Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)
158 DReps voted · 57 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain10.4M ₳Rationale
The proposal needs improvement but if any team succeeds at this, it is Fluid
- Abstain8.6M ₳Rationale
本提案が目指すBitcoin DeFiの実現やCardanoへの流動性導入という方向性には価値があると考えます。また、チームのこれまでの実績や技術的な取り組みも評価しています。一方で、約₳12.3MというTreasury支出については、現時点では期待される成果と投資規模のバランスについて十分な確信を持つには至りませんでした。そのため、本提案には賛成・反対のいずれともせず、棄権します。\n\nI recognize the value of this proposal's goal of bringing Bitcoin DeFi and liquidity to Cardano, and I appreciate the team's track record and technical work. However, I have not yet reached a sufficient level of confidence regarding the balance between the expected outcomes and the scale of the approximately ₳12.3M Treasury withdrawal. Therefore, I abstain on this proposal.
- YesChanged7.4M ₳Rationale
Upgraded my Voting Framework to Version 13 and my vote changes to Yes
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v13 – Three-Layer Capital Allocation, Portfolio Discipline, Execution Reality & Decision-Reliability Edition. Printed URL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xzw9cgxXDivdk4V-iqykKdHC98ExAzNstF3h4uYlwgU/edit?usp=sharing. The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
Vote: Yes. I classify Bifrost as protected strategic infrastructure and a hybrid public-good proposal, not as marketing. I would vote Yes because Cardano needs credible BTC rails, and this ask buys audited, open, controlled-access mainnet infrastructure rather than a private token venture. The team has real evidence behind it: a public Bifrost repository, a live Fund 14 Catalyst project, and clear Phase 1 deliverables for audits, formal verification, private mainnet, escrow, oversight, and refund mechanics. Project Catalyst still shows only 2 of 6 Bifrost milestones complete, so this is not low risk. The technical design also depends on broad SPO participation, and the docs say Bifrost optimizes security over speed, with operations that may take one or more Cardano epochs. That limits retail use and makes adoption risk real. Still, the proposal clears my large-proposal threshold because it has strong public value, no Bifrost token, no founder allocation, public reporting, independent oversight, open-source intent, a staged launch, and a credible path for fee surplus to flow back to the Cardano Treasury. I would not support a weaker version of this ask, but this structure earns a Yes.
Category Max Score Assessment Public value, additionality, timing, and counterfactual harm 12 11 Strong. BTC liquidity is a strategic gap for Cardano, and Bifrost addresses a real infrastructure bottleneck. Team quality, traction, adaptive execution, and founder-market fit 7 6 Strong. FluidTokens has a live Cardano-Bitcoin DeFi footprint, and Lantr has public Scalus delivery evidence. 10x improvement, innovation quality, and asymmetric upside 6 5 Strong but not fully proven. SPO-secured BTC custody is a high-upside design, but adoption and liveness remain unproven at scale. Price versus value and ADA volatility discipline 7 5 Acceptable. The budget is detailed, but the ask is large and the fixed ADA amount creates exchange-rate risk. Applicant integrity, conflicts, prior delivery, and outcomes record 8 7 Good. Prior funding is disclosed, and public Catalyst data confirms the Bifrost Fund 14 grant is still in progress. Public asset, open-source, verifiability, data rights, and continuity 11 10 Strong. The proposal commits to open infrastructure, public reporting, public transaction evidence, and an independent stewardship path. Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 12 9 Good, but not perfect. The fee-surplus return to Treasury is valuable, but still provisional and downstream of adoption, reserves, and Phase 2. Milestones, independent verification, anti-gaming, and enforceability 12 11 Very strong. Escrow, outside board review, audit reports, transaction hashes, public milestone evidence, and sweep-back mechanics reduce downside. Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 9 8 Strong. Audits, formal verification, bug bounty, controlled access, and staged launch help, but bridge risk can never be treated as low. Sustainability, exit plan, and operator reality 8 6 Adequate. The sustainability model is plausible, but it depends on later Phase 2 funding, SPO participation, and BTC holder demand. Portfolio exposure, opportunity cost, competitive neutrality, and decentralization delta 6 5 Good. The proposal is expensive, but it avoids a private tollbooth and is more neutral than funding one dApp’s private expansion. Ecosystem coordination quality 2 2 Strong. The proposal coordinates FluidTokens, Lantr, SPOs, dApps, technical reviewers, and an oversight board. Base score 100 85 Clears my large-proposal threshold. Ecosystem coordination premium +5 +2 Earned for real multi-actor coordination and shared infrastructure. DRep conviction adjustment -5 to +5 -1 Deducted for high execution risk, unfinished Catalyst milestones, and adoption uncertainty. Final score 100 86 Passes for a large protected-infrastructure proposal. Score reliability — Medium-high Enough information exists for a Yes/No vote. The main uncertainty is execution and adoption, not disclosure failure. Actual vote — Yes The proposal is expensive and risky, but the public asset, security discipline, and strategic upside justify the allocation. Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded
Changing my vote from Yes to NO, due to a change in my voting methodology
Revised v12 rationale — Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v12 – Three-Layer Capital Allocation, Portfolio Discipline & Execution Reality Edition (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fM7Q4MnqlJ-kOx8rYINiakPxnI-ueh-eC-5QLNSG1QI/edit?usp=sharing). The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
Vote: No. Final score: 78 / 100. I previously supported this proposal under my v11 framework, but I am changing my vote under v12 because v12 removes the “conditional support” category and forces the final decision into Yes, No, or Abstain. That matters here. Bifrost is a serious proposal with real strategic value. Cardano needs credible Bitcoin liquidity rails, the bridge is already live on testnet, and the active Catalyst grant appears to be on track rather than delayed: the proposal lists M1 and M2 as approved, M3 as submitted, M4 and M5 as on track, and final end-to-end reporting for August 2026; the public Catalyst page also shows the project as in progress with the final milestone due in August 2026. (Project Catalyst) The team has relevant delivery history, and the proposal has strong public-infrastructure features: no Bifrost token, no founder allocation, Apache 2 open-source commitments, public reporting, independent oversight, milestone escrow, audits, formal verification, and a private mainnet proof step before public launch. But v12 is stricter on very large hybrid and protected-infrastructure requests. This proposal asks for ₳12,332,031 for Phase 1 only; it funds audited mainnet readiness, stewardship setup, and economic-model hardening, while public launch and 24 months of operations are left to a separate Phase 2 request. The future Treasury return is promising, but still not strong enough for this size: the surplus fBTC split is indicative, reserve-dependent, governance-adjustable, and likely delayed until after Phase 2 adoption and self-sustainability. The operator risk also remains material because Bifrost depends on broad SPO participation, real BTC custody operations, incident response, dApp demand, and Bitcoin-holder trust; the whitepaper itself says Bifrost is built for security and availability, not speed or low-cost retail use, and that most top SPOs by delegation must participate for a strong bridge. Under v11 I could say “Yes, with strict milestone enforcement.” Under v12, that becomes a No unless the proposal already clears the higher bar. I would reconsider a resubmission or later phase with binding Treasury revenue rights, finalized stewardship, stronger SPO and dApp commitments, clearer enforceability of public-asset control, and lower upfront exposure. This is a good project, but v12 says a good project can still be the wrong Treasury allocation at this size.
Why my vote changed from the earlier v11 assessment
Under v11, I scored this as Support / conditional support — 82 / 100 because the proposal had a strong strategic thesis, a serious team, credible public-infrastructure design, and meaningful downside controls. v11 still allowed “conditional support” as a public stance. v12 removes that escape hatch. It says conditional support is not an on-chain vote, and that a proposal that would only deserve support after changes should map to No, not Yes.
v12 also raises the bar for very large proposals. It expects a 90+ score for very large requests, plus exceptional public asset or upside, very strong enforceability, low upfront exposure, and a clear opportunity-cost case. It also sets hard minimums for Treasury upside, sustainability/operator reality, portfolio exposure, and enforceability. Bifrost scores well on public value, technical ambition, team quality, public-asset posture, and milestone design, but it does not clear the v12 bar on enforceable Treasury upside and operator reality for this amount.
Full scoring table
v12 category Max Score Assessment Public value, additionality, market timing, and counterfactual harm 12 11 Strong. Cardano has a real BTC liquidity gap, and Bifrost targets a strategically important missing rail. Team quality, traction, adaptive execution, and founder-market fit 7 7 Strong. FluidTokens and Lantr have relevant Cardano and Bitcoin experience. The active Catalyst grant appears on track, not delayed. 10x improvement, innovation quality, and asymmetric upside 6 5 Strong upside. SPO-secured BTC custody is differentiated and could matter if it works at scale. It remains unproven in production. Price versus value and ADA volatility discipline 7 5 The budget is clear, security-heavy, and uses a conservative ADA reference rate. Still, ₳12.33M is very large for a phase that does not include public launch or operations. Applicant integrity, conflicts, prior delivery, and outcomes record 8 7 Good disclosure and credible delivery record. I no longer penalize the open Catalyst grant because it appears to be following its planned August 2026 delivery window. Public asset, open-source, verifiability, data rights, and continuity 11 9 Strong. No token, no founder allocation, open-source commitments, SDK, audit artifacts, public reporting, and stewardship intent all help. The stewardship structure is still not established at vote time. Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 12 7 Promising but not sufficient for this size. The fBTC surplus model could return value, but the split is provisional, reserve-dependent, governance-adjustable, and delayed until adoption and self-sustainability. Milestones, independent verification, anti-gaming, and enforceability 12 10 Strong. The proposal uses staged milestones, audits, formal verification, public evidence, escrow, oversight, and transaction journaling. Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 9 6 Adequate but not exceptional. Bridge risk, custody risk, SPO coordination risk, market risk, and adoption risk remain high even with audits and staged rollout. Sustainability, exit plan, and operator reality 8 5 Weak for v12. The long-term model depends on Phase 2, public launch, reserves, real BTC inflow, SPO participation, and sustained operations. This misses the v12 hard minimum. Portfolio exposure, opportunity cost, competitive neutrality, and decentralization delta 6 4 Borderline. The proposal is neutral-access infrastructure, but it is also a large allocation to one bridge path and one delivery grouping. Ecosystem coordination quality 2 1 Some real coordination exists with FluidTokens, Lantr, SPO testnet participants, and interested dApps. Most outside participation is still not binding. Base score 100 77 Strong project, but below the v12 threshold for a very large request. Ecosystem Coordination Premium +5 cap +1 Useful coordination, but not enough binding external commitment to justify a larger premium. DRep Conviction Adjustment -5 to +5 0 I do not add positive conviction because the size, Phase 2 dependency, and Treasury-return uncertainty remain material. Final score 100 78 No under v12. Hard-minimum result Public value: pass. Applicant integrity: pass. Public asset: pass. Milestones: pass. Risk: pass. Treasury upside: borderline/fail for this size. Sustainability/operator reality: fail. Very-large threshold: fail. Actual vote No. Under v12, this is not a conditional Yes. It is a No unless the binding structure improves. Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Voting YES, new vote based on my v11 framework
Vote stance: Support / conditional support — 82/100
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v11 – v11 Intelligent Risk, Protected Infrastructure & Ecosystem Coordination Edition (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NzqqbqteMl_ZLta3_p-05nZfyyNvsuptCPzTZIsW1lc/edit?usp=sharing). The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
I vote yes, with strict milestone enforcement. This is a large ask, but it funds hardening, audits, formal verification, private mainnet deployment, and stewardship setup for a BTC-to-Cardano bridge, not a token launch or generic marketing campaign. The proposal asks ₳12,332,031 and leaves public launch plus 24 months of operations for Phase 2. The strongest case is that Bifrost is designed as shared public infrastructure: no bridge token, no founder allocation, Apache-licensed outputs, public reporting, independent stewardship, milestone escrow, external review, and a fee model that can return surplus fBTC to the Cardano Treasury. The team has real evidence: FluidTokens has live DeFi products, Lantr has a clean Catalyst completion record, and Bifrost is already funded and running through Catalyst, although that grant is not fully complete yet. The risk remains serious. Bridges have caused very large crypto losses, Bifrost needs strong SPO participation, and its own technical documentation says normal operations are built for large liquidity movement rather than fast retail use. I still support it because Cardano has a real BTC-liquidity gap, the budget is heavily weighted toward security and launch readiness, and the upside is ecosystem-wide rather than captured by a Bifrost token. My support would become no if the published audits, open-source licensing and fork rights, escrow controls, stewardship charter, or binding Treasury fee-return terms are weakened before later disbursement or Phase 2.
Full scoring table
Category Weight Score Assessment Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap, and market timing 12 10 Cardano lacks a credible BTC rail. A secure BTC bridge could add liquidity, users, and DeFi utility. Phase 1 is not public launch, so I do not give full marks. Team quality, traction, and adaptive execution 7 6 FluidTokens and Lantr have shipped real Cardano work. Lantr’s Catalyst record is strong. Bifrost has testnet progress, but its current Catalyst grant is not yet complete. Price versus value 6 4 The request is large. The audit and security-heavy budget is defensible, but Phase 1 alone does not deliver public rollout or 24 months of operations. Applicant integrity and past delivery 8 6 Prior funding and roles are disclosed. The team has credible delivery history. I reduce the score because active Catalyst obligations remain open. Public asset, open-source, verifiability, and data rights 12 10 No token, no founder allocation, Apache-licensed outputs, public reporting, SDKs, and audit artifacts create strong public value. Final fork rights and maintenance duties must be explicit in the legal and milestone terms. Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 14 9 The fee-surplus return to Treasury is a meaningful upside path, and the public asset is valuable. The score is capped because the economic return is not yet fully proven, depends on Phase 2 adoption, and should be made binding. Milestones, verification, and anti-gaming design 13 11 Milestones are concrete. Escrow, oversight board controls, technical reviews, audit reports, and public reporting improve downside control. Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 12 9 The proposal names major bridge, custody, audit, and launch risks. The private-mainnet approach, bug bounty, and TVL caps help. Bridge risk remains critical. Sustainability and exit plan 8 6 The stewardship and fee model are credible, but long-term sustainability depends on Phase 2, real BTC inflow, SPO participation, and partner adoption. Strategic opportunity cost, competitive neutrality, and ecosystem coordination 8 7 This is shared infrastructure rather than a private token play. FluidTokens, Lantr, SPOs, and dApp integrations create real coordination value. The Treasury must still avoid simply subsidizing one bridge team unless neutral access remains strong. Base score 100 78 Strong enough to pass, but not without conditions. Ecosystem coordination premium +5 cap +3 Real coordination exists across two builders, SPOs, and prospective integrations. I do not give +4 or +5 because most external adoption commitments still need proof. DRep conviction adjustment ±5 +1 The strategic category matters. Cardano should not miss BTC liquidity if the public-asset and safety controls hold. Final score 100 82 Support / conditional support. Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Voting YES, but please note that for Phase 2 I want to see a clear Treasury fee-share model
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v9 – Intelligent Risk Edition. The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
Bifrost is a strong strategic proposal. Cardano needs credible Bitcoin rails, and this team has moved beyond theory: the bridge is live on testnet, the Catalyst-funded work appears broadly on schedule, and Phase 1 has a clear purpose: hardening, audits, formal verification, stewardship setup, and private mainnet readiness. I do not treat the unfinished Catalyst timeline as a reason to vote no, because it is still inside the stated delivery window. The main weakness is different: this is still a large Phase 1 ask before public launch, and the long-term Treasury return depends on a Phase 2 operating model that is not yet final or binding. I would vote conditional support. The conditions should be strict: milestone escrow, published audits, capped private-mainnet BTC exposure, public proof-of-reserves, binding stewardship terms, and a clear Treasury fee-share model before Phase 2. This is worth funding if Cardano wants to compete for Bitcoin liquidity, but it should not receive blank-cheque treatment.
Scorecard category Max Score Rationale Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap, and market timing 12 11 BTC liquidity is a real Cardano gap. Bifrost targets a large market and gives Cardano reusable infrastructure, not a narrow app feature. Team quality, traction, and adaptive execution 7 6.5 FluidTokens and Lantr have relevant Cardano and Bitcoin experience. Catalyst progress should count as active delivery evidence, not as a penalty. Price versus value 6 4 The ₳12.33M ask is large, and it funds Phase 1 only. The security and audit budget is defensible, but the Treasury still needs strong controls. Applicant integrity and past delivery 8 7 Prior funding is disclosed. The team has live products and Catalyst delivery history. No major integrity issue appears from the materials reviewed. Public asset, open-source, and data rights 12 10 Strong public-infrastructure posture: no bridge token, no founder allocation, Apache 2 open source, public reporting, and independent stewardship planned. Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 14 9 The public asset is meaningful. The proposed surplus return to the Treasury is promising, but the economic return should be made binding before Phase 2. Milestones, verification, and anti-gaming design 13 12 Phase 1 has defined milestones, audit gates, private-mainnet proof, escrow administration, and oversight. This is one of the stronger parts of the proposal. Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 12 9 The team names bridge, custody, audit, and delivery risks. The main residual risk is that SPO-scale custody is complex and must prove itself under controlled exposure. Sustainability and exit plan 8 6 The fee-funded model is plausible, but it depends on Phase 2 adoption and reserve build-up. Treasury returns may not start until later. Strategic opportunity cost and competitive neutrality 8 6 Funding one bridge team gives it a major lead, but open-source licensing, no token, no founder allocation, and independent stewardship reduce the winner-picking concern. Base score 100 80.5 DRep conviction adjustment ±5 +2.5 The opportunity is large, the team is credible, and the proposal is staged well enough to justify controlled risk. Final score 100 83 Minimum thresholds passed? Yes, conditionally The public-asset return is strong enough for Phase 1, but the economic return must be hardened before Phase 2. Automatic no/revise issue? No The Catalyst timeline should be abstracted because it is broadly on track and inside the expected delivery window. Vote stance Conditional support Support Phase 1 with strict milestone gates, audit publication, controlled BTC exposure, and binding stewardship / Treasury-return terms before public launch. - Yes7.2M ₳No rationale
- No5.9M ₳Rationale
dOSPO/OMF: Still abstain.
ALPHAGROWTH: YES. I support this proposal because growing Cardano's DeFi ecosystem, liquidity, and competitiveness is a strategic priority. While I would have preferred stronger attribution and performance metrics upfront, I believe the proposal contains sufficient milestone-based funding, reporting, and governance oversight to justify support. On balance, the opportunity cost of delaying a coordinated growth initiative outweighs the remaining execution risk.
Bifrost: NO. While I support Bitcoin interoperability as a concept, I am not convinced this proposal sufficiently demonstrates the value it will create for Cardano relative to its cost. This is the first phase of a multi-phase initiative that explicitly anticipates a future Treasury proposal for launch and operations, yet the proposal primarily relies on the expectation that Bitcoin liquidity and activity will naturally translate into meaningful value for Cardano. I would have preferred stronger evidence that this infrastructure is likely to drive measurable adoption, on-chain economic activity, and sustainable benefit to the ecosystem before committing Treasury funding to a longer-term roadmap.
Version 12 von Bergen: ABSTAIN, however know that this is starting to get a bit morbid.
Cardano Enterprise Ticketing: ABSTAIN. I support enterprise adoption as a strategic priority for Cardano, and I believe this proposal represents a legitimate opportunity. However, I remain divided on whether this is the right path for funding initiatives of this nature. I would have preferred to see enterprise opportunities evaluated through a dedicated catalyst or accelerator-style program rather than as standalone Treasury withdrawals. Given that uncertainty—and the broader community's differing views on the appropriate funding model—I am abstaining.
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged5.4M ₳Rationale
Reviewed, yes.
Earlier votes
Abstain28d agoSuperseded
Reviewing git - will come back to this.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
Since the Pogun proposal (which included a direct return to the Cardano treasury) was rejected, I see no reason to support other initiatives that do not generate revenue for the treasury.
Although this proposal comes from one of the most respected teams in the ecosystem, it follows the usual pattern: it highlights the potential benefits of a large BTC liquidity injection, but fails to clearly explain how it will attract users in the competitive Bitcoin DeFi space.
Cardano is not the only player in this area. Also many Cardano teams are currently competing for the same opportunities. Without a concrete and differentiated plan to stand out from the competition, I cannot justify supporting this proposal. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)" (gov_action1mlv...ms7jwt), pois entendemos que a proposta busca desenvolver uma infraestrutura estratégica para conectar a liquidez do Bitcoin ao ecossistema DeFi da Cardano, criando condições para ampliar o valor total bloqueado (TVL), atrair novos usuários, aumentar a atividade on-chain e expandir as oportunidades para aplicações descentralizadas e operadores de stake pools (SPOs). Embora o valor solicitado, de ₳12.332.031, incluindo uma contingência reembolsável de 10%, seja significativo, avaliamos que o orçamento está detalhado e concentrado em atividades essenciais, como desenvolvimento, auditorias, verificação formal e preparação para a implantação em mainnet. Consideramos que a relação entre custo e benefício é justificável diante da complexidade técnica e do potencial impacto da iniciativa para o ecossistema. Também avaliamos positivamente os mecanismos de governança, controle e transparência previstos na proposta, incluindo liberação de recursos condicionada ao cumprimento de marcos, utilização de contratos de escrow, supervisão por um conselho independente, auditorias técnicas e financeiras, relatórios públicos periódicos e registro transparente das movimentações. Esses mecanismos reforçam a responsabilidade na utilização dos recursos da Tesouraria e permitem o acompanhamento contínuo da execução do projeto pela comunidade.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)" (gov_action1mlv...ms7jwt), because we believe the proposal aims to build strategic infrastructure that connects Bitcoin liquidity to Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem, creating opportunities to increase total value locked (TVL), attract new users, expand on-chain activity, and strengthen the ecosystem for decentralized applications and stake pool operators (SPOs). Although the requested ₳12,332,031, including a 10% refundable contingency, is substantial, we believe the budget is well structured and focused on essential activities such as software development, security audits, formal verification, and preparation for mainnet deployment. In our view, the proposal presents a reasonable cost-benefit balance given its technical complexity and potential long-term impact on the Cardano ecosystem. We also view the proposal’s governance, oversight, and transparency mechanisms positively. These include milestone-based fund releases, escrow-based Treasury management, oversight by an independent council, technical and financial audits, regular public reporting, and transparent disclosure of financial transactions. Together, these measures strengthen accountability and enable the community to effectively monitor project execution and the responsible use of Treasury resources. - Yes3.1M ₳Rationale
This actually seems to be a very useful and valuable solution for bringing Bitcoin to Cardano. For this proposal specifically, I'm willing to go a bit past my goal NCL of 100 Million ADA to hopefully get it passed.
The key points that sell me - FluidTokens is working on this as a team member, and I know they can pull this off successfully. Also, there is no intermediary token, this will be community bridge architecture with no middle man, and it will be open sourced.
This is 1000X better than the POGUN proposal, let's get it done!
- Abstain2.8M ₳Rationale
First and foremost - I am a big fan of the FluidTokens team. I think they are one of the most highly capable teams on Cardano.
With that said, I am on the fence for this proposal. On one hand, I truly trust this team and know the value successful BTC DeFi could bring to Cardano, especially non-custodial and open-source. On another hand, this proposal has some items I will outline in the following that are preventing me from voting yes.
Catalyst proposal isn't even half way closed out. This is with an extension. I won't say we missed the BTC liquidity market opportunity, but this product is no where near launching, making me think that the opportunity will pass us by while we are still building. https://milestones.projectcatalyst.io/projects/1400012
Pricing - This is round 2 of 3 for paying for this bridge. I am not saying the costs aren't justified but I don't think it's been made clear til now that this would take 3 funding rounds for rollout. Also pegged at .16 ADA, which i feel is very low. This funding won't even directly equate to a full launch, and also pushes out launch to next year. Seeing as I feel we are already behind, I feel like we are chasing the tail a bit here with blind hope.
FTE Rates - $210k per FTE is a bit over the top IMO. As someone currently running a Cardano development company, I would be more confident with rates closer to the $150k range or even lower.
I will be voting ABSTAIN on this one given my rationale. Open to change either way.
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに反対します。
BifrostがBitcoin流動性をCardano DeFiへ接続する重要な方向性を持つことは評価します。しかし、BifrostはCatalyst Fund 14で採択された前段階のプロジェクトがまだ完了しておらず、6 milestones中2つが完了した段階です。特に、full end-to-end executionと最終報告が未完了のまま、12,332,031 ADAの大型Treasury Withdrawalへ進むことには慎重であるべきだと考えます。
また、SPO threshold custody、FROST/Taproot運用、federated fallback、Watchtower、BTC custody livenessは、まだpublic mainnetで十分な実運用実績を示した段階ではありません。
まずはCatalyst Fund 14の成果完了、end-to-end実証、監査前提、SPO coordination、fallback設計を明確に公開したうえで、より成熟した形での再提出を望みます。
I vote No on this Treasury Withdrawal.
I recognize the strategic value of connecting Bitcoin liquidity to Cardano DeFi. However, Bifrost’s previous Catalyst Fund 14 project has not yet been completed. At this stage, only 2 of 6 milestones have been completed, and the full end-to-end execution and final reporting are still unfinished. I believe it is premature to move to a large 12,332,031 ADA Treasury Withdrawal before the previous funded work has been fully delivered and reviewed.
I also believe that the core operational model, including SPO threshold custody, FROST/Taproot operations, federated fallback, Watchtowers, and BTC custody liveness, has not yet demonstrated sufficient public mainnet operating history.
Before reconsidering this proposal, I would like to see the Catalyst Fund 14 work completed, including end-to-end execution, clear audit assumptions, SPO coordination, and fallback design. A more mature resubmission after these are publicly demonstrated would be more appropriate.
Earlier votes
No17d agoSuperseded
私は、本Treasury Withdrawalに賛成します。
Blockfrostは、Cardanoの開発者、ウォレット、dApp、取引所、ガバナンスツールにとって重要なアクセスレイヤーです。私は、その知的財産と運営をコミュニティ統治の非営利組織へ移管し、公開報告、マイルストーン管理、Icebreakersによる分散運用を進める本提案を支持します。
一方で、多くのエポックでCardanoトランザクションの50％以上がBlockfrost経由とされる状況は、その重要性と同時に集中リスクも示しています。CardanoにはKoios、Ogmios/Kupo、Dolos、UTxO RPC、Oura、Maestro、自前ノード運用など複数の選択肢があり、Blockfrost支援は、それらに代わるものではなく、インフラ多様化戦略の一部であるべきです。
本提案は、重要なインフラを維持し、コミュニティ管理と分散運用へ移行するための現実的な橋渡しになると考えます。今後も代替プロバイダー、オープンスタンダード、自前運用を支援し、単一のアクセス経路への依存を減らすことを期待します。
以上の理由から、私は本提案に賛成票を投じます。
I vote YES on this Treasury Withdrawal.
Blockfrost is an important access layer for Cardano developers, wallets, dApps, exchanges, and governance tools. I support this proposal to transfer its intellectual property and operations to a community-governed nonprofit organization, with public reporting, milestone-based oversight, and further decentralization through Icebreakers.
At the same time, the claim that more than 50% of Cardano transactions have been submitted through Blockfrost in many epochs also shows a concentration risk. Cardano already has other access-layer options, including Koios, Ogmios/Kupo, Dolos, UTxO RPC, Oura, Maestro, and self-hosted nodes. Supporting Blockfrost should therefore be part of a broader infrastructure-diversity strategy, not a replacement for these alternatives.
I believe this proposal offers a practical bridge to preserve important infrastructure while moving it toward community control and more decentralized operation. I also expect continued support for alternative providers, open standards, and self-hosted solutions to reduce dependence on any single access point.
For these reasons, I vote YES.
Yes18d agoSuperseded
私は、本Treasury Withdrawalに賛成します。
Blockfrostは、Cardanoの開発者、ウォレット、dApp、取引所、ガバナンスツールにとって重要なアクセスレイヤーです。私は、その知的財産と運営をコミュニティ統治の非営利組織へ移管し、公開報告、マイルストーン管理、Icebreakersによる分散運用を進める本提案を支持します。
一方で、多くのエポックでCardanoトランザクションの50％以上がBlockfrost経由とされる状況は、その重要性と同時に集中リスクも示しています。CardanoにはKoios、Ogmios/Kupo、Dolos、UTxO RPC、Oura、Maestro、自前ノード運用など複数の選択肢があり、Blockfrost支援は、それらに代わるものではなく、インフラ多様化戦略の一部であるべきです。
本提案は、重要なインフラを維持し、コミュニティ管理と分散運用へ移行するための現実的な橋渡しになると考えます。今後も代替プロバイダー、オープンスタンダード、自前運用を支援し、単一のアクセス経路への依存を減らすことを期待します。
以上の理由から、私は本提案に賛成票を投じます。
I vote YES on this Treasury Withdrawal.
Blockfrost is an important access layer for Cardano developers, wallets, dApps, exchanges, and governance tools. I support this proposal to transfer its intellectual property and operations to a community-governed nonprofit organization, with public reporting, milestone-based oversight, and further decentralization through Icebreakers.
At the same time, the claim that more than 50% of Cardano transactions have been submitted through Blockfrost in many epochs also shows a concentration risk. Cardano already has other access-layer options, including Koios, Ogmios/Kupo, Dolos, UTxO RPC, Oura, Maestro, and self-hosted nodes. Supporting Blockfrost should therefore be part of a broader infrastructure-diversity strategy, not a replacement for these alternatives.
I believe this proposal offers a practical bridge to preserve important infrastructure while moving it toward community control and more decentralized operation. I also expect continued support for alternative providers, open standards, and self-hosted solutions to reduce dependence on any single access point.
For these reasons, I vote YES.
No29d agoSuperseded
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに反対します。
BifrostがBitcoin流動性をCardano DeFiへ接続する重要な方向性を持つことは評価します。しかし、BifrostはCatalyst Fund 14で採択された前段階のプロジェクトがまだ完了しておらず、6 milestones中2つが完了した段階です。特に、full end-to-end executionと最終報告が未完了のまま、12,332,031 ADAの大型Treasury Withdrawalへ進むことには慎重であるべきだと考えます。
また、SPO threshold custody、FROST/Taproot運用、federated fallback、Watchtower、BTC custody livenessは、まだpublic mainnetで十分な実運用実績を示した段階ではありません。
まずはCatalyst Fund 14の成果完了、end-to-end実証、監査前提、SPO coordination、fallback設計を明確に公開したうえで、より成熟した形での再提出を望みます。
I vote No on this Treasury Withdrawal.
I recognize the strategic value of connecting Bitcoin liquidity to Cardano DeFi. However, Bifrost’s previous Catalyst Fund 14 project has not yet been completed. At this stage, only 2 of 6 milestones have been completed, and the full end-to-end execution and final reporting are still unfinished. I believe it is premature to move to a large 12,332,031 ADA Treasury Withdrawal before the previous funded work has been fully delivered and reviewed.
I also believe that the core operational model, including SPO threshold custody, FROST/Taproot operations, federated fallback, Watchtowers, and BTC custody liveness, has not yet demonstrated sufficient public mainnet operating history.
Before reconsidering this proposal, I would like to see the Catalyst Fund 14 work completed, including end-to-end execution, clear audit assumptions, SPO coordination, and fallback design. A more mature resubmission after these are publicly demonstrated would be more appropriate.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.5M ₳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.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
Bifrost addresses one of Cardano's most significant infrastructure gaps by creating an open, permissionless Bitcoin bridge designed to bring Bitcoin liquidity into the Cardano ecosystem. While the proposal is expensive and technically ambitious, it is focused on taking an existing testnet to an audited, controlled mainnet deployment rather than funding a speculative concept.
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet, Phase 1 of 2.
I want to be clear that this is not a rejection of Bifrost’s strategic importance or the teams involved. A secure, open and decentralised route for bringing Bitcoin liquidity into Cardano could provide substantial ecosystem-wide value. Bifrost is also more infrastructure-oriented and better structured than many speculative BTCfi or commercial growth proposals.
However, I cannot justify committing 12,332,031 ADA to Phase 1 in the present NCL environment.
Based on the withdrawals currently expected to enact, I anticipate approximately 14M ADA or less of NCL capacity remaining. Bifrost would therefore consume almost all remaining capacity, despite significant time remaining in the current NCL window. I have also already voted YES on Scalus, which requests approximately 2.5M ADA. Under these assumptions, both proposals cannot fit within the available capacity.
This turns the decision into a question of prioritisation rather than whether Bifrost has merit.
My principal concerns are:
- this withdrawal funds launch readiness rather than a publicly operational bridge;
- public rollout and longer-term operations would require a subsequent Phase 2;
- the existing Catalyst-funded Bifrost work should be completed and evaluated before committing substantially more Treasury funding;
- bridges present unusually serious technical, custody, liveness and economic-security risks;
- final stewardship, operational responsibility, Treasury benefit and complete Phase 1-plus-Phase 2 cost require greater certainty;
- approving this action would leave almost no capacity for unforeseen critical needs during the remainder of a long NCL window.
Bifrost may ultimately deserve Treasury support, but 12.33M ADA for the first phase of a two-phase programme is too large a commitment at this point in the cycle.
This decision also reinforces my broader position that Cardano needs NCL reform: shorter windows, pre-agreed budget buckets, clearer strategies for strong and weak ADA markets, and category-specific scrutiny. A proposal such as Bifrost should compete within a defined strategic-infrastructure or Bitcoin-liquidity allocation rather than consuming nearly all remaining capacity from one undifferentiated pot.
I would welcome a future resubmission after:
1 - the current Catalyst work is completed and independently reviewed;
2 - end-to-end operation has been demonstrated;
3 - the stewardship and security-responsibility model is finalised;
4 - Treasury fee or value-return arrangements are binding;
5 - SPO and ecosystem integration commitments are clearer;
6 - the full cost through public launch and sustained operation is disclosed; and
7 - Cardano has established a better NCL framework.Bifrost is strategically interesting, but I do not believe Phase 1 is the best use of virtually all remaining NCL capacity in this cycle.
For these reasons, I vote NO.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I would prefer to see the Bifrost Catalyst project completed first (or at least on the final milestone).
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.5M ₳Rationale
Bad timing, bridge risk, and a lack of overall confidence in the deliverable's impact are are a few of the reasons why this proposal does not justify funding.
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on "Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano - Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)". It is a promising open-source approach to bringing Bitcoin liquidity to Cardano, and its escrow, independent oversight, security work, and potential future Treasury return are meaningful strengths. However, I do not think 12,332,031 ADA should be committed before the Catalyst-funded testnet project is fully delivered, independently assessed, and clearly reconciled with this next scope. Phase 1 ends with a private deployment while public launch, operations, and a further funding request remain ahead, creating too much budget and delivery uncertainty under current Treasury pressure. I would prefer a dedicated Catalyst-style programme for high-risk strategic infrastructure and would reconsider Bifrost after final Catalyst evidence and a clearer full path to public operation.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
Another pitch about “unlocking Bitcoin.” Bifrost’s technology seems cleaner, staking-weighted SPO custody and native fBTC look good on paper. Still, we’ve seen this kind of story before: flashy claims, complicated bridge magic, and then either silence or failure. They’re asking for ₳12.33M right now, while Phase 2 costs are vaguely tossed into next year’s plans. That could lead to never-ending funding rounds if we’re not careful.
They talk about public infrastructure, but the real challenge is whether they can actually pull off audits, formal verification, and governance without missing deadlines or going over budget! SPOs holding BTC custody might sound good, but when you consider the off-chain coordination risks and fallback options, it adds layers of complexity that haven’t been fully solved yet.
I’m a bit skeptical but also pragmatic: this bridge could be a game-changer if they can lock down milestones and improve transparency for Phase 2 funding. So, yes, I’m cautiously optimistic. Cardano really needs this route to Bitcoin liquidity, but not at any price.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes988.7K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because Bifrost addresses one of the most important missing pieces in Cardano DeFi: a credible and secure path for Bitcoin liquidity to enter the Cardano ecosystem. Unlike more indirect BTCfi products, Bifrost is focused on building actual Bitcoin-to-Cardano infrastructure. If successful, fBTC can become a native Cardano asset that can be used across DEXs, lending markets, collateral systems, structured products and other DeFi applications. This would give Cardano direct access to the largest asset in crypto and could meaningfully improve TVL, liquidity, user acquisition and ecosystem relevance.
We also appreciate the phased approach. This proposal does not ask for a full public launch immediately, but focuses on hardening, audits, formal verification, SPO coordination, private mainnet deployment, SDKs, transparency tooling and long-term stewardship. Given the security risks of bridge infrastructure, this cautious path is appropriate. The project already has testnet traction, experienced teams, SPO participation and interest from relevant Cardano applications. While execution and security risks remain significant, we believe the strategic upside is important enough to support Phase 1. Cardano needs strong Bitcoin DeFi rails, and Bifrost is one of the most credible attempts to build them.
- Yes988.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes964.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes924.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes911.9K ₳No rationale
- No881.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes875.9K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2).
The strategic case is sound: Bitcoin liquidity is the largest addressable pool of capital in crypto, Cardano's eUTxO architecture and native-asset model are genuinely well suited to host it, and the ecosystem currently lacks a credible BTC rail. But strategic alignment alone would not earn my yes — what moved me is the combination of demonstrated delivery and grant construction.
On delivery: this is not a paper proposal. The bridge is live on testnet under an active Catalyst Fund 14 grant, with early milestones approved and the remainder on track. Both vendors are Cardano-native with verifiable track records — FluidTokens has shipped externally audited DeFi products on Cardano since 2022, and Lantr delivered its prior 2025 treasury workstream (Scalus) in full. Prior funding is disclosed per Article II §7.2.
On construction: this is among the best-administered treasury asks I have evaluated. Funds sit in the audited SundaeSwap treasury-contracts escrow with milestone-gated vesting, auto-abstain delegation, and an automatic sweep of unspent funds back to the Treasury. An independent oversight board (Blink Labs, Cardano Foundation, IOG members with no stake in the vendors) co-signs disbursements, and any single member can pause a milestone. Independent technical assurance and a financial audit are budgeted. The ask is priced at a $0.16/ADA reference rate that matches spot at the time of my vote, so the USD value of the request is what it claims to be. The budget allocation is appropriate to the risk profile of a bridge: roughly three-quarters flows to engineering and security, with over $550K committed to external audits, formal verification, penetration testing, and a bug bounty before any public exposure.
Finally, the phasing is a real control, not a framing device. Phase 1 ends at an audited private mainnet under controlled access; public launch and operations require a separate Phase 2 vote with on-chain proof in hand. DReps retain a genuine off-ramp.
Additional information about your vote:
My yes is conditional in spirit. I am recording the risks I expect the oversight board, the proposers, and the community to address before Phase 2:
The federated fallback mode is undefined. The proposal names it as a continuity layer but does not specify federation membership, activation triggers, or powers. This is the trust concentration point in an otherwise decentralized custody story. I expect full specification — including named signers — published before any mainnet BTC is locked, and I will treat its absence as grounds to oppose Phase 2.
The SPO participation assumptions are unproven at scale. FROST/Schnorr is mature cryptography, but no production system runs it across 400+ stake-weighted signers, and five SPOs participate on testnet today against a Phase 2 assumption of 400 active signers at month six. I expect Phase 1 reporting to show a credible onboarding trajectory and a defined minimum viable signer set, and I expect analysis of custody-weight concentration given Cardano's actual delegation distribution.
This is effectively a
$3.3M two-phase commitment. Phase 2 ($1.3M plus 24 months of subsidized operations) is already scoped, and Phase 1 approval creates momentum toward it. I am voting for Phase 1 on its own merits and will evaluate Phase 2 independently, including whether the ecosystem-readiness deliverables (SPO pledges, dApp commitments) represent binding intent rather than expressions of interest.Treasury returns are back-loaded and speculative. Even the base case reaches only 1,200 BTC TVL by mid-2029, and fee surplus flowing back to the Treasury begins in Year 3–4 at the earliest under a provisional economic model. I weigh this proposal as strategic infrastructure, not as a near-term return on treasury capital, and I expect the hardened economic model published at M3 to be conservative.
The disclosed hedging of a portion of the ADA into stable assets is defensible for protecting fixed audit costs, but with ADA near multi-year lows I expect conversion amounts, timing, and venues to appear in the public transaction journal.