Cardano Critical Integrations V2
203 DReps voted · 61 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain 12.2M ₳ Rationale
We abstain from supporting or rejecting this governance action due to unresolved structural ambiguities in program continuity, milestone accountability, and budget segmentation between the original Cardano Critical Integrations Budget (CCI V1) and the proposed CCI V2 allocation.
CCI V1 was explicitly framed as a ~24-month, ₳70M program intended to deliver a defined set of ecosystem integration outcomes. While CCI V2 is presented as a continuation or “Year 2” phase, the proposal does not provide a clearly auditable boundary between V1 and V2 in terms of time periods, deliverables, or completion criteria.
Furthermore, although the proposal references ongoing and partially completed integration work, there is insufficient independently verifiable closure reporting of CCI V1 milestones to determine whether the original funding envelope has been fully and appropriately executed prior to requesting additional treasury resources.
The definition of “Year 2” remains functionally ambiguous, being described primarily in terms of activity continuation rather than a clearly bounded fiscal or milestone-based phase. This limits the ability of Delegated Representatives to assess whether this constitutes continuation of an existing funded mandate or a new budget cycle under a different label.
While we acknowledge the importance of maintaining continuity for ecosystem-critical integrations and recognize the strategic value of the initiative, the lack of strict temporal separation, incomplete milestone closure transparency, and absence of a clearly enforced funding boundary between V1 and V2 reduces governance clarity.
Given these unresolved structural concerns, we are unable to confidently evaluate the proposal as either fully justified or clearly misaligned with treasury governance expectations.
Therefore, we abstain from this governance action pending clearer audit-grade separation of funding phases, milestone completion verification of CCI V1, and a more precise definition of the scope and temporal boundaries of “Year 2” under CCI V2.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 10.5M ₳ Rationale
This proposal is not transparent enough for another 23 million $ADA after 70 million $ADA was already approved for Pentad V1.
About 90% of the budget sits inside one confidential bucket for "integration and maintenance costs," with no public vendor level breakdown for Circle, LayerZero, Pyth, Dune or Fireblocks. I understand the NDA between the actual integrations but who is doing the maintenance? Who are the 3rd party vendors? Who is providing the infra?
The proposal also allows funds to be converted into stablecoins and held with a custodian, including minting and custody fees, without clearly quantifying those costs up front. Steering Committee discretion remains very broad and reporting is only bi-annual.
On the V1 integrations:
$USDCx is live but it is USDCx via Circle xReserve, not the broader "USDC/USDT on Cardano" story many people had in mind, prior to the proposal. Cardano's stablecoin market cap is still only very low, with about $16.6 million USDCx, so the realized liquidity impact remains much smaller than the narrative suggests - majority of the deploy by one founding entity with $NIGHT pairing.
But what about Dune and Pyth? What do they bring?
Dune is an analytics/data platform. For Cardano, it gives SQL queryable onchain data, APIs/DataShare and dashboards for things like transactions, fees, staking, validator activity, smart contracts and user activity. A project usually does not need a deep protocol integration to "use Dune" - it mainly uses Dune by querying the indexed Cardano data and publishing dashboards or internal analytics on top of it. In other words, Dune is mostly a data visibility layer, not a protocol capability layer
Pyth is an oracle/market data network. Projects integrate it when they need external price feeds for things like perps, lending, synthetics or risk engines. The integration path is more technical than Dune -developers fetch signed price updates off-chain with Pyth's SDK, then pass those updates onchain, where their validator checks the Pyth state UTxO/reference input and verifies the price update in the transaction flow. So Pyth is a runtime dependency for DeFi logic
Their impact on Cardano is still limited - both are mostly enablers, not direct adoption engines. Dune makes Cardano easier to analyze, compare, and monitor but analytics alone do not bring liquidity or users. We already have Taptools and Xerberus that do this.
Pyth is oracle infrastructure, but oracle access alone does not create volume unless multiple serious DeFi apps actually integrate and use it at scale.
Are there competing Cardano native tools already? Yes.
For analytics and data access, Cardano already has ecosystem native tools like @TapTools, Cardanoscan, @cexplorer_io, @StatsAda and other explorers/analytics products. Dune's advantage is not that Cardano had no analytics before - its advantage is that it puts Cardano data inside a crosschain platform already used by crypto researchers, fund and growth teams. That is useful but it is still different from saying it created new enterprise adoption on its own. We also have oracles on Cardano already
Does this provide enterprise adoption? No.
Dune can help enterprise or institutional teams see and compare Cardano data more easily and Pyth can help DeFi products build with institutional style pricing infrastructure. But neither one, by itself, is an enterprise adoption event.
LayerZero
This is probably the integration with the highest upside but it is also the clearest example of why I do not think the proposal is fully candid in its top line framing.
The official CCI V1 closure report says LayerZero is only in advanced stages and is targeting Q3 for launch. It also says that OFT deployments on Cardano are explicitly out of scope for V1 and may need separate governance actions later. So LayerZero is not a cleanly delivered/live integration
That is reinforced by LayerZero's own public developer docs. The "Get Started" docs currently tell developers to choose from EVM, Solana, Aptos or Hyperliquid and the public mainnet endpoint deployment page I checked does not list Cardano. That does not prove Cardano work is nonexistent but it does show that from a public builder and market perspective, Cardano does not yet look like a standard first class live LayerZero environment.
Fireblocks
The proposal presents Fireblocks as a new full native integration funded in V2, expected to cover $ADA, CNTs, staking and governance workflows. That already means V2 is not purely a maintenance proposal. It is partly a new integration proposal bundled inside a maintenance budget.
The official CCI V1 closure report is explicit that Fireblocks did not result in a V1 disbursement and that the ecosystem instead got an Iagon SDK level Fireblocks integration outside V1. The report even acknowledges that this delivered "material institutional access." Meanwhile, the public Fireblocks GitHub repo for cardano-raw-sdk describes a Fireblocks/Iagon integration that already supports:
- ADA and CNT transfers
- governance operations
- staking operations
- and mainnet/preprod/preview support through the Iagon API
That is exactly why I have an issue with the V2 framing.
The proposal and closure report effectively say -
yes, Iagon delivered something meaningful but "most institutional counterparties" still need a full native L1 Fireblocks integration. The problem is that this is asserted, not really proven. There are no named counterparties, no quantified demand, no pipeline value, no expected custody volumes, no exchange listings tied to it and no business case explanation for why the existing Iagon path is not sufficient for a larger portion of the market. It also contradicts discussions Iagon has had with business partners wanting to use the solution.From a business perspective, that means V2 is undervaluing an existing ecosystem delivered stop-gap while asking Treasury to pay again for a deeper version without clearly quantifying the incremental return.
For transparency - I am the CEO of Iagon and Iagon works with Fireblocks. That may create a perceived conflict of interest, so I want to disclose it clearly.
My comments on Fireblocks should be read as focused on governance, scope clarity and Treasury accountability, not as a statement against Fireblocks as a company or product. My issue is not with Fireblocks itself. My issue is whether this proposal clearly justifies the additional Treasury spend and properly explains the incremental value to Cardano.
The transparency problem
The proposal does mention maintenance and infrastructure costs
- attestor operations for Circle
- DVN and endpoint operations for LayerZero
- oracle feed continuity and publisher incentives for Pyth
- schema/subgraph maintenance for Dune.
But it does not break any of that down by vendor, by integration, by FTE, by infrastructure unit cost or by SLA cost. Everything is rolled into the same ~90% bucket.
That is not good enough for Treasury capital. The response to this is basically - confidentiality. But confidentiality may be commercially understandable and still governance poor.
If the community cannot see the 3rd party cost structure, then the community cannot really judge whether the renewals are well priced, whether the value is proportional or whether one vendor is being overpaid relative to ecosystem benefit.
The proposal is too opaque. Too much money sits in a confidential bucket. Too much discretion sits with the Steering Committee. Too little hard ROI is shown for what V1 already bought.
- No 9.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
私はこの提案に賛成します。本提案は、CCI V1において導入されたCircle (USDCx)、LayerZero、Pyth、およびDune Analyticsの継続的な運用・保守に加え、Fireblocksのネイティブ統合を含むものであり、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の解決に向けた取り組みを継続する重要な提案であると考えます。これらの統合は、ステーブルコイン、クロスチェーン接続、価格オラクル、分析基盤、および機関向けカストディ対応を支えるものであり、Cardanoエコシステム全体に利益をもたらす公共的な基盤と判断します。Cardanoの中長期的な成長とL1としての持続的な競争力の強化に向けた合理的な投資であると判断し、賛成します。\n\nI support this proposal. This proposal includes the continued operation and maintenance of Circle (USDCx), LayerZero, Pyth, and Dune Analytics introduced under CCI V1, as well as the native integration of Fireblocks. I believe it represents an important continuation of efforts to address Cardano’s long-standing structural challenge of insufficient foundational infrastructure. These integrations support stablecoins, cross-chain connectivity, price oracles, analytics infrastructure, and institutional custody capabilities, and I consider them foundational public goods that benefit the Cardano ecosystem as a whole. I therefore view this proposal as a rational investment that supports Cardano’s mid- to long-term growth and strengthens its sustainable competitiveness as a layer-one blockchain, and I vote Yes.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.1M ₳ 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 - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ 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.
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
Yes, required.
- Abstain 5.3M ₳ 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.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Cardano Critical Integrations V2" (gov_action1cp0w6zwgwpj98jtu3r2q838lgwmhs6j49l58zx4q05lx220lmzaqqztnljz), 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_action1cp0w6zwgwpj98jtu3r2q838lgwmhs6j49l58zx4q05lx220lmzaqqztnljz), 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. - Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ 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.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- No 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ Rationale
V1 has already achieved visible results. AtlasHub supports to proceed.
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale