Cardano Critical Integrations Budget
273 DReps voted · 102 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain2.5M ₳Rationale
I am torn on this. I think this will pass no matter what but I think in terms of proposal standards we usually want to see more transparency and line item costs. I understand we are still in negotiations (unedrstandable) and the FEs will be matching funds (great to see). Its clear the community wants to go fast on these items so I don't want to stand in the way. For these reasons I will be abstaining. The idea is no stress.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain7mo agoSuperseded
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
Vote: YES — with a clear expectation of transparency, accountability, and measurable delivery
Cardano urgently needs tier-one integrations that unlock real-world utility: institutional custody, robust oracles, tier-one stablecoins, cross-chain connectivity, and analytics. These are not luxuries — they are foundational infrastructure for Cardano to compete globally as a serious settlement layer.
This proposal from the Cardano founding entities is, in my view, strategically necessary. It is aligned with the Constitution’s intent for ecosystem budgets, and it directly addresses several long-standing gaps that have limited adoption and liquidity on Cardano.
The network cannot scale institutional, DeFi, RWA, or enterprise activity without this infrastructure in place.For these reasons, I am firmly voting YES on this Budget Info Action.
However — and this is important — a YES vote today must not be interpreted as a blank cheque.
The Constitutional framework requires:
Clear cost breakdowns
Dedicated audit and oversight provisions
Transparent administration of funds
Milestones, deliverables, and public reporting
My support is therefore paired with an expectation that the subsequent Treasury Withdrawal(s) will include:
Transparent allocation across the five integration pillars
Independent auditing and reporting in line with Article IV
Open standards and minimisation of vendor lock-in
Regular public progress updates and measurable KPIs
Clear governance oversight to prevent centralisation risks
This budget represents a major step forward — one that could meaningfully accelerate Cardano’s maturity and global competitiveness. If implemented with transparency and accountability, it will strengthen the ecosystem for builders, institutions, users, and delegators alike.
YES to the vision — with firm expectations for responsible execution.
If the later Treasury Withdrawal actions fail to meet these standards, I will reassess my support at that stage. For now, this proposal is the right direction at the right moment.
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳Rationale
Needed for ecosystem growth.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Yes. This proposal funds the essential infrastructure Cardano needs to grow as an ecosystem: tier-one stablecoins, pricing oracles, institutional custody, analytics platforms, and cross-chain bridges. These are the building blocks that let capital move efficiently, apps scale reliably, and users interact with confidence. Without them, growth is capped regardless of how strong the base layer is.
If delivered, this should materially lift TVL, attract builders, and bring in new users and liquidity from outside the ecosystem. It is a focused investment in making Cardano economically competitive, not just technically impressive.
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting YES on the ₳70M Critical Integrations Budget. This coalition effort from all five major Cardano entities addresses long-standing infrastructure gaps that limit institutional adoption and DeFi growth. The five pillars—tier-one stablecoins, institutional custody, cross-chain bridges, pricing oracles, and analytics—are essential infrastructure that Cardano should have prioritized earlier, and Intersect's administrative oversight with milestone-based funding provides appropriate accountability for this scale of treasury deployment.
- YesRevoted1.7M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
Cardano needs tier-one stablecoins, and this is long overdue. Although I am not satisfied with the level of transparency, the strategic importance of this initiative far outweighs my concerns. I vote YES.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
The 'big 6' have promised to accomplish all stated objectives and cover all cost overruns from the entity reserve funds. As this is highly likely to involve cost overruns, this is and extremely good deal for the community and ecosystem. Long term, accomplishing the outlined objective will pay exponential returns.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Who am I to say no to this?
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Although Cardano's network is decentralized, it would be naive to ignore the significance that the founding entities (and others in the proposal) have on the direction, adoption, and overall success of Cardano. These entities working together, on goals that we have seen echoed throughout the community consistently, is one of the most effective uses of Treasury funds that we can imagine in the current context of the ecosystem.
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget because it teams up Cardano's main founders — Input Output Global, Cardano Foundation, and EMURGO — to add needed tools like stablecoins, bridges to other chains, oracles for real-world data and real-world assets projects. Funds go out only after milestones, with audits and reports for transparency, and leftovers return to the treasury in 24 months.
Downsides: partner names stay secret for deals, cutting early community checks and risking trust if things fail or lean too central, like fiat stablecoins that go against Satoshi's idea of avoiding controlled money and inflation. It hands more cash to big groups like the Foundation, who already hold plenty from early days, instead of using that or funding independent projects that proved themselves, which might slow real decentralization by depending on central players. No full cost details upfront could lead to waste. - Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
A very enthusiastic "Yes" for this governance action. This will address critical infrastructure blockades that have slowed/prevented the on-boarding of major stablecoins into Cardano. Cardano is a top-tier blockchain, lets make it easier for the rest of the world to discover that. LFG!
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
Having spent over three decades navigating the complex corridors of Technology, Media, and Telecommunications, and witnessing the rise and fall of ecosystems based on their infrastructure readiness, I approach this proposal not merely as a DRep, but as a strategist concerned with the existential viability of our network. The request for 70,000,000 ADA is a staggering sum that demands not just scrutiny, but closer interrogation of its strategic intent. We are presented with a proposition that is both an admission of past strategic gaps and a desperate, albeit necessary, bid for relevance in a liquidity-driven market. The proposal effectively seeks to fund the "plumbing" we have long lacked: Tier-1 stablecoins, institutional custody, bridges, and oracles.
My immediate critique centers on the optics of this "black box" request. We are being asked to authorize a massive liquidity injection into a "strategic integration fund" managed by the usual suspects (IOHK, CF, Emurgo, Intersect). While the proposal cites "commercial confidentiality" as the reason for obscuring the specific partners, my experience in high-level corporate negotiations tells me that while NDAs are real, blank checks are dangerous. We are effectively being asked to trust a Steering Committee to execute on deals that arguably should have been secured years ago. It stings to fund "basics" from the treasury at this maturity stage of the chain.
However, **let's face the reality and view this through a prudent, business-first lens: Cardano is currently an island. Without a native, liquid, Tier-1 stablecoin and recognized institutional custody rails, we are uninvestable for large-scale institutional capital. We are structurally handicapped. **My skepticism regarding the opacity of the vendors is outweighed by the strategic necessity of the deliverables. We cannot govern a ghost town. If we vote "No" based on a desire for perfect transparency or resentment of the founding entities, we maintain our moral high ground but starve the chain of the oxygen it needs to survive. And that is liquidity and interoperability! With this proposal, we are purchasing an entry ticket to the global financial markets. It is an expensive ticket, and the "Trust us" nature of the Steering Committee is bitter medicine, but the alternative is irrelevance.
Personally, I just regret that the majority of DReps have wasted 50 million ADA on an unsecured loan for a meme coin (critically misaligned with the Cardano constitution at that!). Those treasury funds could and should have been spent on this proposal instead!
- YesRevoted1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes949.1K ₳Rationale
Voting YES. This proposal and the approach taken by the Founding Entities and the Midnight Foundation are exactly what Cardano needs at this stage. There are certain initiatives that the FEs are simply better positioned to execute and implement than community developers. It would also be significantly more difficult to trust any group other than the FEs with 70M ADA, especially given the time and complexity involved in securing approvals and funding for these initiatives.
Since the 70M ADA allocation comes from the remaining balance of this year’s NCL, I would like to see some acknowledgment that if the costs required to execute these initiatives exceed the 70M ADA, which is entirely possible, the FEs will cover any surplus.
- Yes948.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes891.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
This is a critical initiative led by an alliance of Cardano's most relevant actors that aims to implement a plan to develop key capabilities for Cardano to continue its path towards mass adoption
- Yes798.6K ₳Rationale
We are voting YES on this proposal, as the integrations outlined are strategically important for Cardano’s ecosystem growth. However, we would have preferred clearer definitions or example groups of what constitutes tier-one partners—particularly for stablecoins, analytics platforms, bridges, and oracles.
For instance, explicitly listing which stablecoins qualify as tier-one (e.g., USDC, USDT, PYUSD, etc.) would strengthen the success criteria by clarifying that achieving deployment from any member of that predefined group meets the intended objective. Clearer categorization would improve accountability and alignment for all stakeholders while still allowing flexibility in partner selection.
- Yes798.4K ₳Rationale
- Cardano needs these integrations yesterday
Tier-1 stablecoins, tier-1 oracles, institutional custody, proper bridges, proper analytics — these are non-negotiable if Cardano wants to break out of the stagnation trap. Without them, TVL, liquidity, and serious DeFi simply won’t scale.
- 70M ADA is not a crazy number
Given Cardano Treasury size and the fact this is public-good infrastructure, this is a realistic figure. Ethereum ecosystems spend orders of magnitude more through grants and VC pipelines on the same primitives.
- Steering Committee is the correct coalition
IOG + CF + EMURGO + Midnight Foundation + Intersect is literally the core group that can actually negotiate tier-1 integrations. Nobody else can land those deals.
- The confidentiality issue is unavoidable
Tier-1 vendors won’t disclose pricing in advance. If people expect open RFPs and fully public vendor negotiations for entities like Circle, Fireblocks, Coinbase Cloud, Chainlink, etc. — it’s unrealistic. The milestone-based disbursement plus audits is the only workable structure.
- The sequencing makes sense
Oracle → bridge → custody → analytics → stablecoin. If you flip the order, nothing works. This proposal actually reflects how integrations happen in real life.
- Massive upside, limited downside
Worst case: some integrations slip or deliver late — the money not used goes back to Treasury.
Best case: Cardano finally gets the infrastructure everyone else has had for years, unlocking serious liquidity and utility.Conclusion
Cardano has dragged out essential integrations for too long. This is a chance to fix the biggest structural bottleneck in the ecosystem.