Cardano Critical Integrations Budget
273 DReps voted · 102 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes18.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes17.3M ₳Rationale
Cardano Critical Integrations Budget
- No16.7M ₳Rationale
We support the goal of bringing critical integrations such as stablecoins, custody, bridges, and analytics to Cardano, but the current proposal lacks the transparency needed for a ₳70M treasury withdrawal. There is no itemized cost breakdown, no clear prioritization of integrations, and limited visibility into partner selection or execution strategy. This level of opacity is not acceptable for the largest budget request in Cardano’s history. We encourage a revised version with clear costs, justification, and accountability so the community can responsibly support this important initiative.
- Yes16.4M ₳Rationale
This infrastructure is needed and it's great to see the entities working together.
- Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
I am choosing to **Abstain **on this Budget Info Action. The proposal addresses real and long-standing gaps in Cardano’s infrastructure, including tier-one stablecoin integrations, institutional custody, pricing oracles, analytics platforms, and cross-chain interoperability. These are important and overdue components of a mature DeFi ecosystem, and I appreciate the coordinated effort by the Cardano Foundation, IOG, EMURGO, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect to bring forward a unified plan.
However, while I recognize the strategic value of these integrations and support the objective at a high level, the governance structure and information available at this stage leave significant uncertainties. The request is exceptionally large, consuming nearly the entire remaining Net-Change Limit, and is framed as a broad discretionary budget rather than a set of well-defined, independently scoped integrations. Vendor confidentiality and NDAs limit the ability to assess cost efficiency, partner selection, commercial risk, or the mechanism by which downstream obligations will be managed. These constraints are understandable given the nature of commercial negotiations, but they restrict the transparency and evaluative clarity I normally require for a budget of this magnitude.
The Steering Committee composed of the ecosystem’s founding entities is a strong signal of alignment, yet it also centralizes decision-making at a scale that warrants careful scrutiny. While milestones, audits, and bi-annual reporting provide oversight at the structural level, they do not fully resolve questions around precedence, risk distribution, and the longer-term implications of authorizing such a substantial, opaque, multi-domain funding pool.
In short, I support the intention behind this proposal and acknowledge the urgency of improving Cardano’s foundational integrations. At the same time, I do not believe I have enough visibility into the scope, commercial structure, or risk profile of the underlying integrations to confidently vote Yes, nor do the concerns rise to the level of justifying a No given the ecosystem importance and community alignment.
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
As Wada DRep, we recognise the intrinsic value of the end products envisioned by this proposal. After extended internal deliberation and a conscious effort to step away from the urgency and pressure surrounding this proposal, we have resolved to support it based on the substance of its intended outcomes, while clearly condemning the rushed manner in which it has been introduced to the ecosystem. Our support is not an endorsement of the process as executed, but a measured decision grounded in the long-term interests of Cardano and the material importance of what this proposal seeks to address.
At its core, the proposal targets the maintenance and continuity of critical integrations that underpin Cardano’s operational reliability, developer experience, and broader ecosystem functionality. These integrations are not experimental or speculative; they are already deeply embedded in how exchanges, wallets, developers, and infrastructure providers interact with the network. Historical evidence across Cardano’s lifecycle shows that underinvestment in maintenance layers tends to surface later as systemic friction, slowed adoption, or emergency interventions that are far more costly. In this sense, the proposal aligns with a preventative rather than reactive approach to ecosystem stewardship, which we consider a valid and timely objective.
From an external context perspective, the broader industry provides ample precedent for the importance of sustained funding for core infrastructure. Major blockchain ecosystems that failed to adequately resource maintenance and integration layers have experienced degraded reliability, fragmented tooling, and loss of developer confidence. Conversely, ecosystems that treated core integrations as shared public goods have generally demonstrated stronger long-term resilience. Cardano’s 2030 Vision explicitly emphasizes reliability, scalability, and real-world utility as foundational pillars, and this proposal contributes directly to those enabling conditions, even if it does not fully articulate that linkage itself.
That said, we are unequivocal in our concern regarding the timing and compressed review window. The proposal was introduced late in the current Net Change Limit cycle, leaving limited headroom for the depth of scrutiny that a request of this magnitude warrants. This constraint is not trivial. Large-scale treasury withdrawals require ample time for DReps, Constitutional Committee members, and the wider community to interrogate assumptions, assess alternatives, and stress-test risk. While the successful ratification of the NCL extension technically permits consideration of this proposal, procedural adequacy should not be conflated with governance best practice. On this point, we believe the proposers underestimated the importance of pacing in a maturing governance system.
Despite these process shortcomings, we are persuaded that rejecting the proposal outright would introduce its own risks. Deferring investment in critical integrations until a future cycle could expose the ecosystem to cumulative technical debt, fragmented responsibility, and increased operational fragility. Moreover, the entities positioned to execute this work possess demonstrable historical context, domain expertise, and institutional memory that would be difficult to replicate quickly through alternative arrangements. While this does not exempt them from accountability, it does materially reduce execution risk compared to a cold start with new operators.
Our support is therefore conditional in spirit, even if procedurally expressed as a “Yes” vote. We expect heightened transparency during implementation, clear reporting on how funds are allocated across integration streams, and a demonstrable effort to avoid normalising late-stage, high-magnitude treasury requests in future cycles. We also strongly recommend that similar initiatives be fielded earlier in subsequent NCL timelines, allowing for modularisation, staged funding, and deeper community alignment before decisions are required.
In conclusion, we vote to support this proposal because the outcomes it seeks to achieve are strategically important for Cardano’s stability, credibility, and long-term adoption, and because delaying action carries its own systemic costs. At the same time, we explicitly reject the rushed framing under which it has been presented. Effective governance is not only about approving the right ideas, but about introducing them in ways that respect the time, responsibility, and deliberative role of governance actors. Supporting this proposal should not be interpreted as acceptance of its process, but as a pragmatic decision to safeguard critical infrastructure while signalling the need for more disciplined governance practices going forward.
- Yes11.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged10.4M ₳Rationale
Conditional Yes - Cardano ecosystem could really benefit from this proposal. However, there is a lot of detail missing and I expect this to change.
Which vendors are you targeting in each category? What is the estimate cost in USD for each (category budget)?
There is also some overlap in oversight committee, this is for me a conflict of interest, I hope there will be more detail later. A lot of changes need to happen to showcase more transparency to the community
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
Cardano ecosystem could really benefit from this proposal. However, there is a lot of detail missing and I expect this to change.
Which vendors are you targeting in each category? What is the estimate cost in USD for each (category budget)?
There is also some overlap in oversight committee, this is for me a conflict of interest, I hope there will be more detail later. A lot of changes need to happen to showcase more transparency to the community
- Yes9.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案は、Cardanoが長年抱えてきた基盤的インフラ不足という構造的課題を解決するための重要な取り組みであり、エコシステム全体に波及する公共財として大きな意義を持つと考えます。Cardanoの中長期的な成長に不可欠であり、L1としての持続的な競争力を確立するための合理的な投資であると判断し、賛成します。\n\nThis proposal addresses Cardano’s long-standing structural challenge of insufficient foundational infrastructure and represents an important initiative that will benefit the entire ecosystem as a public good. I consider it essential for Cardano’s mid- to long-term growth and a rational investment toward strengthening its sustainable competitiveness as a layer-one blockchain. Therefore, I vote Yes.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
Let me address the elephant in the room: I committed to approve up to ₳200-250M of spending in 1st year of minimum viable governance (MVG). DReps approved 272M ADA. I voted YES to ₳172M so far.
If I vote YES here, I come to ₳242MI expected we would come to a moment like this. Budgets have been submitted as a smorgasbord so far - without a focus on major items that REQUIRE collaboration of the Big 3.
I have also voted against the Cardano Summit, which involved 2 out of the 3 founding entities - in part because of this piecemeal approach. We are too small of an ecosystem to plunge into Voltaire disunited.
I am well aware that I committed that cardano govtool would be my last YES vote this NCL year (apart from emergencies). So, for me, the logical path is to vote NO on this proposed Cardano Critical Integrations Budget as the current NCL expires on 4 January 2026. Then a new NCL would be approved and I would be able to vote YES for this proposal under a new NCL.
This path would allow me to keep my promise to my delegators. It would allow me to stay true to my own words. Don't compromise. Focus on my narrow DRep agenda.
Is the strategic need for: Stablecoins, Institutional Digital Asset Custodies and Wallet Infrastructures, On-chain Analytics Platforms, Cross-Chain Bridges and Pricing Oracle Infrastructures - a true emergency that requires a YES vote from me now?
It is not. If these issues were not an emergency until 27 November 2025, they could certainly wait for 4 January 2026 - allowing me to stick to my own line in the sand until a new NCL is approved.
I should say no, technically.Previously I also voted NO to the Tier 1 listing proposal for SNEK and to the Stablecoin proposal - that were attempts by teams to patch up some Cardano commercial holes - through valiant yet piecemeal efforts. Piecemeal and haphazard efforts will probably not save us in the commercial sphere.
So, is there an emergency here? Is the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget an emergency?
In my view - yes. But for a different reason.
With the advent of Voltaire - the founding entities have been struggling to shape their new roles. Their visions of their own future independent roles collided with the reality that the ecosystem is not ready to paddle on its own - as participants often row in different directions.
The Soft Fork incident demonstrated - that governance decentralization is a process and that true leadership is always welcome. Be it a centralized or decentralized system.
Ecosystem-wide leadership is needed for big ticket items. And it cannot emerge from small Cardano nodes yet.
This proposal is an emergency - as it is an attempt to redefine the relationship of the 3 Cardano Founding entities based on their common future interests with the community, rather than on their disparate versions of the past and their past roles.
As the 3 Cardano founding entities found the strength to compromise, I too can compromise by voting YES. There is an added value of having Intersect and the Midnight Foundation onboard with these efforts.
I compromise at the price of mine own DRep credibility, as I believe that the community's interests take precedence over my narrow DRep interests.
It is a vote of trust in the cooperation among Emurgo, in the CF, in IOG, in Intersect and the Midnight Foundation.
A YES vote with a warning: do not disappoint us. The warning is based on the fact that the success metrics as stated: Integration is live on mainnet - are weak. Without binding KPIs. A poorly delivered result could permanently damage trust in treasury governance and the entire decentralized governance model.
Uniti nos stare, divisi cadimus.
- Yes7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.4M ₳Rationale
It's a MUST!
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I strongly support the Critical Integrations Budget proposal, as it represents a meaningful forward step to gauge community sentiment on allocating 70 million ADA toward essential DeFi infrastructure, including bridges, oracles, and stablecoins. This proposal aims to accelerate ecosystem adoption while stating that detailed costs, commitments, and external funding contributions (where possible due to NDAs) are transparently addressed. I expect additional information to unfold in the coming week with subsequent spaces being hosted, community discussions and questions answered, and ultimately the TWA that is submitted.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳Rationale
A must have for our ecosystem !
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
This has been long overdue and is extremely beneficial for everyone that is in and uses the Cardano ecosystem. I truly believe this is the cyberpunk movement we've been waiting for.
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
I will support the initiative from the founding entities and await the official treasury withdrawal governance action for more details, as indicated in this info action.
Notably, Tether, Circle, and Chainlink are not mentioned by name, and no costs for these integrations are provided. I believe the entities may have a strategic plan they prefer not to reveal publicly just yet.
Ultimately, it is a matter of trust at this stage, and I do trust all of them. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13a2dqgwxum7d6kjfprcs57cf9733ek2dkt5qnuhqd4ll5ntcwu7sqluwkxd), pois ela representa, até o momento, a proposta mais importante discutida no âmbito da governança em 2025. A união das empresas fundadoras — IOG, Fundação Cardano e Emurgo — com o Intersect e a Fundação Midnight, com o objetivo de reparar lacunas críticas de infraestrutura e bases de liquidez, como stablecoins de nível 1, pontes e oráculos, ainda que tardia, é precisamente o passo que faltava para finalmente posicionar a Cardano como uma plataforma verdadeiramente atrativa para o DeFi, TradFi, RWA e para todo o fluxo de liquidez que passará a integrar o ecossistema ao abrir as portas para investidores fora da bolha. Os 70 milhões de ADA solicitados devem ser vistos não como um custo, mas como um investimento estratégico com potencial de atrair bilhões de dólares em TVL para a rede, beneficiando todo o conjunto de investidores, desenvolvedores e construtores que atuam na plataforma de contratos inteligentes mais segura do mercado. Além disso, os fundos solicitados correspondem ao budget remanescente do NCL atual, prestes a expirar, demonstrando sensibilidade e responsabilidade das proponentes em priorizar os recursos comunitários antes de utilizá-los para impulsionar a Cardano rumo à próxima fronteira de crescimento. Apreciamos também o fato de que já existam pré-acordos estabelecidos, orçamentos negociados e cronogramas definidos, o que reforça a eficiência, transparência e seriedade na aplicação do capital solicitado. Vamos, Cardano — o próximo nível nos espera!
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action (gov_action13a2dqgwxum7d6kjfprcs57cf9733ek2dkt5qnuhqd4ll5ntcwu7sqluwkxd), as it represents the most significant governance proposal discussed in 2025. The alliance between the founding entities — IOG, Cardano Foundation, and Emurgo — together with Intersect and the Midnight Foundation, aiming to address critical infrastructure and liquidity gaps such as tier-1 stablecoins, bridges, and oracles, albeit late, is precisely what was missing to firmly position Cardano as an attractive platform for DeFi, TradFi, RWA, and all forms of liquidity that will flow into the ecosystem as it opens its doors to investors beyond the bubble. The 70 million ADA requested should be seen not as a cost, but as a strategic investment capable of attracting billions of dollars in TVL to the network, benefiting the entire community of investors, developers, and builders operating on the most secure smart contract platform in the market. Moreover, the requested funds represent the remaining budget of the current NCL, which is about to expire, showing the proposers’ awareness and responsibility in prioritizing community resources before deploying them to take Cardano to its next growth frontier. We also appreciate that there are already pre-agreements, negotiated budgets, and pre-defined schedules, reinforcing the efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the management of the proposed capital. Let’s go, Cardano — the next level awaits! - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
The overriding principle I have for the Treasury use is as a sovereign wealth fund which should grow over time and not depleted. This action puts a significant portion of that Treasury at risk by approving spending on undetailed expenses for a fuzzy deliverables list, which may or may not substantially impact the ecosystem. Thus there is a very high bar for approving this, especially since it is a blank-check with limited safeguards.
However, the Cardano ecosystem is substantially underperforming our peers. Lack of liquidity and interconnection are negatively impacting the ecosystem momentum. If market liquidity, DeFi use, as well as real world assets do not substantially change, Cardano risks being left behind. I see that outcome multiplied by its probability negatively impacting the Treasury value more than this withdrawal which offers the possibility of changing that outcome.
I have been a Cardano supporter since the first Cardano Summit in Miami in 2019, when I decided to back a leader and his team. I trusted them to with my money to get the necessary work done. At that time, the Cardano Foundation led by Michael Parsons was a negative force on the ecosystem, and Emergo was delivering very little value. I see this proposed organization as a combined team stronger than the one I originally supported in 2019.
I admit that I am taking a leap of faith that this is not a cash-grab by these entities and their own self-interest will align with the holders to deliver the proper systems at a reasonable price. I approve of this, with reservation, but see the potential value worth this risk.
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
I like the casting (all entities together), the ambition (long term liquidity, focusing on engineering of bridges/infrastructure) and the amount requested relative to the size of the task.
All of this being said, this is a large amount of capital and the deliverables are not extremely clear. I will be monitoring the output of this very closely and vote accordingly the next time.
It is extremely important to me and to my delegators that the treasury is used wisely and efficiently: not delivering or not communicating will have very clear consequences on my next votes.
Strength and honor.
- Yes3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.4M ₳Rationale
Because we need it!
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
Do we need all of these things to ensure Cardano succeeds? Yes.
Weren't these things the responsibility of the founding entities to use their genesis ADA to pay for and get done? Also yes.
Why weren't these expenses included in the 2025 budget? Who knows.
Why aren't EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation paying for this infrastructure since it is their financial responsibility as part of their role? They would much rather make ADA holders pay, and keep their genesis ADA to continue to influence governance.
**At the time of this vote, Emurgo controls ~16% of all governance voting power through EMURGO and YOROI, and the Cardano Foundation controls ~4.22% **
I am happy to see these critical integrations finally addressed, since they have been largely ignored by the founding entities for some time. The entire Cardano community has voiced concerns regarding the need for this infrastructure during the initial Cardano roadmap period, and only now are we seeing action (at the cost of all ADA holders).
Regardless of my vote, this action will pass - it is needed so that is good.
Why am I voting no?
ADA holders should not be footing the bill for this, EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation should be spending genesis ADA to finally fulfill their contract with the Cardano ecosystem.
This should have been included in the budget process for 2025, especially considering the large ask.
This amount surpasses my personal NCL for 2025, and there are no good reasons for me to vote yes despite this.
If EMURGO, the Cardano Foundation, and Input Output Global were all to pitch 50% of the cost to cover these expenses together, I would vote yes. They want it to be 100% covered from community pockets when EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation should actually be paying for this infrastructure.
A message to the two founding entities that continue to extract value from our ecosystem: Have some honor, take ownership, and use your genesis ADA as intended. You should be covering some of this cost and disclose what % you are contributing.
- Abstain3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳Rationale
The time for action is now. Let's get this done.
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
Cardanoが長年抱えてきた最大の弱点は、Tier1 Stablecoin・Oracle・Custody・Bridgeといった金融インフラの欠如でした。本提案は、それらを一括で整備できる極めて重要なものであり、インフラの導入順序としても合理的です。これらが揃ったチェーンは例外なく利用が拡大してきました。実際にPolygon・Avalanche・Solanaなどは、Tier1 Stablecoin導入後にTVLが数倍規模で成長した歴史があり、Cardanoも同様に「利用可能性の壁」を超える可能性があります。
一方で、本提案の大部分がNDA（企業間契約で法的に公開できない情報）下にあり、具体的なベンダー名や契約額が開示されません。Tier1企業との統合では一般的な制約であり理解できますが、コミュニティとして意思決定の信頼性を確保する工夫は不可欠だと考えます。
以上を踏まえ、私は本提案の戦略的重要性を強く認めつつ、「統合先カテゴリと大枠の予算配分、意思決定プロセスの透明化、KPIの明確化、そして未使用予算の確実な返還」を求めながら賛成（Yes）という立場を取ります。大規模予算の安全性を守りつつ、Cardanoが次の成長段階へ進む機会を逃さない判断です。
Cardano’s long-standing weakness has been the absence of core financial infrastructure such as tier-one stablecoins, oracles, custody solutions, and bridges. This proposal is strategically important because it aims to deliver these components as a unified integration effort. Across other ecosystems—Polygon, Avalanche, Solana—TVL and usage expanded significantly after tier-one stablecoins and data infrastructure became available. Cardano has similar potential to break through its current limitations once these foundations are in place.
However, much of this proposal is subject to NDAs, meaning specific vendors and contract terms cannot be disclosed. While this is common when working with tier-one partners, the community still requires safeguards to maintain trust in the decision-making process.
For these reasons, I support the proposal while requesting clarity on integration categories, high-level budget allocation, transparent decision-making processes, clear KPIs, and guaranteed return of unused funds. This balanced approach protects treasury integrity while enabling Cardano to advance to its next stage of growth.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale