Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy
126 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
本提案に賛成します。2030年のビジョンをオンチェーンで合意形成することは、Cardanoエコシステム全体にとって公益性が高く、今後の開発方向性を共有するうえで不可欠です。
加えて、量子計算時代に備えた「量子耐性」についても戦略に盛り込むことが望ましいと考えます。具体的には：- 将来の暗号方式を入れ替え可能とする暗号アジリティの確保
- 現行方式と量子耐性方式を併用しながらの段階的移行計画
- Mithrilなど既存の仕組みに量子耐性署名を組み合わせた履歴保全の検討
これらの視点が加わることで、CardanoはQ-day以降も堅牢で信頼性の高い基盤を維持できると確信します。
I vote YES. Capturing the 2030 Vision on-chain is of high public value, ensuring alignment and clarity for Cardano’s long-term development trajectory.
In addition, it would be advisable for the strategy to explicitly consider post-quantum resilience. This may include:- Securing crypto-agility to allow future replacement of cryptographic schemes
- Establishing a phased migration plan combining current and post-quantum methods
- Exploring the use of PQ signatures with Mithril to preserve historical integrity
Incorporating these perspectives would strengthen Cardano’s capacity to remain robust and trustworthy well beyond Q-day.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.3M ₳Rationale
Abstain
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted2.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes10mo agoSuperseded
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
This is a significant change for Cardano, and the proposal feels more aspirational than concrete. More work is needed for such a significant change, particularly forming a full fledged governance framework for the fund.
- Abstain1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
I'm voting NO on this proposal because it doesn't state who the author is and, if I've understand correct, the Product Committee will come with their own vision/roadmap in the coming weeks. So I will assess that one.
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy because I believe our ecosystem needs a guiding framework now, even if it is imperfect. The document provides ambition, direction, and a shared “North Star,” which is better than moving forward with no vision at all. At the same time, I recognize the validity of many concerns: the lack of explicit mapping between vision and strategy, the vagueness around key technologies like Leios or Hydra, the absence of privacy and governance details, and the risks of aspirational KPIs without clear execution plans.
My support is therefore conditional in spirit: I see this as a provisional strategy that must be improved. Going forward, I expect stronger commitments to disruptive citizen-empowering projects, better documentation and education, transparent funding oversight, concrete adoption of ADA as currency, and measurable delivery in regions like Africa. I also believe governance and treasury KPIs should be added to ensure accountability.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
This Info Action feels incomplete and I am therefore voting NO to it.
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Everybody has a "vision," yet few these days have a clear "mission."
Oh well. The document presents many sensible high-level goals, but it lacks prioritization, measurable realism, and protects neither treasury discipline nor implementation clarity; endorsing it now would prematurely green-light a strategic umbrella without required trade-offs, accountability frameworks, or a defensible cost/benefit basis.
It's not all bad, though. The ambition aligns with Cardano’s long-term value proposition: enterprise-grade, censorship-resistant public infrastructure with scientific foundations. The focus areas are broadly correct: abstraction for UX, L2 + scalability, SPO health, developer onboarding, enterprise/national integration, and treasury sustainability. Lastly, the KPI list identifies relevant vectors (L1 revenue, daily meaningful transactions, enterprise integrations), which is better than many prior high-level statements.
The devil is in the details, or lack thereof. **The document is a strategy-lite manifesto with lots of desirable outcomes and pillars but no prioritized trade-offs. Strategy must choose what not to do. This plan does not. **Without hard choices, we will diffuse resources across everything and achieve little. Sounds like present-day Cardano, huh? Pursuing both “world-class L1 scalability” and extensive Layer 2 expansion is fine, but the document does not define sequencing, resource allocation, or critical-path dependencies. The proposed KPIs are aspirational but not actionable or credible. For example: $200M annual L1 revenue and 250k daily meaningful transactions are headline-worthy but lack baseline assumptions (time horizon, sources of that revenue, what counts exactly as meaningful transaction).
The call for an “active, multi-asset, managed treasury” is sensible in principle, but the doc provides no governance guardrails, risk appetite, or conflict-of-interest mitigation. Converting long-term public-good funds into actively managed assets without strict governance, independent oversight, and loss limits is hazardous, to say the least. A phrase like “investments that lead to paying clients” needs concrete investment criteria; otherwise grants and “strategic investments” become opaque subsidies that reproduce past inefficiencies. Also sounds like present-day Cardano—another check here.
Get real and get realistic! Claiming Cardano is “the only viable option” for enterprises demanding high assurance is rhetorical overreach. Enterprises judge platforms on verifiable compliance, SLAs, vendor ecosystems, and ecosystem maturity; none of which are guaranteed by peer review alone. The document underestimates the engineering, legal, and procurement effort required to achieve SOC-type compliance, accounting/auditing integrations, and sovereign-grade SLAs. Those require resourcing and time, not rhetoric and wishful thinking.
The strategy asks the community to align, but offers no enforcement, funding prioritization process, nor escalation rules when initiatives drift. There is no explicit linkage between the strategy and on-chain governance levers (how will treasury allocations be tied to KPI milestones?).
I vote NO on this Action in its current form. I support the underlying ambition and many specific focus areas, but not the document as a governance mandate today. As always, and with all of my votes, I demand a tighter, prioritized, accountable, and data-driven strategy with concrete risk mitigation and treasury governance.
- No971.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain964.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain931.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
We support this first version of the document, aknowledging that it still needs work and broader community input.
- No794.5K ₳Rationale
A lot of nice words, but what does it really accomplish? The vision is perfectly reasonable, but without a concrete assessment of how to achieve those things, and the tradeoffs willing to be made to get there, it doesn't have much impact. It's impossible to have it all, so priorities need to be identified. Also.... in regards to the vision and strategy set by the Product Committee team, I think I'll wait for solicitation from that committee directly.
- No763.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain731.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
I’ve read the entire 2030 Vision document, and it is absolutely beautiful — perfectly written, thoughtful, and inspiring. This is exactly the kind of roadmap Cardano needs: clear, strategic, and rooted in our principles of decentralization, self-determination, and community-led innovation. Truly inspiring read. Felt like a historical document, a milestone that future Cardano generations will look back on as a turning point.
It captures not just where we want to go, but how we plan to get there — balancing ambition with practicality, innovation with accountability, and growth with community empowerment. This vision respects the values that make Cardano unique while giving the ecosystem the clarity and focus it needs to thrive over the next decade.
For all these reasons, I’m voting YES. This is more than a vision — it’s a foundation we can build on, rally around, and evolve together as a community. Cardano’s future deserves nothing less. - Yes605.7K ₳Rationale
Here’s a solid comment you can attach to your vote:
"I vote YES because a clear and community-backed vision is essential for Cardano’s long-term growth. Moving this discussion on-chain ensures transparency, legitimacy, and accountability. Supporting the 2030 strategy aligns with my role as a DRep to strengthen Cardano’s future."
- No450.2K ₳No rationale
- No442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- No383K ₳No rationale
- Abstain381.1K ₳No rationale
- No365.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳Rationale
Overall Panda thinks it is good. However Panda would love some more emphasis on keeping decentralization alive:
- with SPO (supporting small pools and growing their numbers)
- but also in Governance, since right now few keys hold enormous power (voting dynamics/power, Dreps participation, processes improvement)
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES on the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy because it is a solid, usable guide that serves as a practical compass for prioritising proposals and funding against the seven strategic imperatives.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Having a good (but not perfect) strategy is better than having no strategy at all; this Vision & Strategy is good enough to implement now, and if a better version emerges later, it can be adopted. It aligns with how the community thinks about Cardano (e.g., abstraction of blockchain complexity, academic engagement, vibrant communities, etc).
With the vision as a North Star and our strategy as our compass, it helps assess whether governance actions -especially treasury withdrawals- advance the seven strategic imperatives and contribute to KPI progress, which can also ease DRep fatigue by making alignment checks faster and more consistent.
It also sets shared expectations for builders, institutions (including founding entities), the community, and governance actors about what matters most and where effort should be focused.
A major omission, in my view, is the limited treatment of governance as a strategic pillar. The strategy should explicitly recognise on‑chain institutions (DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee) and set decentralisation and participation goals, not just operational decentralisation via SPO incentives or multi‑client efforts. Without this, the ecosystem risks overlooking improvements to governance processes and tooling, including the need for broader DRep participation and decentralisation (we currently have a serious issue with DRep decentralisation!) and better decision‑making support.
I would also like this document to include a more condensed, one‑sentence message that’s easy to remember. For example, a mission statement such as: “We aspire to become the world’s financial operating system”. This message would stick in mind and be easy to recall in everyday decisions and in all the interactions we have (both inside and outside our ecosystem).
Some DReps have expressed concerns that this Strategic Plan is rather abstract and vague. However, specific actions and tasks are not supposed to be included in the Strategy; these belong in tactical or action plans. Vision is the destination—where we want to go (e.g., place “A”); strategy is the direction/route we would take (e.g., we will arrive by car via the national highway); and action plans are how exactly we will get there, that is, the step‑by‑step schedule (e.g., take the car from A to Z, then Z to Y, etc.). Therefore, for the purposes of defining our Vision and Strategy, this document perfectly articulates the routes we need to take to realise our Vision.
On KPIs: some are specific and well defined (e.g., annual L1 revenue, daily meaningful transactions), while others feel vague. Preferably, either fully specify all KPIs with data sources and review cycles, or keep them uniformly generic until we are in a position to articulate them in detail. It would also be very helpful to disclose how Intersect’s Product Committee arrived at those specific KPIs (for example, why a $200 million target and not $150 or $250).
- Yes300.6K ₳No rationale
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
At this time I don't see the need for a group vision.
- Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain260.2K ₳Rationale
Agree with discussion, but waiting for clearer execution plans before full support.
- Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain245.5K ₳No rationale