Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)
201 DReps voted · 77 with a rationale · 14 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No313.4K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged300.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
Voting NO on Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)
Statement
I like and use Eternl but 6 FTE seems high. 1 or 2 FTE would be much more appropriate. I'm not convinced this would be the last withdrawal by Eternl as I don't see this "pro-plan" being compelling to users. I would be absolutely shocked if they can generate even $70k in revenue from the proposed service. In short, I don't believe this is a viable path to sustainability. As uncomfortable as it is, there is no such path so long as they insist on 6 FTEs.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt
@william00000010 on 𝕏
contact@williamdoyle.ca - Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes279.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on “Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026–2027)”. I recognise Eternl as one of Cardano’s most important wallets: it has delivered multi‑platform access, deep feature coverage, and the most complete governance UI in the ecosystem, and it already plays a meaningful role in transaction flow, staking, and DRep voting. The team has a strong track record under Catalyst and the 2025 Treasury withdrawal, and the technical scope of this proposal – hard‑fork readiness, CIP implementation, hardware wallet support, multi‑region infra, and governance tooling – is clearly real and non‑trivial.
However, Eternl is a closed‑source, for‑profit product that has already received substantial public funding (roughly ₳1.3M plus 226k USD). This proposal seeks another full year of general operations funding at a time when Eternl is explicitly moving toward a commercial Pro‑plan model. While the FX discipline, reporting commitments, and conditional repayment/donation mechanism are positive, the Treasury is effectively being asked to absorb downside business risk while future upside is partly retained by the company. In my view, repeated broad Treasury support for private products should be contingent on opening key components as true public goods and narrowing the scope to protocol‑critical maintenance work, not general roadmap and commercial expansion.
I would be open to supporting a revised proposal that (1) open‑sources important components funded as public goods, (2) limits the ask to clearly defined maintenance, hard‑fork readiness, CIP and governance‑critical work, with other product features funded via commercial revenue or investment vehicles such as Orion/Draper, and (3) is accompanied by an abstention from Eternl’s own DRep on this item to strengthen governance culture. For this iteration, however, I do not believe it is appropriate for the Treasury to act as a general business backstop for a closed, commercial wallet when other wallets also need space to grow and compete. - No261K ₳No rationale
- Abstain260.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes245.5K ₳Rationale
As a user of Eternl from the beginning, I see Eternl as critical infrastructure for the entire ecosystem and I find its maintenance costs to be very reasonable. The extra features that Eternl provides over other Cardano wallets are actually crucial for many such as myself. That is justification enough for my Yes vote. I would like to see Eternl move towards profit generation, however as a product manager myself I cannot see a realistic path to this. I do believe that someone will usually come around to offer a free version of any paywalled service, though I acknowledge that the lifespan of the free version is usually not long. All that is to say, I am interested to see where Eternl will take the paid features and how many users will pay for them.
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
- Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected.
1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption. - Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
- Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
- Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives with clear milestones, revenue/ADA return mechanisms, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.
- Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected.
- No234.2K ₳No rationale
- No233.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes232.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes232.2K ₳No rationale
- No215.5K ₳No rationale
- No207.6K ₳No rationale
- No200.5K ₳Rationale
I use your wallet and respect what you've built.
But this seems like its just a grant to keep your business going through difficult times without making difficult decisions.
What is the principle dReps should apply to this?
Why is your business special that the treasury should sustain it?
Should all the competing wallets get the same?
It seems like you're asking for a business loan with none of the hurdles that a lender would expect, and certainly none of the financial details or loan guarantees.
And putting your request at 420 feels like your having a joke at the community's expense. - YesChanged191.1K ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- YesChanged182.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
- YesChanged178.9K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
- YesRevoted150.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes142.5K ₳Rationale
Eternl forever!
- No137.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain131.9K ₳No rationale
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain108.3K ₳Rationale
Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.
- Yes107.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes79.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes69.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.9K ₳Rationale
yes. eternl is very needed, but need to figure out their business model, which is fair game after having assumed catalyst as a business model. This is a great initiative to get their self funding off the ground, while being net-neutral/positive to the treasury.
- Yes52.4K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
For many years the Team behind ETERNL (formerly CC Vault) have innovated and provided one of the most detailed experiences available to interact with the Cardano Blockchain Transaction data. I have found the ETERNL wallet integral in the wallet landscape on this blockchain and I find value in this proposal. The proposal states that the Excess Ada above 420K USD will be returned to the treasury, and that within itself is a fair approach to not over gluttonizing the treasury. We as a community have a list of wallets to choose from and over time ETERNL has proven to be a leader in this sector, if the other wallets and dApps / projects follow suit with refunds to the treasury then as a whole the ecosystem will benefit and undoubtedly continue to thrive and innovate. I vote Yes for the ETERNL proposal. ~ Lourde Ouroborus Imperator Aeternalis ~
- No46.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes45.2K ₳Rationale
Eternl is well-known company in Cardano ecosystem. While I mostly use other wallets now, I remember my good experience with Eternl, especially using Dapps, etc. The budget is relatively modest comparing with other Treasury withdrawal proposals. Additional plus I see in transparency with providing information about Catalyst proposals which Eternl team won, and the idea to return Ada to the treasury if the price increases. So if in brief - I'm confident that existence and development of Eternl will be beneficial to the Cardano ecosystem.
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes26.7K ₳Rationale
Yes, I need eternl for governance. Kind of have to fund at this point.
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.5K ₳No rationale
- No15.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes11.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes682 ₳No rationale
- Yes340.7 ₳No rationale