e de liquidez. O Treasury de Cardano não deve ser tratado automaticamente como o financiador de primeira instância para projetos promissores, especialmente quando o benefício público depende de adoção futura ainda não demonstrada.
- Voto e Justificativa
Voto: NÃO.
A proposta apresenta uma ideia relevante e uma narrativa estratégica interessante, mas não oferece KPIs de impacto suficientes, não apresenta granularidade orçamentária adequada, coloca o Tesouro em uma posição de provedor de liquidez e tomador de risco para um produto financeiro específico, e não esclarece suficientemente sua diferenciação frente a outras iniciativas relacionadas a Bitcoin em Cardano.
Condições ou sinais que poderiam alterar o voto: Unknown.
- Conclusão
Os pontos decisivos são a ausência de KPIs de impacto suficientes, a granularidade orçamentária inadequada, o uso do Tesouro como provedor de liquidez e tomador de risco para um produto financeiro específico, e a falta de esclarecimento suficiente sobre diferenciação frente a outras iniciativas relacionadas a Bitcoin em Cardano.
- No296.4K ₳Rationale
We should be planning to build around Bifrost
- No293.4K ₳No rationale
- No270.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on “Alchemy by Sundial x Charms Cardano-Native Bitcoin Treasury Protocol.” The proposal identifies a real strategic gap: Cardano currently lacks a credible BTCfi infrastructure layer, and Bitcoin-backed liquidity and structured exposure are increasingly consolidating on other ecosystems. The proposed architecture is also thoughtful on paper, with reserve mechanics, public reporting, integration goals, staged deployment, and explicit attempts to separate development spend from treasury-supported launch liquidity.
However, this request is too large, too structurally complex, and too dependent on an external upstream stack for me to support in its current form. Alchemy depends materially on the Charms / BitcoinOS interoperability layer, which appears promising but is still comparatively early and outside Cardano’s direct control, so a slowdown or failure there would materially affect the feasibility and maintainability of the proposed roadmap.
I am also not convinced this is best treated as a standard treasury-withdrawal public good. FIRE and ICE function much more like treasury-seeded, Bitcoin-backed structured exposure products than simple neutral infrastructure, and part of the request is effectively a launch-liquidity position expected to produce returns for the treasury. In my view, proposals of this kind belong under a clearer active treasury framework with defined portfolio rules, dependency standards, and long-term operating-cost transparency, including who maintains and funds the reporting/dashboard layer after launch. For those reasons, I am voting NO.
- No260.4K ₳Rationale
Rationale (NO):
High Capital Concentration. Allocating 20M ₳ to a single intermediary entity dilutes direct governance oversight and creates unnecessary centralization of treasury funds.
Large-scale commercial funding should be restricted under current market conditions to prioritize vital core network infrastructure. - No245.3K ₳Rationale
There is no information regarding FTE breakdowns. How many months will the work span? At what pay rate? For how many employees? Under which titles? $250k for "infrastructure" is a huge bill - what does this include? Are central servers being purchased? Where will they be hosted?
There is also no guarantee that TVL reaches $60M; liquidity remains valuable; profits exceed opportunity cost; or principal is ever returned.
I'd say build the product and prove it works, then come back and ask for investment. It's unproven tech, and importantly it's a Bitcoin L2 like Ordinals or Runes, so it must prove itself first. - Yes230.5K ₳No rationale
- No216K ₳No rationale
- No196.3K ₳No rationale
- No191.3K ₳No rationale
- No180.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes167.8K ₳No rationale
- No163.1K ₳No rationale
- No157.5K ₳Rationale
Based on my criteria filter below I do like the proposal, however the scale is too big for the current macro conditions (Reverse Yen Carry Trade is here and BTC is about to dump). Lets try again next year.
- Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
- Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
- Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
- Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.
- No142.6K ₳No rationale
- No137.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain132K ₳No rationale
- No124K ₳No rationale
- No92.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain73K ₳No rationale
- No65.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain56K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain26.7K ₳Rationale
Not going to pass, abstain.
- No24.4K ₳No rationale
- No16.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- No1.6K ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale