DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (₳1,500,000)
163 DReps voted · 67 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes NO on DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (₳1,500,000). We appreciate the DeltaDeFi team’s continued efforts and commitment to building on Cardano. However, at this stage, we are not convinced that the proposal clearly demonstrates tangible, user-facing benefits or readiness for Treasury-level support.
Rationale
• Unclear Benefit to ADA Holders and End Users
While positioned as infrastructure, the proposal does not clearly explain how this directly benefits ADA holders in practice. Improved infrastructure alone does not guarantee better user outcomes, and the link between this DEX’s activity and broader ecosystem value remains unclear.
• Insufficient Clarity on Trust Model and User Risk
Key aspects of the Hydra setup remain unclear from a user perspective, including custody assumptions, failure scenarios, and protections if operators are unavailable. This makes it difficult for users to assess risks and trade-offs.
• Outcomes Cannot Be Reliably Evaluated Within the Proposed Timeframe
Six months may be sufficient to deliver the product, but it is too short to assess real adoption, sustained liquidity, or long-term relevance. As a result, it is unclear whether outcomes that matter most to users, such as liquidity, reliable execution, and user growth, can be meaningfully evaluated.
Conclusion
Yoroi believes that at this funding level, proposals benefit from clearly articulated user-facing value, trust assumptions, and measurable outcomes. Further clarity in these areas would help support a stronger case for Treasury funding in the future.
- No435.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on "DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (₳1,500,000)".
Treasury withdrawal leads to ADA inflation for ADA holders, so the benefits to ADA holders need to be explained. I think Hydra-related products tend to have a hard time justifying this.
Adoption of Hydra products does not increase the number of L1 transactions. If DeltaDeFi wins in competition with Minswap or similar platforms, it may actually decrease them. For Hydra products, the number of L1 transactions is hardly a useful metric, and from the ADA holder's perspective, it does not increase staking rewards or ADA inflows to the treasury. This in itself is not a bad thing, but it makes it difficult to explain the benefits to ADA holders from a transactional perspective.
I'm likely missing something, but I couldn't figure out who runs the Hydra head. Are users required to join the Hydra head? If not, who do they need to trust?
I couldn’t figure out their liquidity strategy. In the end, all DEXes except Minswap are struggling to get liquidity.
私は「DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (₳1,500,000)」にNOを投票します。
トレジャリーウィズドローはADA保有者のADAのインフレーションにつながるため、ADA保有者にとっての利益が説明できる必要があります。Hydra系プロダクトはこの点の正当化に苦労する傾向があると思います。
Hydraのプロダクトの採用は、L1トランザクション数を増加させません。仮にMinswapなどと競争してDeltaDefiが勝つ場合は逆に減少します。Hydraプロダクトに関しては、L1のトランザクション数はほとんど役に立つ指標にならず、ADA保有者の視点から見るとステーキング報酬が増えるわけでも、トレジャリーへのADA流入額が増えるわけでもありません。これ自体は悪いことではないですが、トランザクションの側面からADA保有者へ利点を説明することは困難です。
私が見逃している可能性が高いですが、Hydraヘッドを誰が運営するのかを読み取ることができませんでした。ユーザーは必ず Hydraヘッドに参加することになっていますか？仮にそうではない場合、誰を信頼する必要がありますか？
流動性獲得のための戦略を読み解くことができませんでした。結局のところ流動性の獲得にMinswap以外のDEXは苦しんでいます。
- No293M ₳Rationale
EMURGO as DRep votes NO on Budget Info Action titled “DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (₳1,500,000)”, with the rationale outlined below.
Rationale
We value the DeltaDeFi team’s continued dedication to the Cardano ecosystem and their technical contributions, including their work on Hydra-based designs. Their efforts meaningfully support the evolution of Hydra technology and are well recognised.
That said, in our view, projects funded by the Treasury should demonstrate clear and durable ecosystem-wide benefits, particularly when they are framed as infrastructure rather than commercial applications. While DeltaDeFi positions itself as core trading infrastructure, the proposal remains structured as a privately operated product and does not clearly articulate how value would flow back to the Treasury or ADA holders if the project succeeds, whether through repayment terms, revenue sharing, or other mechanisms.
In addition, the proposal does not clearly explain how the requested ₳1.5 million budget over six months was benchmarked or justified. Although the proposal includes detailed KPIs and reporting commitments, these do not sufficiently address concerns around proportionality, long-term sustainability, or the balance between public funding and private benefit. The framing also raises broader governance considerations, including the risk of setting a precedent where private ventures seek Treasury funding by positioning themselves as infrastructure without meeting consistent standards for public accountability.
For these reasons, EMURGO does not support this Budget Info Action at this time. We remain open to continued dialogue and would welcome a revised proposal that more clearly explains how the use of Treasury funds would sustainably benefit the ecosystem and the Treasury itself.
- No222.9M ₳No rationale
- No174.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. We support this proposal to advance Hydra-based trading infrastructure. By funding an experienced team to deliver a production-ready L2 exchange, we believe this proposal will validate Hydra's utility for DeFi and improve Cardano’s scaling capabilities.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Our support for this proposal is driven by the following key factors:
- Advancing Hydra Infrastructure: Hydra is an important building block of Cardano's scaling strategy, yet it currently lacks sufficient consumer-grade applications. We believe DeltaDeFi offers a tangible opportunity to validate Layer 2 scaling for DeFi. Supporting this initiative is not merely funding a DApp; it is a strategic investment in hardening the underlying Hydra infrastructure to meet the ecosystem's 2026/2027 scaling objectives.
- Supporting Proven Builders: The team behind DeltaDeFi (SIDAN Lab) has a verifiable track record of delivery, most notably with MeshJS and other open-source contributions. We believe it is important to retain and empower established teams who actively build and maintain core developer tooling. We view the deliverables here as a potential reference implementation for future L2 order-book exchanges, setting a standard for others to follow.
- Accountability via KPIs: We commend the team for structuring their proposal around clear, measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). This data-driven approach to accountability, tracking specific metrics like TVL, volume, and L2 transaction efficiency, is a standard we strongly encourage across the ecosystem.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. We support active builders addressing scaling challenges and expect rigorous execution against the proposed KPIs.
---> **_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. - No92.2M ₳No rationale
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote NO on the proposal: DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (₳1,500,000).
I appreciate the effort and technical competence demonstrated by the DeltaDeFi team. The proposal is well written, and the team has a proven ability to deliver.
My negative decision is based on the following considerations.
Allocating nearly 20% of the total budget to a "KPI Measurement Program" is, in my view, unjustified. Cardano has recently partnered with Dune, which enables low-cost, public, and reusable dashboards for most of the proposed metrics (TVL, volume, MAU, transactions, trends).
If the community believes that another extra DeFi Dashboard is needed, this should be addressed through a neutral, ecosystem-wide analytics initiative, not bundled into a single project’s budget.
The proposal does not explain how liquidity and users will actually be attracted. Delivering software alone does not bring liquidity or users, especially in the current market environment. The proposal relies on the assumption that market makers and users will arrive once APIs and infrastructure exist, which is not a reliable strategy.
The proposal's technical goals are realistic, but the TVL, volume, and MAU targets are aspirational and largely outside the team's direct control.
Without explicit liquidity strategies, incentives, or commitments, these targets should not be treated as expected outcomes.
If the team decides to submit another proposal, I would like to know who will provide initial liquidity, who will pay or incentivize market makers, what will attract new users, etc. It makes no sense to define ambitious goals without a strategy.
The team has already received approximately 650,000 ADA through Project Catalyst and has demonstrated the ability to deliver an MVP. This is positive.
However, giving a single DEX team more than 2M ADA to develop without demonstrable results is too much in my opinion. At this stage, I would prefer the team to focus on attracting users and liquidity with what already exists (MVP), rather than requesting a large new budget to continue building.
Cardano Treasury resources are limited, and concentrating such a large amount in a single team without demonstrated adoption carries a significant risk. I believe the team should only request additional funding after providing data on new users, transaction numbers, volume, etc.
A six-month period is sufficient to evaluate software delivery, but not to evaluate ecosystem impact. Most of the period will be spent building and hardening infrastructure. Any assessment will therefore focus on technical completion, not real adoption.
Given current market conditions, user growth and liquidity formation are especially uncertain. I am uncomfortable approving funding where success cannot realistically be evaluated on the outcomes that matter most: usage, liquidity, and market relevance.
The administration committee does not mitigate the core risks of this proposal, which are unclear liquidity sourcing, uncertain user adoption, and real ecosystem impact within six months.
The incentive model and business model are insufficiently specified. I need to know the intended fee structure, incentive model for liquidity providers or market makers, expected revenue, etc.
The proposal does not specify whether the project aims to be profitable and on what timeline.
I cannot objectively judge whether this is infrastructure spending or a subsidized private business with uncertain alignment.
This project appears to have profit potential if successful. At least I believe it should be a for-profit project. That is why I expect data on the project's sustainability and profitability in the proposal.
It is reasonable to ask whether the funding could be structured as a loan or some form of revenue sharing.
Cardano governance has previously required the SNEK project to convert its proposal into a loan. Applying a similar standard here would support fairness.
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
As SIPO DRep, I cast a Yes vote on this proposal:
DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget.I support this proposal because I see it not as funding a single DEX or application, but as an investment in core market infrastructure that helps Cardano become a practical and usable trading platform, rather than remaining only an experimental DeFi ecosystem.
Today, Cardano DeFi is largely centered around AMM-style DEXs. These have played an important role in accessibility and early adoption. However, they are not well suited for low-latency, order-book-based, API-driven trading — the kind of environment expected by professional traders, market makers, and arbitrage participants.
As a result, structural issues such as slippage, fragmented liquidity, and price gaps versus CEXs continue to exist.This proposal directly addresses those gaps by aiming to deliver a Hydra-based, low-latency order-book trading venue, positioning Cardano as a blockchain that can realistically support efficient and competitive trading infrastructure. I believe this problem framing is both timely and aligned with Cardano’s long-term direction.
From a DRep perspective, one of the most important aspects of this proposal is its role as a real-world validation of Hydra. Hydra is a cornerstone of Cardano’s scalability strategy, yet production-grade, high-frequency use cases remain limited. Attempting to run a demanding trading workload on Hydra is one of the strongest possible stress tests. Regardless of outcome, the lessons learned will be valuable for the entire ecosystem.
I also place strong value on the inclusion of the Vision 2030 KPI Measurement Programme. By committing to a baseline report, a public KPI dashboard, and a final progress report, this proposal makes ecosystem impact measurable and transparent. This represents a meaningful step forward in Treasury governance — shifting from qualitative narratives to quantitative evaluation of outcomes.
In addition, the proposal demonstrates a relatively robust governance structure for Treasury-related work: multisig fund control, phased releases, independent audits, and explicit fund return mechanisms if the project is halted. These elements are important safeguards and set a constructive precedent for future infrastructure-focused funding.
For these reasons, I support this proposal as an Info Action and vote Yes to signal approval of its direction and intent. This is not an unconditional endorsement of future withdrawals, but a recognition that the proposal addresses a genuine structural need and proposes a reasonable, measurable, and staged approach.
If a subsequent Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action is submitted, I believe it should be evaluated strictly on delivered results, KPI progress, audit findings, and operational performance.
As SIPO DRep, I view this proposal as a meaningful step toward Cardano maturing into a blockchain that is not only well-designed, but actively used as real economic infrastructure.
SIPO DRepとして、本提案（DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget）に Yes を投じます。
本提案は、単なる一つのDEXやアプリケーションへの支援ではなく、Cardanoを「実用的な取引基盤」として成立させるための基盤インフラ投資である点を、私は特に重要だと考えています。
現在のCardano DeFiは、AMM型DEXを中心に発展してきました。これはユーザーにとって分かりやすく、参加しやすい一方で、低遅延・板取引・API前提の取引、すなわちプロフェッショナルな市場参加者や流動性提供者が求める取引環境という点では、まだ十分とは言えません。
その結果として、スリッページ、価格乖離、流動性の断片化といった構造的な課題が残っていると認識しています。本提案が目指しているのは、こうした課題に対して Hydraを活用した低遅延・オーダーブック型取引インフラ を提供し、Cardanoを「実験的なDeFiの場」から「現実に使われる市場基盤」へと一段引き上げることです。この問題設定自体が、Cardanoの現在地と将来像を正しく捉えていると評価しています。
また、SIPO DRepとして特に重視しているのが、Hydraの実運用による検証です。HydraはCardanoの中長期戦略において非常に重要なL2技術ですが、実際の高頻度・高負荷ユースケースにおける成功事例は、まだ限定的です。本提案は、取引という最も要求水準の高い領域でHydraを本番環境として使い切ろうとするものであり、その成否にかかわらず、Cardano全体にとって極めて価値の高い検証になると考えています。
さらに、本提案は Vision 2030 KPI Measurement Programme を明確に組み込んでおり、
・ベースラインレポート
・公開ダッシュボード
・6か月後の進捗レポート
を通じて、Treasury支出とエコシステムへの貢献を数値で可視化しようとしています。
これは、今後のCardanoガバナンスにおいて非常に重要な姿勢であり、「良さそうだから支援する」から「測定可能な成果として評価する」段階への移行を示すものだと受け止めています。加えて、マルチシグによる資金管理、段階的な資金解放、独立監査、プロジェクト停止時の返金条項など、Treasury資金を扱う上でのガバナンス設計が比較的明確かつ慎重に構築されている点も、Info Actionとして賛成するに足る理由です。
以上の理由から、SIPO DRepとして私は、本提案の方向性に賛同し、Info Actionとしての「Yes」 を投じます。
これは無条件の承認ではなく、「基盤インフラ投資として妥当な問題設定であり、段階的に検証されるべき取り組みである」という評価に基づく賛成です。将来、このInfo Actionを前提としたTreasury Withdrawalが提出される際には、KPIの達成状況、監査結果、実際の運用実績を厳密に確認した上で、改めて判断する必要があると考えています。
Cardanoが研究・設計の段階を超え、実際に使われる経済基盤へと成熟していくための一歩として、本提案には意味があると判断しました。
- No84.3M ₳Rationale
As detailed in previous votes and various videos on the Army of Spies Youtube channel, I largely view direct treasury withdrawals as being most appropriate for infrastructure that will benefit the entire ecosystem and Catalyst as being more appropriate for individual dApps, barring some overwhelming rationale for an exception. Despite the fact that the word "infrastructure" is in the title of this treasury withdrawal governance action, I am not convinced this is the right kind of spending for a direct withdrawal from the Cardano Treasury. Also, since we have already funded Catalyst, I am always mindful of any additional incremental spending that would contribute to an overall level of spending that would tend to deplete the Cardano Treasury within the next decade.
- No75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳Rationale
I believe that the overall direction of this proposal has a certain degree of rationality.
However, when considering the current state of Cardano DeFi — including total value locked (TVL), stablecoin liquidity, and the size of the professional market participant base — there remains significant uncertainty as to whether an order-book DEX can attract sufficient liquidity to deliver meaningful, practical value at this stage.While I understand the approach of building infrastructure ahead of demand, there is a clear risk that such infrastructure will not be effectively utilized if liquidity and user demand do not materialize alongside it.
Therefore, although I do not consider this proposal to be unnecessary in principle, I believe that the question of whether it should be prioritized as a Treasury-scale expenditure at this time requires careful consideration. In my view, there is room to revisit this initiative once the Cardano DeFi market has reached a more mature stage.
For these reasons, while I acknowledge the potential long-term value of the proposal, I consider it to be premature given the current market size and liquidity conditions of Cardano DeFi, and therefore do not support it as a Treasury priority at this time No.
本提案が目指す方向性自体には、一定の合理性があると考えています。
しかし、現時点におけるCardano DeFi全体のTVL、ステーブル流動性、ならびにプロフェッショナルな市場参加者の規模を踏まえると、注文板型DEXが十分な流動性を獲得し、実質的な価値を発揮できるかについては、不確実性が高いと判断しています。技術先行でインフラを構築するアプローチ自体は理解できますが、流動性や需要が伴わなければ、そのインフラが十分に活用されないリスクがあると考えます。
そのため、本提案は「不要」であるとは考えていないものの、「現時点でTreasury規模の支出として優先すべきか」という点については慎重に判断すべきであり、より市場成熟が進んだ段階で再検討する余地があると考えています。
以上の理由から、必要性は理解できるものの、現在のCardano DeFiの市場規模および流動性を踏まえると、本提案は時期尚早であり、Treasury支出の優先度としては支持できないため、Noとします。
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO. The Treasury should fund shared infrastructure, not individual commercial DEXs. ₳1.5M is an excessive subsidy for a single product that should seek venture capital or Catalyst funding. We must preserve treasury funds for protocol-level upgrades, not application-layer winners.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting NO. While I support the development of Hydra, I do not believe the Cardano Treasury should be used to subsidize the operational costs of individual commercial DEXs to the tune of ₳1.5M.
Projects like DeltaDeFi should seek funding through Project Catalyst or private venture capital. Direct treasury funding should be reserved for neutral, protocol-level public goods, not picking or funding winners in the competitive DEX market.
- Yes62.7M ₳Rationale
I support this Budget Info Action.
Cardano needs a serious, low-latency order-book venue to support API traders, market makers, and tighter ADA and CNT pricing. AMMs alone do not cover this use case.
DeltaDeFi is already live on mainnet, built on Hydra, and led by a team with a strong track record in Cardano infrastructure and open-source delivery. This is not a greenfield experiment.
The scope is clear, limited to six months, and focused on hardening and scaling existing infrastructure. The inclusion of a KPI baseline, public dashboard, and final report adds accountability and makes ecosystem impact measurable.
As an Info Action, this is an appropriate signal to support Hydra-based trading infrastructure before considering any future Treasury withdrawal.
- No53.8M ₳No rationale
- No50.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain50M ₳Rationale
I consider this vote unnecessary, since a 67% approval threshold will be required anyway for the actual treasury withdrawal. But since it's currently a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Abstain just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote.
- No48.6M ₳No rationale
- No47.6M ₳No rationale
- No40.1M ₳Rationale
While I do believe this is a good proposal by a very strong team, I want to encourage teams to figure out a way for treasury withdrawals like this to give some allocation of Tokens, Tokenized Equity or Revenue Share of the project to the Treasury. By approving this proposal, we'd set a bad precedent for allowing treasury withdrawals without expecting these kinds of commitments by the project.
- Abstain38.1M ₳Rationale
The project direction has merit, and the DeltaDeFi team has demonstrated strong execution through long-standing contributions to developer tooling and infrastructure in the Cardano ecosystem. This deserves recognition.
However, at this stage, order-book trading is not among Cardano’s most urgent priorities, and Hydra has yet to show broad, mature application-level adoption. Advancing complex Hydra-based applications too early risks limited liquidity and usage.
I would prefer to reconsider such initiatives once Hydra itself is more mature and supports a wider range of real-world applications. For this reason, I abstain on this Info Action. - Yes37.8M ₳No rationale
- No34.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.3M ₳Rationale
English: Socious DRep will vote "Yes" on the DeltaDeFi Budget Info Action. We recognize the critical need for CEX-grade, low-latency trading infrastructure on Cardano and value the team's strong track record. However, our support comes with significant reservations regarding the eventual Treasury Withdrawal:
KPI Budget Efficiency: The ₳300,000 (20%) allocation for reporting and dashboards is high. We expect a rigorous audit to ensure these funds drive ecosystem value rather than administrative overhead.
Direct Treasury ROI: As an L2 solution with a 200:1 L2-to-L1 efficiency ratio, the direct protocol revenue back to the Treasury is low. We seek a clearer path for how this ₳1.5M investment provides a tangible return to ADA holders.
Infrastructure Neutrality: We expect the project to remain a public good. The final proposal must ensure the matching engine and data infrastructure are sufficiently decentralized to avoid private vendor lock-in.
We signal support for Hydra-based DeFi development, but will apply much stricter scrutiny to the subsequent withdrawal milestones.
Japanese (日本語): Socious DRepは、DeltaDeFiのHydra予算案に対し「賛成」を投じますが、重大な懸念事項を伴う条件付きの支持であることを明記します。将来の財務資金（Treasury）引き出しアクションにおいては、以下の点を厳格に審査します：
指標報告コストの妥当性: レポートとダッシュボード作成に割り当てられた**30万ADA（予算の20%）**は高額すぎると考えます。管理コストではなく、エコシステムの実利に直結する形での運用を監査で求めます。
財務への直接的な投資対効果 (ROI): 200:1の効率性を誇るL2ソリューションとして、L1への手数料還元は限定的です。150万ADAの投資がどのようにADA保有者に具体的利益をもたらすか、より明確な説明を求めます。
インフラの公平性: 公共性の高いインフラとして、特定の企業に依存しない（ベンダーロックインを避ける）分散化されたマッチングエンジンおよびデータ基盤の構築を期待します。
Hydraを活用したDeFiの方向性には賛成しますが、実際の資金放出に関しては極めて厳格な基準で判断します。
- Yes33.5M ₳Rationale
Vote YES. This InfoAction supports expanding real Hydra use cases beyond demos and aligns with a Cardano first approach to scalable infrastructure. A production grade Hydra DEX strengthens Layer 2 adoption and testing. Catalyst could serve as a prudent step.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Vote YES. This InfoAction supports expanding real Hydra use cases beyond demos and aligns with a Cardano first approach to scalable infrastructure. A production grade Hydra DEX strengthens Layer 2 adoption and testing. Catalyst could serve as a prudent step.
- No31.4M ₳Rationale
While DeltaDeFi has shown steady progress in developing Hydra‑based infrastructure, the requested 1.5M ADA budget does not appear proportionate to the current stage of the project. The justification provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that this level of funding is appropriate.
For these reasons, I oppose this proposal. - Yes31.1M ₳No rationale
- No30.7M ₳No rationale
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
Although I am a big fan of SIDAN Lab and DeltaDefi, I’m voting NO on this Budget Info Action because I don’t believe the Cardano Treasury should be used to subsidize individual dApps via grant-style funding, even if the dApp is well-designed or positioned as “infrastructure.” If Cardano wants to support promising commercial ventures, I’d rather see capital deployed through structures that create accountability and potential return to the Treasury (e.g., loans, revenue-share, or equity-like instruments) instead of one-way grants.
I also think this team would be a better fit for alternative funding and incubation paths like Cardano Builders DAO to help them expand, validate demand, and scale in a way that aligns incentives without setting a precedent for Treasury-funded dApp subsidies.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳Rationale
Voting Rationale – YES
Budget Info Action: DeltaDeFi
I am voting YES to signal support for the direction of this proposal, not to pre-approve any Treasury withdrawal.
DeltaDeFi represents a serious, technically grounded attempt to advance Hydra-based trading infrastructure on Cardano, paired with strong governance safeguards and process discipline appropriate for an Info Action: phased funding intent, stop-work and fund-return mechanisms, public KPIs, dashboards, and a clear separation between signaling support and any future TW. This is a responsible use of the permissionless governance framework to test whether this direction warrants further refinement before funds are requested.
This YES vote does not imply that the proposal is complete or risk-free. Key areas such as Hydra trust assumptions, decentralization milestones, KPI attribution, and adoption sensitivity still require clearer articulation. Signaling support at the Info Action stage enables those issues to be addressed transparently prior to any Treasury Withdrawal consideration.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
I do receive limited compensation in my capacity as a multisig signer, solely to fulfill an operational governance role designed to prevent a single point of failure in Treasury-related transactions.
I currently hold no equity, tokens, revenue share, or upside participation in DeltaDeFi or SIDAN Lab, and I do not benefit financially from the success or failure of the protocol itself. Compensation is strictly for administrative and risk-mitigation duties and is not contingent on proposal approval, funding outcomes, or project performance.
Any future Treasury Withdrawal proposal would be evaluated independently and on its own merits, consistent with my approach to all governance actions.
This vote is cast in support of governance learning, infrastructure experimentation, and responsible process, not preferential treatment of any team.
- No25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget. First off, I love the work DeltaDefi is doing and think they should keep requesting funds. KPI dashboard makes a lot of sense but we have to nail KPIs first - a refined submission will come on chain in a few months this year. Also, please pursue funds from Builder DOA as they SHOULD be funding you guys - and also continue to socialize this initiative and come back with a hydra-focused infra budget if needed.
- Abstain23.5M ₳Rationale
This is cool, but I'm not seeing how it's generally beneficial. Since I am not opposed, I'm going to abstain.
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote to ABSTAIN on the proposal for the DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (gov_action15ce4qnwug759939wqv782pvh6qg68khspg8kh02gmex99mcsytwqqqr7jkr) following the recent enactment of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4 (gov_action1jxne7hynfd7frcczwumd2eggps4kvy0msjztz9t0mutpy870ksgqqp6vp3p).
Budget Info Actions were a mandatory requirement under the previously active on-chain Constitution. Now that v2.4 has been enacted, there is no longer a requirement for Treasury Withdrawal proposals to have a previously approved Budget Info Action which now ultimately renders this proposal redundant, unfortunately for the proposers of this governance action who have no doubt committed time, effort and substantial funds in crafting and submitting this proposal. It also demonstrates the side effects of voting to enact changes to such a central piece of Cardano governance while processes and proposals are currently running in parallel.
At this stage it also looks highly unlikely to reach threshold, regardless of which way I vote and so I hope that the proposers take on any feedback that they have collected from DReps so far and apply it to any future proposals that they may submit. It is evident that they put a lot of time and effort in crafting this proposal and so I would like to also commend them on that.
- No21.4M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I vote NO on this Budget Info Action.
I acknowledge the team's technical competence and past contributions.
However, this proposal raises several concerns that prevent me from supporting it at this time.First, the line between public infrastructure and private product is not clearly defined.
The absence of mechanisms for value return to the broader ecosystem—whether economic or governance-based—limits the justification for a large Treasury grant.Second, the strategy for adoption and liquidity formation remains vague.
In the current market, it is not enough to build tools; we must see clear pathways for real usage and engagement.Third, the budget design—particularly the high allocation for KPI tracking—feels disproportionate and could be optimized using existing public tools.
Lastly, with total funding (past and proposed) now exceeding 2 million ADA,
I believe further support should be contingent on demonstrated user traction and ecosystem impact, not just technical milestones.For these reasons, I cannot endorse this proposal in its current form.
- Yes21.1M ₳Rationale
Please find the detailed rationale in the proposal's metadata.
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No19.9M ₳Rationale
Whilst I like the team and idea, I believe this proposal should be split up in Hydra Defi hardening and KPI Dashboard and one or both are probably a better fit for Catalyst and not for a direct treasury withdrawal. I would also appoint Intersect as independent administrator of funds to leverage synergies here. We should be conservative spending the treasury and prefer proposals which give back to the treasury.
- No18.2M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted17.4M ₳History
Earlier votes
No6mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain17.3M ₳Rationale
DeltaDeFi: Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget (₳1,500,000)
- No16.7M ₳Rationale
For a ₳1.5M / 6-month “core trading infrastructure” ask, the proposal explains the direction, but it lacks the level of specificity and verifiable delivery standards expected at this budget.
What’s missing for a proposal of this size:
Milestone acceptance criteria: Each phase should have objective “done” checks (benchmarks, uptime/SLOs, latency targets, load profiles, rollout gates, go/no-go criteria), not just general outputs.
Operational and trust model clarity: Clearly state who operates Hydra heads and production services, what users must trust, failure scenarios (downtime, dispute handling, fund safety), incident response, and runbooks.
Security plan proportional to risk: “Security reviews/targeted audits” needs scope, auditor selection plan, timelines, threat model, and explicit in-scope components (on-chain + Hydra integration + infra).
Liquidity/adoption mechanics: A credible plan for market quality (market makers, initial pairs, incentive/distribution design if any) rather than KPI targets alone.
Budget benchmarking and itemized cost model: Not just a high-level split. Provide an itemized budget with roles + headcount, expected hours/man-days per workstream, rate per man-day, and major non-labor costs (audit quotes/estimates, infra, legal, tooling). Include brief benchmarking against comparable deliverables and typical engineering rates to justify proportionality.
Public-goods commitments: If positioned as “core infrastructure,” specify durable ecosystem value (licensing/IP, open interfaces, integration commitments, and a post-funding maintenance plan).
Resubmission request: Keep the governance safeguards (multisig, milestone-based releases, return of unused funds), but resubmit with (1) measurable acceptance criteria per phase, (2) explicit trust/risk + ops model, (3) audit scope/vendor plan, (4) credible liquidity/adoption plan, (5) itemized budget with hours/headcount/man-day rates, and (6) concrete public-goods + maintenance commitments.
- No16.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3M ₳No rationale
- No13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA recognises the substantial effort, technical competence, and ecosystem commitment demonstrated in this proposal. The DeltaDeFi team has a strong open-source track record, and their work contributes valuable learnings toward validating Hydra in real-world DeFi contexts. The inclusion of KPI baselining and public dashboards reflects a commendable push toward accountability that we would like to see more broadly across governance proposals.
However, for a ₳1,500,000 budget signal, RCADA believes treasury funding should be reserved primarily for non-exclusive, ecosystem-wide infrastructure whose benefits accrue regardless of which individual application succeeds. As currently structured, this proposal remains predominantly focused on the productionization, operation, and competitiveness of a single branded trading venue, with ecosystem benefits that are indirect and dependent on that venue’s adoption.
We do not view this as a rejection of Hydra-based trading infrastructure, nor of the DeltaDeFi team’s work. Rather, it reflects a view that the funding lane and scope are misaligned. Product-specific scaling, liquidity acquisition, and venue operations are more appropriately addressed through Project Catalyst or private capital, while the treasury should prioritise reusable components, benchmarks, tooling, and observability infrastructure that the entire ecosystem can build upon.
For these reasons, RCADA votes NO on this Budget Info Action, while encouraging the proposers to consider a restructured, narrower request focused explicitly on neutral Hydra infrastructure and public-goods deliverables. Such a revision would materially change our level of support in future governance actions.
- Yes12.1M ₳No rationale
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
As Wada DRep, we vote no on the DeltaDeFi Hydra Trading Infrastructure proposal, not because the idea lacks merit, but because the timing and risk profile do not justify treasury support at this stage.
We acknowledge that the proposal is directionally aligned with Cardano’s long-term scaling strategy. Hydra is a critical component of the network’s future, particularly for high-throughput and low-latency use cases such as order-book trading and advanced DeFi execution. DeltaDeFi’s intent to build on Hydra reflects a correct understanding of where Cardano must eventually go, and we commend the team for engaging with this infrastructure early.
That said, Hydra adoption across the ecosystem remains nascent. While the technology is live and stable, real economic demand is still emerging and uneven. At present, there is limited evidence of sustained, organic usage that would validate significant, specialized infrastructure investment. Funding complex trading infrastructure ahead of demonstrated demand introduces a material risk that the output, though technically sound, may remain underutilized in the near to medium term.
Our position should therefore be read as a sequencing decision rather than a rejection of the concept. We would be more inclined to support an initiative like DeltaDeFi once clearer Hydra usage metrics are visible, demand from dApps or traders is demonstrated, or a smaller, milestone-gated pilot shows tangible traction. Such an approach would materially reduce adoption and execution risk while preserving alignment with Cardano’s long-term vision.