Cardano Critical Integrations V2
203 DReps voted · 61 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 592.3M ₳ Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes YES on “Cardano Critical Integrations V2” as the necessary operational continuation of infrastructure the Cardano ecosystem already depends on.
Rationale
Maintenance of live infrastructure is not optional.
The CCI V1 integrations are in production. Circle USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth, and Dune Analytics each carry recurring licensing, attestation, and operational costs that must be renewed for the integrations to remain functional. Allowing these to lapse would degrade infrastructure that protocols and users already rely on, and funding them through a single ratified budget is more efficient than managing each renewal as a separate governance action.Fireblocks expands institutional access at a logical moment.
Institutional adoption requires custody infrastructure that meets regulatory and operational standards. A native Fireblocks integration gives exchanges, asset managers, and custodians a standard pathway to support ADA and Cardano Native Tokens without bespoke solutions. Including Year 1 Fireblocks costs within this cycle, alongside existing maintenance, is a sensible sequencing decision.Governance and oversight structure is adequate.
The Pentad Steering Committee provides cross-organizational oversight with quorum requirements for disbursements, and Intersect administers funds under the established treasury smart contract framework. The lack of vendor-level cost disclosure is noted as a limitation, but the combination of multi-party governance, milestone-based drawdowns, and mandatory return of unused funds provides sufficient accountability for Yoroi to support this proposal.Conclusion
Yoroi votes YES on CCI V2 as a necessary and appropriately governed commitment to sustaining the institutional integration infrastructure Cardano has already invested in building. - Yes 428.5M ₳ Rationale
Voting YES on "Cardano Critical Integrations V2."
USDCx is necessary for DeFi. After all, the only product use case that has been advantageously adopted in the blockchain industry is stablecoins (excluding internal money games). USDCx currently has limited transaction volume, but it is worth maintaining. As for the other features, I have confirmed that multiple DApp developers intend to use them.
「Cardano Critical Integrations V2」にYESを投票します。
USDCxはDefiに必要です。結局のところ、ブロックチェーン業界で唯一、優位に利用されているプロダクトユースケースはステーブルコインのみです（内部的なマネーゲームを除き）。USDCxは現在Txボリュームは限定的ですが、維持する価値があります。
その他の機能についても、複数のDApps開発者が利用したい意向を確認しました。 - Yes 328.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 297.4M ₳ Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes YES on the treasury withdrawal titled “Cardano Critical Integrations V2”, with rationale outlined below.
Rationale
The integrations delivered under CCI V1, specifically Circle USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth, and Dune Analytics, are now live infrastructure. Keeping them live carries recurring operational costs that must be funded on an ongoing basis. Without a ratified V2 budget, individual maintenance line items would require separate governance actions, each with its own timeline, creating operational gaps in infrastructure the ecosystem now depends on. This proposal addresses that risk in a straightforward way.The addition of Fireblocks as a new integration is a reasonable extension of scope within this cycle. Institutional custody infrastructure is a practical prerequisite for exchange listings, regulated custody, and broader institutional participation in the Cardano ecosystem. Funding the native Fireblocks integration here, alongside existing maintenance obligations, is more efficient than bringing it as a separate governance action.
EMURGO notes that specific vendor-level cost breakdowns are not publicly disclosed due to confidentiality obligations with integration partners. The Steering Committee structure, which includes representation from IO, Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect as administrator, provides the governance layer that substitutes for full public granularity. EMURGO is a member of that Steering Committee and accepts the accountability that comes with it. On that basis, and given the operational necessity of the maintenance covered here, EMURGO votes YES.
- Abstain 174.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 160.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 135.1M ₳ Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES on this governance action. We support maintaining CCI V1 integrations and adding an institutional custodial native integration.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We recognise the importance of the integrations established under the first Cardano Critical Integrations budget and commend the work undertaken to bring several of them to launch or implementation. The Cardano Foundation votes YES because we believe continued maintenance of Circle USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth, and Dune, together with the proposed institutional custodial native integration, supports infrastructure durability and institutional readiness for the Cardano ecosystem.
- No 93.3M ₳ Rationale
As a DRep, I have decided to vote NO on the proposal: Cardano Critical Integrations V2
My rationale:
The first Critical Integrations proposal, CCI V1, requested ₳70,000,000 and explicitly stated:
"Funds will be administered by Intersect under a performance and milestone-based structure over a period of up to 24 months."
It also stated that the budget covered integration work and related expenses, including deployment development, licensing fees, maintenance costs, and additional infrastructure required to support the integrations.
The current CCI V2 proposal now asks for an additional ₳23,000,000 to cover a focused “Year 2” contracted cost and a 12-month enhancement and maintenance program.
This includes platform and licensing fees, maintenance, operational costs, Cardano-side infrastructure, developer support, and related services for integrations that were already part of CCI V1.
In my view, these categories appear to substantially overlap with what the original ₳70,000,000 budget was already expected to cover over a period of up to 24 months.
Before asking the Cardano Treasury for additional funds, the proposers should provide a clear reconciliation of CCI V1: how much of the ₳70,000,000 has been committed, how much has been spent, how much remains, which partner contracts are already covered, and which Year-2 obligations were not included in the original budget.
The V2 proposal also does not clearly define when “Year 2” begins.
The V2 proposal says the new funds will be administered over a 12-month delivery window. Still, it does not clearly specify whether that period begins upon enactment, receipt of funds, contract signature, first drawdown, or the renewal dates of existing partner agreements.
This is especially important because CCI V1 was approved near the end of 2025 and was described as a budget administered over a period of up to 24 months.
Public announcements also suggest that some integrations are still relatively recent: USDCx was announced in February 2026, and Pyth live integration was announced in May 2026.
In that context, asking for an additional “Year 2” budget already in May 2026 appears premature unless the proposers clearly explain why V1 does not cover these costs and when the Year-2 period actually starts and ends.
Without that clarity, DReps cannot properly assess whether this proposal is timely, necessary, or an early renewal of costs that should already have been anticipated.
I understand that some vendor-level costs may be protected by confidentiality obligations and NDAs. I do not expect the proposers to disclose sensitive commercial terms for specific partners if that would violate agreements or harm negotiations.
Confidentiality around vendor pricing does not prevent the proposal from providing a clearer non-vendor-level breakdown.
The proposal allocates ₳20,700,000, approximately 90% of the total request, to “Integration and maintenance costs,” but this category combines many different items: licensing, platform fees, attestor operations, relayers, oracle infrastructure, custody, Fireblocks costs, infrastructure fees, and maintenance.
DReps are not told how much of this amount is expected to go to external NDA-covered vendors, how much is for Cardano-side engineering, how much is for work performed by Pentad-related teams or contractors, and how much is pass-through infrastructure or operational overhead.
That distinction matters. Confidential vendor pricing can remain private, but DReps should still be able to evaluate whether non-confidential engineering, support, and FTE-like costs are reasonable and not already covered elsewhere.
The current structure requires DReps to approve a large treasury withdrawal before they have access to the underlying contracts, commercial terms, vendor-level pricing, or detailed allocation logic.
The proposal says that Statements of Work will be submitted and verified, and that some information will be disclosed through progress reports, but it does not make clear whether DReps will be able to review the relevant SoWs before approval or before drawdowns. This creates a governance gap: DReps are accountable for approving treasury withdrawals, but they cannot independently verify the full basis for the spending decision at the time of voting.
For future proposals of this kind, I would support a stronger DRep-facing oversight mechanism.
A reasonable solution could be a small group of DRep-elected representatives, bound by NDAs and strict conflict-of-interest rules, who can inspect the relevant contracts and drawdown requests confidentially.
They would not disclose sensitive vendor terms, but they could provide public attestations that the spending matches the approved scope and that the split between vendor costs, internal engineering, infrastructure, administration, and overhead is reasonable.
I must mention that I have read Intersect’s Critical Integrations status reports, and I acknowledge that they provide useful progress updates on the integrations.
However, they do not provide the clarity I need as a DRep: they do not clearly explain why the original CCI V1 budget does not cover the relevant costs over its stated period of up to 24 months, when the CCI V2 “Year 2” period precisely begins, or how the non-NDA portion of the budget is broken down.
I want to be very clear: I support Critical Integrations for Cardano. I also understand that a NO vote may be unpopular and may bring public criticism. I accept that.
As a DRep, my responsibility is to protect the Treasury and approve funding only when the scope, timing, and budget are clear enough to evaluate.
Supporting Critical Integrations and requiring clarity are not contradictory. I want to support this proposal, but clarity is not optional. Until the key questions are answered, I cannot responsibly vote YES.
My conditions for approval are:
Explain why the original CCI V1 proposal does not already cover the relevant costs over its stated period of up to 24 months.
Define the exact period for the CCI V2 “Year 2” budget, including when the 12-month window starts and ends.
Provide a clearer anonymized breakdown of non-NDA costs, especially separating external vendor/license costs from Cardano-side engineering, infrastructure operations, support, tooling, administration, and any Pentad-related or contractor work.
Until these points are clarified, I cannot support the proposal in its current form.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp - Yes 92.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8M ₳ Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on Cardano Critical Integrations V2.
Governance Action ID: gov_action1cp0w6zwgwpj98jtu3r2q838lgwmhs6j49l58zx4q05lx220lmzaqqztnljz
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): c05eed09c8706453c97c88d403c4ff43b7786a552fe8711aa07d3e6529ffd8ba#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-10Cardano Critical Integrations V2 (CCI V2) requests ₳23,000,000 to fund the contracted Year 2 licensing and platform fees and a 12-month maintenance and enhancement programme for the integrations delivered under CCI V1 — Circle (USDCx), LayerZero, Pyth Price Feeds, and Dune Analytics — plus one new integration: full native Cardano support in Fireblocks, the institutional custody and digital-asset operations platform used by exchanges, custodians, and asset managers. The action is submitted by Intersect as Administrator and co-proposed by the Cardano Foundation, Input Output Global, EMURGO, and the Midnight Foundation, with a constitutional prior-receipt disclosure of the ₳70,000,000 received under CCI V1.
SIPO's support follows directly from its own record and doctrine. SIPO voted Yes twice on CCI V1 — on the Critical Integrations budget and on the ₳70,000,000 withdrawal — and SIPO's treasury-fit framework treats critical integrations as a category that properly belongs to the Treasury. Stablecoin rails (USDCx), price oracles (Pyth), cross-chain messaging (LayerZero), and analytics coverage (Dune) are live infrastructure; declining to maintain what the Treasury has already built would strand that investment. The Fireblocks integration extends this logic to institutional adoption: native custody, transfer, staking, and governance-delegation support through infrastructure institutions already use lowers a real barrier to exchange listings, regulated custody, and treasury management on Cardano. The five-entity co-proposal structure, with all founding entities signing together and prior Treasury receipts disclosed, is also the governance form SIPO has consistently asked large ecosystem proposals to take.
On treasury protection, the proposal meets the standard SIPO has endorsed this cycle. The withdrawal recipient is a script credential — the Intersect-administered Treasury Reserve Smart Contract framework, the same audited escrow through which the Cardano Vision 2026 programme SIPO supported is administered — with multi-sig oversight from DQuadrant, NMKR, the Cardano Foundation, Xerberus, and Sundae Labs. Drawdowns occur only after signed agreements and Statements of Work are verified, allocation decisions require a three-quarters quorum of the Steering Committee, conversion to stablecoins occurs only as part of approved disbursements with custody at a regulated custodian, and all unused funds — including the ring-fenced enhancement reserve — return to the Cardano Treasury at the end of the twelve-month window, with independent audits and published progress reports.
SIPO is equally clear about the concerns it carries into this Yes. First, recurrence: the proposal itself describes these licensing fees as an annual baseline, meaning a Year 3 and beyond will follow, and unlike self-sustainability-oriented proposals it presents no path by which usage-driven revenue or ecosystem cost-sharing reduces Treasury dependence over time. Second, granularity: vendor-level costs are confidential under commercial agreements, roughly ninety percent of the request sits in a single category line, and allocation within categories is delegated to the Steering Committee — the audits, escrow, quorum, and refund obligations mitigate but do not remove this opacity. Third, completion: parts of CCI V1 are still in the implementation phase, so Year 2 fees are being approved while some Year 1 scope is not yet live. SIPO therefore votes Yes with the following expectations: (1) disclose vendor-level costs to the fullest extent commercial confidentiality allows, and report aggregate spending against each integration in the progress reports; (2) present, before any Year 3 request, a long-term cost trajectory including renegotiation outcomes and options for usage-based or ecosystem cost-sharing, so that recurring Treasury dependence is managed rather than assumed; (3) report verification that each CCI V1 integration has reached live, operational status, including uptime and usage evidence; and (4) coordinate scope with the separately proposed cross-chain initiatives (such as Wormhole and Project Janus in the Intersect budget process) so that bridge and messaging infrastructure is not double-funded across venues.
Transparency note: SIPO serves as a Midnight Ambassador and receives a monthly stipend from the Midnight Foundation, which is one of the five co-proposing entities of this governance action. No funds from this withdrawal flow to the Midnight Foundation; they are administered by Intersect and paid to integration vendors. SIPO judges this relationship not to constitute grounds for recusal and casts this vote as an independent DRep judgment, disclosing the relationship for transparency. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、本提案「Cardano Critical Integrations V2」に期待事項付きで賛成（YES）を投じます。
Governance Action ID: gov_action1cp0w6zwgwpj98jtu3r2q838lgwmhs6j49l58zx4q05lx220lmzaqqztnljz
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): c05eed09c8706453c97c88d403c4ff43b7786a552fe8711aa07d3e6529ffd8ba#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-10Cardano Critical Integrations V2（CCI V2）は、CCI V1 で構築された統合 — Circle（USDCx）・LayerZero・Pyth Price Feeds・Dune Analytics — の契約済み Year 2 ライセンス/プラットフォーム料と 12 ヶ月の保守・強化プログラム、および新規 1 件として機関投資家向けカストディ/デジタル資産運用基盤 Fireblocks への Cardano フルネイティブ統合のために、₳23,000,000 を求めるものです。本アクションは Intersect が Administrator として提出し、Cardano Foundation・Input Output Global・EMURGO・Midnight Foundation が共同提案者として連署、CCI V1 で受領した ₳70,000,000 の過去受領開示（憲法準拠）も明記されています。
SIPO の支持は、自らの投票記録とドクトリンから直接導かれます。SIPO は CCI V1 に 2 度賛成しました — Critical Integrations 予算と ₳70,000,000 の引き出しです。SIPO の Treasury 適合性フレームワークは、重要統合を Treasury が担うべきカテゴリと位置づけています。ステーブルコインのレール（USDCx）・価格オラクル（Pyth）・クロスチェーンメッセージング（LayerZero）・分析カバレッジ（Dune）は稼働中のインフラであり、Treasury が既に構築したものの維持を拒めば、その投資は座礁します。Fireblocks 統合はこの論理を機関採用へ拡張します — 機関が既に使うインフラを通じたネイティブなカストディ・移転・ステーキング・ガバナンス委任の対応は、取引所上場・規制カストディ・Cardano 上のトレジャリー管理への現実の障壁を下げます。全創設エンティティが連署し過去の Treasury 受領を開示する 5 者共同提案の形式も、SIPO が大型エコシステム提案に一貫して求めてきたガバナンスの形です。
トレジャリー保護の点で、本提案は SIPO が今期支持してきた基準を満たします。引き出し先は script credential — Intersect が管理する Treasury Reserve Smart Contract フレームワークであり、SIPO が支持した Cardano Vision 2026 と同じ監査済み escrow です — で、DQuadrant・NMKR・Cardano Foundation・Xerberus・Sundae Labs による multi-sig oversight を伴います。drawdown は署名済み契約と Statement of Work の検証後のみ、配分決定は Steering Committee の 3/4 quorum を要し、ステーブルコインへの転換は承認済み disbursement の一部としてのみ規制カストディアン保管で行われ、未使用資金は ring-fenced の enhancement reserve を含め 12 ヶ月終了時にすべて Cardano Treasury へ返還されます。独立監査と進捗報告の公開も明記されています。
同時に SIPO は、この賛成に伴う懸念も明確に記します。第一に、恒常性です。提案自身がこれらのライセンス料を「annual baseline」と述べており、Year 3 以降も続くことを意味します。自立志向の提案と異なり、利用に応じた収益やエコシステムでの費用分担によって Treasury 依存を時間とともに減らす道筋は示されていません。第二に、粒度です。ベンダー別コストは商業上の守秘義務で非公開であり、要求額の約 9 割が単一カテゴリに束ねられ、カテゴリ内の配分は Steering Committee に委任されています。監査・escrow・quorum・返還義務はこの不透明さを緩和しますが、除去はしません。第三に、完了度です。CCI V1 の一部は依然実装フェーズにあり、Year 1 のスコープが完全には live でないまま Year 2 費用を承認する形になります。したがって SIPO は、以下の期待事項とともに賛成します：(1) 商業守秘の許す最大限の範囲でベンダー別コストを開示し、進捗報告で統合ごとの支出集計を報告すること、(2) Year 3 の要求に先立ち、再交渉の結果や利用ベース/エコシステム費用分担の選択肢を含む長期コスト軌道を提示し、recurring な Treasury 依存を「前提」ではなく「管理対象」とすること、(3) CCI V1 の各統合が live・運用状態に達したことの検証（稼働率・利用実績を含む）を報告すること、(4) 別途提案されているクロスチェーン施策（Intersect 予算プロセスの Wormhole・Project Janus 等）とスコープを調整し、ブリッジ/メッセージング基盤が複数の場で二重資金化されないようにすること。
透明性に関する付記: SIPO は Midnight Ambassador として Midnight Foundation から月次の支援金を受領しており、同財団は本ガバナンスアクションの 5 共同提案者の一つです。本引き出しの資金は Midnight Foundation には流れず、Intersect が管理し統合ベンダーへ支払われます。SIPO はこの関係が recusal（棄権事由）には当たらないと判断し、透明性のため開示した上で、独立した DRep 判断として本投票を行います。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes 89.3M ₳ Rationale
My rationale for supporting this initiative has not changed. Please see my prior votes in favor of this initiative for rationale.
- Yes 89.2M ₳ Rationale
I support this proposal.
The reason is that a full native integration of Cardano into Fireblocks would provide important infrastructure for institutional adoption.
Today, institutions, exchanges, and regulated custodians face many technical and operational barriers when supporting Cardano assets. These include custody, sending and receiving ADA and Cardano Native Tokens, internal approval flows, audit requirements, security controls, and dedicated infrastructure maintenance. By integrating Cardano into a major institutional infrastructure provider like Fireblocks, these barriers can be significantly reduced.
This is especially important because the proposal does not only cover basic ADA and CNT support. It also aims to build the technical foundation for Cardano-specific workflows such as ADA staking and governance delegation. Cardano is not just a payment network; it is a proof-of-stake network with on-chain governance. Enabling institutions to access these features in a secure and operationally practical way is important for the long-term growth of the ecosystem.
This proposal should not be viewed as a short-term price catalyst. Rather, it is a long-term infrastructure investment that makes Cardano more ready for exchanges, regulated custody, treasury management, and institutional participation.
For these reasons, I believe this proposal contributes to Cardano’s adoption, market readiness, and institutional accessibility, and I support it.
- Abstain 77.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 76.1M ₳ Rationale
This is a must fund, critical integrations require yearly upkeep or minimum volume thresholds which the ecosystem is not mature enough to hit, failure to pay will result in termination of service.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This is a must fund, critical integrations require yearly upkeep or minimum volume thresholds which the ecosystem is not mature enough to hit, failure to pay will result in termination of service.
- Yes 74.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 71.3M ₳ Rationale
I vote NO. I refuse to fund a second iteration when initial deliverables remain unfinished, despite administrative closure by Intersect. Furthermore, the highly unprofessional social conduct of contributors damages our brand. We demand full technical delivery and absolute professional maturity.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am formally registering a NO vote on the Cardano Critical Integrations V2 Treasury Withdrawal. Whilst maintaining core infrastructure is undeniably important, I cannot support a request of this magnitude given the glaring issues surrounding both technical delivery and professional conduct.
Firstly, I categorically refuse to authorise twenty three million ADA for a second iteration when numerous integrations from the initial funding round remain glaringly unfinished. The fact that Intersect has administratively classed the first phase as closed does not alter the reality on the ground that the original scope of work is incomplete. A public Treasury should never issue secondary funding while primary deliverables remain undelivered. The community expects absolute technical completion before any subsequent capital is unlocked. Compounding this issue is the proposal's financial structure, which once again sweeps over twenty million ADA into an opaque bucket entirely devoid of granular accountability.
Furthermore, I must express my profound disappointment regarding the highly unprofessional conduct displayed by certain contributors to this proposal across our social channels. Cardano is a mature, professional ecosystem, and we fiercely protect our reputation and brand integrity. When individuals approach the public Treasury to request millions of dollars in community funds, we expect them to conduct themselves to the absolute highest standards of professionalism and decorum. The recent behaviour witnessed in the community falls drastically short of this mark and is fundamentally unacceptable.
Until the outstanding deliverables from the first budget are fully completed on mainnet, and the individuals representing these proposals demonstrate the maturity and respect expected of enterprise infrastructure stewards, I will not support this withdrawal.
- Yes 70.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 68M ₳ Rationale
I have decided to vote YES on this proposal.
I believe the integrations covered under CCI V2 represent important infrastructure for Cardano’s long-term growth and competitiveness. Circle (USDCx), LayerZero, Pyth, Dune Analytics, and the proposed Fireblocks integration all contribute to improving Cardano’s connectivity, usability, institutional readiness, and overall ecosystem maturity.
In particular, I believe Fireblocks has the potential to reduce barriers for institutional adoption and strengthen Cardano’s position within the broader digital asset industry.
After reviewing the proposal, I recognize that a significant portion of the requested budget is allocated toward maintaining and operating critical infrastructure that has already been delivered through CCI V1. At the current stage of Cardano’s development, I believe supporting these integrations is reasonable and beneficial for the ecosystem.
At the same time, I do not believe Treasury funding should necessarily become a permanent solution for infrastructure maintenance. As these integrations mature and adoption grows, I would like to see discussions around more sustainable long-term operating models that gradually reduce reliance on Treasury funding where appropriate.
Nevertheless, given the strategic importance of these integrations, the value they provide to the ecosystem, and the potential operational risks if maintenance and support are not adequately funded, I believe approving this proposal is currently in the best interest of Cardano.
For these reasons, I will vote YES.
僕はこの提案にYESで投票します。
CCI V2で対象となっているCircle（USDCx）、LayerZero、Pyth、Dune Analytics、そして新たに追加されるFireblocksは、Cardanoの長期的な成長と競争力にとって重要なインフラであると考えています。これらの統合は、Cardanoの接続性、利便性、機関投資家への対応力、そしてエコシステム全体の成熟度向上に貢献するものです。
特にFireblocksについては、機関投資家や事業者によるCardano採用の障壁を下げる可能性があり、戦略的に大きな価値があると考えています。
提案内容を確認した結果、本予算の相当部分は、CCI V1で既に実現された重要な統合の継続運用や保守を目的としたものであることを理解しています。現段階のCardanoにおいては、これらのインフラを安定的に維持することは妥当であり、エコシステム全体に利益をもたらすと考えています。
一方で、Treasuryによる資金提供が将来的に恒久的な維持モデルとなるべきだとは考えていません。今後これらの統合が成熟し、利用が拡大していく中で、Treasuryへの依存を段階的に減らしていく持続可能な運営モデルについても議論が進むことを期待しています。
それでもなお、これらの統合が持つ戦略的重要性、エコシステムにもたらす価値、そして適切な保守・運用が行われなかった場合のリスクを総合的に考慮した結果、現時点では本提案を支持することがCardano全体の利益につながると判断しました。
以上の理由から、僕はこの提案にYESで投票します。
- Yes 65.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 62.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.8M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting Yes on the Cardano Critical Integrations V2 proposal.
This proposal covers 12 months of operations and maintenance for Circle USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth, and Dune that are already live on mainnet, along with the native Fireblocks integration.
It feels less like a new build and more like an operations package that keeps live infrastructure live while extending it one step further.
This proposal sets up an optimized development environment for builders, enables better UX for users, and lays the foundation for a more diverse and richer product landscape to emerge on top.
In particular, while not many people are paying attention to it, Fireblocks is going to be a real opportunity for builders who need institutional-grade custody. Fireblocks is a company providing digital asset custody and operations infrastructure for institutional investors, exchanges, banks, and fintechs, and they offer one of the most well-known MPC (Multi-Party Computation) based institutional custody solutions in the industry. Over 1,800 financial institutions and fintechs, including BNY Mellon, BNP Paribas, ANZ, and Revolut, already run their digital asset operations on Fireblocks infrastructure.
The Fireblocks integration is a real opportunity to bring institutional investors, global exchanges, and RWA/tokenization projects to Cardano. Institutional-grade projects are one of the strongest channels in this market for pulling in major narratives, large liquidity, and new users, and this is exactly the kind of foundation that makes that possible.
Honestly, this comes a bit late. But for the growth of the Cardano ecosystem and broader adoption, having this foundational infrastructure in place is essential, which is why I'm voting Yes.
- Yes 51.1M ₳ Rationale
I've been a fervent defender of the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget (“CCI V1”), which included the integration of Circle (USDCx), LayerZero, Pyth Price Feeds, Dune Analytics, and Fireblocks. I still think this remains one of the most important ideas to support.
While I don’t particularly like that we need an additional maintenance budget for these integrations in 2026, I do think not continuing in that direction is not an option. This year has been rough, and the price of ADA surely didn’t help with the management of those integrations, so this situation is understandable this time.
However, I hope this doesn’t become a maintenance budget that needs to be funded by the treasury every year. For the future, critical integration budgets like this should be treated as one-time payments, with revenue sources in place so they can at least pay for themselves.
- Yes 50.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 49.8M ₳ Rationale
Although I generally support Cardano Critical Integrations V2 proposal, I am currently voting NO.
The proposal states that funds are requested 'to cover a focused Year 2 contracted cost', however in the initial proposal (last year) it was stated that the funding covered a 24 month period.
It is not entirely clear to me why additional funding is required this year if this year should already be covered by the initial proposal. If I receive clarification on this point, I would be happy to change my vote to Yes.
- No 49.7M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. I voted No on the original Cardano Critical Integrations Budget, citing insufficient transparency, undisclosed partner identities and cost breakdowns, an unclear steering committee structure, and the absence of meaningful accountability mechanisms. This Year 2 proposal does not address those concerns. The original program directed funds to Circle (USDCx), LayerZero, Pyth Price Feeds, Dune Analytics, and Fireblocks, those are all commercial products operated by well-resourced companies with their own revenue models. Treasury funds are a shared public resource and should be directed with clearly stated purposes and accountability; ongoing subsidies for commercial licensing fees do not meet that standard. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/
[Japanese version follows]
本提案に反対票を投じます。私はCCI V1（Cardano Critical Integrations Budget）に対して、透明性の欠如・提携先や費用内訳の非開示・ステアリング委員会の不明確な構造・説明責任の仕組みの欠如を理由に反対票を投じました。このV2提案は、当時の懸念を解消してはいないと考えます。V1においてはCircle (USDCx)・LayerZero・Pyth Price Feeds・Dune Analytics・Fireblocksへの資金投下がされましたが、いずれも独自の収益モデルを持つ企業が運営する商業製品です。社会資本であるTreasuryの資金先は明確な使用意図と説明責任が求められるべきであり、商業ライセンス費用への恒久的な補助はその要件を満たしていません。参考: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/ - Yes 42.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 40M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 38.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.8M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 34.4M ₳ Rationale
必要経費。ただし透明性が必要とも思うので棄権。
- Yes 31.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 31M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES.
This proposal maintains Cardano’s critical Tier‑1 integrations—USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth, Dune, and Fireblocks—which are essential for liquidity, cross‑chain connectivity, institutional access, and overall ecosystem functionality.
These systems form the operational backbone of Cardano, and their continuity is vital.
The governance structure is strong, with Intersect management, smart‑contract‑based treasury controls, independent oversight, and clear refund conditions.
As foundational infrastructure required for Cardano’s ongoing operation, this proposal merits support. - Yes 30.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 29.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 28.2M ₳ Rationale
I'm a bit confused by this proposal because I was under the impression that the previous proposal (CCI v1) included maintenance in the budget that was already approved by dReps. Furthermore, my understanding is that Iagon is already pursuing Fireblocks integration independently. It is heartening to see non-founding entities take such a leadership role in Cardano's ecosystem and I would prefer to leave that integration to them in order to avoid stepping on toes. With some more transparency regarding ongoing maintenance and the removal of Fireblocks from scope, I might reconsider my vote. However for now I will be voting NO on this proposal.
- Yes 27.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 27.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 26.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 22.7M ₳ Rationale
We're using USDCx for the Dingo project. We need to integrate with the wider cryptocurrency ecosystem.
- Yes 22M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 21.3M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 21.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 20.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 19.9M ₳ Rationale
Pentad delivered on V1, I trust they will continue to bring Cardano forward in V2.
- Yes 17.1M ₳ Rationale
Cardano Critical Integrations V2
- No 16.7M ₳ Rationale
The core issue is that CCI V1 was presented as a milestone-based structure over a period of up to 24 months and included integration work plus related costs such as deployment, licensing, maintenance, and infrastructure. CCI V2 now asks for a “Year 2” contracted cost and a new 12-month maintenance/enhancement program covering categories that appear to substantially overlap with what V1 was expected to cover.
Before any second withdrawal can be considered, DReps need a full reconciliation of V1: how much has been spent, how much is committed, how much remains, which deliverables are actually complete, which maintenance obligations were already covered, and why the original 24-month budget is no longer sufficient.
We understand that vendor-level pricing may be confidential. But that does not prevent a clearer anonymized breakdown separating vendor/licensing costs from Cardano-side engineering, infrastructure operations, support, tooling, administration, and contractor work. Asking DReps to approve another ₳23M without resolving these questions is not acceptable treasury governance.
- No 16.4M ₳ Rationale
Vote: NO
Critical Integrations V2 requests approximately 23 million ADA to fund Year 2 of an integrations program that delivered a published V1 closure report. Native L1 Fireblocks integration and ongoing maintenance of prior integrations are credible institutional-grade infrastructure work. On project merit, the program is the kind of long-horizon infrastructure investment Vampyre Fund generally supports.
Vampyre Fund votes NO on grounds of treasury timing.
23 million ADA is a significant withdrawal in absolute terms, and at present ADA prices it represents real terms value destruction relative to executing the same scope after market recovery. Approving multi-million-ADA treasury draws during cyclical price lows monetizes the treasury at its weakest point and undermines the long-term capital base the ecosystem will need for far larger commitments in subsequent cycles.
Separately, we continue to hold that treasury funds should not function as multi-year team operating budgets. Year 2 renewals of this size, even with a delivered V1, reinforce a continuous-disbursement model rather than a competitive, milestone-bid model in which work units are funded as completed. We would prefer to see V2 broken into smaller tranches with independent renewal votes tied to specific delivered integrations.
We encourage resubmission, either at a smaller scope or after market conditions improve, and we will reassess on its own merits at that time.
- Yes 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 13.3M ₳ 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/."