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.
- Abstain575M ₳Rationale
"Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2). Yoroi recognises the importance of responsible governance during periods of ecosystem uncertainty.
- Ecosystem Situation: The trust our delegators place in Yoroi requires that we act only when we can do so with full confidence. In light of the current situation, Yoroi is choosing to withhold its vote on this proposal and will reassess our position once conditions allow for a considered decision."
- No384.3M ₳Rationale
Please check the following link for the reasons for the vote.（投票理由は次のページを参照してください。)
- Abstain331.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain299.7M ₳Rationale
"EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2), with rationale outlined below.
Given the ongoing situation in the ecosystem, responsible governance requires us to act with full clarity and confidence. Until the current situation reaches resolution, EMURGO prefers to withhold judgment rather than vote without the certainty our mandate demands. We will revisit this proposal once the situation is resolved."
- Yes258.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain219.4M ₳Rationale
A well thought out system. We would love to see it succeed. But please consider the feedback of NO votes from various DReps.
- Abstain175.4M ₳No rationale
- No171.3M ₳No rationale
- No123.7M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes NO. We recognize the team's delivery to date, however this proposal raised concerns about subsequent phase dependency, no vendor detail and concurrent Treasury requests from this team in the same window.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The Cardano Foundation recognizes FluidTokens and Lantr Engineering as capable teams. The bridge is live on testnet, Catalyst milestones have been delivered and approved, and the combined engineering bench covers Bitcoin scripting, Cardano contracts, and threshold cryptography. We also agree with the premise that Cardano would benefit from a secure route to Bitcoin liquidity. Our NO vote is not a rejection of that objective, nor of this team, but of this proposal on the information provided.
Our decision is driven by the following factors:
- Phase 1 does not stand on its own. 12.33 million ada funds an audited bridge on mainnet under controlled, private access. No public peg-ins, no fBTC in circulation, no TVL, no SPO revenue. Every ecosystem benefit set out here activates in Phase 2, a separate request of approximately $1.3 million in Q1 2027, with no commitment on either side that it will be made or approved. The Treasury would underwrite the larger and harder half of a two-part programme while holding no claim on the second. We would expect either a Phase 1 scope that delivers standalone value or a single request covering both phases in detail.
- Concurrent delivery load is not addressed. Lantr Engineering is carrying a separate Treasury request of 8,503,000 ada for the Scalus platform over July 2026 to June 2027, the same window as Phase 1.
- The largest budget lines are unspecified and internally inconsistent. Approximately $875,000 of fixed costs sits across three workstreams without vendor-level detail, including the $550,000 for audits and formal verification that this proposal exists to fund, with no audit or verification firm identified and no split given between the two vendors who must co-sign every disbursement. Annex 1 states six FTE-months each for ecosystem readiness and for legal and stewardship; the budget table funds three of each, and the 52.5 subtotal only reconciles at three. The blended rate of $210,000 per FTE-year at $100 per hour implies 2,100 billable hours, above ordinary senior-engineer capacity. Milestone gating and the oversight board are genuine controls, but they govern release, not the basis of the estimate.
- The custody design is described but not committed. The proposal states that custody is distributed across 400+ SPOs weighted by delegation, requiring a threshold representing a majority of delegated stake. Operator eligibility, the reward formula, key re-sharing as stake moves, and the smallest coalition capable of reaching the threshold are not specified. We accept that final parameters are M1–M3 work. We would still expect the bounds within which they will be set to be published before Cardano's operators are asked to secure Bitcoin.
- Currency exposure runs one way. Funding is requested at a $0.16/ADA reference rate, with a portion hedged into stable assets after disbursement. Only unspent contingency returns. If ada appreciates over the term, the surplus stays with the vendors and the hedge fixes it there. A symmetric true-up would leave both sides where the proposal says it intends them to be.
We have not rested this vote on the market sizing or on Annex 2. The $1.6 trillion figure is used loosely across the ecosystem, and the share of BTC deployed in DeFi is close to the proposal's estimate when measured on a like-for-like cross-chain basis. While the basis of the estimate is vague, it is not grounds to decline overall.
The Cardano Foundation votes NO on this governance action. We would review a revised submission on its merits, and we encourage the proposers to scope Phase 1 so that it delivers standalone value or to combine both phases into a detailed single ask, disclose and resource the concurrent delivery commitment, break out the fixed budget at vendor level and reconcile Annex 1 with the budget table, publish the bounds of the custody design including the minimum signing coalition, and make the currency true-up symmetric. Cardano should fund a Bitcoin rail, and we look forward to a proposal we can support.
---> **_NOTE on 'Internal Voting':_**> The fields _constitutional_ and _unconstitutional_ below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are _for_ or _against_ the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - No90.6M ₳Rationale
I decided to vote NO on the proposal: Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)
My rationale:
A secure and permissionless Bitcoin–Cardano bridge could be strategically valuable. Bifrost proposes an interesting architecture in which Cardano stake pool operators participate in securing BTC custody, and the team has demonstrated meaningful technical progress.
However, the project is already receiving ₳739,000 through Catalyst Fund 14, and that project remains unfinished. At the time of my assessment, only three of its six milestones were completed. I do not consider it responsible Treasury practice to approve a follow-on withdrawal more than sixteen times larger before the previous grant has been completed, independently assessed, and clearly reconciled with the new scope.
The Fund 14 proposal did not fund merely an initial concept. It stated:
“This grant will accelerate the development of the solution to a point where all the core components will have been developed and released.”
Its scope included the bridge architecture, SPO coordination, unhappy paths, malicious-participant handling, hardening, documentation, and end-to-end testnet execution.
The distinction between testnet and an audited mainnet deployment is important. Catalyst did not pay for a publicly available, independently audited mainnet bridge. External audits and controlled mainnet deployment are legitimate additional requirements.
Nevertheless, the current proposal sometimes presents hardening and production development as though little of this work belonged to the Catalyst scope. In reality, Fund 14 already included hardening, unhappy paths, optimization, and all core bridge components.
My concern is that Catalyst paid for much more than an early prototype, yet the current proposal does not clearly reconcile those deliverables with another 36 core-development FTE-months.
GitHub activity suggests that the Catalyst phase involved approximately three materially active engineering FTEs. The team now requests ₳3.94M for 36 additional core-development FTE-months, alongside approximately ₳984k for product management and ₳3.60M for security and quality assurance.
The increase in ADA cost is substantial. The Catalyst Bifrost grant was ₳739,000. Core development alone in the new proposal costs ₳3,937,500, while the total Phase 1 request is ₳12,332,031. Public launch and 24 months of operations would then depend on an additional Phase 2 proposal estimated at another $1.3M.
Before considering such an increase, I would expect a detailed, component-by-component comparison explaining what Catalyst promised, what has been completed and accepted, the current maturity of each component, what remains necessary for mainnet, which tasks are genuinely new, and how the additional FTEs and costs are allocated.
The exchange-rate structure is another concern. The proposal uses a conservative reference rate of $0.16 per ADA and prices engineering and product capacity at $210,000 per FTE-year. It includes a 10% refundable contingency and plans to hedge part of the withdrawal into stable assets, protecting delivery if ADA depreciates.
However, I found no equivalent binding mechanism protecting the Treasury if ADA appreciates. Core development is allocated fixed ADA payments. At $0.25 per ADA, the implied annual FTE rate would rise to approximately $328,000. If ADA returned to $1, it would exceed $1.3M per FTE-year.
The proposal also does not deliver public utility at the end of this withdrawal. Phase 1 ends with an audited bridge operating on mainnet under controlled private access. Public launch, broader SPO participation, adoption, and 24 months of operations depend on a separate Phase 2 request.
This creates a significant dependency. The Treasury could spend nearly $2M on Phase 1 and still not receive a publicly usable bridge if Phase 2 is rejected, delayed, or becomes unaffordable. DReps should be able to evaluate the total expected cost of reaching public production rather than approving a large intermediate phase without certainty that the bridge will ultimately become available.
The nontechnical allocations also appear high. Approximately $252,500 is allocated to legal, stewardship, and economic work, while $177,500 is allocated to ecosystem readiness and partnerships. These activities may eventually be necessary, but they are difficult to justify at this scale before the Catalyst-funded technical work has been completed and independently evaluated.
Finally, the existing ₳350M Net Change Limit is nearly exhausted. After withdrawals already ratified or expected to be enacted, approximately ₳14.39M should remain. Other proposals with Bifrost together require a higher amount of ADA than the expected remaining capacity. Under the existing NCL, all cannot fit. Approving Bifrost would therefore displace another proposal.
I would be willing to reconsider Bifrost after all Catalyst milestones are completed and accepted, the final report is published, the Catalyst and Treasury scopes are reconciled in detail, the exchange-rate mechanism protects the Treasury as well as the vendors, the legal and partnership expenses are reduced or deferred, and the complete cost of reaching a publicly usable bridge is disclosed.
Bifrost may deserve further funding, but the current proposal is premature, insufficiently reconciled with the unfinished Catalyst grant, and too expensive relative to the standalone value delivered by Phase 1.
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:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqpBuy me a beer:
https://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0 - Yes88.4M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on the treasury withdrawal "Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano - Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)" (12,332,031 ada).
This action funds the work required to take Bifrost from a working testnet to launch readiness over nine months, from July 2026 to March 2027: hardening, security audits, formal verification, partner and ecosystem readiness, and the stewardship and economic foundations for launch. The request is 12,332,031 ada, modelled at approximately $1,973,125 at $0.16 per ada and including a 10% refundable contingency. Public rollout and 24 months of operations are deliberately separated into a Phase 2 proposal in Q1 2027. The proposers are FluidTokens and Lantr Engineering. The on-chain recipient is a script credential at stake179nmtusegux540zeqwpyapfjfvpxy75qxu4weq2emvcztqgtmwxw2, the stronger fund-control class.
SIPO supports this. Bitcoin is the largest pool of capital in crypto and remains almost entirely outside DeFi, and the binding constraint is not demand but the security assumptions holders must accept in order to leave the Bitcoin base layer. What distinguishes Bifrost from existing routes is where custody sits: not with a company, a foundation, or a fixed signing committee, but distributed across Cardano's stake pool operator set, weighted by delegation. That is a materially different trust model from the wrapped-BTC designs that dominate today, and it is assembled from infrastructure Cardano already has rather than from a new trusted party. Bringing BTC onto Cardano as a native asset that lending, trading, and collateral applications can compose with is genuine ecosystem infrastructure, and it is the category the treasury exists to fund.
SIPO notes plainly that it operates stake pools, and that a design giving stake pool operators a new economic role in securing BTC custody is one from which SIPO would stand to benefit. SIPO states this rather than leaving it implicit. It does not change the assessment, which rests on the custody model and the audit gating, but the reader is entitled to know it.
SIPO attaches expectations. First, this is Phase 1 of 2, and a Yes here is not a commitment to Phase 2: SIPO will judge the 2027 operations request on delivery, not on continuity. Second, custody of real BTC should not go live before the audit and formal verification results are published and the identified issues resolved; the sequencing in this proposal is correct, and SIPO expects it to be honoured under schedule pressure rather than compressed. Third, the stake pool participation model - eligibility, economic terms, and what happens when a participating pool fails or misbehaves - should be published in enough detail that operators can evaluate the commitment before taking it on. Fourth, Lantr Engineering is also delivering the Scalus 2026 work that SIPO supports in this same batch; SIPO expects reporting to evidence that the two are separately staffed. None of these conditions the vote; they are the basis on which SIPO will judge delivery. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep は、トレジャリー引き出し提案「Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano - Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)」（12,332,031 ADA）に、期待事項を付して賛成（YES）を投じます。
本件は、Bifrost を稼働中のテストネットからローンチ可能な状態へ引き上げるために必要な作業を、2026 年 7 月から 2027 年 3 月までの 9 ヶ月間にわたり資金手当てするものです。堅牢化、セキュリティ監査、形式検証、パートナーおよびエコシステムの準備、そしてローンチに必要な運営体制と経済的基盤が対象です。要求額は 12,332,031 ADA（$0.16/ADA でモデル上 約 $1,973,125）で、返還可能な 10% のコンティンジェンシーを含みます。一般公開と 24 ヶ月の運用は、2027 年 Q1 の Phase 2 提案として意図的に分離されています。提案者は FluidTokens と Lantr Engineering です。オンチェーン受領先は script credential（stake179nmtusegux540zeqwpyapfjfvpxy75qxu4weq2emvcztqgtmwxw2）で、資金統制としては強い類型です。
SIPO はこれを支持します。ビットコインは暗号資産で最大の資本プールでありながら、その大半がいまだ DeFi の外側にあります。制約は需要の不足ではなく、保有者がビットコインのベースレイヤーを離れる際に受け入れざるを得ないセキュリティ上の前提にあります。Bifrost が既存の経路と異なるのは、カストディの所在です。企業でも財団でも固定署名委員会でもなく、委任量で加重された Cardano の SPO 群に分散されます。これは現在主流のラップド BTC 設計とは実質的に異なる信頼モデルであり、新たな信頼主体を持ち込むのではなく Cardano が既に有するインフラから組み上げられています。BTC を Cardano 上のネイティブ資産として持ち込み、レンディング・取引・担保の各アプリケーションが合成できる状態にすることは、本物のエコシステムインフラであり、国庫が担うべき類型です。
SIPO は、自らがステークプールを運用していること、そして SPO に BTC カストディ保全という新たな経済的役割を与える設計から SIPO 自身が受益し得る立場にあることを、明示的に記します。SIPO はこれを暗黙にせず述べます。評価そのものはカストディモデルと監査ゲートに基づいており本点で変わりませんが、読み手はこれを知る資格があります。
SIPO は期待事項を付します。第一に、本件は 2 段階のうち Phase 1 であり、ここでの賛成は Phase 2 への約束ではありません。2027 年の運用要求は継続性ではなく履行実績で判断します。第二に、実際の BTC のカストディは、監査および形式検証の結果が公開され、指摘事項が解消される前に本番稼働すべきではありません。本提案の順序設計は正しく、SIPO はそれがスケジュール圧力の下で短縮されず遵守されることを期待します。第三に、SPO の参加モデル（参加要件、経済条件、参加プールが障害を起こした場合や不正を行った場合の扱い）は、各オペレーターが引き受け前に評価できる程度に詳細を公開すべきです。第四に、Lantr Engineering は SIPO が同じ batch で支持する Scalus 2026 も担当しています。SIPO は、両者が別個の人員体制で遂行されていることが報告で示されることを期待します。これらはいずれも本投票の条件ではなく、SIPO が履行を判断する際の基礎です。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- No85M ₳Rationale
I am unconvinced this proposal represents spending that would be the best use of funds at this time.
- No77.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain75.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
First, I strongly support the direction of this proposal. If Cardano is to achieve long-term growth, attracting Bitcoin liquidity and expanding real economic activity on Cardano will be essential. I believe this proposal represents foundational infrastructure that could become an important building block for Cardano's future.
However, we are currently operating under a very constrained Net Change Limit (NCL). Given these fiscal constraints, I do not believe proposals of this scale—approximately 12.3M ADA—should be evaluated solely on their long-term vision. Fiscal prioritization also matters.
In addition, this proposal represents Phase 1, with further funding expected in subsequent phases. While I recognize its technical merit and long-term potential, I believe a more cautious approach is appropriate under the current Treasury conditions.
If the Treasury had greater fiscal capacity, or if this proposal were evaluated under a future NCL with more available budget, I would be inclined to support it.
My decision should not be interpreted as opposition to the project itself. On the contrary, I believe initiatives like this are important for Cardano's long-term competitiveness. My abstention reflects the current fiscal environment and prioritization, rather than the value of the proposal itself.
私は本提案に対して棄権します。
まず、この提案が目指す方向性には強く賛同しています。Cardanoが今後さらに成長していくためには、Bitcoinの流動性をCardanoへ呼び込み、実需や新たな経済圏を形成していくことは極めて重要です。本提案は、そのための基盤となるインフラであり、長期的にはCardanoにとって必要不可欠な取り組みであると考えています。
一方で、現在はTreasuryのNet Change Limit（NCL）が非常に厳しい状況にあります。このような財政制約の中では、約12.3M ADAという大規模な予算を判断するにあたり、方向性だけで賛否を決めるべきではないと考えています。
また、本提案はPhase 1であり、今後も追加の予算が想定されています。技術的な完成度や将来的な可能性は評価していますが、現時点では慎重な財政判断が必要だと考えました。
もし今後、Treasuryに十分な余裕があり、あるいはより大きなNCLの下で審査されるのであれば、私は本提案を積極的に支持したいと考えています。
本提案の価値を否定しているわけではありません。むしろ、Cardanoの長期的な競争力を高めるために重要なプロジェクトであると考えているからこそ、現在の財政状況とのバランスを踏まえ、今回は棄権という判断をしました。
- Abstain74.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes73.6M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES to fund Phase 1 of the Bifrost Bitcoin-Cardano Bridge. Capturing Bitcoin's liquidity is the ultimate strategic prize for our DeFi ecosystem, and it is crucial to recognize that Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano originated with this exact team—it was their idea.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES to fund Phase 1 of the Bifrost Bitcoin-Cardano Bridge. Capturing Bitcoin's liquidity is the ultimate strategic prize for our DeFi ecosystem, and it is crucial to recognize that Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano originated with this exact team—it was their idea, and they absolutely deserve this chance. I think a lot of the team; they are incredibly well-respected in our ecosystem for their technical execution. I am happy to put my voting power behind trusted teams that push Cardano forwards and build the high-impact infrastructure we need to stay competitive.
- Abstain53.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting Abstain on the Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2) proposal.
I rate the direction and design highly. SPO threshold custody is the right approach built on Cardano's structural strengths, and with no bridge token, no founder allocation, open-source release, and fee surplus returning to the Treasury, this is close to public infrastructure worth Treasury support.
Still, approval is difficult at this point.
First, cost. Phase 1 alone is about 1.97 million dollars (12,332,031 ADA), with Phase 2 for launch and operations planned separately at about 1.3 million, putting the full commitment near 3.3 million dollars. The proposal should be judged against that total, and at the Treasury's current capacity that is not a scale to approve lightly.
Second, sequencing. Bifrost's Catalyst Fund 14 milestones are not yet complete. The verifiable order is to finish and evaluate the prior work first, then request funding for the next stage.
I recognize the public-good design, but given the total cost and the incomplete prior work, I am withholding support for now. If resubmitted after Catalyst completion, I would actively reconsider.
- Abstain51M ₳Rationale
Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.
More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703
- No50.4M ₳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/
- Abstain50.2M ₳Rationale
I understand the arguments from both sides. On one hand, Bitcoin DeFi is an important opportunity for Cardano, and I believe this type of infrastructure could provide meaningful long-term value. On the other hand, given the current Treasury constraints and the current value of ADA, I am hesitant to support additional spending of this size at this time. If ADA were in a stronger position, I would likely be inclined to vote in favour. For now, I believe abstaining is the most appropriate decision.
- Yes49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes47.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes39.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes37.4M ₳No rationale
- No37.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.5M ₳Rationale
進めなければならないとは思うが、2年間、その後と費用対効果が分らないのは自分自身にも判断付かないので保留。
- Yes33.5M ₳Rationale
Vote: Yes. This action requests 12,332,031 ADA for a nine-month Phase 1 that moves Bifrost from a working testnet to an audited bridge operating on Cardano mainnet under controlled access.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Cardano needs access to outside liquidity, and Bitcoin is the largest available source of crypto capital. A secure Bitcoin-to-Cardano bridge would allow BTC-backed assets to be used in trading, lending, collateral, and other Cardano applications. The Cardano First framework supports this proposal under Adoption.
Bifrost is not starting from a concept. The bridge is operating on testnet and has completed approved Catalyst milestones. This request funds the next stage: protocol hardening, external audits, formal verification, penetration testing, SPO onboarding, partner preparation, and controlled mainnet deployment.
The phased structure is important. This vote does not fund unrestricted public operation. Phase 1 must produce an audited bridge and on-chain evidence before the team returns with a separate Phase 2 request for public launch and ongoing operations.
Bridges carry serious smart-contract, cryptographic, operational, and custody risks. I accept those risks because funding is milestone-gated, independently overseen, held under restricted administration, and subject to return mechanisms for unused funds. Security work takes place before public exposure.
Cardano cannot grow as an isolated economy. Bifrost is existing technology with a controlled route toward one of the largest liquidity opportunities available to the network.
I vote Yes. - Yes31.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes31.4M ₳Rationale
This proposal funds the hardening, audits, formal verification, and SPO‑threshold readiness required to bring the already‑working Bifrost testnet bridge to mainnet readiness. Secure BTC inflow is one of Cardano’s largest strategic opportunities, and fBTC as a native asset directly contributes to TVL, transaction volume, and user growth. Phase 1 is limited to public‑infrastructure preparation, with Phase 2 (public launch) separated appropriately. Given the strong Catalyst delivery record and the clear public‑good nature of this work, I vote Yes.
- Yes30.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes28M ₳No rationale
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
I am a big fan of FluidTokens and Lantr, but this proposal is a bit too expensive for my liking. There are also a handful of other BTC liquidity solutions competing in this space and I am not convinced that the ROI for public funds is quite worth it considering the many alternatives.
- Yes27.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳Rationale
This comes from the team at Fluid Tokens and they already have a test version in place (coming soon to a user for testing near you) considering I have worked shoulder to shoulder with Raul, Matteo and the rest of the team I know they intend on making this utility available to everyone and bring btc liquidity to Cardano.
There are always dependencies and risks inherent in everything we do but at least with Fluid team I know they are working thru every potential scenario and more importantly listening to community feed back on how to make it even better.
Here is to the future of Cardano and the bifrost bringing btc liquidity here to our chain.
- Abstain23.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain21.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain21.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes20M ₳Rationale
This I get behind, open source, decentralized public infrastructure for secure Bitcoin liquidity rails to Cardano, secured by SPOs, by a well known respected team.
- Yes17.4M ₳Rationale
Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)
- Abstain16.9M ₳Rationale
We see strong strategic value in bringing Bitcoin liquidity to Cardano. A secure BTC rail could improve Cardano DeFi, create new opportunities for SPOs, and make Cardano more attractive for BTC holders.
However, we are not fully comfortable voting YES in the current form.
The main concern is that this is only Phase 1. The proposal requests ₳12.3M before public launch, while the actual public rollout and 24 months of operations are planned for a separate Phase 2 proposal. If Phase 1 succeeds but Phase 2 is not approved, it is not fully clear what practical value the treasury receives.
We also have concerns around bridge risk, custody/security assumptions, final stewardship structure, operational accountability, and long-term maintenance costs. For a Bitcoin bridge, these details need to be exceptionally clear before a large treasury commitment.
We appreciate the testnet progress, security focus, and the intent to return surplus bridge fees to the treasury, but we would like stronger clarity on launch conditions, governance of the bridge, risk responsibility, and the full cost to reach public operation.
- Yes16.3M ₳Rationale
Vote: YES
This is a Treasury Withdrawal, "Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)" (gov_action1mlv...ms7jwt), submitted July 3, 2026 with voting closing August 2, 2026. FluidTokens and Lantr Engineering request ₳12,332,031 (approximately $1.97M at the $0.16/ADA reference rate) over nine months, July 2026 through March 2027, to harden Bifrost — a permissionless Bitcoin-Cardano bridge that brings BTC onto Cardano as a native asset (fBTC) with custody distributed across 400+ SPOs using FROST threshold signatures — through external audits, formal verification, penetration testing, and private mainnet deployment. Public launch and operations are deferred to a separate Phase 2 proposal. No ADA burning is involved.
The accountability structure is the strongest Dracula DAO has seen in the 2026 cycle. Funds are held in a SundaeSwap treasury-contracts escrow previously audited by TxPipe and MLabs; every disbursement requires co-signature from a three-person independent oversight board drawn from Blink Labs, the Cardano Foundation, and IOG; No.Witness Labs provides quarterly technical review and an independent financial auditor reviews fund use post-delivery; unused funds return automatically to the treasury on contract expiration, and the 10% contingency (₳1.12M) is explicitly refundable. The three milestones are concrete and verifiable — M1 an audit-ready hardened release candidate, M2 completed external audits and formal verification with both custody modes tested, M3 private mainnet with real BTC. The project is not vapor: the bridge is live on Bitcoin Testnet4 and Cardano Preprod with peg-ins occurring, five SPOs participating, and seven dApps expressing integration interest. There is no bridge token, no founder allocation, and no extractive tokenomics; the code is Apache 2.0. Lantr has disclosed prior treasury funding of ₳657,692 fully received and delivered on the Scalus platform. Distributing bridge custody across the SPO set rather than a small signer committee is the right architectural instinct, and it creates a revenue stream for stake pool operators beyond block production.
The concerns are real. ₳12.33M is priced as a team operating budget — $210K per FTE-year across 52.5 FTE-months — rather than as a grant against completed features, and there was no competitive bidding for the work. Phase 1 produces no public deliverable: at its end there is a privately deployed, audited bridge and a further Phase 2 request for public launch and 24 months of operations, so a YES here is the first half of a commitment whose full cost is not yet on the table. Cross-chain bridges are the single most exploited category of infrastructure in this industry, and stake-weighted SPO threshold custody is unproven at scale — the residual risk is bounded by the private-mainnet rollout and an early TVL cap, but it is not eliminated. The withdrawal also lands with ADA near multi-year lows, so the treasury pays in its weakest currency. DRep support is currently narrow, at approximately ₳939M yes against ₳909M no.
Dracula DAO votes YES. Treasury funds should be awarded as grants paid on completion of well-defined features, and this proposal does not fully meet that standard — it is a budget, and Dracula DAO names that gap plainly. But the gap is narrower here than in anything else this cycle: money moves only when an independent board with no financial stake in the outcome signs off against a defined milestone, undelivered funds go back to the treasury automatically, and what is being bought in Phase 1 is precisely the thing Dracula DAO has demanded of every bridge proposal — audits, formal verification, and adversarial testing completed before a single retail user is exposed. Paying for security before launch rather than after an exploit is the ultra long-term posture this DREP exists to defend. Dracula DAO's NO on Pogun in May 2026 was structural, not technical: Bitcoin DeFi infrastructure on Cardano is worth building, and the objection was to pre-funding a team roadmap with no delivery gating. Bifrost answers that objection directly.
Dracula DAO will judge Phase 2 entirely on delivery. If M1 through M3 are not completed and independently verified on the stated schedule, or if the audits surface material findings in the custody model, the Phase 2 request for public launch and operations will be opposed. This vote funds proof, not permission.
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2).
This is a cautious YES for high-potential strategic infrastructure.
RCADA supports this proposal because a credible Bitcoin-to-Cardano bridge could be strategically important for Cardano. Bitcoin remains the largest pool of capital in the digital asset ecosystem, but most BTC is not actively used in DeFi because holders remain cautious about custody, bridge security, signer sets, and cross-chain risk. If Cardano can provide a more security-oriented route for BTC liquidity to enter its DeFi ecosystem, that could strengthen Cardano’s TVL, transaction activity, user base, and broader financial relevance.
Bifrost’s design is ambitious but aligned with Cardano’s strengths. The proposal aims to create a permissionless Bitcoin-Cardano bridge where locked BTC is secured through Cardano’s SPO ecosystem using threshold signing, and where bridged BTC appears on Cardano as a native Cardano asset, fBTC. This could allow wallets, DEXs, lending markets, and other applications to integrate BTC liquidity through Cardano’s existing native asset model.
RCADA recognises that Bifrost is not simply another DeFi product. If successful, it could become shared ecosystem infrastructure. The proposal includes no separate bridge token, no founder allocation, open-source Apache 2.0 licensing, public reporting, and a planned independent stewardship structure. These features strengthen the public-good case and reduce the concern that the Treasury is funding a private protocol or speculative token model.
RCADA also notes that Bifrost is not starting from zero. The bridge is already funded through Catalyst Fund 14, with testnet work underway and several milestones reported as completed or on track. The proposal states that the bridge is live on testnet, with working peg-in flows, participating SPOs, and interest from Cardano applications that may integrate Bifrost or fBTC.
The request is significant at 12,332,031 ADA for Phase 1. RCADA does not treat that lightly. However, cross-chain bridges are among the most security-sensitive infrastructure in DeFi, and underfunding security would be irresponsible. This proposal allocates substantial resources to hardening, external audits, cryptographic review, formal verification, penetration testing, bug bounty work, and controlled mainnet deployment. For infrastructure that may eventually secure real BTC, these are core requirements.
RCADA is reassured by the phased structure. This proposal does not fund a full public launch or two years of operations. It funds the road to audited mainnet readiness under controlled private access. Public rollout and operations would require a separate Phase 2 proposal. RCADA’s YES vote is therefore support for proving Bifrost safely before public launch, not automatic support for future funding.
RCADA has carefully considered the risks. Bitcoin bridges carry serious smart-contract, cryptographic, custody, operational, liquidity, regulatory, and reputational risks. The SPO-threshold custody model is promising but complex. The federated fallback must be clearly governed and tightly constrained. The independent stewardship structure is also not yet established and remains a Phase 1 deliverable.
However, RCADA does not believe these risks are too high for the specific scope of Phase 1. This phase is mainly about reducing and validating risk before public launch through audits, formal verification, threat modelling, controlled mainnet testing, transparency tooling, stewardship setup, and economic-model validation.
RCADA expects the team to publish audit reports, formal verification outputs, mainnet contract addresses, custody-mode evidence, successful peg-in and peg-out transaction proofs, transparency portal data, SPO participation metrics, and stewardship documentation. Critical findings should be remediated before any public launch, and any accepted residual risks should be clearly disclosed.
On balance, RCADA believes Bifrost is a high-potential infrastructure proposal with serious but appropriately addressed Phase 1 risks. RCADA votes YES because this proposal funds a security-first road to mainnet readiness, not a rushed public launch. This support is conditional in spirit on rigorous security delivery, transparent reporting, independent stewardship, controlled risk exposure, and no assumption of automatic Phase 2 approval.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here:
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/ - No12.1M ₳Rationale
We vote no on this governance action because the proposal does not sufficiently address several critical questions that are necessary to justify a treasury allocation of ₳12.33 million. Given the scale of the request and the systemic importance of cross-chain infrastructure, we believe that greater clarity, stronger accountability mechanisms, and more concrete evidence are required before community funds can be responsibly committed.
First, the proposal does not clearly define the objective criteria that would constitute the successful completion of Phase 1 and unlock Phase 2 funding. What specific technical, security, and operational milestones must be achieved before additional treasury resources are requested? More importantly, how will these milestones be independently verified by the community, and what mechanisms will exist to ensure accountability if the deliverables fall short of expectations?
Second, the security assumptions underlying the Bitcoin–Cardano interoperability model remain insufficiently explained. What trust assumptions are embedded within the bridge architecture, who controls the critical infrastructure, and what safeguards exist against validator compromise, economic attacks, or catastrophic failures? Given the history of exploits affecting cross-chain protocols across the industry, the proposal should explicitly outline its threat model, contingency plans, and the precise scope of independent security audits.
Third, the economic justification for allocating ₳12.33 million from the treasury is not adequately demonstrated. What measurable outcomes, such as total value locked, transaction volume, user adoption, or developer activity, does the team expect to generate, and over what timeframe? Without clear performance indicators and evidence that Bitcoin users will meaningfully migrate to Cardano-based DeFi, it is difficult to assess whether the anticipated ecosystem benefits justify the magnitude of the investment.
Fourth, the proposal does not provide a sufficiently detailed sustainability strategy beyond the requested funding period. How will the protocol's infrastructure, maintenance, and operational costs be financed once treasury support ends? If future treasury requests are anticipated, what is the long-term roadmap toward financial self-sufficiency, and how will the community avoid creating a permanent dependency on treasury funding?
Finally, the proposal lacks transparency regarding prior funding history and the current state of development. What funding has Bifrost previously received through Catalyst, private investment, grants, or other treasury allocations, and which milestones have already been delivered with those resources? A complete accounting of past investments and outcomes is essential for DReps to evaluate whether this proposal represents an efficient and responsible use of community funds.
- Abstain10.9M ₳No rationale