Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy
126 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep decides to ABSTAIN on the info action titled Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy.
Rationale
Yoroi values the effort to outline Cardano’s long-term vision, but voting now could lead to voter fatigue since an official governance action is already planned for the end of October.
Proceeding with multiple overlapping actions risks confusing delegators and diluting meaningful feedback.
Yoroi believes it is more effective to focus community attention on the finalized and official version, where feedback will have the greatest impact.
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
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。
- Abstain293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as DRep votes to ABSTAIN on the governance action titled Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy.
Rationale
EMURGO fully supports the importance of establishing a clear, community-backed long-term vision and strategy for Cardano. However, based on information from the Product Committee of Intersect, an official governance action covering this topic is already scheduled to be released at the end of October. Voting on the current version would lead to overlapping actions and potentially incomplete inputs being considered ahead of the full proposal.
Conclusion
By abstaining now, EMURGO signals support for the process, but will provide its full position once the official governance action is published to ensure clarity, completeness, and alignment with community expectations.
- Abstain222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted ABSTAIN on gov_action1n9hdlcmshrj3hee4g8n4fxdgrprpxp0r03l6psd3j0evtpck0nrsqm57age;
This document has a whole lot of repetition, to put it nicely.
Some takeaways:
Implement an Active, Managed Treasury:
This section depends heavily on trust in whoever manages those funds — not entirely convinced about that part.Capital Efficiency:
“Narrow focus to accelerate development and learning; pivot quickly if initial approaches are ineffective.”
“Pivot quickly” isn’t really possible with the current treasury system.Annual L1 Revenue / Daily Meaningful Transactions:
KPIs like these depend on external market conditions. As seen in 2025, transaction volume decreased significantly. In a four-year market cycle, these metrics can fluctuate dramatically.Overall, there are some nice-to-haves in here, but I’m not sure we need more of these lengthy documents for hundreds of people to spend time reading.
- Abstain165.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN on the Product Committee’s draft Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy. Our vote is a commentary on the submission process, not the content. We are actively engaged with the Product Committee and look forward to voting on their final draft, once it is submitted.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
A clear, community-ratified vision and strategy is crucial for Cardano's long-term success. The Cardano Foundation is an active and supportive participant in the Product Committee’s work to develop this vision, a mandate they received via a funded treasury withdrawal (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlr24hsvpk). Our team has been collaborating with the Committee, attending workshops, and providing detailed feedback through the Committee’s established channels to help refine the draft document.
We have decided to vote ABSTAIN on this governance action as we believe it has been submitted prematurely and its content is not reflective of the Product Committee’s final draft. This action was submitted by a community member, not by the Product Committee itself. While we encourage community initiative, voting 'Yes' or 'No' on this submission would undermine the Committee's own structured process for gathering and incorporating feedback into a finalised draft.
To ensure our feedback continues to be constructive and delivered effectively, we will continue to provide input directly to the Product Committee via their official channels.The Cardano Foundation votes to ABSTAIN. This decision is not a judgment on the content of the linked Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy document itself, but is based on the unfinished nature of the draft submitted for voting. We strongly encourage the Product Committee to continue its important work and look forward to participating in an official governance action on this document when submitted by the Committee.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - Abstain92.2M ₳No rationale
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
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.
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
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。 - Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳Rationale
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。
- No53.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain50.4M ₳Rationale
Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy → Abstain
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I have chosen Abstain for this Governance Action. The strategic direction itself is valuable, since improving user experience, sustaining decentralization, strengthening treasury management, and setting adoption goals are all meaningful priorities. However, the document goes beyond a simple slogan by presenting specific KPIs and targets without providing a clear execution roadmap or accountability framework. Without defined responsibility, these goals risk remaining aspirational declarations rather than actionable commitments. I support the vision as a guiding aspiration, but I cannot endorse it as an accountable and executable plan in its current form. Abstain therefore best reflects both support for the intent and concern over the absence of a credible framework for delivery. [Japanese version follows] 私はこのガバナンスアクションに対して 「棄権票」を投じます。戦略の方向性そのものは非常に的を得ており、ユーザー体験の向上、分散化の維持、トレジャリー運営の強化、採用目標の設定はいずれも有意義な優先事項と考えます。しかし、この文書は単なるスローガンではなく、具体的なKPIや数値目標を掲げていながら、実行のためのロードマップや責任の枠組みを示していません。責任が明確にされないままでは、これらの目標は実行可能な計画ではなく、理想の宣言にとどまると考えます。ビジョンを指針として支持する一方で、実行可能で説明責任を伴う計画としては説得力に欠け、どっちつかずの状態となっています。そのため、ビジョン自体には賛成するものの、懸念があることを示すために「棄権」という選択をとることを選択します。
- No50M ₳Rationale
I voted No, not because I'm against this particular proposal, but because I'm against this kind of proposal in general. In my opinion, proposals like this clearly don't reduce bureaucracy or make governance more efficient. To be honest, I genuinely don't understand what exactly we're supposed to vote for here? For everything good and against everything bad? I really couldn't find anything specific here to actually vote for. Please point me in the right direction if I incedently overlooked it.
Further, if we look at this proposal specifically - on the one hand, it only describes very broad concepts, but on the other hand, it already defines KPI levels and similar metrics. Yet there's no explanation of how it's actually supposed to be implemented. For example - where does the number 200M come from? Of course, I wouldn't mind Cardano generating 200M. But I'd be even happier if it generated 400M or 800M. So should I vote Yes for 200M, or No? I just don't get it.
Initially, I was going to vote Abstain, since that seemed to reflect my position most accurately. However, I later reconsidered - the only reasonable approach I see toward this and similar proposals is not to vote for them at all. But since I wanted to leave a comment, I had to cast a vote - and No here effectively equals not voting at all.
- Yes38.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.3M ₳Rationale
We abstained on this proposal. The vision and strategy for Cardano 2030 are important, but we believe further discussion and refinement are needed before expressing clear support or opposition. Abstaining leaves room for the community to continue shaping the direction together.
- Abstain33.5M ₳Rationale
Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem continues to suffer from shallow stablecoin liquidity, limiting user adoption and real-world usability. This proposal establishes a 50 million ADA budget to bootstrap stablecoin depth across the ecosystem, helping strengthen on-chain markets and long-term ecosystem stability
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Cardano needs deeper and more reliable stablecoin liquidity to compete with other ecosystems and support real economic activity. This proposal directly addresses that gap by deploying treasury funds through transparent smart contracts and dRep-supervised governance.
The framework keeps funds under community ownership, introduces monthly audits and reporting, and uses liquidity to both stabilize markets and generate modest returns for the treasury.
From a Cardano First perspective, this aligns with fiscal conservatism and responsible growth, using treasury resources to solve a structural weakness rather than fund speculation.
- Yes31.4M ₳No rationale
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
This document in general feels too broad, but in some places, oddly over-specific. For example, trying to list every category of person/entity who Cardano was built for will inevitably leave someone or something out. I like that it includes KPIs, but there’s no clear ownership or accountability. Who is responsible for each KPI? How are results reviewed? What happens if targets aren’t met? Several pillars also read as duplicates. Points 1 and 4 are largely “adoption,” while points 2 and 3 are about “engagement,” which feels like mostly bloat. The governance action mentions defining the "Vision and Strategy", but the document seems to only mention the Strategy.
I'm not sure if this fits in the Strategy section or the Vision section, but personally what I would like to see is a continuation of the vision Cardano started with its initial roadmap. We had the Byron "Foundation" Era, the Shelley "Decentralization" Era, the Goguen "Smart Contract" Era, the Basho "Scaling" Era, and the Voltaire "Governance" Era. I think extending the roadmap to future Eras, each around a singular goal, will unite the community to accomplish those goals. It is clear to me that "Adoption" should be one of those eras (Gutenberg Era?). Some other ideas could be composability, modularity, interoperability, privacy, sustainability, quantum resistance, etc. I’m voting NO on this proposal for now because I feel that further refinement is needed before it can be considered sufficient and complete.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.3M ₳Rationale
I support this vision for Cardano, as it will guide and coordinate the various initiatives and treasury actions that underpin the ongoing development of the Cardano blockchain and its ecosystem.
- No26.1M ₳Rationale
Im not sure what this is actually asking for, the vote for the 2030 vision has laready been submitted, voted on and ratified by the dreps. Is there someting Im missing? It has most the identifiable marks that Prod comm and its 2030 vision mandates, but is separate from the Prod comm proposal. I will be voting no on this proposal as it doesnt include ant mention of the authors that I can find and seems to be in essence copying what the Product Committee has already issued.
- Abstain25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN as I currently serve the vice-chair of the Intersect Product Committee. Had the Author engaged the Product Committee, the Author would have been highly aware the Product Committee is already planning to solicit feedback via info action circa end of October. So what dREPS will see now is eseentially heavily incomplete work and have to spend valuable time voting again. This is a fantastic example of an attempt to make oneself feel helpful and special at the expense of progress. I recomend the Author attend a Product Committee meeting if they wish to be helpful relevant to Product Committee initatives
- No22M ₳Rationale
This proposal presents a compelling and ambitious direction for Cardano, and the effort to unify the ecosystem around a long-term vision is commendable. It raises essential questions about our future, which deserve a thorough and thoughtful response.
For this vision to be truly actionable, a few key areas would benefit from greater clarity. The target of $200 million in annual L1 revenue is a powerful goal, but its dependency on the fluctuating price of ADA makes it a challenging benchmark. Clarifying the target in terms of ADA, or outlining the specific price assumptions used, would create a more stable and measurable objective for the community to track. Furthermore, understanding the concrete strategies, resource allocations, and key initiatives planned to achieve this revenue goal would transform it from an aspiration into a tangible roadmap.
The plan outlines many desirable outcomes, from enhancing UX to enterprise adoption. However, a true strategy often involves making difficult choices and prioritizing specific initiatives over others. The current document reads more like a comprehensive wishlist of everything we hope to achieve, rather than a focused plan detailing the necessary trade-offs.
Perhaps the most significant strategic shift proposed is the move towards an "Active, Managed Treasury." This concept carries profound implications for decentralization and risk management. Before the community can align with such a fundamental change, a more detailed proposal is needed to explore its governance, operational security, and the specific mechanisms that would protect our collective assets.
For these reasons, a NO vote seems the most constructive action at present. It is not a rejection of the 2030 vision itself, but an invitation for a more detailed, clarified, and debatable strategy that the entire community can confidently build upon together.
- Abstain21.5M ₳Rationale
This particular proposal has been submitted by a community member in an attempt to provide input for the Intersect Product Committee. However, Product Committee members have already publicly stated that this is a premature submission and that “PC has not signed off on current verbiage”. (https://x.com/ADAFrog_Pool/status/1971295372908822628) With this in mind I am voting to ABSTAIN at this time so as not to unnecessarily waste time on an incomplete proposal. I respect that this info action was submitted with good intentions but if it was not sanctioned by the Product Committee itself and there will be an official proposal submitted in the near future, this submission does little else but to take up more valuable DRep and CC members time and would have been better suited for the proposal discussion page on GovTool rather than going straight to on-chain (https://gov.tools/proposal_discussion).
- No21.1M ₳Rationale
The document is too ambiguous. The lack of author on the documents further added ambiguity and uncertainty.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The document is too ambiguous. The lack of author on the documents further added ambiguity and uncertainty.
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain17.3M ₳Rationale
it seems incomplete
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
I am abstaining on the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy Info Action.
This document articulates an ambitious and largely well-aligned framework for Cardano’s development toward 2030. It touches on many areas RCADA supports — ecosystem sustainability, developer education, SPO diversification, enterprise adoption, and measurable KPIs. The intent is positive: to provide a unified strategic compass for Cardano’s post-Voltaire evolution.
However, this particular submission carries procedural and authorship ambiguities. While the content originates from the Product Committee, this on-chain action was submitted independently by a community member rather than the Committee itself. Product Committee members have since clarified that this version was not formally sanctioned. For governance legitimacy, strategy-level documents should reflect verified authorship, internal sign-off, and transparent public consultation prior to appearing on-chain.
Substantively, while the document presents a structured and cohesive outline, much of its content consolidates initiatives already underway rather than introducing forward-looking strategies suited for the 2030 horizon. It offers limited discussion of emerging priorities such as advanced privacy technologies, quantum resilience, AI-integrated governance, or frameworks for regional governance participation. These omissions make the document more of a state-of-progress summary than a true roadmap for the next era of the ecosystem.
The inclusion of transaction-volume KPIs (e.g., a target of 250,000 daily transactions) further reflects a narrow measure of success. Transaction count is a poor proxy for adoption; it can be inflated, cyclical, and disconnected from real-world impact. More meaningful indicators would measure user engagement, active governance participation, decentralized infrastructure health, and real-world integrations. These would better capture the Constitution’s intent for accountable, participatory growth.
My abstention should therefore not be read as opposition to the Cardano 2030 vision itself. I view this proposal as a valuable starting point that deserves refinement and formalization. It demonstrates an ecosystem moving toward strategic cohesion, but governance excellence requires both clarity of process and depth of foresight.
I encourage the Product Committee and Intersect to resubmit this initiative officially — with validated authorship, broader community involvement, and a roadmap that extends beyond current programs into truly future-oriented innovation.
This vote follows RCADA’s established principle of constructive abstention: supporting intent and direction, while signaling the need for greater procedural rigor, constitutional alignment, and visionary scope in Cardano’s long-term strategy.
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
We as Wada DRep votes "yes" on this info-action as we recognize the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy as a well-structured blueprint that captures many of the principles Wada stands for as a DRep, particularly its emphasis on decentralization, culture-first engagement, education, enterprise inclusion, and financial sustainability. Each of the seven strategic imperatives directly supports Wada’s broader vision of empowering local ecosystems and ensuring that Cardano’s growth is both equitable and globally inclusive. The culture-first and localized engagement pillar mirrors our ongoing efforts across Africa to embed blockchain adoption within cultural realities, while the focus on ecosystem capacity building and developer empowerment aligns strongly with our mission to foster self-reliant, regionally skilled communities. Likewise, the commitment to enterprise adoption, SPO incentives, and sound treasury management resonates with our advocacy for transparent and sustainable infrastructure development.
However, we note that while decentralization and financial stewardship are featured, “Governance” is not explicitly included as a core strategic pillar. Given that governance underpins every facet of Cardano’s future; from constitutional oversight to participatory funding decisions, it warrants clear visibility within the strategy. We therefore recommend that a dedicated “Governance and Community Participation” imperative be incorporated in subsequent revisions of the 2030 roadmap. This should define measurable goals for voter participation, DRep diversity, delegation spread-out, transparency standards, governance education, etc. We believe that embedding governance as a strategic focus will ensure that the ecosystem’s evolution remains truly decentralized, inclusive, and accountable; principles central to both Cardano’s long-term viability and Wada’s continued advocacy within it.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted9.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案は、Cardanoの長期的な方向性を示すうえで意義があると考えます。ただし、現時点では内容が抽象的であり、具体的な実行計画や優先順位付けが明確ではありません。このため、今回は棄権とします。\n\nThis proposal is valuable in outlining the long-term direction of Cardano. However, at this stage it remains too abstract, lacking clarity on concrete execution plans and prioritization. For these reasons, I choose to abstain.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this motion as it - for all purposes - seems to have been submitted incomplete. I may change my vote if credible information to the contrary emerges. If this motion is indeed incomplete, it should not pass. I am basing my NO vote on information from the vice-chair of the Intersect Product Committee Kyle Solomon who stated in his own vote on this very motion that: "the Product Committee is already planning to solicit feedback via info action circa end of October". What is more, Solomon added that this current motion "is essentially heavily incomplete work" and that there will be a subsequent vote again - on a more complete proposal.
Link to the Intersect Product Committee vote: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/adosiawolf/drep-rationale/refs/heads/main/0052 - Yes6.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes to signal my support for this vision and strategy. I don't intend to get hung up on some of the details in terms of how we measure the success (KPIs), whether it's achievable, or other nuances of it. While it's important, this is an info action, not an ask for treasury withdrawals which for me gives some room for flexibility in terms of what this vote is asking for in terms of signaling support.
A 2030 vision/strategy that includes high or low-level KPIs isn't going to really fit into the compact document provided to us. Getting into the measurement specifics (technical numbers and how to achieve them) should be handled in a different format/document altogether.
There will be many different KPIs we could use at lower-levels, but at the highest organizational level the goal of the vision/strategy is clear - and that is what I'm voting for. As time passes, I expect how we measure and what we measure to change and as we apply specifics to achieving those things and start to look to delegate those action items to different groups within the community. Those KPIs will then start to become clearer through insight and more fleshed out which I do believe some are looking for. I would like to see these as well, but I don't see that as the intent of this Info Action. It's clear based on some feedback out there in the community that some intend to leverage KPIs more as a rigid target that has a guaranteed metric for success - instead of an effective and informative tool. It can be counterproductive, short-sighted, manipulated, and kill opportunities for growth and innovation.
This info action is looking for community feedback and signaled support on the overall scope of what has been put forth, and I don't wish to see getting hung up over whether that's $100M or $200M in growth in L1 revenues. It matters, but not here. The goals of Cardano is set clearly here, and that's what is most important - Grow revenues and daily transactions, drive enterprise integration and adoption, continued focus on decentralization.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳Rationale
I think this is a good Vision & Strategy and that is appropriate for the ecosystem.
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
The informational action, likely submitted by a member of Intersect's product committee, enables DReps to provide feedback on chain. I appreciate the general concept, as it theoretically represents the appropriate path forward. However, it holds no real value unless executed effectively in practice, which is the hard part.
Regarding the text, I would prefer greater emphasis on the needs of the average person, along with guiding principles such as personal data protection (via Midnight) and transforming the current status quo. While partnerships with enterprises, KPIs, and similar elements are valid, Cardano is fundamentally a tool for the people, yet the text lacks sufficient focus on this human centered aspect. - Abstain4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos pela "ABSTENÇÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1n9hdlcmshrj3hee4g8n4fxdgrprpxp0r03l6psd3j0evtpck0nrsqm57age), pois o documento “Visão e Estratégia Cardano 2030” ainda é um rascunho elaborado pelo grupo de trabalho do Comitê de Produto do Intersect, sem ter sido votado internamente pelos seus membros. Acreditamos também que o material precisa ser mais amplamente debatido com a comunidade, a fim de amadurecer e consolidar um conceito mais robusto e definitivo.
[English]
We chose "ABSTENTION" on this governance action (gov_action1n9hdlcmshrj3hee4g8n4fxdgrprpxp0r03l6psd3j0evtpck0nrsqm57age), because the “Cardano Vision and Strategy 2030” document is still a draft prepared by the Intersect Product Committee working group and has not yet been internally voted on by its members. We also believe that this material needs to be further discussed with the community in order to achieve a more mature and definitive concept. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.1M ₳Rationale
As I have not yet had time to review this proposal, I have submitted a vote of Abstain for now.