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.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
This framework is designed to inform me voting, not enforce it.
I acknowledge that it provides a shared direction to channel collective effort.
By adopting this vision, the community gains the strategic discipline to focus resources and accelerate coherent, long-term growth and treasury resource allocations.
I is clearly stated what the vision is and the KPI's and that this framework is adaptable. - Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
From a strategic standpoint, the value proposition here is essentially the establishment of a "North Star" for the disparate voting body. We are currently operating in a decentralized environment where the Constitution provides the hard constraints, in other words, the "musts" and "must nots", but explicitly lacks the directional mandate of where we should go.
**This proposal attempts to fill that vacuum with "Five Strategic Pillars" **and associated KPIs. My skepticism immediately flags the risk of bureaucratic bloat; however, upon deeper reflection, the lack of a shared strategic definition is currently a greater liability than the existence of a non-binding guidance document. If we do not define what "mission-critical" means in the context of our 2030 objectives, we risk dissipating the Treasury on disjointed initiatives that pass the Constitutional check but fail the strategic necessity test. The way I interpret it is that this proposal bridges the gap between "is this legal?" (Constitution) and "is this wise?" (Strategy).
**My affirmative vote hinges on the crucial need for unity. We cannot afford a governance model that is purely reactive. **While I usually detest "vision statements" as corporate fluff, in a headless decentralized ecosystem, a shared map is not a luxury; it is a critical piece of infrastructure. The proposal respects the Constitutional boundaries while attempting to mature our governance from a technical process into a strategic operation.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳Rationale
We support this Info Action.
The proposal provides a clearly articulated Vision, Strategy Framework, and concrete KPIs toward 2030. These give the entire Cardano ecosystem a shared roadmap and a common set of measurable reference points that DReps, builders, and treasury proposals can align with over time.
The work originates from Intersect’s Product Committee, following a broad, community-led process and drawing on the expertise of many experienced contributors across the ecosystem. This lends both legitimacy and practical relevance to the outcome.
Our main concern is that Cardano currently lacks a clear executive function. If ecosystem-wide KPIs are not met, accountability is inherently diffuse. However, this is a structural challenge of decentralized governance rather than a flaw of this proposal itself.
Despite this limitation, we believe adopting a shared vision and KPI framework is an important step toward more disciplined, coherent, and outcome-driven governance. For these reasons, we vote Yes.
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes955.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain891.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
We support this document. The content has been built by consulting the community world wide in a very inclusive manner. it's content should take us to materially evolve Cardano.
- Yes798.6K ₳No rationale
- No798.4K ₳Rationale
This is not a strategy. It’s a legitimized narrative document produced via a very large consultation process. Its primary output is process credibility, not strategic clarity.
That doesn’t make it useless — but it does mean you should judge it by a higher bar than “700+ people were involved” and “it feels directionally correct”.
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
I really appreciate the effort that went into building this framework. It is a valuable reference point for evaluating proposals going forward against five defined pillars:
- Pillar 1: Infrastructure & Research Excellence
- Pillar 2: Adoption & Utility
- Pillar 3: Governance
- Pillar 4: Community & Ecosystem Growth
- Pillar 5: Ecosystem Sustainability & Resilience
Key performance indicators are suggested, and provide a good reference point for decision making in the governance framework.
- Yes719K ₳Rationale
I vote yes, since this clarity has been needed by Cardano for some time. What sets us apart? This document provides answers to it.
I have personally been involved in several workshops, listening to diverse group of people submit ideas, proposals, and help shape the final outcome. Truly a Cardano community governance in action.
Cardano 2030: Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework and KPIs lays down a framework for structured approach towards governments, businesses and grassroot movements as a platform of choice.
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
This proposal provides a clear, community-led Vision and Strategy for Cardano 2030. It offers DReps a practical reference for decision-making without being prescriptive or constitutional. A positive step for alignment, focus, and long-term growth.
- No625.9K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no because this proposal spent 750,000 ADA to produce a strategic vision document that lacks enforcement mechanisms, excludes critical stakeholder language, prematurely hard-codes narrow market focus, and introduces risky treasury management shifts without adequate governance safeguards. The fundamental problem is this document has no formal directive. It's described as a "community-vetted filter" for DReps to evaluate funding requests, but it's explicitly non-compulsory. Without a binding force, this becomes expensive signaling rather than governance infrastructure. The KPIs are directional but lack ownership, accountability, or consequence for missing targets. Who's responsible if TVL doesn't hit $3 billion by 2030? What happens if decentralization metrics stagnate? The proposal doesn't say.
The mission statement lists "builders, businesses, organizations, governments, and communities" but conspicuously omits individuals. Individuals are foundational to Cardano they became SPOs, builders, delegators, and evangelists because of self-sovereignty and sound-money principles. Excluding explicit mention of individuals risks institutional drift away from the demographic that sustained Cardano through bear markets and early adoption phases. If empowering ordinary people isn't explicitly part of the mission, the strategy subtly deprioritizes them.
Pillar 2 hard-codes "four high-value verticals" for adoption focus—DeFi, RWAs, payments, and identity. This is a premature trend capture, disguised as strategic focus. Picking four verticals in 2025 for a 2030 vision means all other use cases are implicitly classified as low-value, creating accidental exclusion. NFTs aren't mentioned despite being a significant ecosystem vertical. AI isn't mentioned despite the only large enterprise currently deploying millions on Cardano doing so for AI projects. The proposal claims "prioritization requires exclusion," but this level of specificity locks the ecosystem into 2025 assumptions about what matters in 2030. Markets evolve, ossifying vertical focus now guarantees strategic blindness later.
Pillar 5 introduces a "multi-asset treasury" with language around "managed treasury," "generate yields," "strategically deploy capital," and explicit "10%+ ROI" targets. This is a massive strategic shift with zero risk governance framework. The proposal doesn't address conflict-of-interest protections, custody and operational risk, failure modes and rollback plans, mandate boundaries (what's allowed versus forbidden), risk limits and drawdown tolerance, transparency and reporting standards, or governance accountability for losses. If we're moving the treasury from passive ADA holdings to active asset management chasing double-digit returns, we need explicit safeguards, not aspirational yield targets buried in strategy documents.
The decentralization section uses the word "keep" regarding stakepool operator distribution, signaling maintenance rather than improvement. Other focus areas use "improve," "refine," "incentivize," "evolve”, but decentralization gets "keep." That's settling for status quo when community efforts are actively pushing parameter changes to strengthen decentralization. This deserves pillar-level ambition, not passive preservation language.
Grassroots adoption, peer-to-peer networks, education, and outreach are missing entirely. The Product Committee conducted 700+ consultations but produced a framework that reads institution-first and enterprise-focused, without sufficient attention to organic, bottom-up growth mechanisms that built Cardano's early community. This isn't a unified vision, it's a consultant-driven document that cost 750K ADA and lacks binding power, individual-centric language, risk controls for treasury shifts, and strategic flexibility for emerging verticals. The budget was heavily weighted toward consultation 700+ interviews, surveys, focus groups, workshops, but the resulting document doesn't reflect proportional analytical rigor or synthesis quality. You can't interview your way to strategic clarity; at some point you need fewer voices and sharper thinking to distill signal from noise. The Product Committee appears to have prioritized breadth of input over depth of analysis, producing a framework that reads like aggregated bullet points rather than a cohesive strategic vision with hard trade-offs and clear reasoning. For three-quarters of a million ADA, we should expect not just extensive stakeholder engagement, but a document that demonstrates why certain choices were made, what alternatives were rejected, and how competing priorities were resolved, none of which this proposal adequately delivers. - Yes605.7K ₳Rationale
📜 CARDANO 2030 VISION — I VOTE YES ✅
🗳️ This Info Action outlines Cardano’s first long-term, community-driven strategic direction through 2030. It’s not legally binding — but it gives DReps and SPOs a clear framework for making treasury and governance decisions.
🔹 Built by 700+ contributors, the proposal includes:
- Vision: Cardano as the most secure, reliable, and censorship-resistant blockchain for mission-critical applications.
- Mission: To power fair, transparent digital economies for people, businesses, governments, and communities.
- 5 Strategic Pillars: Infrastructure, Utility, Governance, Community Growth, Sustainability.
- KPIs to measure alignment and ecosystem progress.
🔹 Why it matters:
- Helps DReps evaluate proposals more strategically.
- Aligns community efforts with long-term goals.
- Prevents chaos, duplication, and loss of direction.
🟢 I vote YES — because Cardano finally has a shared, community-approved compass for the road ahead.
🔗 Learn more:
🌐 Strategy & KPIs
📄 Vision (PDF)
I’m registered as a DRep and ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem.
- Fully committed to building the world’s largest digital community.
🖤 My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr
More info: https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
- Abstain590.5K ₳No rationale
- No535.2K ₳Rationale
KPI's need much stronger definitions, and much larger targets.
- Abstain533.9K ₳Rationale
Not Constitutional, I abstain.
- Yes502.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes499K ₳Rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes370.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES after reviewing the full 2030 Vision, Strategy and KPI framework in detail. This proposal is not vague direction setting; it clearly defines what success means for Cardano by tying long-term goals to concrete metrics such as network reliability targets, active usage, governance participation, treasury sustainability and real-world adoption. What matters to me is that it prioritises protocol robustness, multi-client resilience, scalable UX and economic self-sufficiency before chasing growth numbers. As an Intersect OSC committee member, I have seen the depth of work, consultation and iteration that has gone into this strategy, and I am confident in Intersect’s ability to steward this framework responsibly with community oversight. This Info Action gives the ecosystem a shared reference point to make better funding, governance and product decisions over the coming years, without prematurely locking the protocol into rigid commitments.
- Yes320.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES in this info action. Without any vision, mission or strategy we cannot navigate the web3 world and we cannot even measure what success means.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I haven’t been very actively involved with the preparation of this framework, so I cannot know how we ended up with those exact KPIs, Strategic Pillars or the specific Mission & Vision. One can identify potential gaps in the strategy or misalignment with their particular desires. We can also keep debating for the refinement of those documents forever without ever reaching consensus. Or we can accept that this is a very good strategy to begin with, a clear vision that’s easy to articulate and always keep in our mind, and a mission that can unite all of our ecosystem participants. Down the line, we can refine or improve our strategy based on user demand and market conditions.
As a DRep, having such a framework in place, makes my life a lot easier because I can clearly recognise if a particular proposal aligns with our strategy, and I can evaluate if a treasury withdrawal will contribute to the realization of our Vision. I can also identify those of the businesses, builders, organisations, communities, and individuals that are amplifying Cardano’s capabilities to become the financial operating system of the world and create digital economies as mandated by our common mission.
Moreover, all of those strategic pillars included in this framework align greatly with what I have always supported consistently.
Therefore, I support this Info Action and I’m voting “YES”.
- Yes313.4K ₳Rationale
I vote yes to support this Info Action as a constructive step toward providing long-term strategic direction for Cardano. In my opinion the proposal is a shared vision, mission, and strategic framework that helps align large initiatives without being prescriptive of outcomes or excluding future ideas.
I think in the context of being understood as a starting point, not a finished plan, the framework itself is intentionally high-level and will require ongoing refinement, community interpretation, and the development of tactical layers to become actionable over time.
I welcome the stated intent to iterate on this work through future tactics, KPIs, and review cycles, allowing the strategy to evolve as new data and community input emerge. Overall, I think there is value to establishing a common direction , and improving proposer agency across the ecosystem.
- Yes300.6K ₳No rationale
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
I just don't see the need for this. I considered abstaining, but at the end of the day I don't think we should bog ourselves down with this kind of formalism.
- Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
Cardano 2030 assembles a professional framework from broad input (700+ participants), with a $200M L1 revenue target, starter KPIs (TVL $3B, 27M txns/mo, 1M MAU, 99.98% uptime), and 7 imperatives (abstraction, culture‑first targeting, talent, enterprise, SPOs, scalability, treasury) offering tactical ideas like turnout‑aware voting and multi‑asset yields.
Yet, as a 2030 strategy, it underdelivers: pillars/imperatives restate themes without prioritization, timelines, owners, or trade‑offs; execution is "distributed" sans coordination; KPIs are explicitly preliminary, deferring fuller sets to 2026. The non‑binding Info Action provides direction but no discipline for treasury/rubric use.
For the effort and funding, this remains an aspirational narrative over operational plan—strong start, immature finish. NO vote, urging iteration for sequencing, commitments, and enforcement to make it DRep‑actionable. - No261K ₳Rationale
GOVERNANCE ACTION REVIEW [EN]
UPSIDES
The importance of a shared vision and strategic orientation for a highly decentralized ecosystem is recognized. The pillar set, in its general formulation, is treated as essential, relevant, and broadly aligned with the core areas of the ecosystem, without an explicit major domain being relegated to a secondary or neglected position.
A broad feedback process is acknowledged, including multiple workshops held across different regions, with workshop inputs largely reflected in the final output. A relatively mature strategic definition process is supported, with refinement prioritized over refoundation, and the overall effort treated as fundamentally positive.
Workshop macro-alignment is noted across core themes such as infrastructure/security, adoption/UX, governance, ecosystem growth, and economic sustainability.
During the first year of Cardano on-chain governance, there was a severe funding bottleneck for small teams, small builders, and emerging contributors. In practice, the vast majority of treasury resources were allocated to founding entities and large, consolidated actors, while smaller initiatives faced extremely limited access to funding.
This was amplified by a governance posture where many dReps prioritized what was labeled as “core” work without sufficient pushback against multi-million-ADA budget requests that lacked acceptable levels of detail, KPIs, or accountability criteria. The systemic effect is damaging: it signals permissiveness toward established actors while eroding trust among small and mid-sized contributors who lack political leverage, visibility, or social capital.
This is especially concerning in an ecosystem that does not benefit from strong Venture Capitals/private investment backing. The treasury is therefore a critical instrument for decentralized innovation. Yet rising bureaucratic barriers (high deposits to submit Governance Actions, complex budgeting processes (e.g., Ekklesia), and popularity-driven dynamics) further excluded competent but less visible teams. The outcome was frustration, disengagement, and, ultimately, brain drain, precisely when the ecosystem should be attracting and retaining talent.
For this reason, I welcome the explicit inclusion of incubators, accelerators, grants, and community programs in the Vision 2030 text. Without these mechanisms functioning effectively, governance risks becoming formally decentralized but materially concentrated.
DOWNSIDES
Blockchain space is a highly dynamic environment due to narratives, macro conditions, regulation, and technological paradigms, making evolving priorities and revisions reasonable expectations.
While the pillars can function as high-level strategic guidance, the current framework, including KPI design, target-setting approach, governance parameters, and supporting accountability mechanisms, remains insufficient to create the pressure, accountability, and institutional discipline required over a five-year horizon.
The proposed KPI set is treated as insufficient given the scope and systemic relevance of the 2030 framework. Metrics such as USD-denominated TVL, address-based MAU, and raw transaction counts are treated as highly sensitive to market cycles, speculative inflows, technical artifacts, and non-human activity, allowing targets to be met without corresponding structural improvement in adoption, real utility, ecosystem quality, or user experience.
The acknowledgment that more granular and actionable KPIs are expected in 2026 is treated as positive but insufficient to justify approving under-specified instrumentation at this stage, given the signaling power and intended five-year reference role.
Several workshop-raised areas are treated as not explicitly articulated, increasing execution risk through deprioritization of implicit topics. Accountability, quality assurance, and reputation systems are treated as notably under-reflected despite explicit workshop discussion. Alternative voting models discussed as mechanisms to address plutocracy and perceived fairness are treated as lacking observable instrumentation.
The absence of any meaningful framing for AI (Artificial Intelligence) in the Vision 2030 is concerning. For a cutting-edge technology project articulated in 2025, this omission is difficult to justify. AI is not a buzzword; it is a transversal capability that can materially improve productivity, coordination in decentralized systems, developer tooling, onboarding, security monitoring, and execution quality. AI could be used as an assiting tool to every single pillar described on the stratgic plan for 2030.
The lack of even a minimal strategic framing for AI, including principles and boundaries, is therefore a notable downside.
RISKS AND CONCERNS
Accountability, audit, quality assurance, delivery performance, historical track record, and reputation systems for proposers, executors, and governance actors are treated as missing strategic priorities, weakening ex-post evaluation, consequences, and institutional learning. Without mechanisms and metrics capturing quality, execution reliability, and long-term performance, macro-level KPIs risk remaining aspirational rather than operational.
Treasury Withdrawal practice in 2025 included dozens of approvals with weak cost definitions, generic or absent KPIs, and poor ex-ante and ex-post criteria. In that context, a small number of ecosystem-wide KPIs are insufficient to create systemic pressure for proposal-level rigor. System-level KPIs are non-substitutes for mandatory minimum standards on cost breakdowns, milestones, outcome metrics, and auditability.
The governance decentralization KPI targeting 50% + 1 of effective voting power being controlled by more than 22 dReps is a minimal anti-collusion threshold rather than a meaningful decentralization objective, setting a low bar that can be satisfied without substantial improvement in stake dispersion or governance pluralism. Limited incentive is created for broader delegation, emergence of new influential dReps, or reduction of concentration beyond a narrow safety margin.
Treasury funding concentration per entities/groups and development decentralization are insufficiently instrumented. Thresholds limiting treasury funding concentration by a single entity or related group are absent, alongside metrics evaluating decentralization of development and execution. A “two or more nodes” diversity measure is insufficient to mitigate systemic risk; development decentralization, executor diversity, and funding dispersion are requiring explicit instrumentation.
A five-year horizon is incompatible with weak and sparse KPIs amid observed treasury withdrawal pace and limited replenishment mechanisms, increasing the risk of institutional complacency. A longer horizon require stronger targets, more granular instrumentation, and periodic recalibration.
A funding bottleneck for small teams and emerging contributors is relevant risk, with the practical effect of allocating most treasury resources to founding entities and consolidated actors while smaller initiatives face limited access.
Bureaucratic barriers (high deposits to submit Governance Actions, complex budgeting processes, popularity-driven dynamics) are exclusionary pressures that can drive frustration, disengagement, and brain drain, especially in an ecosystem without strong VC backing, undermining material decentralization even when formal decentralization exists.
VOTE RATIONALE
A shared vision and strategic orientation are supported, and the pillars are treated as broadly relevant as an organizing framework. However, the KPI set, targets, and parameters are treated as inadequate as a five-year reference for governance and resource allocation.
Market-sensitive metrics (USD-denominated TVL, address-based MAU, raw transaction counts) are vulnerable to vanity outcomes and capable of being satisfied without structural improvement in adoption, real utility, ecosystem quality, or user experience.
Accountability, auditability, execution quality, delivery performance, and reputation systems are insufficiently prioritized, despite being raised in workshops. System-level KPIs are non-substitutes for minimum proposal-level standards for Treasury Withdrawals (cost breakdowns, milestones, outcome metrics, ex-ante and ex-post evaluation criteria).
Governance decentralization instrumentation is weak and poorly suited to incentivize real decentralization, while funding concentration and development decentralization remain insufficiently instrumented.
A vote change to YES is conditioned on a revised version that adds more KPIs per pillar and sub-items; strengthens and normalizes targets (e.g., TVL in ADA and/or TVL/market cap); reinforces minimum standards for Treasury Withdrawals; and introduces explicit anti-concentration thresholds for treasury funding plus accountability, reputation, execution-quality, and development-decentralization metrics.
REVISÃO DE AÇÃO DE GOVERNANÇA [PT]
PONTOS POSITIVOS
Reconhece-se a importância de uma visão compartilhada e de uma orientação estratégica para um ecossistema altamente descentralizado. O conjunto de pilares, em sua formulação geral, é tratado como essencial, relevante e amplamente alinhado às áreas centrais do ecossistema, sem que um domínio principal seja explicitamente rebaixado a uma posição secundária ou negligenciada.
Reconhece-se um processo amplo de coleta de feedback, incluindo múltiplos workshops realizados em diferentes regiões, com insumos desses workshops em grande parte refletidos no resultado final. Apoia-se um processo relativamente maduro de definição estratégica, com priorização de refinamento em vez de refundação, e o esforço geral é tratado como fundamentalmente positivo.
Nota-se um macroalinhamento dos workshops em torno de temas centrais como infraestrutura/segurança, adoção/UX, governança, crescimento do ecossistema e sustentabilidade econômica.
Durante o primeiro ano da governança on-chain da Cardano, houve um gargalo severo de financiamento para equipes pequenas, pequenos builders e contribuidores emergentes. Na prática, a vasta maioria dos recursos do tesouro foi alocada a entidades fundadoras e atores grandes e consolidados, enquanto iniciativas menores enfrentaram acesso extremamente limitado a financiamento.
Isso foi amplificado por uma postura de governança em que muitos dReps priorizaram o que foi rotulado como trabalho “core” sem contraposição suficiente a pedidos de orçamento de múltiplos milhões de ADA que careciam de níveis aceitáveis de detalhamento, KPIs ou critérios de accountability. O efeito sistêmico é danoso: sinaliza permissividade com atores estabelecidos enquanto corrói a confiança de contribuidores pequenos e médios que não têm alavancagem política, visibilidade ou capital social.
Isso é especialmente preocupante em um ecossistema que não se beneficia de forte suporte de Venture Capitals/investimento privado. O tesouro é, portanto, um instrumento crítico para inovação descentralizada. Ainda assim, o aumento de barreiras burocráticas (depósitos altos para submeter Governance Actions, processos complexos de orçamento, por exemplo Ekklesia, e dinâmicas orientadas por popularidade) excluiu ainda mais equipes competentes porém menos visíveis. O resultado foi frustração, desengajamento e, por fim, fuga de cérebros, exatamente quando o ecossistema deveria estar atraindo e retendo talentos.
Por esse motivo, acolhe-se a inclusão explícita de incubadoras, aceleradoras, grants e programas comunitários no texto da Vision 2030. Sem esses mecanismos funcionando de forma efetiva, a governança corre o risco de se tornar formalmente descentralizada, mas materialmente concentrada.
PONTOS NEGATIVOS
O espaço blockchain é um ambiente altamente dinâmico devido a narrativas, condições macroeconômicas, regulação e paradigmas tecnológicos, tornando prioridades evolutivas e revisões expectativas razoáveis.
Embora os pilares possam funcionar como orientação estratégica de alto nível, o framework atual, incluindo desenho de KPIs, abordagem de definição de metas, parâmetros de governança e mecanismos de accountability de suporte, permanece insuficiente para criar a pressão, a responsabilização e a disciplina institucional requeridas ao longo de um horizonte de cinco anos.
O conjunto proposto de KPIs é tratado como insuficiente dada a abrangência e a relevância sistêmica do framework 2030. Métricas como TVL denominado em USD, MAU baseado em endereços e contagens brutas de transações são tratadas como altamente sensíveis a ciclos de mercado, entradas especulativas, artefatos técnicos e atividade não-humana, permitindo que metas sejam atingidas sem melhoria estrutural correspondente em adoção, utilidade real, qualidade do ecossistema ou experiência do usuário.
O reconhecimento de que KPIs mais granulares e acionáveis são esperados em 2026 é tratado como positivo, mas insuficiente para justificar a aprovação de instrumentação subespecificada neste estágio, dado o poder de sinalização e o papel pretendido como referência de cinco anos.
Diversas áreas levantadas nos workshops são tratadas como não explicitamente articuladas, aumentando o risco de execução por despriorização de tópicos implícitos. Accountability, garantia de qualidade e sistemas de reputação são tratados como sub-refletidos de forma notável, apesar de discussão explícita nos workshops. Modelos alternativos de votação discutidos como mecanismos para lidar com plutocracia e percepção de justiça são tratados como carentes de instrumentação observável.
A ausência de qualquer enquadramento minimamente significativo para IA (Inteligência Artificial) na Vision 2030 é preocupante. Para um projeto de tecnologia de ponta articulado em 2025, essa omissão é difícil de justificar. IA não é buzzword; é uma capacidade transversal que pode melhorar materialmente produtividade, coordenação em sistemas descentralizados, ferramental para desenvolvedores, onboarding, monitoramento de segurança e qualidade de execução. IA poderia ser usada como ferramenta de apoio a cada pilar descrito no plano estratégico para 2030.
A falta de sequer um enquadramento estratégico mínimo para IA, incluindo princípios e limites, é, portanto, um ponto negativo relevante.
RISCOS E PREOCUPAÇÕES
Accountability, auditoria, garantia de qualidade, desempenho de entrega, histórico de execução e sistemas de reputação para proponentes, executores e atores de governança são tratados como prioridades estratégicas ausentes, enfraquecendo avaliação ex-post, consequências e aprendizado institucional. Sem mecanismos e métricas que capturem qualidade, confiabilidade de execução e desempenho de longo prazo, KPIs macro correm o risco de permanecer aspiracionais, em vez de operacionais.
A prática de Treasury Withdrawals em 2025 incluiu dezenas de aprovações com definições de custo fracas, KPIs genéricos ou ausentes e critérios ex-ante e ex-post deficientes. Nesse contexto, um pequeno número de KPIs de nível ecossistêmico é insuficiente para criar pressão sistêmica por rigor no nível das propostas. KPIs sistêmicos não substituem padrões mínimos obrigatórios para detalhamento de custos, marcos, métricas de resultado e auditabilidade.
O KPI de descentralização de governança que mira 50% + 1 do poder efetivo de voto controlado por mais de 22 dReps é um limiar mínimo anti-conluio, e não um objetivo significativo de descentralização, estabelecendo um patamar baixo que pode ser satisfeito sem melhora substancial em dispersão de stake ou pluralismo de governança. Cria-se pouco incentivo para delegação mais ampla, surgimento de novos dReps influentes ou redução de concentração além de uma margem estreita de segurança.
A concentração de funding do tesouro por entidades/grupos e a descentralização do desenvolvimento estão insuficientemente instrumentadas. Ausentam-se limiares que limitem a concentração de funding do tesouro por uma única entidade ou grupo relacionado, assim como métricas que avaliem descentralização de desenvolvimento e execução. Uma medida de diversidade “dois ou mais nós” é insuficiente para mitigar risco sistêmico; descentralização de desenvolvimento, diversidade de executores e dispersão de funding exigem instrumentação explícita.
Um horizonte de cinco anos é incompatível com KPIs fracos e esparsos diante do ritmo observado de retiradas do tesouro e de mecanismos limitados de reposição, aumentando o risco de complacência institucional. Um horizonte mais longo requer metas mais fortes, instrumentação mais granular e recalibração periódica.
Um gargalo de financiamento para equipes pequenas e contribuidores emergentes é um risco relevante, com o efeito prático de alocar a maior parte dos recursos do tesouro a entidades fundadoras e atores consolidados, enquanto iniciativas menores enfrentam acesso limitado.
Barreiras burocráticas (depósitos altos para submeter Governance Actions, processos complexos de orçamento, dinâmicas orientadas por popularidade) são pressões excludentes que podem gerar frustração, desengajamento e fuga de cérebros, especialmente em um ecossistema sem forte suporte de VC, minando a descentralização material mesmo quando existe descentralização formal.
JUSTIFICATIVA DO VOTO
Uma visão compartilhada e uma orientação estratégica são apoiadas, e os pilares são tratados como amplamente relevantes como framework organizador. No entanto, o conjunto de KPIs, metas e parâmetros é tratado como inadequado como referência de cinco anos para governança e alocação de recursos.
Métricas sensíveis ao mercado (TVL denominado em USD, MAU baseado em endereços, contagens brutas de transações) são vulneráveis a resultados de vaidade e podem ser satisfeitas sem melhoria estrutural em adoção, utilidade real, qualidade do ecossistema ou experiência do usuário.
Accountability, auditabilidade, qualidade de execução, desempenho de entrega e sistemas de reputação são insuficientemente priorizados, apesar de terem sido levantados nos workshops. KPIs sistêmicos não substituem padrões mínimos no nível de proposta para Treasury Withdrawals (detalhamento de custos, marcos, métricas de resultado, critérios de avaliação ex-ante e ex-post).
A instrumentação de descentralização de governança é fraca e pouco adequada para incentivar descentralização real, enquanto concentração de funding e descentralização do desenvolvimento permanecem insuficientemente instrumentadas.
Uma mudança de voto para YES fica condicionada a uma versão revisada que: adicione mais KPIs por pilar e subitens; fortaleça e normalize metas (por exemplo, TVL em ADA e/ou TVL/market cap); reforce padrões mínimos para Treasury Withdrawals; e introduza limiares explícitos anti-concentração para funding do tesouro, além de métricas de accountability, reputação,
- Yes260.2K ₳Rationale
I support this Info Action as a step toward Cardano’s strategic maturity as a fully community-governed network. It provides DReps with a shared, non-binding framework to assess treasury spending and long-term priorities. Clear strategic positioning and measurable KPIs improve capital efficiency, credibility, and sustainable real-world adoption without compromising decentralization.
- Yes245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
I endorse the Cardano 2030 Vision and Strategy. This community-led framework, developed through an extensive and repeatable process involving over 700 participants, provides a clear shared direction for Cardano's future. Most importantly for my role, the defined Strategic Pillars and associated KPIs offer an essential measuring stick and guidance, enabling DReps like myself to more effectively evaluate proposals, allocate treasury resources, and ensure initiatives align with our long-term goal of becoming the most secure, reliable, and censorship-resistant blockchain for mission-critical applications. This non-binding strategic tool will empower better-informed governance decisions without imposing restrictions, fostering focused and coherent ecosystem growth.
- No233.2K ₳Rationale
i’m voting no because this reads like a brochure: big claims, low specificity. “most secure” and “mission critical” are fine goals, but dreps can’t use goals to allocate capital.
if the kpis aren’t defined in a way that resists sybils, wash activity, and mercenary liquidity, then the “measuring stick” becomes a scoreboard you can cheat.
bring it back with:
kpi definitions + data sources + anti-gaming rules
explicit tradeoffs (what gets deprioritized)
clean process legitimacy (who approved, who maintains, how changes happen)
right idea. not tight enough to ratify. - Yes232.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes217.4K ₳Rationale
Lets go!
- Yes215.5K ₳No rationale