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.
- Yes193.9K ₳Rationale
Why Vote YES
A key reason might some people like me hesitate to vote yes is the absence of person-level or grassroots adoption metrics. That concern is reasonable. It was raised, discussed, and answered honestly: we don’t yet have reliable ways to measure unique individuals or real community participation. That’s a limitation of today’s infrastructure, not a statement about what matters.
Voting YES is the pragmatic choice because it enables progress rather than freezing it:
It acknowledges reality without pretending it’s permanent.
The governance tool reflects what can be measured responsibly today, while leaving room to add better metrics as identity and measurement capabilities mature.It treats the Vision as a living framework, not a final verdict.
Passing it creates a shared baseline that can evolve—especially on hard problems like SSI, personhood, and community adoption—once the right tools exist.It avoids blocking progress over missing prerequisites.
Waiting for perfect measurement would delay coordination. Governance should move forward and surface the gaps we need to close next.It creates the conditions to fix what’s missing.
You can’t meaningfully improve how we measure humans and communities without a governance mechanism that can prioritize, fund, and iterate on those capabilities.It aligns incentives toward improvement instead of stalemate.
A “YES” vote doesn’t deny grassroots adoption; it keeps the door open to make it measurable and first-class in future iterations.In short: vote YES to move forward with honesty, keep the document adaptable, and create the governance capacity needed to eventually measure what truly matters—real people and real communities.
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes174.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of this info action. The overall goal of the info action is a good one. In general a vision document is valuable to have to focus efforts towards a common goal, and I believe this should be supported. The vision outlined is also well thought through and aligns with my view of where Cardano should move towards in the future. The pillars identified are all important but are not assigned a particular order of priority. This does make the vision slightly less focused but is reasonable since there would be significant disagreement on that front. I do appreciate, however, that the main focus is on branding Cardano as a mission-critical, high-assurance protocol, and this focuses on its legitimate strengths. This is a good decision in my view, as we need to stop comparing all blockchains using the same metrics. Cardano's focus should be on decentralized stability and security. All the pillars in the action support that goal. The KPIs are an interesting component. I don't actually think that KPIs are required for this type of vision document, and I can't say I fully agree with the KPIs listed. I only say this in the context that this space moves so quickly that I don't think KPIs can stay relevant for a 5 year period. That said, I don't see anything that is incorrect in terms of focus and the KPIs can always change in the future if they become irrelevant and the community agrees to change the focus. Overall a solid proposal that I am happy to support.
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes71.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain69.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳No rationale
- No64.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain55.9K ₳Rationale
its fine, a solid plan, but to my ears its too specific in too many places to count as "continuation" of the initial roadmap, which just defined an end-state. This proposal sounds like a wishlist, which, if approved, could be exploited for budget & TW requests.
i am FOR what they have created, but dont consider it to be an "official" roadmap - as there is no official anymore. This info action could become a Trojan horse as reference in future TWs (by arguing: "you voted for the roadmap, so you must vote yes on this budget request and this TW request, otherwise the roadmap's fulfilment is in danger, which means in Cardano is in danger, and its your fault. ".
there is at the grander scheme of things nothing wrong with a "pre-budgetInfoAction-InfoAction", as the items are solid, but approving this without values might block other, "un"official developments, contributions from being realizable. In fact, this might even destroy the "market" (=treasury) for companies to contribute to Cardano and thus hurt decentralization.Since they dont mention that this is not a Trojan horse for future budget requests, which Charles would not unlikely hold against the community again, like he did for the previous budget round, where he accused everyone who votes against the monolithical and rather intransparent IO budget of destroying Cardano and critique to any part of the budget got aggressive responses like "then you decided that IO and me leave Cardano. fine. help yourselves". (sry. shouldnt have been a Charles rant at all. just using him / his past to make a point.) - i vote abstain not to block it, but also not to ignore my red flags
- Yes50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.7K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this Info Action in support of establishing a shared Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy as a strategic reference point for the ecosystem.
Disclosure: I served as a voting member of the 2024–2025 Cardano Product Committee, which facilitated the community-led process that produced this Vision and Strategy. While this governance action was submitted by a community member, the underlying content reflects a documented, open, and repeatable process involving 700+ participants, cross-ecosystem stakeholders, and delegated authority granted during the 2025 budget cycle.
I support this action because Cardano now operates in full on-chain governance and requires a clear, community-backed strategic compass. This Vision and Strategy provide DReps with a non-binding but essential measuring stick—connecting infrastructure excellence to real-world utility, governance maturity, ecosystem sustainability, and long-term differentiation.
Importantly, this document does not constrain future governance decisions nor carry constitutional force. It offers a shared direction, not enforcement. The framework, pillars, and KPIs are intended to evolve through future Info Actions as new data emerges.
- Yes48.6K ₳Rationale
Good
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
Yes for us, the same with the constitution.
The Cardano 2030 is a longer term and strategically approach with quantifiable KPIs for the community to come together across different point of view.This is curcial even when the IOG now launching and shifting some focus for the Midnight network
- No45.8K ₳Rationale
Wistkey Lab appreciates the significant effort and community input invested in developing the Cardano 2030 Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework, and KPIs. We recognize the value of attempting to articulate a long-term direction for the ecosystem. However, we are voting NO at this stage due to several substantive concerns.
First, DReps must retain independent judgment when evaluating governance actions and funding decisions. Framing this document as a “community-vetted filter” for future proposals risks turning a strategic document into a soft policy or gatekeeping tool. Strategy should inform decision-making, not constrain it or condition votes against a static framework.
Second, the proposed KPIs are largely aspirational and difficult to measure or hold accountable in practice. Many outcomes described are influenced by external factors beyond direct governance control. We believe performance-based measures and clearly defined measures of effectiveness would provide a more practical and accountable way to assess progress over time.
Third, the Sustainability & Resilience pillar introduces a major strategic shift toward a managed, multi-asset treasury with yield generation and ROI targets. While this direction may be worth exploring, the proposal does not sufficiently address critical governance requirements such as risk management frameworks, accountability structures, conflict-of-interest protections, custody models, failure modes, or rollback mechanisms. Without these safeguards, the treasury strategy appears premature.
Finally, the framing of Cardano as “The World’s Operating System” is overly expansive and lacks focus. Such broad positioning risks diluting strategic clarity rather than reinforcing Cardano’s core strengths and differentiators. - No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes29.3K ₳Rationale
We need a clear vision, what does Cardano do and what should it achieve by 2030, set it clearly apart from other chains and have a simple 1-3 word explanation of its purpose.
- No26.7K ₳Rationale
The proposal wants more bullshit workshops which Intersect has failed to run well over the last two years. You look at the vision creation process, no retail involvement and more BS humanitarian aid stuff. This isn't going to bring any success to Cardano and is a waste of everyone's time. Get actual people with business experience into Cardano. I vote no due to a lack of faith, results, direction, and general competency that Intersect has show.
- Abstain24.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.6K ₳Rationale
I'm like this proposal, so I'm voting yes
- Yes8.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.1K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- No4.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes682 ₳No rationale
- Yes566.9 ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged4 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes6mo agoSuperseded
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
Yes6mo agoSuperseded
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
Yes6mo agoSuperseded
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
Yes6mo agoSuperseded
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale