Cardano Critical Integrations V2
203 DReps voted · 65 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote · 7 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 2 to yes, together voting with 2.2M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes9.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes.
While I remain focused on outcomes and long-term value, I supported this initiative previously and have seen evidence that committed work has been delivered. Governance should hold projects accountable, but it should also remain consistent when teams execute against approved objectives.
The ultimate success of this work remains to be proven over time, but I believe there is sufficient progress to justify seeing it through.
Note - we do need future proposals from this group to break out maintenance costs separately so we understand reoccurring commitments on implementations that will be required. It's not enough to bundle integration/implementation + maintenance.
- Yes8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Cardano Critical Integrations V2.
This is a cautious YES.
RCADA supports this proposal because Cardano should not fund major ecosystem integrations once and then allow them to degrade due to a lack of maintenance, renewal funding, or operational support. The original CCI V1 program was a large Treasury investment, and this proposal is primarily focused on preserving and extending that investment through continued operation of Circle/USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth, and Dune, while adding Fireblocks native Cardano support.
These integrations are not abstract. Stablecoin access, cross-chain messaging, oracle feeds, analytics infrastructure, and institutional custody support are important parts of a mature blockchain ecosystem. They help make Cardano more usable for builders, institutions, exchanges, liquidity providers, dApps, analysts, and end users. Cardano cannot reasonably position itself as infrastructure-ready if key integrations are launched but not maintained.
RCADA recognises that the Treasury ask is substantial. At ₳23,000,000, this is a major allocation, especially following the prior ₳70,000,000 CCI V1 budget. We also recognise that most of the budget is allocated to integration and maintenance costs, while specific vendor-level costs cannot be publicly disclosed due to confidentiality obligations. This creates a real accountability challenge for the community.
However, RCADA does not believe the correct response is to abandon or underfund critical infrastructure that the ecosystem has already chosen to pursue. If Cardano funded the first year of these integrations, then the second-year maintenance and renewal question must be handled responsibly. Otherwise, the ecosystem risks wasting prior Treasury investment and weakening the reliability of infrastructure that builders may now depend on.
RCADA also sees the Fireblocks integration as a meaningful addition. Native Cardano support within Fireblocks could reduce friction for exchanges, custodians, fintechs, asset managers, market makers, and other institutional participants that already rely on Fireblocks for digital asset operations. The proposal expects Fireblocks support to include ADA, Cardano Native Tokens, and technical foundations for Cardano-specific workflows such as staking and governance delegation.
RCADA remains cautious about the governance structure. The Pentad Steering Committee concentrates significant influence among major ecosystem entities, including Input Output Global, the Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect as non-voting administrator. That concentration should not be ignored, and future governance should continue developing broader community capacity.
At the same time, RCADA believes this concern should be weighed practically. For large commercial integrations involving legal agreements, institutional counterparties, contract renewals, audits, custody, infrastructure maintenance, technical coordination, and partner management, it is not enough to prefer decentralisation in theory. The community also needs entities that are willing, capable, accountable, and legally prepared to execute. At present, the Pentad structure appears to be the practical mechanism available for continuity of CCI V1 and delivery of Fireblocks.
RCADA also believes the major founding and ecosystem entities should not be pushed out or alienated from Cardano governance. They continue to have an important role to play. The healthier path is for the broader community and these institutions to grow together: strengthening transparency, expanding accountability, increasing community participation, and building more distributed execution capacity over time.
The proposal includes several accountability measures that support this cautious YES: Intersect administration, the Treasury Reserve Smart Contract Framework, Steering Committee approval of maintenance and enhancement drawdowns, Statements of Work, dedicated auditable accounts, auto-abstain delegation, no SPO delegation, independent audits, refund circumstances, unused-fund return, and bi-annual reporting on finances, integration status, Fireblocks progress, enhancement reserve activity, audits, and future outlook.
These measures do not remove all concerns. RCADA expects the reports to be specific enough for the community to judge whether CCI V2 is producing real value. Future renewal requests should provide clear evidence of uptime, usage, adoption, developer impact, institutional onboarding, oracle consumption, analytics usage, cross-chain activity, tooling delivery, and any remaining or returned funds.
For these reasons, RCADA votes YES. This vote should be understood as support for continuity of critical integrations and institutional infrastructure, not as unconditional approval of large recurring Treasury renewals. RCADA expects strong reporting, clear evidence of ecosystem value, and continued movement toward broader community capacity in future integration programs.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- No8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I cannot support treasury withdrawals where EMURGO is a direct beneficiary while the EMURGO Group and the Yoroi DRep continue to benefit from self-preferential governance delegation inside Yoroi wallet. Cardano governance is stake-weighted. Wallet design therefore matters. Yoroi is the largest DRep by delegated voting power and still steers users toward its own DRep during staking - despite claiming on March 16, 2026: We will pause DRep delegation within Yoroi.
Yoroi wallet browser extension still tells its users at the moment when they choose an SPO that they can "save time and fees by delegating to our Yoroi DRep". This is a fact as of 27 May 2026 as I personally verified this in a Yoroi browser extension with a new wallet that was not staked to any SPO.
This situation with Emurgo and Yoroi creates a serious conflict of interest when treasury withdrawals that benefit them require DRep approval.
Yoroi should present neutral DRep discovery, equal options, clear disclosures, and public metrics showing whether affiliated voting power is being reduced.
Until EMURGO makes real progress on this, I will vote No on treasury withdrawals that make EMURGO a beneficiary. I will reassess EMURGO’s progress on 1 June 2027.
Screenshot of Yoroi wallet prompt: https://x.com/InputEndorsers/status/2059290418064277960?s=20 - Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳Rationale
V1 has already achieved visible results. AtlasHub supports to proceed.
- Yes5.5M ₳Rationale
We need the Pentad united and working together to tackle the challenges our ecosystem faces today and in the years ahead. I fully support this initiative and will monitor their performance closely. While they have not delivered 100% on all previous funding commitments, I am satisfied with the results achieved so far and remain optimistic about the future, especially now that they appear to have found an effective way to collaborate.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.3M ₳Rationale
We recognize the strategic importance of maintaining Circle USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth, Dune and institutional custody infrastructure for Cardano. However, the original ₳70M Critical Integrations Budget already included integration, licensing, maintenance fees and related infrastructure costs. The V2 request introduces a further ₳23M for Year 2 costs, maintenance, tooling and Fireblocks, but does not sufficiently separate prior commitments from new incremental costs. Without a clear reconciliation of V1 funds committed, disbursed, remaining, and the vendor-level composition of the V2 maintenance line, we cannot confidently assess whether this is prudent lifecycle funding or a structurally under-specified follow-on budget. Therefore, we abstain pending stronger financial transparency and delivery evidence.
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳Rationale
Yes, required.
- Yes4.9M ₳Rationale
The proposal funds critical infrastructure that materially improves Cardano's competitiveness, institutional readiness, and long-term ecosystem value. While transparency could be stronger, the strategic importance of the integrations outweighs the concerns
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Cardano Critical Integrations V2" (gov_action1cp0...ztnljz), pois entendemos que as integrações críticas já entregues ou em implementação por meio do CCI V1 — como Circle/USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth Price Feeds e Dune Analytics — não podem ser tratadas apenas como entregas pontuais. Uma vez incorporadas à infraestrutura do ecossistema, essas integrações exigem manutenção contínua, renovação de contratos, suporte operacional, compatibilidade técnica e monitoramento permanente para que permaneçam funcionais, seguras e úteis para desenvolvedores, instituições e usuários da rede Cardano. Também avaliamos positivamente a inclusão da integração nativa da Fireblocks, pois ela pode reduzir barreiras operacionais para instituições que necessitam custodiar, transferir e gerenciar ADA e Cardano Native Tokens por meio de uma infraestrutura amplamente utilizada pelo mercado institucional. Além disso, consideramos adequado o modelo de administração por meio da Intersect, com supervisão do Steering Committee, prestação de contas, auditorias, relatórios periódicos e devolução de recursos não utilizados ao Tesouro. Em nossa avaliação, a proposta fortalece a prontidão institucional da Cardano e contribui para preservar e ampliar o valor das integrações já financiadas pela comunidade. Ao mesmo tempo, reconhecemos que existem ressalvas legítimas relacionadas à transparência orçamentária e à governança da proposta. Consideramos importante que os proponentes apresentem uma conciliação mais detalhada dos resultados do CCI V1, incluindo valores comprometidos, despesas realizadas, saldos remanescentes, obrigações já cobertas e custos efetivamente novos relacionados ao chamado “Ano 2”. Também entendemos que a confidencialidade comercial com fornecedores não impede a divulgação de informações agregadas que permitam distinguir custos de fornecedores, engenharia, infraestrutura, administração e demais despesas operacionais. Por isso, nosso apoio à proposta vem acompanhado da expectativa de relatórios públicos robustos, maior clareza sobre o período efetivo de execução dos 12 meses, verificação adequada dos Statements of Work (SoWs) e mecanismos de supervisão que permitam aos DReps avaliar, mesmo com limitações decorrentes da confidencialidade contratual, se os desembolsos permanecem alinhados ao escopo aprovado e ao melhor interesse do ecossistema Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Cardano Critical Integrations V2" (gov_action1cp0...ztnljz), because we believe that the critical integrations already delivered or currently being implemented under CCI V1 — including Circle/USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth Price Feeds, and Dune Analytics — should not be viewed as one-time deliverables. Once integrated into the ecosystem’s infrastructure, these services require ongoing maintenance, contract renewals, operational support, technical compatibility, and continuous monitoring to remain functional, secure, and valuable for developers, institutions, and Cardano users. We also view positively the inclusion of the native Fireblocks integration, as it can reduce operational barriers for institutions seeking to custody, transfer, and manage ADA and Cardano Native Tokens through infrastructure already widely adopted by the institutional market. Furthermore, we consider the governance model appropriate, with administration through Intersect, oversight by the Steering Committee, public accountability, audits, periodic reporting, and the return of unused funds to the Treasury. In our view, the proposal strengthens Cardano’s institutional readiness and helps preserve and expand the value of integrations previously funded by the community. At the same time, we recognize that legitimate concerns remain regarding budget transparency and governance. We believe the proposers should provide a more detailed reconciliation of CCI V1, including committed amounts, actual expenditures, remaining balances, obligations already covered, and the genuinely new costs associated with the proposed “Year 2” activities. We also believe that commercial confidentiality with vendors should not prevent the publication of aggregated financial information distinguishing supplier costs, engineering expenses, infrastructure costs, administrative expenses, and other operational categories. For this reason, our support for the proposal is accompanied by the expectation of robust public reporting, greater clarity regarding the effective 12-month execution period, appropriate verification of the Statements of Work (SoWs), and oversight mechanisms that enable DReps to assess—despite contractual confidentiality constraints—whether disbursements remain aligned with the approved scope and the best interests of the Cardano ecosystem.Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)" (gov_action1ngp...dm3w3z), pois compreendemos que a Eternl é uma infraestrutura relevante para o ecossistema Cardano, servindo como um dos principais pontos de acesso para pagamentos, staking, governança e interação com aplicações descentralizadas. Avaliamos que a manutenção contínua de uma carteira amplamente utilizada, disponível em múltiplas plataformas e integrada às necessidades de usuários, desenvolvedores e participantes da governança, contribui diretamente para a estabilidade, a usabilidade e a resiliência da rede. Além disso, a diversidade de carteiras é um componente importante para a descentralização do ecossistema, reduzindo dependências excessivas de soluções específicas e fortalecendo a soberania dos usuários. Também apoiamos a proposta por entendermos que ela apresenta um caminho claro de transição para maior sustentabilidade financeira, por meio da introdução de planos pagos e novas fontes de receita, preservando ao mesmo tempo uma versão básica gratuita e acessível para a comunidade. Consideramos positivo que os recursos solicitados sejam direcionados à continuidade operacional, manutenção técnica, suporte aos usuários, infraestrutura e evolução do produto, reduzindo o risco de descontinuidade de um serviço amplamente utilizado pela comunidade Cardano. Além disso, valorizamos a presença de mecanismos de transparência, prestação de contas e a possibilidade de devolução de recursos não utilizados ao Tesouro, elementos que contribuem para um uso mais responsável e eficiente dos fundos comunitários.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)" (gov_action1ngp...dm3w3z), because we recognize Eternl as an important piece of infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem, serving as one of the primary access points for payments, staking, governance participation, and interaction with decentralized applications. We believe that the continued maintenance of a widely adopted wallet, available across multiple platforms and integrated with the needs of users, developers, and governance participants, contributes directly to the network’s stability, usability, and resilience. Furthermore, wallet diversity is an important component of ecosystem decentralization, reducing excessive dependence on any single solution and strengthening user sovereignty. We also support the proposal because it presents a clear path toward greater financial sustainability through the introduction of paid plans and additional revenue streams, while preserving a free and accessible core offering for the community. We consider it positive that the requested funds are directed toward operational continuity, technical maintenance, user support, infrastructure, and product development, reducing the risk of disruption to a service that is widely relied upon across the Cardano ecosystem. In addition, we value the inclusion of transparency and accountability mechanisms, as well as the possibility of returning unused funds to the Treasury, which contribute to a more responsible and efficient use of community resources. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳Rationale
As with every IO submission this year I do NOT feel comfortable with the procurement process that this went through. We are basicially signing off on vendor proposal without appropriate validation of costs, push back on prices, timelines or KPIs as we only have a yes/no vote and no entity has done proper procurement processing before this vote. This is not an acceptable way to do governance.
However, I hope and believe this is part of the processes growing pains.
For the good of the chain, I do not want to disrupt these projects which I consider critical infrastructure and in the best interest of the chain itself because the governance process is immature and poorly designed.
I am choosing the lesser of two evils to approve that this year, but for processes that I will not accept into 2027.
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
Voting NO as i think first and foremost all FE's or teams named in the proposal should abstain.
Additionally, you can see my statement which i feel still applies here:
X PostI realize these things need maintenance and contracts, i just feel like the cost does not reflect the absolute value back to the treasury or businesses on Cardano.
The treasury shouldn't be used to subsidize a lack of BD and opportunity solely for the FE and closely related parties.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に賛成します。
本提案は、CardanoがDeFi、RWA、クロスチェーン流動性、機関カストディへ接続するための重要な基盤投資だと考えます。一方で、23M ADAのうち約90%が統合・保守費であり、ベンダー別の詳細費用が公開されない点には慎重な監視が必要です。守秘義務は理解しますが、半期報告では、各統合の稼働状況、利用量、採用dApp数、Fireblocksの利用状況、残余資金、次年度以降の継続必要額を、可能な限り定量的に示すべきです。
これは白紙委任ではなく、Cardanoの市場接続インフラを維持するための条件付き支持です。
I support this proposal.
I see CCI V2 as an important infrastructure investment for connecting Cardano to DeFi, RWA, cross-chain liquidity, and institutional custody.However, since around 90% of the 23M ADA request is allocated to integration and maintenance costs, and vendor-level details are not publicly disclosed, careful oversight is necessary. I understand the confidentiality constraints, but the semi-annual reports should provide as many quantitative metrics as possible, including operational status, usage, dApp adoption, Fireblocks usage, remaining funds, and expected maintenance costs for future years.
This is not a blank cheque. It is conditional support for maintaining Cardano’s market-connectivity infrastructure.
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- No2.2M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on Cardano Critical Integrations V2.
My view is that Cardano has already made a significant strategic commitment to critical integrations through CCI V1, and it would be poor treasury discipline to fund major integrations but then fail to maintain, support, and operationalise them properly.
The integrations covered by this proposal — including USDCx, Pyth, Dune, LayerZero, and Fireblocks — are important infrastructure for liquidity, DeFi, institutional access, analytics, interoperability, and broader ecosystem adoption. These are not peripheral “nice to have” items; they are part of the connective tissue Cardano needs if it is to compete as a serious global financial and application platform.
That said, my support is not unconditional. The size of the ask, the confidentiality around some vendor-level costs, and the fact that some CCI V1 work remains incomplete mean that the proposers must be held to a high standard of transparency, reporting, auditability, and delivery discipline. I expect clear milestone reporting, responsible fund management, and the return of unused funds where appropriate.
I see this as a vote for continuity, operational maturity, and adoption infrastructure — not as automatic approval for indefinite future funding. On balance, I believe this proposal is aligned with Cardano’s long-term interests and is constitutionally acceptable, so I am voting YES.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
LayerZero for cross-chain messaging, Circle's USDCx for stablecoin liquidity, Pyth for reliable price feeds, and now Fireblocks to bring institutional capital in through infrastructure they already trust. Letting these lapse would strand assets and users at the door. This is how ecosystems compound.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Voting to maintain and improve these integrations.
The addition of full Fireblocks integration will be beneficial for CNAs looking to get listed on exchanges.
- Abstain1.6M ₳Rationale
I agree with the additional funding required for the Fireblocks native integration and for maintaining the integrations already delivered under Cardano Critical Integrations V1. I acknowledge that V1 already included the Fireblocks integration, but the reality is that the value of ada declined significantly between the submission of the V1 proposal and its execution.
I do think the maintenance request comes too early, however, as the oldest integrations were completed less than six months ago. In my view, funding for ongoing maintenance should be requested only after a few more months, under an updated NCL if necessary. Therefore, I will abstain on this proposal.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale