Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)
201 DReps voted · 77 with a rationale · 14 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026–2027).
This is a cautious YES.
RCADA supports this proposal because Eternl is important user-facing infrastructure for Cardano. Wallets are not optional extras in a blockchain ecosystem. They are the practical access layer through which users stake, vote, interact with DApps, manage assets, sign transactions, and participate in the network. Without reliable wallets, the usefulness of the chain is directly weakened.
Eternl has a long-standing role in the Cardano ecosystem across web, browser extension, Android, and iOS. The proposal states that Eternl supports payments, staking, governance, and DApp interaction, and that it accounts for approximately 10–18% of mainnet transactions. It also highlights Eternl’s governance tooling, including DRep dashboards, proposal browsing, in-wallet voting, and support for governance proposal creation.
RCADA recognises that subsidising wallet infrastructure is not a simple decision. It is difficult to remain fair and impartial when public Treasury funds are used to support one wallet provider rather than others. We do not believe this vote should be interpreted as automatic support for recurring Treasury funding of wallets in general.
At the same time, wallet sustainability is a real problem. Most users expect basic wallet access to remain free or very low cost, yet maintaining secure, multi-platform, hard-fork-compatible wallet infrastructure has real costs. If those costs are hidden through opaque transaction fees, reduced support, degraded infrastructure, vendor dependency, or excessive commercial pressure, the ecosystem may still pay — just less visibly.
For that reason, RCADA appreciates that Eternl is attempting to make its sustainability model more explicit. The proposal introduces a future Pro plan while keeping a basic version free, and estimates that around 5,500 paying users, or approximately 4.2% of its install base, could cover the annual operating cost of approximately $420,000. This is not guaranteed, but it is a reasonable sustainability experiment.
The proposed repayment mechanism is also a meaningful positive. Eternl commits to converting the Treasury funds into stablecoins, placing them in a public company wallet, reporting Pro plan income, and using surplus funds to repay the Treasury until the full USD value of the proposal has been repaid in ADA. After that, if Pro income exceeds the annual cost threshold, Eternl commits to donating 50% of income above that threshold until an additional $210,000 worth of ADA has been returned to the Treasury.
This makes the proposal stronger than a simple operational subsidy. It gives the community a way to test whether a widely used wallet can transition toward sustainability while preserving continuity for users during that transition.
However, RCADA’s support is not unconditional.
The proposal is not milestone-based and is administered by Tastenkunst GmbH itself. RCADA understands that operational continuity funding does not always fit neatly into milestone delivery, but this structure places greater importance on public wallet monitoring, regular reporting, Pro revenue transparency, and clear repayment/donation transaction records.
RCADA also notes that Eternl’s main UI is not open source, although some libraries are planned for publication. This weakens the pure public-good framing and should be considered carefully in any future Treasury request. Treasury-funded user infrastructure does not necessarily have to be fully open source in every respect, but where public funds support closed-source or partially closed-source products, transparency, accountability, and ecosystem value must be especially strong.
We also note the prior funding history. Eternl has received Catalyst funding, Intersect funding, and prior Treasury support. The proposal explains that the previous Treasury allocation was materially affected by ADA price decline and left a significant shortfall against the expected USD value. RCADA accepts that explanation, but we emphasise that this vote is support for a transition toward sustainability, not an endorsement of recurring annual Treasury dependence.
RCADA also believes the free or basic wallet experience should remain genuinely useful. Many users may not choose to pay for a Pro wallet subscription, and basic access to a wallet should not become so limited that ordinary users feel pushed into payment simply to participate meaningfully in Cardano. A Pro model can be appropriate, but it should enhance the experience rather than make the basic version feel degraded, coercive, or unnecessarily similar to traditional finance gatekeeping.
For these reasons, RCADA votes YES, while emphasising that this is bridge support for essential user infrastructure during a sustainability transition. RCADA expects clear public reporting on Treasury wallet balances, Pro plan income, repayment progress, operational continuity, governance tooling, user support, and the ongoing usefulness of the basic wallet experience.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
While we acknowledge Eternl's significant contributions to the Cardano ecosystem and recognize the wallet as an important piece of user-facing infrastructure, we are unable to support this treasury withdrawal proposal in its current form.
Our decision is not based on the value of Eternl itself. Rather, it is based on concerns regarding transparency, accountability, sustainability, and the precedent that treasury-funded operational support may set for the ecosystem.
The proposal requests ₳1.68 million to fund ongoing operations and development but does not provide sufficient detail regarding how the requested funds will be allocated. We would have expected a comprehensive budget breakdown covering personnel, infrastructure, operational expenses, support costs, reserves, and other major cost centers. Without this information, it is difficult for DReps to assess whether the requested amount is proportional to the intended outcomes.
We are also concerned by the absence of clear sustainability metrics. The proposal references existing and future revenue sources, including DApp-related fees, MonsterSwap revenues, partnerships, and planned subscription offerings, yet provides little transparency regarding current revenues, projected revenues, or the timeline by which the project expects to become financially self-sustaining. Treasury funding should ideally accelerate sustainability rather than become a recurring operational dependency.
Furthermore, the proposal lacks measurable performance commitments. While it outlines valuable activities such as wallet maintenance, governance tooling improvements, hardware wallet integrations, and backend infrastructure support, it does not establish concrete KPIs, adoption targets, service-level objectives, or milestone-based reporting requirements. As treasury governance matures, funding requests of this size should include clear accountability mechanisms that allow the community to evaluate delivery against commitments.
We also note that the team has received substantial ecosystem funding through multiple Catalyst grants, an Intersect grant, and a previous treasury allocation for maintenance activities. Given this funding history, we believe additional transparency regarding outcomes achieved, lessons learned, and progress toward long-term sustainability is warranted before approving further treasury support.
Another concern relates to the proposal's sustainability model and intellectual property approach. The proposal indicates that significant portions of the wallet remain closed source while simultaneously requesting public treasury funding. We believe there should be stronger justification for treasury-funded development that does not fully contribute public goods back to the ecosystem.
Finally, we are not convinced that sufficient information has been provided to answer several critical governance questions:
- What is the detailed composition of the annual operating budget?
- How many contributors are being funded through this request?
- What revenues have been generated over the previous year?
- What revenue assumptions underpin the proposed subscription model?
- At what point does the project become self-sustaining without treasury support?
- Is this intended to be a one-time request or should DReps anticipate future operational funding requests?
- What measurable outcomes will be reported to the community throughout the funding period?
We remain supportive of high-quality wallet infrastructure and recognize Eternl's role within the ecosystem. However, treasury funding requires a high standard of transparency, accountability, and demonstrated sustainability planning.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted10.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain10.4M ₳Rationale
As one of the employees at Eternl worked at Iagon and just recently parted ways - it was fair to abstain from this proposal
- Yes9.6M ₳Rationale
Cardano's Major wallet - there is not question - we NEED this wallet in our ecosystem.
- YesRevoted9.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
- No8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案については、Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2 (gov_action1lwudrf9g66mzlrxhq62y5pvzhzzv9wgps7u04kne202udge7kknsqlgmhse) が提出されたため、反対票を投じます。\n\nI am voting No on this proposal because "Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2" (gov_action1lwudrf9g66mzlrxhq62y5pvzhzzv9wgps7u04kne202udge7kknsqlgmhse) has been submitted.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting NO
I voted NO on the Eternl maintenance proposal last year and am voting NO this year. I like Eternl wallet. But I don't think the treasury should finance the operations, maintenance, and improvements costs for a closed source light wallet, regardless of how good it is. We are not in the early Cardano days any more. There are multiple light wallets in the ecosystem in this segment. Some are also open source. I would probably have to lean towards approving other requests from many other light wallets wallets, if I said Yes to this withdrawal.
There is sparse competition in the full node wallet segment, so I will assess the Daedalus proposal separately - as it also offers additional security guarantees for users.
- Yes7.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes.
Eternl is a widely used piece of Cardano infrastructure that many users rely on for staking, governance, and interacting with the ecosystem. What stands out to me is that this proposal is focused on bridging toward sustainability rather than creating permanent treasury dependence, with a defined paid-service model and commitments to repay treasury funds if successful. (CardanoCube)
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners votes YES on Eternl: Path to Sustainability.
Eternl is one of Cardano’s most important user-facing applications. It has been building for years, supports payments, staking, governance, DApp interaction, mobile access, browser extension access, and power-user workflows. Wallets are not abstract infrastructure; they are one of the main ways users actually experience Cardano.
We are generally cautious about treasury support for for-profit products, but this proposal makes a stronger case by presenting a path toward sustainability. The planned Pro model, public monitoring of funds, revenue reporting, and treasury repayment mechanism are important commitments. They help distinguish this from an indefinite subsidy and move the project toward a more durable business model.
Given Eternl’s usage, history, and role in governance and DApp access, maintaining its stability is valuable for the ecosystem. We support this proposal as a bridge toward self-sustainability, with the expectation that future treasury reliance decreases as paid plans and other revenue sources mature.
- No4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳Rationale
Small ask and a there is a plan to repay a portion if certain goals are met.
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
Although I love Eternl and use it almost daily, I find this proposal highly problematic.
The justification for voting on their own proposal is insufficient. While Eternl’s delegators (like all Cardano users) would love to see the wallet succeed, this should not come through repeated treasury funding, especially at the proposed price tag.
Furthermore, the Pro plan should have been introduced years ago, before the Catalyst, Intersect, and last year’s funding rounds. Even now, we still lack clarity on what specific Pro features will be offered. Projecting that 4% of users will subscribe monthly without knowing the details does not make sense.
I suggest the team return to the drawing board and develop a truly sustainable business model, rather than relying on their voting power (which is particularly questionable for wallets) to continually draw funds from the Cardano treasury.
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)" (gov_action1ngpqafax5rvp8lcgey4asvqtycrh4e56fwp8cn2r9trx2ysryhtsqdm3w3z), pois compreendemos que a Eternl é uma infraestrutura relevante para o ecossistema Cardano, servindo como um dos principais pontos de acesso para pagamentos, staking, governança e interação com aplicações descentralizadas. Avaliamos que a manutenção contínua de uma carteira amplamente utilizada, disponível em múltiplas plataformas e integrada às necessidades de usuários, desenvolvedores e participantes da governança, contribui diretamente para a estabilidade, a usabilidade e a resiliência da rede. Além disso, a diversidade de carteiras é um componente importante para a descentralização do ecossistema, reduzindo dependências excessivas de soluções específicas e fortalecendo a soberania dos usuários. Também apoiamos a proposta por entendermos que ela apresenta um caminho claro de transição para maior sustentabilidade financeira, por meio da introdução de planos pagos e novas fontes de receita, preservando ao mesmo tempo uma versão básica gratuita e acessível para a comunidade. Consideramos positivo que os recursos solicitados sejam direcionados à continuidade operacional, manutenção técnica, suporte aos usuários, infraestrutura e evolução do produto, reduzindo o risco de descontinuidade de um serviço amplamente utilizado pela comunidade Cardano. Além disso, valorizamos a presença de mecanismos de transparência, prestação de contas e a possibilidade de devolução de recursos não utilizados ao Tesouro, elementos que contribuem para um uso mais responsável e eficiente dos fundos comunitários.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)" (gov_action1ngpqafax5rvp8lcgey4asvqtycrh4e56fwp8cn2r9trx2ysryhtsqdm3w3z), because we recognize Eternl as an important piece of infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem, serving as one of the primary access points for payments, staking, governance participation, and interaction with decentralized applications. We believe that the continued maintenance of a widely adopted wallet, available across multiple platforms and integrated with the needs of users, developers, and governance participants, contributes directly to the network’s stability, usability, and resilience. Furthermore, wallet diversity is an important component of ecosystem decentralization, reducing excessive dependence on any single solution and strengthening user sovereignty. We also support the proposal because it presents a clear path toward greater financial sustainability through the introduction of paid plans and additional revenue streams, while preserving a free and accessible core offering for the community. We consider it positive that the requested funds are directed toward operational continuity, technical maintenance, user support, infrastructure, and product development, reducing the risk of disruption to a service that is widely relied upon across the Cardano ecosystem. In addition, we value the inclusion of transparency and accountability mechanisms, as well as the possibility of returning unused funds to the Treasury, which contribute to a more responsible and efficient use of community resources.Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Cardano Critical Integrations V2" (gov_action1cp0w6zwgwpj98jtu3r2q838lgwmhs6j49l58zx4q05lx220lmzaqqztnljz), pois entendemos que as integrações críticas já entregues ou em implementação por meio do CCI V1 — como Circle/USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth Price Feeds e Dune Analytics — não podem ser tratadas apenas como entregas pontuais. Uma vez incorporadas à infraestrutura do ecossistema, essas integrações exigem manutenção contínua, renovação de contratos, suporte operacional, compatibilidade técnica e monitoramento permanente para que permaneçam funcionais, seguras e úteis para desenvolvedores, instituições e usuários da rede Cardano. Também avaliamos positivamente a inclusão da integração nativa da Fireblocks, pois ela pode reduzir barreiras operacionais para instituições que necessitam custodiar, transferir e gerenciar ADA e Cardano Native Tokens por meio de uma infraestrutura amplamente utilizada pelo mercado institucional. Além disso, consideramos adequado o modelo de administração por meio da Intersect, com supervisão do Steering Committee, prestação de contas, auditorias, relatórios periódicos e devolução de recursos não utilizados ao Tesouro. Em nossa avaliação, a proposta fortalece a prontidão institucional da Cardano e contribui para preservar e ampliar o valor das integrações já financiadas pela comunidade. Ao mesmo tempo, reconhecemos que existem ressalvas legítimas relacionadas à transparência orçamentária e à governança da proposta. Consideramos importante que os proponentes apresentem uma conciliação mais detalhada dos resultados do CCI V1, incluindo valores comprometidos, despesas realizadas, saldos remanescentes, obrigações já cobertas e custos efetivamente novos relacionados ao chamado “Ano 2”. Também entendemos que a confidencialidade comercial com fornecedores não impede a divulgação de informações agregadas que permitam distinguir custos de fornecedores, engenharia, infraestrutura, administração e demais despesas operacionais. Por isso, nosso apoio à proposta vem acompanhado da expectativa de relatórios públicos robustos, maior clareza sobre o período efetivo de execução dos 12 meses, verificação adequada dos Statements of Work (SoWs) e mecanismos de supervisão que permitam aos DReps avaliar, mesmo com limitações decorrentes da confidencialidade contratual, se os desembolsos permanecem alinhados ao escopo aprovado e ao melhor interesse do ecossistema Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Cardano Critical Integrations V2" (gov_action1cp0w6zwgwpj98jtu3r2q838lgwmhs6j49l58zx4q05lx220lmzaqqztnljz), because we believe that the critical integrations already delivered or currently being implemented under CCI V1 — including Circle/USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth Price Feeds, and Dune Analytics — should not be viewed as one-time deliverables. Once integrated into the ecosystem’s infrastructure, these services require ongoing maintenance, contract renewals, operational support, technical compatibility, and continuous monitoring to remain functional, secure, and valuable for developers, institutions, and Cardano users. We also view positively the inclusion of the native Fireblocks integration, as it can reduce operational barriers for institutions seeking to custody, transfer, and manage ADA and Cardano Native Tokens through infrastructure already widely adopted by the institutional market. Furthermore, we consider the governance model appropriate, with administration through Intersect, oversight by the Steering Committee, public accountability, audits, periodic reporting, and the return of unused funds to the Treasury. In our view, the proposal strengthens Cardano’s institutional readiness and helps preserve and expand the value of integrations previously funded by the community. At the same time, we recognize that legitimate concerns remain regarding budget transparency and governance. We believe the proposers should provide a more detailed reconciliation of CCI V1, including committed amounts, actual expenditures, remaining balances, obligations already covered, and the genuinely new costs associated with the proposed “Year 2” activities. We also believe that commercial confidentiality with vendors should not prevent the publication of aggregated financial information distinguishing supplier costs, engineering expenses, infrastructure costs, administrative expenses, and other operational categories. For this reason, our support for the proposal is accompanied by the expectation of robust public reporting, greater clarity regarding the effective 12-month execution period, appropriate verification of the Statements of Work (SoWs), and oversight mechanisms that enable DReps to assess—despite contractual confidentiality constraints—whether disbursements remain aligned with the approved scope and the best interests of the Cardano ecosystem. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
Since this is already deemed unconstitutional, I'll simply show support here, and provide a final vote and rationale in the new submission.
- Yes3.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting yes for this, as Eternl is core infrastructure for the Cardano blockchain and needs to continue to operate. Since it is not open source or a treasury-owned resource, this will be the last time I vote yes for funding Eternl. I'm also happy to see there is a sustainability and treasury repayment plan put in place. Eternl is a proven entity in the ecosystem that will follow through, so should they get funded, this will be the last time the community needs to fund them regardless. I will also be voting yes for V2.
- No3M ₳Rationale
I don't see the point in paying for this if a small commission is already charged on each transaction. If such an old service can't sustain itself, then it's useless. This is the burden Cardano carries today, and we must eliminate projects that still depend on the treasury or funding and don't create anything new. What will happen the day it stops receiving funding? Will it shut down like many others have? Well, that's my opinion; if you don't like it, I apologize.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳Rationale
I use Eternl wallet everyday. It is one of 5 apps that i fully rely on in my day to day Cardano activity.
I really would like to see the push towards the paid model and self sustainability. I am confident in the team to get it done.
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
Cardanoには、Yoroi、Lace、Eternlなど複数の重要なウォレットが存在し、それぞれ異なるユーザー層を支えています。Yoroiは長期保有者やステーキング利用者に広く使われ、Laceは標準的で使いやすいCardanoウォレット体験を担う存在として発展しています。その中でEternlは、DApp利用者、DeFi・NFT利用者、DRepやガバナンス参加者、マルチシグ利用者、ハードウェアウォレット利用者など、Cardanoをより深く実用する層にとって重要なライトウォレットです。
Eternlが縮小・停止すれば、特にパワーユーザー、DApp利用者、DRep投票者、マルチシグ利用者、ハードウェアウォレット利用者に影響が出る可能性があります。Eternlは民間プロダクトではありますが、Cardanoエコシステム上では、実利用・DApp接続・ガバナンス参加を支える準公共インフラとして扱う余地があると考えます。
また、本提案は単なる継続補助ではなく、Proプランによる自立化、公開会社ウォレットでの資金管理、余剰時のTreasury返済、条件達成後の追加寄付という、Treasuryへの還流を意識した設計を含んでいる点を評価します。Treasury資金を一方的な支出で終わらせず、将来的にエコシステムへ循環させようとする前向きな試みです。
一方で、本提案はマイルストーン型ではなく、メインUIもオープンソースではありません。また、ウォレットという重要インフラに対して監査費の比率が小さい点には注意が必要です。そのため、Pro収益、資金残高、Treasury返済状況、稼働率、セキュリティ対応、主要開発成果について、定期的かつ検証可能な報告を求めます。
これらの透明性と説明責任が実行されることを前提に、Eternlの継続はCardanoの利用体験、DApp利用、ガバナンス参加を支える重要な投資であると考え、本提案を支持します。
I support this proposal.
Cardano has several important wallets, including Yoroi, Lace, and Eternl, each serving different user groups. Yoroi has long supported holders and staking users, while Lace is developing as a more standard and user-friendly Cardano wallet experience. Within this landscape, Eternl plays an important role for power users, DApp users, DeFi and NFT users, DReps, governance participants, multisig users, and hardware wallet users.
If Eternl were to scale down or stop operating, the impact would be felt especially by these active user groups. Although Eternl is a private product, it can reasonably be regarded as semi-public infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem because it supports practical usage, DApp access, and governance participation.
I also appreciate that this proposal is not merely a request for continued support. It includes a path toward sustainability through the Pro plan, public fund management, treasury repayment when there is surplus, and additional donations if revenue exceeds the stated threshold. This shows awareness of returning value to the Cardano Treasury rather than treating treasury funding as a one-way expense.
At the same time, this proposal is not milestone-based, the main UI is not open source, and the audit allocation appears limited for such important wallet infrastructure. Therefore, I expect regular and verifiable reporting on Pro revenue, remaining funds, treasury repayments, uptime, security handling, and major development progress.
With these expectations for transparency and accountability, I believe continued support for Eternl is an important investment in Cardano’s user experience, DApp access, and governance participation. Therefore, I support this proposal.
- YesChanged2.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
eternl you my boy blue!
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
Wallets are critical infrastructure within a crypto ecosystem and while everyone not only wants but has to use them, nobody wants to pay for maintenance or development. That being said, wallets share the tragedy of the commons. As Eternl is a flagship within the Cardano ecosystem, AtlasHub supports this proposal.
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the Eternl treasury proposal because I believe independent wallet and access infrastructure is critical to Cardano’s long-term usability, decentralisation and governance participation.
Eternl is already widely used across the ecosystem for staking, DApp interaction, payments and on-chain governance. Supporting reliable wallet infrastructure helps ensure users can actually participate in the Cardano ecosystem, not just theoretically benefit from protocol-level improvements.
The proposal is also relatively modest in size compared with many current treasury requests and includes a path toward greater long-term sustainability through a Pro-plan revenue model and treasury repayment mechanics.
I recognise the concerns raised around closed-source components, self-administration and the lack of milestone-based disbursement. I believe those concerns are valid and should continue to be discussed as Cardano governance matures.
However, on balance, I believe the practical ecosystem value of maintaining stable, independent wallet infrastructure outweighs those concerns in this case.
This vote aligns with my broader DRep philosophy of supporting:
1 critical ecosystem infrastructure,
2 decentralisation in practice,
3 governance participation,
4 user accessibility,
5 and sustainable long-term ecosystem growth,while still remaining mindful of treasury discipline and responsible capital allocation under current NCL constraints.
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
We propose a NO vote on the proposed 1.68 million ADA funding for the Eternl wallet.
Although Eternl is a popular wallet among users, this proposal reveals critical weaknesses in terms of governance economics. Firstly, the requested amount is excessively large, intended solely for operational maintenance rather than for building new features or developing the underlying protocol. Secondly, the model for transitioning to the Pro plan (assuming 4.2% of users pay) is purely theoretical speculation, lacking concrete data to support it. A commercial project that has been operating for many years yet still requires continuous "bailouts" from the Treasury demonstrates instability in its business structure.
In principle, the Cardano Treasury is designed to fund non-profit public goods or bootstrap new technologies, not to perpetually sustain commercially viable products that have the potential to generate revenue in a competitive market already filled with alternatives (like Lace, Yoroi). Furthermore, the proposal to receive a lump sum payment for 12 months without milestone-based payouts is a serious governance flaw.
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳Rationale
I like Eternl and hope they are able to achieve financial sustainability by offering a Pro plan. However I am skeptical that they will achieve their target conversion rate, particularly in the current market conditions.
If Eternl were to focus on being a public good and open-source their code, I would be inclined to vote yes. For now I am abstaining due to doubts about the viability of the proposal.
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
Critical, widely-used non-custodial wallet and the main on-chain governance UI, funded as a repayable advance rather than a grant. Closed-source remains a real drawback, but YES anyway
- No1.7M ₳No rationale