DRepTalk
Sign in
Enter as DRepEnter as SPOEnter as CC memberEnter as proposerRegister as DRep
Governance ActionsDiscussionsDRepsTreasury
Sign in
More ways to sign in
Enter as SPOEnter as CC memberEnter as proposerRegister as DRep

Cardano Critical Integrations Budget

System8mo ago1 post
DReps 273SPOs 59

273 DReps voted · 102 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote

Open a row to read the rationale.

  • ADAR_Chris
    Yes794.5K ₳Rationale

    These deliverables improve Cardano's trajectory and position for long term success. I appreciate the shared vision and set of objectives being committed to by the founding entities. Facilitating execution on these overdue deliverables is essential.

  • Scientific-Analytical-Tools
    Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
  • phillerino
    Yes759K ₳Rationale

    We need stablecoins like USDT/USDC yesterday. DeFi on cardano cannot thrive without them. If the entities involved can deliver on this proposal, it should result in a net positive development for cardano as a whole.

  • drep1yv4uesaj92w...
    Yes731.5K ₳No rationale
  • Andreas Sosilo
    Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
  • AdaLovelace777
    Yes705.1K ₳Rationale

    Cardano’s low TVL compared to other major ecosystems shows that we are missing the core infrastructure required for real liquidity and adoption. The absence of tier-one stablecoins, institutional-grade custody, analytics, oracles, and cross-chain bridges has held the ecosystem back for years. This proposal directly targets those gaps with integrations that are already in advanced negotiation stages and ready to deploy. I support this because stablecoin rails, data infrastructure, and interoperability are not optional—they are prerequisites for any meaningful DeFi or institutional participation. Without globally recognized oracles and real bridges, Cardano remains isolated and unable to attract serious capital or users. Treasury funding is the correct mechanism because these components are public goods that no single team can or should own. The milestone-based structure, combined with Intersect’s constitutional administration and independent oversight, gives me confidence the funds will be spent responsibly. The Steering Committee is uncompensated and structured to preserve neutrality while coordinating across the founding ecosystem entities. Confidentiality constraints around pricing are normal in enterprise integrations, and the proposal balances privacy with reporting requirements. Any unused funds return to the Treasury after 24 months, which protects community resources. The bi-annual reporting, audits, and contract-based milestones ensure transparency and accountability throughout the process. With the NCL expiring soon and negotiations already mature, timing is critical to avoid multi-year delays. These integrations unlock the infrastructure needed for major stablecoins, multi-chain liquidity, institutional on-ramps, and the next stage of Cardano’s growth. For these reasons, I believe voting YES is the most strategic decision for Cardano’s long-term competitiveness and ecosystem maturity. Plus the proposing entities have agreed to cover the total cost. Hoskinson estimated this cost to be around $100,000,000. 70,000,000 Ada at $.40 is only 35% of what this will cost. This is a steal!

  • Cardano Feed
    Yes705.1K ₳Rationale

    This proposal is urgent for the Cardano ecosystem as a whole!

  • Alf
    Yes655.6K ₳No rationale
  • jonahkoch
    Yes625.9K ₳Rationale

    I am voting YES on the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget proposal.
    While much has been debated about past decisions, missed opportunities, and the allocation of Genesis ADA, this proposal represents a turning point, not just for infrastructure, but for accountability. The formation of the Pentad (IOG, Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect) and their joint commitment to this initiative marks a new chapter. The questions of "who should have done this" and "why wasn't it done sooner" are now behind us. What matters is what happens next.
    This 70M ADA is more than a budget request, it functions as a bond of accountability. The founding entities are now publicly and collectively tied to delivering measurable outcomes. We can establish fresh KPIs from this point forward and evaluate their performance against concrete deliverables: tier-one stable coin integration, institutional custody infrastructure, oracle services, and cross-chain interoperability. Success or failure will be visible to the entire community.
    There is also strategic value in the momentum generated by the Pentad's formation. Unity among Cardano's key institutional actors is rare and should be leveraged while it exists. Fragmentation has historically slowed progress; coordination accelerates it. This proposal channels that coordination into action.
    The milestone-based structure, oversight mechanisms, and commitment to return unused funds provide reasonable safeguards. I support this proposal as both a necessary infrastructure investment and as the beginning of a new accountability framework for Cardano's founding entities.

  • MREDGARCROSS
    Yes605.7K ₳Rationale

    📌 Vote: Cardano Critical Integrations Budget — I Vote YES

    🚀 Why this matters

    Cardano must onboard critical infrastructure to scale and attract external liquidity:

    1️⃣ Tier-1 stablecoin on mainnet
    2️⃣ Institutional custody & wallet infrastructure
    3️⃣ Cross-chain bridges for capital inflow
    4️⃣ Globally recognized pricing oracles
    5️⃣ Tier-1 on-chain analytics for transparency and adoption

    This enables real DeFi growth, higher TVL and sustainable fee generation for the ecosystem.

    🧩 Who is involved

    The initiative is led by the core governance and development organizations:

    • Input Output Global
    • Cardano Foundation
    • EMURGO
    • Intersect
    • Midnight Foundation — essential for institutional privacy and enterprise-grade finance

    💡 What we are voting on

    Approval to allocate ₳70,000,000 from the Cardano Treasury for 24 months, with:

    • milestone-based funding
    • transparent administration
    • independent audits
    • strict constitutional oversight

    This is foundational infrastructure, not optional development.

    🗳 My vote

    I support this proposal. I vote YES.
    Cardano must move forward and unlock the next stage of ecosystem growth.

    I am registered as a DRep and ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem.
    I am optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world. 🖤
    My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr
    More info: https://t.me/PROCENT666/338

  • KysenPool_KYSN_KYSN2
    Yes598.3K ₳No rationale
  • CAPO
    Yes590.5K ₳No rationale
  • Crypto Eats Legacy
    Yes589.7K ₳Rationale

    Yes, yes, a million times yet. It's time to deliver, build and enable this ecosystem to grow and the unification of the OG companies is truly exciting.

  • Crypto_Oaj
    Yes587.6K ₳Rationale

    I Follow YUTA Rationale

    Conditional YES — Questions for Clarification
    I would like to give a conditional YES to the “Cardano Critical Integrations Budget.”
Because this is a very large request, I kindly ask for clarification on the following points.
Given that this governance action places notable time pressure on both DReps and the CC, I would greatly appreciate it if these explanations can be provided before the Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action is submitted.

    Justification for the 70M ADA amount
Please explain why 70M ADA is the appropriate figure.
Why would 65M ADA be insufficient, and why would 75M ADA be excessive?
    High-level breakdown of the 70M ADA
Separate from (1), could you provide the most detailed breakdown possible for how the 70M ADA is expected to be allocated?
    More robust success metrics (KPIs)
The current “live on mainnet” metrics seem insufficient.
Could you include numerical KPIs such as increases in TVL, user numbers, external capital inflows, or transaction volume?
These would help DReps evaluate success or failure more objectively.
    Specific gaps in existing Cardano infrastructure
For each integration category (Custody/Wallet, Analytics, Bridge, Oracle),
could you specify what is currently missing on Cardano?
For example, regarding wallet infrastructure:
what exactly is lacking today in Lace or Eternl, and what needs to be developed?
    Vendor lock-in risk
Is there a risk that this budget creates strategic dependency on a specific vendor?
Are there standardization or “exit” clauses to prevent lock-in?
    Required SLA/security levels
What levels of SLA, availability, and security requirements are being set for Oracle, Bridge, Analytics, Custody, and Wallet integrations?
    Conditions for stopping or scaling down the program
While unused funds will be returned after 24 months,
could you clarify under what conditions the program can be paused, reduced, or stopped midway?
Who has the authority to trigger such decisions?
    Precedents on other L1s
Are there successful examples from other L1 ecosystems (e.g., Solana, Ethereum) that used a similar integration-budget model?
If so, what were the success and failure factors?
    Timing and remaining NCL capacity
This proposal appears close to the end of the current NCL and uses most of its remaining capacity.
Could you clarify:
(a) Why this was kept until now, and
(b) Why it must be executed within this NCL, rather than splitting into phases across the next NCL?
    Balancing confidentiality and constitutional transparency
While NDA-protected information is understandable, Cardano governance requires transparency.
Can you disclose, at minimum:
(a) Cost ranges per integration category
(b) Number of vendors involved
(c) Expected contract durations
so that DReps can reasonably judge the appropriateness of the plan?
    Relationship with existing Cardano-native projects
How will this budget interact with existing Cardano-native infra teams (e.g., Charli3)?

    Handling of underperformance (“failure rules”)
If, after 24 months, the KPI targets (TVL, Tx volume, capital inflow, etc.) fall significantly short:
(a) How will root-cause analysis be conducted?
(b) How will learnings affect future large-scale infrastructure proposals?
As DReps, we would like clarity not only on success criteria but also on how failure will be addressed.

    
موافقت مشروط (Conditional YES) — سؤالاتی برای شفاف‌سازی

من تمایل دارم به «بودجه ادغام‌های حیاتی کاردانو» موافقت مشروط (Conditional YES) بدهم. از آنجا که این یک درخواست بسیار بزرگ است، خواهشمندم در مورد نکات زیر شفاف‌سازی ارائه شود. با توجه به اینکه این اقدام حاکمیتی فشار زمانی قابل توجهی را بر روی هر دو گروه نمایندگان تفویض رأی (DReps) و کنسول کاردانو (CC) تحمیل می‌کند، بسیار سپاسگزار خواهم بود اگر این توضیحات پیش از ارسال اقدام حاکمیتی برداشت از خزانه‌داری (Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action) ارائه شوند.

۱. توجیه مبلغ ۷۰ میلیون اِی‌دی‌اِی (ADA)
لطفاً توضیح دهید که چرا ۷۰ میلیون اِی‌دی‌اِی رقم مناسبی است. چرا ۶۵ میلیون اِی‌دی‌اِی ناکافی خواهد بود، و چرا ۷۵ میلیون اِی‌دی‌اِی بیش از حد خواهد بود؟

۲. تفکیک سطح بالا از ۷۰ میلیون اِی‌دی‌اِی
جدا از مورد (۱)، لطفاً دقیق‌ترین تفکیک ممکن را در مورد چگونگی انتظار برای تخصیص ۷۰ میلیون اِی‌دی‌اِی ارائه دهید.

۳. معیارهای موفقیت قوی‌تر (شاخص‌های کلیدی عملکرد - KPIs)
به نظر می‌رسد معیارهای فعلی «اجرا بر روی شبکه‌ی اصلی (live on mainnet)» ناکافی هستند. آیا می‌توانید شاخص‌های کلیدی عملکرد (KPI) عددی مانند افزایش در ارزش کل قفل‌شده (TVL)، تعداد کاربران، جریان ورودی سرمایه خارجی، یا حجم تراکنش‌ها را لحاظ کنید؟ این موارد به نمایندگان تفویض رأی (DReps) کمک می‌کنند تا موفقیت یا شکست را به طور عینی‌تر ارزیابی کنند.

۴. شکاف‌های خاص در زیرساخت موجود کاردانو
برای هر دسته از ادغام‌ها (نگهداری/کیف پول، تجزیه و تحلیل، پل، اوراکل)، آیا می‌توانید مشخص کنید که در حال حاضر چه چیزی در کاردانو ناقص است؟ به عنوان مثال، در مورد زیرساخت کیف پول: دقیقاً چه کمبودی امروز در Lace یا Eternl وجود دارد، و چه چیزی نیاز به توسعه دارد؟

۵. ریسک وابستگی به یک تأمین‌کننده (Vendor Lock-in)
آیا این ریسک وجود دارد که این بودجه، وابستگی استراتژیک به یک تأمین‌کننده خاص ایجاد کند؟ آیا بندهای استانداردسازی یا «خروج» برای جلوگیری از این وابستگی وجود دارند؟

۶. سطوح مورد نیاز توافقنامه سطح خدمات/امنیتی (SLA/Security Levels)
چه سطوحی از SLA (توافقنامه سطح خدمات)، دسترس‌پذیری و الزامات امنیتی برای ادغام‌های اوراکل، پل، تجزیه و تحلیل، نگهداری و کیف پول تعیین شده است؟

۷. شرایط توقف یا کاهش مقیاس برنامه
در حالی که بودجه استفاده‌نشده پس از ۲۴ ماه بازگردانده می‌شود، آیا می‌توانید شفاف‌سازی کنید که تحت چه شرایطی می‌توان برنامه را در میانه راه متوقف، کاهش یا به حالت تعلیق درآورد؟ چه کسی اختیار تصمیم‌گیری برای چنین اقداماتی را دارد؟

۸. نمونه‌های مشابه در سایر شبکه‌های لایه اول (L1s)
آیا نمونه‌های موفقی از سایر اکوسیستم‌های لایه اول (مانند سولانا، اتریوم) وجود دارد که از مدل بودجه ادغام مشابهی استفاده کرده باشند؟ اگر چنین است، عوامل موفقیت و شکست آنها چه بودند؟

۹. زمان‌بندی و ظرفیت باقیمانده‌ی محدودیت اعتبار شبکه (NCL)
به نظر می‌رسد این پیشنهاد نزدیک به پایان محدودیت اعتبار شبکه (NCL) فعلی است و از بیشتر ظرفیت باقیمانده آن استفاده می‌کند. آیا می‌توانید شفاف‌سازی کنید: (الف) چرا این موضوع تا کنون حفظ شده است، و (ب) چرا باید حتماً در همین NCL اجرا شود، به جای اینکه به فازهایی در طول NCL بعدی تقسیم شود؟

۱۰. توازن میان محرمانگی و شفافیت قانون اساسی
در حالی که اطلاعات تحت حفاظت توافقنامه عدم افشا (NDA) قابل درک است، حاکمیت کاردانو به شفافیت نیاز دارد. آیا می‌توانید حداقل موارد زیر را افشا کنید: (الف) محدوده هزینه‌ها به ازای هر دسته ادغام (ب) تعداد تأمین‌کنندگان درگیر (ج) مدت زمان مورد انتظار قراردادها تا نمایندگان تفویض رأی (DReps) بتوانند به طور منطقی در مورد مناسب بودن طرح قضاوت کنند؟

۱۱. ارتباط با پروژه‌های بومی موجود کاردانو
این بودجه چگونه با تیم‌های زیرساخت بومی موجود کاردانو (مانند Charli3) تعامل خواهد داشت؟

۱۲. رسیدگی به عملکرد ضعیف («قوانین شکست»)
اگر پس از ۲۴ ماه، اهداف شاخص‌های کلیدی عملکرد (TVL، حجم تراکنش، جریان ورودی سرمایه و غیره) به طور قابل توجهی کمتر از حد انتظار باشد: (الف) چگونه تحلیل ریشه مشکل (root-cause analysis) انجام خواهد شد؟ (ب) چگونه درس‌های آموخته‌شده بر پیشنهادات زیرساختی بزرگ‌مقیاس آینده تأثیر خواهند گذاشت؟ ما به عنوان نمایندگان تفویض رأی (DReps)، خواستار شفافیت نه تنها در مورد معیارهای موفقیت، بلکه در مورد چگونگی رسیدگی به شکست نیز هستیم.
  • AustinAnthony
    Yes533.9K ₳Rationale

    I’m voting YES on the ₳70M Cardano Critical Integrations Budget because:It finally delivers the missing tier-1 pieces we’ve needed for years: real stablecoins, institutional custody, proper oracles, cross-chain bridges, and on-chain analytics.
    All five core entities (IOG, EMURGO, CF, Intersect, Midnight) are aligned and co-signing, this level of unity is unprecedented and shows serious commitment.
    Negotiations with top partners are already mature and it’s execution-ready in 2026.
    One coordinated push is far more effective than dozens of scattered Catalyst proposals that never reach critical mass.
    ₳70M to remove 80% of Cardano’s current growth blockers and unlock real DeFi, RWA, and institutional volume is the best-value treasury spend we’ve ever had on the table.

    Full speed ahead, let’s make Cardano undeniably competitive in 2026. YES.

  • Petr Adafilms
    Yes502.6K ₳No rationale
  • Maureen
    No501K ₳Rationale

    First of all, I am genuinely impressed that the founding entities managed to sit at the same table, breathe the same air, and agree on one document. History alone makes that an achievement. That said, unity by itself is not a substitute for good governance design.

    I am voting NO, not because the problem is wrong, but because the solution as presented breaks too many governance principles at once. Cardano absolutely needs tier one stablecoins, institutional custody, real oracles, real bridges, and real analytics. That is not controversial. What is controversial is asking the treasury for ₳70,000,000 in one opaque bundle, with no named partners, no meaningful budget breakdown, and decision power concentrated in the same founding entities that historically controlled integration strategy.

    The founding entities collectively received over a billion ADA at inception to build exactly this kind of foundational infrastructure. I fully accept that much of that capital is now spent on seven years of research, development, operations, and survival. But the shift from “we fund and execute” to “the community funds and we execute” is not being acknowledged honestly in this proposal. Instead, it is being reframed as neutrality and vendor independence. That framing is not transparent. It sidesteps the real structural change taking place in Cardano’s power and risk distribution.

    I am especially concerned about the confidentiality shield being used to justify minimal disclosure, limited smart contract enforcement, and centralized administration. Governance cannot run on trust and NDAs alone, especially at this scale. If ₳70,000,000 can be approved without the community knowing who is being paid, how much per integration, and under what commercial constraints, then we are setting a precedent that weakens on-chain governance rather than strengthens it.
    The Steering Committee structure further concentrates decision power in a small group composed entirely of founding or quasi-founding entities, withno independent ecosystem, DRep, or builder representation. That is not decentralized oversight. That is coordinated institutional control using public funds. Even with good intentions, the design itself creates misaligned incentives.

    And yes, I am fully aware this proposal is pretty much already passed in spirit. The train is moving, the tickets are printed, and the conductor has probably locked the door. Still, with my 400k ADA in delegation at the time of this vote and my 43very patient delegators, I am voting NO anyway. Not because I think I can stop the train, but because the black box funding model it introduces should not go on record as “everyone agreed.”

  • Dynamic Strategies
    YesRevoted499K ₳Rationale

    A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

    Earlier votes

    Yes7mo agoSuperseded

    A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

  • KOPI 咖啡 Singapore
    Yes478.4K ₳No rationale
  • Marius Georgescu
    YesRevoted466.2K ₳History

    Earlier votes

    Yes7mo agoSuperseded

  • Cardanolotus
    Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
  • THOR
    Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
  • Marin_Cardano_Maven
    Yes409.1K ₳No rationale
  • drep1y2qzamj7z9k...
    Yes390K ₳No rationale
  • ADAUSA
    Yes389.1K ₳No rationale
  • VNEconomics
    Yes383K ₳No rationale
  • HeptaSean
    NoRevoted381.1K ₳History

    Earlier votes

    No7mo agoSuperseded

  • Reshma_Mohan
    Yes370.3K ₳Rationale

    I’m voting YES on this proposal because it targets concrete gaps in Cardano’s ecosystem that have been holding back real adoption. This is not a generic ecosystem spend. It focuses on critical integrations that other mature ecosystems already treat as basic infrastructure, and Cardano needs them in place to compete in the next phase.

    The proposal prioritises stablecoin infrastructure, pricing oracles, analytics, institutional custody, and secure cross-chain bridges. These are foundational pieces. Without reliable stablecoins and oracles, DeFi depth remains limited. Without analytics, transparency and risk assessment suffer. Without custody and compliance-ready tooling, institutional participation stays out of reach. This proposal addresses those blockers directly instead of spreading funds thinly across loosely defined initiatives.

    I’m also comfortable with Intersect administering the funds. Intersect has been set up specifically to represent ecosystem stakeholders and to operate with clear governance processes, reporting, and accountability. As an Intersect OSC committee member, I’ve seen the level of scrutiny applied to budgeting, delivery tracking, and transparency, and that gives me confidence that funds will be managed responsibly and in line with community expectations.

    The coordinated structure here is important. Rather than multiple teams duplicating work or competing for the same integrations, this approach aligns delivery under a single framework with oversight. That reduces execution risk and increases the chance that these integrations are delivered in a usable, production-ready form.

    At this stage, Cardano’s constraints are no longer at the protocol level but at the integration and ecosystem layer. Approving this proposal accelerates readiness for DeFi growth, real-world asset use cases, and institutional engagement. I don’t see anything concerning in the scope or intent of the proposal, and for these reasons, I’m confident voting YES.

  • Themeda
    Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
  • STOIC
    Yes341.7K ₳No rationale
  • drep1y2eepqmxj03...
    Yes328.9K ₳No rationale
  • drep1ytkt0vvxqlw...
    Yes325.4K ₳Rationale

    I am voting YES on this proposal because, in my view, it addresses a structural gap that has held Cardano back for years. While the proposal is not perfect, it lacks granular detail, strong KPIs, and clear ROI modeling, the absence of these integrations has already imposed enormous opportunity costs on the ecosystem. Cardano cannot afford to continue delaying foundational infrastructure that other chains have treated as baseline utilities for years.

    Cardano's growth ceiling today is defined not by its technology, but by what is missing. This budget is an attempt to correct that.

    In an ideal world, the community would receive a detailed breakdown with partners, costs, and timelines. But the nature of enterprise infrastructure doesn't work that way. We must choose between:

    • waiting for perfect information and losing partners, or
    • moving ahead with the best structure we can design today.

    Given the maturity of negotiations and the level of cross-entity collaboration, I believe moving forward is the right path.

    The founding entities have stepped up, together. That unity gives me confidence. The integrations targeted here are long overdue, strategically vital, and impossible to delay further.

    For these reasons, I am voting YES.

    This is the way!

  • Zacros
    Yes320.4K ₳Rationale

    Panda votes YES.
    Although Panda believes that reasonable spending lies at the base of the blue foundation, when the time comes to push through the forest and reach a new dawn Panda is ready.

  • Kostas Panagias
    Yes314.4K ₳Rationale

    I'm voting YES! We need these integrations ASAP, and the founding entities working together is the most efficient way to deliver them.

    A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

    At this stage, it's more of a "trust me bro" Info Action, but here's why I'm all in:

    • Founding entities collaborating is the most efficient path forward. Yes, they've let us down before, but unlike working on their own, peer pressure (from the other entities), strict KPIs, and community oversight will hold them accountable this time.
    • All items are high-priority and super urgent. Every day without tier-1 stablecoins, critical infrastructure for institutional adoption, and cross-chain bridges & oracles is a day lost forever. Smaller ecosystems solved this long ago - if we want a Cardano breakthrough, this is the way.
    • I understand that confidentiality is necessary at this stage. Companies sign NDAs, and revealing costs/pricing weakens negotiating power - this is standard business practice.
    • I look forward to a more detailed outline during the Treasury Withdrawal phase.
  • LallyMcClay
    Yes313.4K ₳Rationale

    I am voting YES on the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget as I think this proposal addresses one of the clearest and most persistent blockers to Cardano’s growth, the absence of several ecosystem-critical integrations that other chains treat as baseline infrastructure. I believe this budget enables Cardano to close gaps responsibly, transparently, and within constitutional guardrails, and also supports long-term ecosystem health.

    specifically :
    As someone deeply involved in governance health and adoption conversations, I see a consistent theme being discussed, of "Cardano cannot move into its next phase without stable liquidity, robust data, and interoperability".
    It supports Cardano's ability or condidtions needed to generate fees
    The safeguards, oversight assurance , and alignment are strong and project a positive sentiment.

    Points to raise:
    Timing - This proposal has arrived now when negotiations with integration partners are underway, but The Net Change Limit expires on 4 January 2026
    If the community wants these integrations within the current constitutional cycle, this is the only feasible window. Waiting would reset negotiations, delay deployments, and risks losing partners already prepared to integrate.

  • drep1yfd635ljn7q...
    Yes300.6K ₳No rationale
  • William Doyle
    Yes298.9K ₳Rationale

    Summary

    A budget of 70M ada to onboard critical infrastructure including

    • tier-one stablecoins
    • institutional digital asset custody and wallet infrastructure
    • on-chain analytics platforms
    • cross-chain bridges
    • pricing oracles

    Parties involved

    • IOG
    • The Cardano Foundation
    • Emergo
    • The Midnight Foundation
    • Intersect

    Additional notes:

    • The project will follow a milestone-based funding structure. Intersect will receive the funds and administer this budget.
    • A high-level budget breakdown is planned to be included in the subsequent Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action following this Budget Info Action. However, due to confidentiality obligations applied by most integration partners, the breakdown will be limited in granularity.
    • If the allocated budget is not used at the end of the 24-month period, all remaining funds will be returned to the Cardano Treasury.
    • It is currently not envisioned that the smart contract framework deployed earlier this year will be fully utilized, as this will likely result in disclosure of integration costs, which are typically confidential and protected by non-disclosure agreements.

    The proposal justifies itself well in the following excerpt:

    Despite being a top-10 blockchain by market cap, Cardano’s Total Value Locked (TVL) as of November 25th, 2025 remains around $191.860.000 (Source: Defillama.com), which is still far below comparable ecosystems that maintain several billion dollars in DeFi usage. This gap highlights Cardano’s limited market reach and the absence of the core primitives that other networks treat as standard utilities. Without scaling these key components, Cardano risks falling further behind in attracting dApps, liquidity, institutional partners, and large-scale integrations such as tier-one stablecoins.

    Conclusion

    While Cardano is number one in terms of technology, design, and security, we have thus far struggled with mainstream adoption. Very few CNTs (Cardano Native Tokens) are listed on top exchanges, and we have not attracted the depth of stablecoin liquidity that other chains enjoy. We need to increase demand for our blockspace. If we can’t do that, what’s the point of Leios? Why bother scaling if nobody wants to use the product? We clearly need to get traffic up.

    I have always been motivated by the long-term success of the Cardano blockchain. I believe the world of today and tomorrow needs Cardano. But a blockchain is dependent on aligned incentives. If we cannot drive demand for our blockspace, the people who produce that blockspace will not have an incentive to continue doing so. The security of the network directly depends on there being substantial demand for blockspace. Cardano needs users.

    The critical infrastructure outlined in this proposal is exactly what Cardano needs right now.

    It is encouraging to see the three founding entities involved in this proposal. I’m also pleased to see the involvement of the Midnight Foundation, as I believe Midnight can contribute massively to achieving the outlined goals. I am similarly pleased to see Intersect involved in a very appropriate capacity.

    All in all, this is a very promising and mature proposal. I am voting in support of it.

    Signed,
    William Doyle

    Your friendly neighborhood DRep!

  • drep1yfey454nle8...
    Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
  • SVRN | Sleeping Natives
    Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
  • drep1y23dht7za96...
    Yes262.6K ₳No rationale
  • drep1yf37vd9e3nd...
    Yes261.6K ₳No rationale
  • MyCNFT DRep
    Yes260.2K ₳Rationale

    A necessary step for liquidity: stablecoins, bridges, $1–3B TVL. Neutral project, all major institutions working together.

    ⚖️ Backing comes with expectation of strict milestone oversight, audits & return of unused funds.

  • drep1y26802waddn...
    Yes257.1K ₳Rationale

    We're going for number 1

  • QuocTuan
    Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
  • drep1ytjyvm958yw...
    Abstain245.5K ₳No rationale
  • Victor.Villagomez
    Yes238.8K ₳Rationale

    This proposal represents a historic and unmissable opportunity for Cardano: for the first time ever, all five founding and core entities: Input | Output Global, Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect are actively aligned and working together on a single, high-impact initiative, with representatives from each forming a neutral Steering Committee.

    Stablecoins, Institutional Digital Asset Custodies and Wallet Infrastructures, On-chain Analytics Platforms, Cross-Chain Bridges, Pricing Oracle Infrastructures: These are not “nice-to-haves” but are the essential public utilities that every successful Layer-1 ecosystem needs. Without them, Cardano remains isolated and under-utilized despite its world-class technology and governance.

  • Logical Mechanism dRep
    Yes238.6K ₳No rationale
  • The Victor
    Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
  • Talos
    No233.2K ₳Rationale

    Vote: NO

    Why:

    1. Track-record gap – The founding entities already pulled in a hefty chunk of ADA but have yet to deliver the promised critical integrations. That history raises red flags about whether the new 70M will actually get used for the intended infrastructure.

    2. Missing justification – The proposal lists a single lump sum without a granular breakdown or cost-justification for each integration. Without that transparency, it's hard to gauge whether the amount is reasonable or even necessary.

    3. Confidentiality clauses – The spending plan is wrapped in confidentiality, meaning the community can't see how the money will be allocated or audited. That opacity undermines trust and makes it impossible to hold the recipients accountable.

    4. Rushed timeline – The request is timed to hit before the NCL expires, giving the recipients a short window to deliver. Past experience shows that rushed projects often fall short or get delayed, leaving the treasury exposed.

    Given these concerns, the safest stance for the delegators is to reject the withdrawal until the proposal is revised with a detailed, transparent plan and a proven delivery track-record.

  • AVet
    Yes228.3K ₳No rationale