Cardano Critical Integrations Budget
273 DReps voted · 102 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- YesRevoted215.5K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES because the major Cardano groups — IOG, EMURGO, Intersect, the Foundation, and Midnight — are finally aligned on moving these critical integrations forward. It’s good to see the main players on the same page and pushing in the same direction. This budget gives them what they need to actually get the work done, so I’m supporting it.
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
I’m voting YES because the major Cardano groups — IOG, EMURGO, Intersect, the Foundation, and Midnight — are finally aligned on moving these critical integrations forward. It’s good to see the main players on the same page and pushing in the same direction. This budget gives them what they need to actually get the work done, so I’m supporting it.
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
I’m voting YES because the major Cardano groups — IOG, EMURGO, Intersect, the Foundation, and Midnight — are finally aligned on moving these critical integrations forward. It’s good to see the main players on the same page and pushing in the same direction. This budget gives them what they need to actually get the work done, so I’m supporting it.
- Yes199K ₳Rationale
With heavy hart but YES. These organizations have received a huge amount of ada during the initial genesis and they have not made any reports of where they have used those funds. These actions that are promised now has also been promised to us for years without any actually happening. Yet there is no alternative but to at least support something that tries to do something or else we are doomed. Even if this is a TRAP! Just another one from Hoskinson.
- Yes196.1K ₳No rationale
- No193.9K ₳Rationale
Formal Statement of Dissent on the Critical Integrations Proposal
A request to incorporate grassroots adoption tooling as protocol-level work
The Critical Integrations Proposal is now in voting, and given its authorship and institutional support, it is expected to pass. I acknowledge its technical necessity and the competence of the proposing teams. My intent is not to oppose the work, but to record a formal and constructive dissent regarding a strategic gap that this proposal does not address.The proposal allocates substantial resources to protocol maintenance, wallet standards, ledger improvements, and infrastructure reliability. These elements are essential. However, it provides no corresponding investment in grassroots adoption tooling, particularly the frameworks needed for real-world community financial institutions such as Iddirs, Equbs, Chamas, SACCOs, Tontines, ROSCAs, Self-Help Groups, and similar structures across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
These systems represent the largest existing decentralized financial networks globally, and yet Cardano still lacks:
community treasury and rotating-savings modules
emergency-fund and community-insurance primitives
simple governance workflows for non-technical groups
verifiable community membership and participation credentials
diaspora-to-community financial rails
This omission has persisted across multiple funding cycles.For this reason, I am voting NO, not to block the technical work—since it will proceed regardless—but to request a corrective measure:
Grassroots adoption tooling should be incorporated into this proposal, or delivered as a separate but parallel proposal by the same teams who maintain protocol-level integrations.
This work is not ancillary. It should be treated as part of Cardano’s core infrastructure.
Embedding grassroots tooling within the same organizational context ensures continuity, long-term maintenance, and ecosystem-level coordination. Treating it as protocol-level work also prevents fragmentation and reinforces the principle that adoption and infrastructure must evolve together.
In summary, my NO vote is a signal to ensure the historical record reflects this gap, and to encourage future budgeting—ideally by the same technical stewards—to balance protocol integration with the tooling required for real-world community adoption.
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted174.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
- Yes166.4K ₳Rationale
We need this, lets do it!
- Yes160.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes159.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes120.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes118.7K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES because this proposal represents a rare and strategically important moment in Cardano’s history. The founding entities—IOG, Cardano Foundation, and EMURGO—have come back together in coordinated alignment with Midnight Foundation and Intersect, forming a unified Pentad committed to delivering the core infrastructure Cardano has been missing for years.
This collaboration signals maturity, unity, and a shared commitment to Cardano’s long-term viability. The integrations in this proposal—stablecoins, custody solutions, analytics, bridges, and pricing oracles—are not optional luxuries; they are foundational requirements for any ecosystem seeking to compete at scale. Every major layer-one that has achieved meaningful adoption has these pillars in place. Cardano cannot continue to delay them. Furthermore, this new team composition can deliver them.
The proposal is also structured responsibly:
- Milestone-based funding
- Constitutional oversight
- Independent audits
- Transparent reporting
- Vendor neutrality
- Strict return of unused funds
The integrations are already in advanced stages of negotiation, and timing is critical with the current NCL window closing. Treasury funding is the appropriate path because the systems being deployed are ecosystem-wide public goods. No single team can, or should, bear these costs alone.
Cardano has talked for years about the need for stable liquidity, interoperability, institutional entry, and data transparency. This proposal finally operationalizes those needs, with the right coalition in place to deliver them.
It is time to get the ball rolling—with unified leadership, clear governance, and the critical infrastructure required for Cardano to grow from a technically excellent chain into a fully equipped, economically competitive ecosystem.
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes112.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of this info action. This budget info action gives exceptional value to the community based on the funds requested judged against the stated goals. I would have expected this proposal to be far more expensive than what is being requested, and I strongly believe we are only being given this value proposition due to the entities involved. This makes this an easy decision from that perspective. I would have liked to have seen better metrics for evaluating KPIs; however, given who is making this proposal, there is very little risk, and I am confident that we will see thorough reporting even if this info action does not specifically require it. Overall this is an obvious voting decision, and I hope it gets the required support quickly so that the withdrawal can be submitted without delay.
- Yes89.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes69.4K ₳Rationale
I'm supportive of this initiative. Cardano's infrastructure gap is real, and the founding entities stepping up with a coordinated integration push is exactly what the ecosystem needs to compete. The inclusion of Midnight Foundation on the steering committee makes sense given the cross-chain synergies we'll need—Midnight isn't a competitor, it's complementary infrastructure that will strengthen Cardano's position.
I'm also encouraged to see NMKR on the Oversight Committee. They've demonstrated consistent integrity in this ecosystem.
That said, I want to register one concern for the steering committee's consideration: USDM already exists on Cardano and meets tier-one criteria—it's Mehen-issued, USD-backed, and has regulatory clarity. If part of this budget is earmarked for stablecoin integration, I'd want assurance that we're not duplicating what we already have or, worse, sidelining a native solution for an external one purely based on brand recognition.
The proposal's confidentiality constraints are understandable given how these negotiations work, but I'd encourage the steering committee to publish categorical allocation ranges (oracle vs. bridge vs. stablecoin infrastructure) once contracts allow—even rough percentages would help the community understand priorities without compromising partner NDAs.
Looking forward to the treasury withdrawal details. Let's get this done before the NCL expires. - Yes67.1K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted64.4K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳Rationale
In the light that this anyway passes, I vote no, not because I dislike the plan, whats presented, or dont understand that confidentiality is required within its context, but because I dont agree with the "eat or die" mentality of the almighty 5 proposers, who are really only controlled by 2 entities
- Yes53.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes51.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
I find value in a concerted effort of the founding entities and the included Intersect group accompanied by Midnight foundation. The need for critical integrations have remained an open wound for too long and now a remedy is well thought out and planned. Many of the named points of initiative are currently available on chain built from the ground up on CARDANO like Oracles Charli3 and OrcFax (In Testing), the homegrown Taptools analytics platform as well as others. It is my request that the expertise from these projects / TEAMS will be called upon for the sake of advisement or even consideration to help build the required infrastructure. I vote Yes willingly with an additional request that the mentioned Co-proposers or other entities chosen by the Steering Committee as contractual counterparties are vetted and announced to the community prior to engagement in funding for the sake of transparency and community knowledge, I thank the entities and all parties involved with this proposal for showing unity and standing together to further evolve the ecosystem, United we stand United we grow.
LOURDEOuroborus Imperator Aeternalis - YesRevoted48.6K ₳Rationale
Yes! We need support of stablecoins
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
Good move. I agree. n
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
It is better for Cardano block chain as a whole with the all founding entities collabroation again.
BUT the proposal is very much high-level, I agree but the team should consider to add more
- Budget detail
- withdrawal plan by deliverable and bottom up for each of the delivery phase of this big 70 mio ADA proposal
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes41.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes39.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes30.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes29.3K ₳Rationale
I mean this is literally what all Dreps and probably the entire Cardano community have been waiting a long time for. I would have voted for more funds to go to this cause.
"collaboration between Input | Output Global, the Cardano Foundation, and EMURGO, together with Midnight Foundation and Intersect"
I mean they are working together on this, lets hope the in-fighting settles down and not too many Chiefs take the helm. This is a huge boost of confidence. On the backend of recovering from a huge attack to the chain.
Please vote YES.
- Yes29K ₳No rationale
- Yes26.7K ₳Rationale
I conditionally cote yes to this info action based on this line being fulfilled before the treasury withdrawl takes place. "The acceptance criteria will vary between vendors, but will be made public once commercial terms and contracting has been agreed between the vendor, Intersect and the Steering Committee. "
- Abstain24.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes16.6K ₳Rationale
Cardano needs to develop DeFi to be able to grow the network. Some of the DeFi is not applicable to most individuals need for day-to-day use. Lending etc is not everyone's ideal and need to develop more practical use cases.
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.6K ₳Rationale
I'm like this proposal.
- Yes8.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes7.8K ₳No rationale