Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy

Rationale highlights

Why some of the largest DReps voted for and against, in their own words.

• YUTA

  Yes435.8M ₳

  I voted YES for "Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy" because I believe it can be considered a provisional Vision & Strategy and is appropriate for the ecosystem. The Vision and Strategy should naturally be constantly evolving, so if the Product...

  I voted YES for "Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy" because I believe it can be considered a provisional Vision & Strategy and is appropriate for the ecosystem.

  The Vision and Strategy should naturally be constantly evolving, so if the Product Committee or other community members submit a better one, I will vote YES for it and overwrite the Vision & Strategy.

  I could go on and on about the endless shortcomings of this Vision & Strategy, such as it being lacking in X or Y. Many DRep members have pointed these out, and I agree with many of them.

  However, it seems to me that moving forward with Catalyst, Builder DAO, and other proposed governance actions with a blank Vision & Strategy poses a deeper risk.

  As discussed in Las Vegas, we need a North Star, but the biggest problem is that neither Catalyst, Builder DAO, nor any other Treasury Withdrawal will wait for the perfect North Star to appear.

  It's like an intern constitution. It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing. At the very least, I haven't found any fatally harmful elements in the Vision & Strategy.

  So I'm voting YES for the intern Vision & Strategy. If something better is proposed, I'll vote YES for it and override it.

  私は、「Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy」に、暫定的なVision & Strategyと認めることが可能かつエコシステムのためには適切と考えため、YESを投じることにしました。

  Vision と Strategyは当然ながら常に変化し続けるべきものであるため、プロダクト委員会やその他のコミュニティが、より良いものを提出したらそれにもYESを投票し、Vision & Strategyを上書きします。

  このVision & StrategyにはXが足りない、Yも足りない、という不足点を無限に列挙することはできます。多くのDRepがそれらを指摘しており、私はそれらに同意する点も多いです。

  ただ、Vision & Strategyが空白の状態でCatalyst、ビルダーDAO、その他次々に提案されるガバナンスアクションが進行していくことのほうがより深いリスクを生じさせているように見えます。

  ラスベガスで議論されたように私たちには北極星が必要ですが、最大の問題は、CatalystもビルダーDAOもその他のトレジャリーウィズドローも完璧な北極星の出現を待ってくれません。

  これはintern憲法のようなものです。完璧ではないかもしれませんが、何もないよりあったほうが有益です。少なくとも致命的に有害な要素をVision & Strategyの中に見つけていません。

  よって、intern Vision & StrategyとしてYESを投票します。より良いものが提案されたらそれにYESを投票して上書きします。

• CardanoYoda (MANDA Pool)

  No91.5M ₳

  As a DRep, I am voting NO on the Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy governance action. A PDF version of this rationale is also made available. I want to be very clear that my decision is not based on disagreement with the broad direction presented...

  As a DRep, I am voting NO on the Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy governance action.

  A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

  I want to be very clear that my decision is not based on disagreement with the broad direction presented in Cardano 2030: Our Future, Defined. On the contrary, I generally like the document: it is well written, ambitious, and captures many of the values that should guide Cardano’s development. It succeeds in presenting a compelling aspirational vision, and it proposes KPIs that could, in principle, help us measure progress.

  However, I cannot approve it in its current form. My rejection is partly procedural and partly substantive: the way the action has been structured makes it difficult to approve responsibly, and the content of the vision itself leaves important gaps that need to be addressed before it can credibly serve as our community’s north star.

  Procedurally, I believe it is a mistake to separate the approval of the vision from the approval of the strategy. It is common practice to have two documents: the vision as a long-term destination, and the strategy as the path to reach it. The vision should remain stable and inspirational, while the strategy can evolve as circumstances change.

  But when it comes to endorsement by the community, both should be reviewed together. Approving only the vision means DReps are asked to support ambitious declarations — such as the $200M annual revenue target — without being shown whether the actual strategy is realistic. The vision document itself acknowledges that the “aspiration is translated into tangible action through a comprehensive strategic plan.” If that is true, then it makes little sense to treat the vision in isolation. The two should be mapped together so that for every declaration in the vision, there is a corresponding set of steps in the strategy. Without that mapping, approval becomes a leap of faith rather than an informed decision.

  The governance action provides only a single link to the document “Cardano 2030: Our Future, Defined.” This text is clearly a vision paper: it sets out aspirations, principles, and KPIs, but it does not contain a concrete strategy. The strategy is mentioned within the document, for example, in the section “From Vision to Strategy,” but no link or details are provided. In effect, DReps are asked to approve only the vision, even though the proposal is titled “Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy.”

  Substantively, the vision is too vague in several areas that matter for Cardano’s long-term identity. While it speaks eloquently about sustainability, decentralization, and adoption, it avoids specifics. For example, it does not name the technological pillars that will enable the future it describes.

  Cardano’s path to scalability is not an abstract idea; it depends on tangible innovations such as Ouroboros Leios, Hydra, Mithril, and L2 frameworks. I would not expect detailed protocol specifications in a vision document, but I would expect these innovations to be at least acknowledged as the foundations of the ecosystem’s technological identity.

  Similarly, privacy is entirely absent, even though privacy is a cornerstone of blockchain legitimacy and a natural extension of Cardano’s focus on formal methods, high assurance, and responsible innovation. Without privacy, Cardano risks being unable to serve sensitive domains such as identity, enterprise applications, and financial systems. A vision for 2030 that omits privacy feels incomplete.

  Another major gap lies in governance. The document highlights transparency and accountability, and it frames governance as DReps expressing the will of the community. But this treatment is abstract and does not answer the most important questions: how will authority evolve between DReps, SPOs, and the founding entities — the Cardano Foundation, IOG, EMURGO, and Intersect?

  These entities still hold enormous influence. They control Genesis coins, manage protocol research, steward adoption, and coordinate governance infrastructure. A credible vision should at least outline how their roles will change by 2030, how checks and balances will be established, and how collaboration between DReps and these entities will work in practice.

  I feel the document pays too little attention to governance, even though on-chain governance is deeply tied to the protocol and directly influenced by how DReps decide to allocate Treasury funds. Governance on Cardano still has many shortcomings, and it would make sense to define a clearer vision for its future.

  Some founding entities also serve as DReps, which makes questions of transparency and accountability even more important. The vision could therefore set expectations around transparency, establish principles for handling Genesis coins, and outline a framework for participation in governance.

  Just as decentralization at the SPO level is essential, so too is decentralization at the DRep level, and this deserves to be part of the vision. While a vision approved by DReps is not legally binding, it nevertheless creates lasting community pressure that can shape the behavior of founding entities in practice.

  The KPIs, while important, are not fully credible in their current form. The $200M annual revenue goal would require about 20–30 transactions per second. While this may be achievable with Leios and related scaling solutions, the document does not explain how the demand will be generated.

  Phrases like “fostering meaningful transactions” and “stimulating on-chain demand” are left undefined, which leaves too much ambiguity. Similarly, the Treasury section is too vague. It invokes stewardship and efficiency but gives no indication of allocation models, oversight mechanisms, or measurable targets for impact. If the Treasury is central to Cardano’s sustainability, then the vision should at least include guiding models for distribution and accountability.

  More generally, the KPIs omit governance entirely: nothing measures DRep participation, voter turnout, or treasury efficiency. These are central to Cardano’s distinctiveness and should be tracked alongside adoption and economic activity.

  For me, this combination of procedural and substantive weaknesses means that the document, while well written, cannot be endorsed as it stands. If it is to serve as the community’s north star, it needs to be stronger: it should be approved together with the strategy or at least in explicit mapping to it; it should acknowledge flagship technologies and privacy as part of Cardano’s long-term identity; it should define expectations for founding entities and their collaboration with DReps; and it should include governance and treasury KPIs to measure the health of Cardano’s democratic system.

  In its current form, the Cardano 2030: Our Future, Defined document is more a collection of aspirations than a guide I can use as a DRep to make informed decisions. For this reason, while I respect and appreciate the effort that went into drafting it, I must vote NO on this governance action.

• SIPO

  Yes86M ₳

  I vote YES on this proposal, but with conditions. As SIPO DRep, I support the initiative to establish a shared long-term vision for Cardano through on-chain governance. This process reflects the essence of liquid democracy and empowers the community to...

  I vote YES on this proposal, but with conditions.

  As SIPO DRep, I support the initiative to establish a shared long-term vision for Cardano through on-chain governance. This process reflects the essence of liquid democracy and empowers the community to co-define the future direction of the ecosystem. However, my support is conditional upon expanding and deepening the current vision to include concrete strategic priorities and philosophical foundations.

  The proposed vision should not only present general aspirations but also define how Cardano will operate as decentralized public infrastructure for real economies, communities, and governance systems. It must show how technology and society will align toward a civilization-scale objective.
  1. Public Infrastructure and Regional Economies
  Cardano must evolve beyond financial applications to support real-world governance and community infrastructure. Regional projects such as AIRA (Izanami) in Japan demonstrate how blockchain can connect local governments, citizens, and businesses. The 2030 vision should officially recognize such initiatives as prototypes of Web3 public infrastructure.
  2. Stablecoin and DeFi Liquidity Layer
  A sustainable economy on Cardano requires stable and transparent liquidity systems. Stablecoins such as USDA and protocols like Liqwid, Optim, and Minswap form the foundation of a decentralized financial layer that combines sovereignty with regulatory trust. The strategy must explain how Cardano will balance open finance and compliance to build a resilient economy.
  3. ZK, AI, and Hydra/Leios Integration
  To achieve both scalability and privacy, Cardano must integrate Hydra and Leios for throughput, Zero-Knowledge proofs for verifiable privacy, and AI-driven governance for adaptive decision-making. Together, these technologies create the foundation for Cardano as a “Civilization Operating System” — a platform that supports human and institutional coordination at a global level.
  4. Constitutional Governance and Intersect Alignment
  This proposal should act as a pre-constitutional foundation for the upcoming Cardano Constitution. The governance architecture must ensure that the community’s long-term vision drives institutional design, not the other way around. Transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability should remain central to every layer of governance.

  This vote therefore supports the process of defining the 2030 vision but urges a broader and deeper approach that unites technology, governance, and society. Cardano must position itself not merely as a blockchain but as a decentralized public sphere — a network of trust and coordination that serves humanity’s collective progress.

  Final Position:
  Vote: YES (Conditional Support)
  Message: Support the process of defining the 2030 Vision & Strategy, while urging inclusion of public infrastructure, regional economy integration, DeFi and stablecoin liquidity, and ZK-AI-enabled governance.
  Goal: To help Cardano evolve into a Civilization Operating System — a decentralized architecture for economies, communities, and governance beyond borders.

  ⸻

  SIPOとして本提案に賛成票を投じます。ただし条件付きの賛成です。

  本提案は、カルダノの長期ビジョンをオンチェーン上で共有し、コミュニティの合意に基づいて定義する重要な試みです。流動的民主主義（liquid democracy）の理念を体現し、DRepとADA保有者が共にエコシステムの進路を決めるという点で意義があります。しかし、この賛成は、現在のビジョンをより具体的かつ包括的に拡張することを前提としています。

  ビジョン文書は抽象的な目標だけでなく、カルダノがどのようにして現実社会・地域経済・ガバナンスの基盤として機能するのか、その構造と優先順位を明示すべきです。カルダノが文明的な規模で社会を支えるための具体的な指針を持つ必要があります。
  1. 公共インフラと地域経済の統合
  カルダノは単なる金融ネットワークに留まらず、現実の社会インフラと地域経済を支える分散型基盤として発展すべきです。日本で進行しているAIRA（イザナミ）などの事例は、地方自治体・住民・企業をつなぐWeb3公共圏の可能性を示しています。2030ビジョンはこうした実例を正式に位置づけるべきです。
  2. 安定通貨とDeFi流動性基盤
  カルダノ経済の持続性は、透明で安定した流動性インフラの上に成り立ちます。USDAなどのステーブルコインやLiqwid、Optim、Minswapのようなプロトコルは、金融主権と規制信頼を両立させる新しい金融レイヤーの基礎です。戦略には、この分野をどのように発展させ、経済の安定と透明性を確保するのかを明確に示す必要があります。
  3. ZK・AI・Hydra/Leiosの統合
  スケーラビリティとプライバシーを両立させるには、HydraとLeiosによるスループット拡張、ZK技術による検証可能なプライバシー、AIによる動的ガバナンスの導入が不可欠です。これらを組み合わせることで、カルダノは「文明のためのオペレーティングシステム（Civilization OS）」へと進化できます。
  4. 憲法ガバナンスとIntersect整合性
  この提案は今後のカルダノ憲法制定に向けた前段階として位置づけられます。プロダクト委員会やIntersectなどの組織設計は、コミュニティによる長期ビジョンに従う形で構築されるべきです。ガバナンスの全レイヤーで、透明性・説明責任・参加型設計が担保される必要があります。

  この投票は、2030ビジョンの策定プロセスを支持するものですが、同時にその範囲をより広く・深く拡張することを求めます。カルダノは単なるブロックチェーンではなく、人間社会の信頼と協調を支える分散型公共圏へと進化するべきです。

  最終立場：
  投票種別：賛成（条件付き）
  主旨：カルダノの2030ビジョン策定プロセスを支持しつつ、公共インフラ、地域経済、DeFi・ステーブルコイン流動性、ZKとAIによるガバナンス統合の観点を加えることを提案します。
  目的：カルダノを「Civilization Operating System」— 国境を超えて経済・社会・ガバナンスを支える分散型基盤へと進化させるためです。

• SASA_nagamaru_ながまる

  No74.5M ₳

  I am voting NO on this proposal. This vision provides an inspiring direction for Cardano, but the current proposal feels incomplete. KPI targets, such as the $200M L1 revenue goal, lack clear calculation methodology or ADA price assumptions, making them...

  I am voting NO on this proposal.

  This vision provides an inspiring direction for Cardano, but the current proposal feels incomplete. KPI targets, such as the $200M L1 revenue goal, lack clear calculation methodology or ADA price assumptions, making them difficult to evaluate as concrete objectives.

  Additionally, the strategy reads more like a comprehensive wishlist of everything we hope to achieve, rather than a focused plan that prioritizes initiatives and allocates resources in a way that is realistically actionable.

  Most importantly, the concept of an “active, managed treasury” represents a significant strategic shift. Before the community can align around such a change, a detailed governance and risk management framework is needed to ensure decentralization, operational security, and protection of community assets.

  Therefore, I am voting NO as a constructive signal, not as a rejection of the vision itself, but as a request for a more detailed, measurable, and debate-ready version of this plan. My vote may change if a more complete and transparent proposal is presented in the future.

  僕はこの提案に対して反対（NO）票を投じます。

  このビジョンはCardanoにとって非常に魅力的で、進むべき方向性として共感できますが、現状の提案は不完全に感じます。KPI（例：L1収益2億ドル）については、算出方法やADA価格の前提が明示されておらず、具体的な目標として評価するには不十分です。

  また、この戦略は「やりたいことリスト」に近く、優先順位やリソース配分が明確でないため、現実的に実行可能な計画とは言いづらいと感じます。

  特に「アクティブ運用型トレジャリー」は非常に大きな戦略的転換であり、導入前にガバナンス設計やリスク管理の枠組みが必要です。コミュニティ資産の保全や分散化を確保する仕組みが示されない限り、採用には慎重であるべきです。

  したがって、今回のNO票はビジョンそのものを否定するものではなく、より詳細で、測定可能で、議論可能な形に再提示してほしいという建設的なメッセージです。将来的に、より完全で透明性のある提案が出された場合には、投票を変更する可能性もあります。