Cardano 2030: Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework and KPIs
191 DReps voted · 81 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
This Info action reflects a substantial, good-faith effort by the Intersect Product Committee to articulate a shared long-term Vision, Mission, Strategy framework, and KPIs for Cardano under full on-chain governance. The process followed was extensive, consultative, and well documented, involving broad community participation across workshops, surveys, SPO engagement, and dialogue with founding entities. From a governance-process perspective, this work meets a high standard of legitimacy and transparency.
RCADA agrees with the underlying motivation of the proposal. As Cardano transitions from protocol delivery into decentralized treasury governance, the absence of a commonly articulated strategic reference point increases the risk of fragmented decision-making, inconsistent resource allocation, and reactive governance driven by short-term narratives. The intent to provide DReps with shared language and long-term framing is reasonable and directionally aligned with the maturation of Cardano’s governance model.
However, RCADA does not believe this proposal, in its current form, is sufficiently actionable or decision-constraining to warrant an affirmative endorsement.
While the Vision and Mission statements are broadly aligned with Cardano’s historical identity, they remain highly abstract and do not meaningfully narrow governance decision space or establish explicit trade-offs. The five strategic pillars describe important domains of activity, but they are additive rather than prioritised, offering limited guidance on what should be de-prioritised or declined when resources, attention, or governance capacity are constrained. As such, the framework functions primarily as a consensus narrative rather than a governance tool.
RCADA places particular emphasis on decentralization as an active governance risk, not a background assumption. Although the strategy acknowledges decentralization and includes quantitative indicators—such as DRep voting power distribution, multi-client requirements, and a target of more than 500 independent stake pools—these thresholds are aspirational rather than disciplinary. From an SPO perspective, the “500 independent pools” target is especially concerning: it is a very low bar relative to Cardano’s current and historical decentralization levels and risks becoming a rhetorical shield for stake concentration rather than a safeguard against it. Large multi-pool operators could readily meet such a threshold while further marginalizing small, independent single-pool operators, using the KPI itself to justify outcomes that weaken decentralization in practice.
More broadly, the proposed KPIs, while more concrete than purely narrative statements, remain weakly coupled to governance decisions. They are useful as diagnostic or communicative indicators, but they do not clearly constrain treasury approvals, trigger corrective action, or define failure conditions that would materially discipline power or spending. This creates a risk that alignment with the strategy can be asserted rhetorically without demonstrable accountability or causality.
RCADA also notes that much of the strategic detail and iteration occurs off-chain as a living document. While this is appropriate for exploratory strategy development, it reinforces that this Info action functions primarily as acknowledgment rather than as a governance instrument. Endorsing such a framework on-chain without stronger decision hooks risks establishing soft precedent, where strategic narratives gain informal authority without corresponding mechanisms for challenge, revision, or enforcement by DReps.
For these reasons, RCADA has chosen to abstain on this action.
This abstention should not be interpreted as opposition to the intent, the process, or the value of strategic reflection. Rather, it signals that while this work represents a constructive and serious starting point, it does not yet meet the threshold of governance usefulness, decentralization protection, and decision discipline required for a supportive “Yes” vote. RCADA would welcome future iterations or follow-up actions that narrow scope, embed decentralization more explicitly, raise the bar on decentralization metrics, and more clearly link strategy and KPIs to concrete governance and treasury decisions.
RCADA remains committed to thoughtful, disciplined governance and to supporting approaches that strengthen Cardano’s long-term resilience, decentralization, and credibility. This abstention is intended as a constructive signal toward that end.
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/votes/2026/cardano-2030-vision-mission-strategy-framework-and-kpis.html - Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
As Wada DRep, we vote yes on this governance action because it provides a much-needed strategic anchor for Cardano at a time when governance responsibility has decisively shifted to the community. The Cardano 2030 Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework, and KPIs do not attempt to prescribe outcomes or constrain on-chain decision making. Rather, they establish a shared directional reference that helps DReps, proposers, and ecosystem actors evaluate initiatives through a long-term lens. We see this as a necessary evolution from reactive governance toward intentional stewardship, particularly as treasury decisions grow in scale and frequency.
We place significant weight on the process behind this proposal. The framework emerged from extensive community engagement led by the Intersect Product Committee, involving hundreds of contributors across workshops, surveys, and focused discussions. This breadth of participation strengthens the legitimacy of the output and reduces the risk that the strategy reflects the priorities of a narrow stakeholder group. For us, the process matters as much as the document itself, because it demonstrates a repeatable model for how complex, ecosystem-wide direction setting can be handled in a decentralised environment.
Substantively, we find the articulation of the vision and mission grounded and coherent with Cardano’s historical strengths. Positioning Cardano around security, reliability, decentralisation, and suitability for mission-critical use cases reflects what the network has already proven, rather than aspirational claims detached from reality. The strategic pillars are balanced and notably elevate governance and sustainability as first-class priorities alongside adoption and infrastructure. This is consistent with our view that Cardano’s long-term success depends not only on technical excellence, but on resilient governance systems and disciplined capital allocation.
We also welcome the inclusion of KPIs, even in their current early form. While they are not yet exhaustive, their presence introduces a culture of measurement and accountability that has often been missing from ecosystem-level strategy discussions. The explicit acknowledgement that these KPIs will evolve through future info actions is, in our view, a strength rather than a weakness. It signals humility, realism, and a commitment to iteration based on real data rather than premature certainty.
Importantly, this proposal is careful to frame the 2030 Vision and Strategy as non-binding guidance. It does not override the Constitution, diminish DRep discretion, or create implicit obligations around funding decisions. Instead, it offers a shared reference point that can help reduce fragmentation, improve comparability between proposals, and encourage proposers to think more clearly about how their work contributes to Cardano’s long-term goals. We see this as supportive of decentralisation, not contrary to it.
- Abstain11.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted10.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes6mo agoSuperseded
- No10.4M ₳Rationale
This needs much improvement and better timing
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案は、コミュニティ主導のプロセスを通じて策定された、2030年に向けたCardanoの共通ビジョンおよび戦略的指針を示すものです。中長期的な方向性を共有するための有意義なInfo Actionであると判断し、賛成します。\n\nI vote Yes on this proposal. This proposal presents a shared vision and strategic direction for Cardano toward 2030, developed through a community-led process. I consider it a meaningful Info Action that helps align the community around Cardano’s mid- to long-term direction.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I recognize this document was built through extensive community input and consultation. Due to the busy governance year, I did not have time to engage deeply, so I’m judging the proposal as it stands. I agree with the general concern that hype cycles can steer an ecosystem without intentional strategy. There is some danger that this document will also unintentionally absorb current hype cycles and trends.
I disagree with the claim that it can create a “community-vetted filter” that DReps should use "to rigorously evaluate funding requests". I prefer not to use it in the future as a filter - as DReps may agree with some parts more, with some parts less. The proposal describes itself as a strategic document that does not compel votes or set constitutional rules - good and it should be treated that way. My concern about using this as a filter is practical: approved strategy documents often become soft policy. Over time, they can be cited to socially pressure decisions, reward conformity, or penalize novelty, even when conditions change. If approved, it should be used as one input without becoming a gatekeeping tool.
[Vision] - [Cardano is the most secure, reliable and censorship-resistant blockchain for mission critical applications to power economies and societies of the future.]
I support the emphasis on security, reliability, and censorship resistance. I am not sure about the addition of "to power economies and societies of the future". Maybe it will serve as as an alternative platform to centralized economies and societies of the future? Maybe Cardano will power individual economic and political freedoms, or maybe it will underpin an alternative, parallel P2P economy. Maybe all of the above. For me, the vision line can be stronger and more durable if it focuses on core differentiators and includes sustainability explicitly. Cardano is a Proof-of-Stake financial network; long-run sustainability (economic and operational) is mission-critical for its survival and security. A tighter vision statement I could support: “Cardano is the most secure, reliable, censorship-resistant, and sustainable blockchain for applications.”
[Mission] - [To empower a global ecosystem of builders, businesses, organizations, governments and communities by providing a scalable, secure, and research-based platform that enables the creation of transparent and fair digital economies.]
The mission does not explicitly include individual people. Yes, communities contain individuals, but explicit naming matters because it signals who we optimize for. Strategic documents signal priorities through what they name. Individuals are not a minor stakeholder group in Cardano, they are foundational. Individuals became SPOs, builders, educators, delegators, and long-term users. Many were attracted by self-sovereignty and sound-money principles. If the mission statement lists institutions but does not explicitly include individuals, it risks drifting toward an institution-first posture and away from a key demographic that sustained Cardano. I would revise the mission to include individuals directly. Empowering the ordinary person is part of the mission for me, especially as many individuals turned to Cardano for its sound money philosophy.
Pillar 1 (Infrastructure & Research Excellence): aligned
I broadly agree with Pillar 1. Security, scalability, interoperability, research rigor, client diversity, and resilience are core strengths and valid priorities.
Pillar 2 (Adoption & Utility): focus is good, but pinpointing “four high-value verticals” is premature. My concern is the strategy’s explicit selection of four “high-value verticals” at the top level. Strategy does require focus, but hard-coding a short list of verticals in 2025 - in a 2030 document risks trend capture and creates accidental exclusion. We have repeatedly seen what the industry labels “high value” change drastically across cycles. Here we have the views of the Cardano industry. I understand that this is a common thread from the inputs gathered, but there is a risk groupthink could be wrong. That would be very very costly. I would support framing verticals as current hypotheses or examples, not definitive long-term exclusions, define specific criteria for “high-value” (durability, real demand, true - not imagined - regulatory feasibility, etc..). This would allow us to pivot if current verticals remain elusive and there should be a a review cadence (e.g., every 12-18 months) where the community can update vertical priorities via an Info Action based on data. Picking 4 verticals means all other Verticals are then classified as not being High Value. If this was written a couple of years agoi we might have had NFTs, the Metaverse, memecoin launch platforms as Verticals etc...
Pillar 3 (Governance): overall sounds good. I support the overall direction of making governance hard to capture, accessible, and paced. I am not convinced the document has sufficiently grounded certain mechanisms, such as “adaptive/turnout-aware thresholds” in real-world precedents or referenced research. Maybe I missed it. These ideas may be promising, but they also have trade-offs (legitimacy, complexity, manipulation vectors, minority protection). If they are included at the strategy level, they should be framed more carefully as exploratory, and ideally supported by examples, research, or a plan to test and evaluate them.
Pillar 4 (Community & Ecosystem Growth): Some elements here read too broad relative to the document’s own principle that prioritization requires exclusion. For example, “pilot programs for blockchain education in schools and university curricula” may be beneficial, but it is a long-horizon activity with difficult attribution and high coordination costs. If the goal is a global financial system or high-assurance infrastructure, I currently see higher ROI in targeted efforts such as: attracting a small number of top-tier researchers, engineers, and novel monetary experts from outside the ecosystem and improving developer onboarding and tooling (which is more directly measurable).
Pillar 5 (Sustainability & Resilience): introduces a major treasury shift without explicit risk governance. A “Multi-asset treasury” is reasonable - especially as Cardano native assets are "first class citizens". But the language of “managed treasury,” “generate yields,” “strategically deploy capital,” and explicit “10%+ ROI” implies a significant strategic shift. If we are going to move in this direction (fully debatable), the framework must explicitly include risk management and accountability, not only return objectives. No emphasis here on conflict-of-interest protections, custody and operational risk,failure modes and rollback plans, mandates (what is allowed / not allowed), risk limits and drawdown tolerance, transparency and reporting, governance process and accountability, etc... The treasury section reads premature
The "Decentralization Target" segment - regarding stakepool operators - at first reading does not sound like a change from what we have now, I may be misreading it. The key word used is "Keep"..... While in some other Focus Areas the Strategy starts with the words "Improve" or "Refine" or... "Incentivize" ... "Evolve".... "Allow"... I see room for more ambition here - and room to improve, I would not settle for "Keep" as part of the vision. There are community efforts underway to improve decentralization through parameter changes.Framing: The strategic framework also omits the word FINANCIAL from its title. The title “Cardano 2030 Strategic Framework: The World’s Operating System” is too expansive and conflicts with the document’s own call for focus and exclusion. “World OS” can be used to justify almost any scope. Even “financial operating system” is already a large ambition, the choice of “world OS” is broader still and risks strategic dilution. I don't see "The World's Operating System" as something that should be on the path to 2030.
Back to the financial operating system - if Cardano is one, it must care about the value of the underlying currency - which secures the network. There are multiple paths to increasing the value of the underlying resource. I am not asking for “price talk” - I miss some deeper insight into the resource underpinning everything. It practically deserves a Pillar of its own - as it underpins the health of the other Pillars. The valuation of the resource is a key element of the economic security budget, of incentives, of fee/reward sustainability and operator profitability. It is We have 15 years of blockchain technology and markets behind us - we are moving towards Treasury spending at large. How will this impact the underlying currency - and all pillars that are linked to it's value. I can see a future where the volatility of the underlying currency undermining the grandest of plans. - NoChanged7.6M ₳Rationale
I am against funding DReps at this time, yet Pillar 3 G.1. recommends funding DReps.
Earlier votes
Yes6mo agoSuperseded
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I am supportive of a unified vision and roadmap that we as a community and ecosystem and point back to (if we so choose). This for me gives a longer-term vision to help guide where we should be making some decisions in the coming years to reach 2030 goals.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
It's a good start and required. Further iterations are required and will provide feedback in other forums.
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners votes YES on the Cardano 2030: Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework and KPIs Info Action. We have followed this work firsthand through our participation in the process and have seen the volume and quality of community input across multiple workshops and feedback cycles. Cardano is entering heavier governance and treasury decision cycles, and doing so without a shared direction and a baseline set of KPIs creates a real coordination and fragmentation risk. We agree with critics that the KPI layer is still light and some definitions are too loose, making parts of it vulnerable to vanity metrics, but that is a reason to harden v1, not to block it. This is an Info Action, not a spend authorization, so approving an imperfect first version has limited downside in our view, while the upside is immediate by giving the wider community a common reference to pressure-test proposals for strategic fit starting now.
We also view the proposed high-value verticals as illustrative and non-exclusive signals of current focus, not as fixed or permanent constraints on innovation or future opportunity for Cardano. They should be treated as hypotheses that can evolve with data, market feedback, and changing conditions, rather than hard boundaries. We will treat this framework as one input, not a gatekeeping tool or checklist for all governance decision-making, and we expect follow-on updates, from both the Product Committee’s newly elected members and the wider Cardano community, to add clearer definitions, baselines, and higher-signal metrics around delivery quality, accountability, and sustainability. - Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
Intersect's Product Committee has done exceptional work in defining our strategic, unified vision for Cardano. I am very optimistic and excited about the future of our ecosystem!
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Cardano 2030: Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework and KPIs" (gov_action18fd7jwa06fksmwumlcvlft8v4guvaa672qsp6xgenekvs4kmvcqsq8cqks4), pois ela é o resultado de um amplo processo comunitário conduzido pelo Comitê de Produto do Intersect, que, em conjunto com a comunidade Cardano, promoveu workshops, reuniões, pesquisas, debates e diversas iniciativas de escuta ativa para construir e validar a Visão Estratégica da Cardano até 2030. O resultado é extremamente positivo, ao definir de forma clara os pilares estratégicos e os KPIs associados que guiarão a evolução da Cardano nos próximos anos. Além disso, o framework fornece uma base objetiva e robusta para que os DReps possam avaliar e filtrar ações de governança alinhadas ao propósito geral estabelecido pela comunidade, fortalecendo a coerência, a previsibilidade e a maturidade do processo decisório.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Cardano 2030: Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework and KPIs" (gov_action18fd7jwa06fksmwumlcvlft8v4guvaa672qsp6xgenekvs4kmvcqsq8cqks4), as it is the outcome of a broad community-driven process led by the Intersect Product Committee, which, together with the Cardano community, conducted workshops, meetings, surveys, debates, and multiple listening initiatives to build and validate Cardano’s Strategic Vision through 2030. The result is extremely positive, as it clearly defines the strategic pillars and associated KPIs that will guide Cardano’s evolution over the coming years. Moreover, the framework provides a robust and objective reference for DReps to assess and filter governance actions that are aligned with the overall purpose defined by the community, strengthening coherence, predictability, and maturity in governance decision-making. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged3.1M ₳Rationale
Ultimately, I see this proposal and the funding withdrawn to execute it as a waste of time and resources.
This could have been accomplished without spending 750,000 ADA, and honestly DReps will determine governance and policy with their votes no matter what is drafted here.
Code is law according to the blockchain, and even if there is a directive vision document like this, it will not hold sway like the constitution does.
This proposal is also still too vague on what exactly the target goals for the blockchain should be, and this is more so a matter of opinion. Ultimately DReps will decide what these goals will be when they vote.
The KPI section brings usefulness and practicality to it, but I think that the thresholds for decentralization for K (~500 pools, no target for increasing K and decentralization). For governance/operational resilience, the current number and math is not clear. The goal for decentralization should be much higher.
KPIs and Goals are too stagnant and signal more of the same we've had in regards to staking/rewards/spending and overall governance direction. We need a shakeup with more power leveraged to the community and a real focus on decentralization, the pillar of what should be Cardano.
I think we have already made good moves in the right direction with what has been spent and enacted to date, and more paperwork without constitutional enforcement is not helpful.
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
As I have not had time yet to properly review this proposal, I am voting Abstain for now.
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
本提案は投票行動を拘束するものではなく、DRepが将来の提案を評価するための共通の戦略的判断軸を提供します。
私は先の 2030 Cardano Visionアンケート において「カルダノブランドの確立」を提案しました。本Visionは、Cardanoを「最も安全・信頼性が高く・検閲耐性のある基盤」と位置づけ、取りに行く市場・優先する用途・競争しない領域を明確に定義しています。これは、ブランドを単なる言葉ではなく、Cardanoが社会の中でどの役割を担うのかという立ち位置として構造化するものです。
また、Visionが無いことによるリスク（ナラティブの乗っ取りや差別化の喪失）を明示した上で、Pillar 4 において、Cardanoの価値や強みを外部に継続的に示していく方針を定めています。これにより、「なぜCardanoが選ばれるのか」を社会に説明できる形で、信頼を積み上げていく設計になっています。
本枠組みはDRepの自由な判断を保ちつつ、KPI（最終目標に至るまでの進捗を測るための重要業績評価指標）という共通の物差しを提供する提案であると考え、賛成します。
This proposal does not constrain DRep voting. It provides a shared strategic reference for evaluating future proposals.
In the 2030 Cardano Vision survey, I emphasized the importance of establishing the Cardano brand. This Vision positions Cardano as a secure, reliable, and censorship-resistant foundation, clearly defining which markets it aims to serve, which use cases it prioritizes, and where it does not compete. In this sense, the brand is expressed as a clear long-term positioning, not as marketing language.
The proposal also identifies the risks of operating without a clear vision, such as narrative capture and loss of differentiation, and sets a direction under Pillar 4 to continuously communicate Cardano’s value to the outside world, helping to build long-term trust.
By offering shared KPIs as a common measuring stick while preserving DRep autonomy, I support this proposal. - Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.5M ₳Rationale
Abstain for now. I am just not sure about the effectiveness of this. Companies can barely maintain a roadmap for 6 months before upheaving things for new ideas. If this can just get rolled over then I am not sure we will get the coordinated effort we are hoping for.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
YES Vote Rationale – Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy Framework and KPIs
I support this Info Action because Cardano governance requires a shared strategic framework and measurable reference point to guide treasury allocation, prioritisation, and long-term decision-making. A community-led Vision, Strategy and KPI framework provides DReps with a common measuring stick while remaining non-binding and fully compatible with the Cardano Constitution. My YES vote reflects support for strategic clarity and accountability, not automatic endorsement of any future funding or implementation details.
With respect to governance compensation, my support is contingent on clear, disciplined design. I support DRep compensation only when it is tied to measurable and active participation, assessed over a rolling six-month, epoch-based period, and paid proportionally based on completion of defined metrics (e.g. voting participation, rationale submission, and verifiable governance engagement). Compensation should be flat per qualifying DRep, not scaled by ADA delegated, and should require a minimum delegation threshold (e.g. 500k ADA) to ensure representational legitimacy and prevent governance farming. I support Constitutional Committee compensation due to the responsibility, accountability, and independence required by the role. I remain sceptical of additional SPO compensation, as SPOs already earn revenue through pool fees and governance participation is an expected responsibility; any additional costs should be reflected transparently in pool fee structures rather than paid separately from the treasury.
This YES vote supports strategic direction and governance maturity, while making clear that any future compensation mechanisms must prioritise accountability, fairness, anti-capture safeguards, and constitutional alignment.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Yes. This proposal provides a clear vision and strategy for 2030, giving DReps a framework to focus resources, strengthen governance, and drive Cardano’s long-term growth. It was developed with input from across the ecosystem, ensuring a broad range of perspectives are reflected.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
This is a good solid strategic level framework. Strategic level plans should not include too many specifics as that ultimately ends up interfering at the operational planning level and I believe this strikes the appropriate balance on the strategic description/prescription spectrum.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
I can find myself in most of the points; however:
1/ I don’t consider a gap of more than five minutes in block production to be an outage. While the chance of having no blocks assigned for such a period is indeed extremely low, given the level of decentralization we have, we can and should account for some missed blocks, hence we indeed see some of those. I still see Cardano as having 100% uptime.
2/ Total Value Locked is a stupid metric. - Abstain1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale