Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)
201 DReps voted · 77 with a rationale · 14 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on "Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)".Rationale
This proposal has been found unconstitutional by the Constitutional Committee. As such, Yoroi votes ABSTAIN. A revised proposal has been submitted and Yoroi will assess in due course. - Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on "Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)."
Although it is not open source, there is a repayment plan, and considering comprehensively that Eternl currently functions as a strong driver of Cardano's transaction production, I have decided to vote YES. Within the Japanese community as well, members who participate in DeFi appear to lean toward preferring Eternl.ーーー
私は「Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)」にYesを投票します。
非オープンソースですが、返済計画があり、現在、eternlが cardanoの強力なTx生産のためのドライバーとして機能していることも総合的に加味して、YESを投票することにしました。日本コミュニティでも、defiに参加しているメンバーは、eternlを好む傾向があるように見えます。
- Abstain332.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on the treasury withdrawal titled "Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)" with rationale outlined below.Rationale
The Constitutional Committee has deemed this proposal unconstitutional. Hence EMURGO will vote ABSTAIN. We will vote on the resubmitted proposal. - YesChanged254.7M ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain222.9M ₳Rationale
We vote abstain on our own proposal.
- No174.6M ₳Rationale
I really love the work Eternl has done. However, the attempt at having people pay for a "Pro" plan was already somewhat tried with the NFT collection that the Eternl team put out (I know it's not exactly the same, but it's close) and that didn't really work out. I don't generally see this kind of "pro" plan being a popular business model for wallets in general. Given Eternl has received money from the treasury before, I would prefer if the proposal just accepted the reality that until things like built-in swaps can generate more revenue (the most common wallet revenue generation model) that Eternl acts somewhat as a public good and therefore should be open sourced.
- Yes165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. We recognize Eternl as important ecosystem infrastructure and view its repayment-linked structure as a credible bridge towards self-sustainability.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Eternl is one of the principal non-custodial gateways for payments, staking, DApp interaction, and governance, currently offering one of the most comprehensive in-wallet voting and DRep tooling experiences.
Our decision to support this proposal is driven by the following factors:
- Ecosystem Utility: Eternl supports web, browser extension, Android, and iOS users, and the proposal describes ongoing maintenance across frontend, backend, support, and operations. We view this as relevant infrastructure for Cardano users, developers, and dApp interactions. The proposal also includes continued work on governance tooling, including DRep dashboards, proposal browsing, and in-wallet voting functionality, which aligns with our interest in accessible and usable governance.
- Transition Toward Sustainability: The proposal does not present treasury funding as a permanent operating model. It describes a 12-month funding period from August 2026 to July 2027 and a planned Pro subscription model for personal and company users to generate sufficient income to reach self-sustainability. The stated target is approximately 5,500 paying users, or about 4.2% of the reported install base, to cover the annual operating cost of approximately $420,000. We view this as a meaningful attempt to transition away from recurring ecosystem funding, while recognizing that execution risk remains.
- Repayment-Oriented Structure: The on-chain withdrawal requests 1,680,000 ada, which the proposer frames as approximately $420,000 at $0.25 per ada. The proposal states that the full amount will be converted into stablecoins and placed in a public company wallet, and that surplus funds and future Pro plan income will be assessed every December and June for treasury repayment and later donation. While this is not the same as a milestone-based disbursement or an externally administered repayment mechanism, it is a more constructive funding structure than a simple grant.
- Budget Scope and Continuity: The proposal funds 6.0 FTE at $70,000 per FTE for a 12-month operating period, covering frontend, backend, support, administration, and audits. We consider the requested scope understandable for a cross-platform wallet with backend infrastructure, user support, app store obligations, hardware wallet support, and Cardano protocol compatibility requirements.
We also recognize the concerns. Eternl has previously received direct treasury funding, the current proposal is self-administered by Tastenkunst GmbH, and it is not milestone-based. The proposal’s claims about transaction share are not independently evidenced in the material provided. These concerns are material, but on balance, we believe the ecosystem risk of losing or significantly reducing a widely used wallet during a transition to paid plans outweighs the risk of supporting this time-limited withdrawal.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. Our support is based on Eternl’s practical importance to Cardano users and the proposal’s stated path toward paid-plan sustainability and treasury repayment. We encourage the team to provide clear public reporting on fund custody, Pro plan adoption, and any repayments, so the community can assess whether this transition model is working.
---> **_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. - YesChanged92.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I have decided to vote NO on the proposal: Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026–2027)
My rationale:
I want to begin by saying that I respect the Eternl team and the work they have done for Cardano. Eternl is one of the top wallets in the ecosystem and should be preserved. Wallets are a critical infrastructure that users cannot do without. The quality of wallets significantly influences how users perceive the quality, reliability, and capabilities of the entire ecosystem.
Wallets must be maintained. They must prepare for hard forks, implement new CIPs, support new ledger and governance features, maintain compatibility with hardware wallets and DApps, and provide users with a reliable interface to the Cardano network.
For this reason, I believe it can make sense for wallet teams to seek Treasury support for maintenance and protocol-related work. However, I am less convinced that the Treasury should fund product expansion, proprietary roadmap items, or commercial growth features.
Some parts of this proposal may be appropriate for Treasury funding, mainly maintenance, hard-fork readiness, security-critical upgrades, CIP implementation, governance compatibility, and the infrastructure required to keep the wallet operational.
Other parts of the roadmap may be better suited for the Draper Orion Fund or other funding vehicles rather than a direct Treasury withdrawal. In general, growth-oriented products with potential revenue models should be funded through mechanisms that include external due diligence, clear expectations, and measurable return to the ecosystem.
Eternl has already received significant public support. From Catalyst, the ADA-denominated grants are ₳69.2k, ₳554k, and ₳20.8k, for a total of ₳644k. Together with last year’s on-chain Treasury withdrawal of ₳583k, this equals approximately ₳1.227M. In addition, Eternl received USD-denominated Catalyst grants of $90k, $90k, and $46k, for a total of $226k USD.
This is substantial ecosystem support. I do not say this to diminish Eternl’s contribution, but to point out that future requests should be more narrowly focused on public-good maintenance rather than expansion. We should also give other wallets room to grow and compete fairly.
For the Treasury, picking winners is always complicated. There is currently no clear consensus or rule among DReps on how to fund public goods, especially when the beneficiary is a private product competing in a market with several other wallets. This makes the decision harder.
In the current market conditions, it is challenging for wallets and DeFi protocols to build a functional business model. I recognize that reality, and I am willing to consider Treasury funding for maintenance and protocol-critical work. But I believe we should be cautious when Treasury funding supports the expansion of one already-dominant wallet over others.
For wallets, the long-term path must be to find a sustainable business model. Eternl appears to have found one and is now expanding it through paid services. I appreciate this direction. However, if a wallet is moving toward a commercial model, then Treasury funding should be limited to clearly defined public-good work, not general operations or growth. Paid services, premium features, and enterprise-style tools should ideally be funded by customers, investors, or ecosystem investment vehicles rather than direct grants.
A YES decision would also be easier if Eternl were open source. I understand that not every team is ready to open source its entire product, and I respect the need to protect business interests and security-sensitive parts of the codebase.
However, when a project seeks repeated Treasury funding, the public-good argument becomes stronger when important components are open, reusable, and verifiable by the community.
Eternl mentions that some libraries will be published, which is a positive step. In my view, this should happen before asking for another broad Treasury withdrawal, not after. Open-sourcing important components would make it easier to distinguish between public-good funding and private product funding.
I am also concerned that Eternl plans to vote YES on its own proposal. This is not ideal in our young governance system. We should cultivate a healthy governance culture from the beginning. Proposers should not vote for proposals from which they directly benefit. In an ideal governance culture, even founding entities may need to be very careful when voting on proposals connected to their own interests. It would be more appropriate and more credible for Eternl to abstain and leave the decision to other DReps, especially because Eternl is one of the largest DReps in the ecosystem.
For these reasons, I am voting NO. I remain open to supporting a revised proposal under these conditions:
- Open source important components of Eternl that are funded as public goods.
- Reduce the requested scope and ask specifically for maintenance, hard-fork readiness, CIP implementation, and governance-critical work.
- Abstain as a DRep on proposals from which Eternl or Tastenkunst directly benefits.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp - No88.6M ₳Rationale
We highly value Eternl's contributions. However, we are concerned about the lack of a sustainable monetization model at this point. While proposals for Pro plans and enterprise pricing were included in the document, these alone are insufficient. We would prefer the organization to reevaluate its structure before relying on treasury funding.
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027).
Governance Action ID: gov_action1ngpqafax5rvp8lcgey4asvqtycrh4e56fwp8cn2r9trx2ysryhtsqdm3w3z
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): 9a020ea7a6a0d813ff08c92bd8300b26077ae69a4b827c4d432ac665120325d7#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-03Eternl is a widely-used, non-custodial Cardano light wallet — web, browser extension, Android, and iOS — and a primary gateway through which holders stake, participate in governance, make payments, and interact with dApps. This proposal funds twelve months of operations, maintenance, infrastructure, and support, requesting ₳1,680,000 (about $420,000 per year at a $0.25/ADA reference). As a non-custodial gateway for staking and governance, it is a public good for the ecosystem, and SIPO's doctrine values core wallet infrastructure of this kind.
SIPO is explicit about the treasury-protection profile. The withdrawal recipient is a single-key (key-hash) stake address, not a script-enforced escrow. The repayment and monitoring commitments are therefore not enforced on-chain; they rest on documentation, public reporting, and the proposer's reputation as the operator of an established product. SIPO's strongest standard for treasury withdrawals is on-chain-enforced, audited escrow, and this proposal does not meet that bar. SIPO weighs that limitation openly rather than glossing over it.
What moves SIPO to support is that the proposal does not present a false escrow. It states plainly that the full amount will be converted into stablecoins and held in a public, monitorable company wallet, and it commits to repaying the Treasury. Every December and June, surplus above the operating budget is to be used to repay the Treasury — at 100% of the surplus until the full $420,000 value (in ADA) is returned — and, after full repayment, 50% of Pro-plan income above $420,000 is to be donated back, up to an additional $210,000. The proposal also charts a path to self-sustainability: a Pro plan (personal and company tiers) intended to fund operations from roughly 4.2% of the existing install base, reducing and ultimately replacing Treasury dependence. A repayment commitment and a credible self-sustainability plan are precisely the structures SIPO most wants to see in continuing-cost proposals, and they distinguish this from a simple grant.
On balance — a real, widely-used public-goods wallet, the smallest ask in the current set, an honest treatment of KPIs, no proposer conflict of interest, and the strongest community support among the recent direct withdrawals — SIPO votes Yes. Because the protections are not enforced on-chain, that support is conditional on transparency. SIPO therefore votes Yes with the following expectations: (1) publish the real active-user rate behind the install base; (2) report the Pro-plan conversion rate and progress toward self-sustainability; (3) publish the December and June repayment transactions to the Treasury; and (4) disclose how Eternl's scope sits within the broader wallet-maintenance portfolio — alongside full-node and hardware wallets — to avoid overlap. SIPO supports Eternl as core wallet infrastructure with a credible path off Treasury dependence. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、本提案「Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)」に期待事項付きで賛成（YES）を投じます。
Governance Action ID: gov_action1ngpqafax5rvp8lcgey4asvqtycrh4e56fwp8cn2r9trx2ysryhtsqdm3w3z
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): 9a020ea7a6a0d813ff08c92bd8300b26077ae69a4b827c4d432ac665120325d7#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-03Eternl は、広く使われている非カストディの Cardano ライト wallet（web・ブラウザ拡張・Android・iOS）であり、ホルダーがステーキング・ガバナンス参加・決済・dApp 利用を行う主要な入口です。本提案は 12 ヶ月の運用・保守・インフラ・サポートに対し、₳1,680,000（$0.25/ADA 換算で年 約 $420,000）を求めます。ステーキングとガバナンスの非カストディな入口として公共財性が高く、SIPO のドクトリンはこの種の中核 wallet インフラを評価します。
SIPO は、トレジャリー保護のプロファイルを率直に述べます。引き出し先は script 強制の escrow ではなく、単一署名鍵（key-hash）の stake アドレスです。したがって、返済と監視のコミットメントはオンチェーンで強制されておらず、ドキュメント・公開報告・確立した product の運営者としての提案者の評判に依存します。トレジャリー引き出しに対する SIPO の最も強い基準はオンチェーン強制の監査済み escrow であり、本提案はその基準を満たしていません。SIPO はその限界を、覆い隠すのではなく率直に評価へ織り込みます。
それでも SIPO が支持するのは、本提案が偽の escrow を提示していないからです。提案は、全額をステーブルコインに変換し、公開された監視可能な company wallet で保持すると明言し、Treasury への返済をコミットしています。毎年 12月・6月に、運用予算を超える余剰を Treasury 返済に充て（受領した $420,000 相当の ADA を全額返すまで 100%）、全額返済後は Pro plan 収入のうち $420,000 を超える分の 50% を、追加 $210,000 相当まで Treasury へ寄付するとしています。さらに、自立への道筋も示します ― 個人・法人向けの Pro plan を導入し、既存 install base の約 4.2% から運用費を賄うことで、Treasury 依存を縮小し最終的に置き換える計画です。返済コミットと現実的な自立計画は、継続費型の提案で SIPO が最も見たい構造であり、単なる助成金とは一線を画します。
総合的に ― 実利用の広い公共財 wallet、現セット中で最小の要求額、KPI への正直な扱い、提案側 COI なし、そして直近の直接引き出しの中で最も厚い community 支持 ― SIPO は賛成を投じます。保護がオンチェーンで強制されない以上、その支持は透明性を条件とします。したがって SIPO は、以下の期待事項とともに賛成します：(1) install base の背後にある実アクティブユーザー率を公開すること、(2) Pro plan の転換率と自立への進捗を報告すること、(3) 12月・6月の Treasury への返済トランザクションを公開すること、(4) Eternl のスコープが、フルノード wallet やハードウェア wallet を含むより広いウォレット保守 portfolio の中でどこに位置するか（重複回避）を開示すること。SIPO は Eternl を、Treasury 依存から脱する現実的な道筋を持つ中核 wallet インフラとして支持します。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes84.3M ₳Rationale
Eternl has been very important wallet infrastructure in Cardano. The very modest price tag of $420k plus the plans for potential payback to the Treasury (if subscription levels allow) make this an easy decision.
- Abstain75.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain74.5M ₳Rationale
At this stage, I have decided to vote Abstain on this proposal.
First, I want to express that I genuinely respect the mindset behind this proposal. In particular, I strongly appreciate the effort to move toward sustainability rather than remaining permanently dependent on Treasury funding. The idea of introducing a Pro plan, repaying the Treasury over time, and even returning a portion of future surplus revenue back to the Treasury represents a very constructive and responsible approach for the Cardano ecosystem.
I also fully recognize that Eternl is already an important piece of infrastructure within Cardano and is actively used by many users today.
However, before making a final YES or NO decision, I still need stronger confidence regarding one key point: whether the Pro plan model is realistically achievable.
The proposal explains that if roughly 4.2% of the user base subscribes to the Pro plan, Eternl would become financially sustainable. While the logic itself is understandable, I would like to see more concrete evidence regarding the actual likelihood of achieving that conversion rate under current market conditions, especially considering competition from free wallets and general user willingness to pay for wallet services.
For example, additional information such as:
- user surveys or market research,
- evidence of demand for Pro features,
- prior monetization experiments,
- comparisons with competing products,
- or data supporting the projected conversion assumptions,
would help me evaluate the sustainability model more confidently.
I highly respect the repayment model and the long-term sustainability mindset presented in this proposal. However, because I still need more clarity and evidence regarding the real-world viability of the Pro plan, I will Abstain at this time.
私はこの提案に対して現時点ではAbstainで投票します。
まず、この提案に含まれている「Treasury依存から脱却し、自立を目指す」という姿勢そのものには強く敬意を持っています。特に、Proプランによる収益化を通じて将来的にTreasuryへ返済を行う仕組みや、追加利益の一部をTreasuryへ還元するという考え方は、Cardanoにおける持続可能性の観点から非常に素晴らしい方向性だと思います。
また、Eternlが現在のCardano ecosystemにおいて重要なウォレットインフラであり、多くのユーザーに実際に利用されている点も十分理解しています。
一方で、最終的な判断をする上で、私は「Proプランが本当に現実的に成立するのか」という部分について、まだ十分な確信を持てていません。
提案内では、約4.2%のユーザーがProプランへ加入すれば年間運営費を賄えると説明されています。しかし、現在のCardano市場環境、無料ウォレットとの競争、ユーザーの課金行動などを踏まえると、その前提がどの程度現実的なのかについて、もう少し具体的なデータや需要分析を確認したいと考えています。
例えば、
・既存ユーザーへのアンケートや市場調査
・Pro機能に対する実際の需要データ
・過去の収益化テスト結果
・競合サービスとの比較
・想定コンバージョン率の根拠などがあると、より判断しやすくなると感じています。
返済モデルや持続可能性への姿勢は非常に高く評価しています。その上で、Proプランの実現可能性について、より具体的な根拠やデータを確認したいため、現時点ではAbstainとします。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES. I use Eternl every day across a variety of wallets. A serious, underappreciated part of Eternl's functionality is the intense developer configurations available that make building on Cardano much easier, alongside their exceptional normal wallet operations.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am formally registering a YES vote on the Eternl treasury withdrawal request on behalf of my delegates.
Firstly, I use Eternl every day across a variety of different wallets. I think a serious, underappreciated part of Eternl’s functionality is the intense developer configurations available that make building on Cardano much easier. There is a wide variety of functionality that helps a developer build on Cardano, and that is without even complimenting them on their exceptional normal operations for wallet activities. Additionally, their hardware wallet support is what I would describe as best in class, and their comprehensive in-wallet governance user interface remains a vital pillar for decentralized governance.
For me, this technical depth is what pivoted my vote to a YES from an ABSTAIN. I highly credit their proposal in terms of the proactive treasury payback mechanism and the clear path to self-sustainability through their upcoming Pro plans. This request functions as a highly accountable, revolving bridge to commercial independence.
Keep up the great work, Eternl team.
- Yes69.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes66M ₳No rationale
- Abstain62.7M ₳No rationale
- No53.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting No on the Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027) proposal.
First, let me clearly acknowledge Eternl's standing and track record in the Cardano ecosystem. A significant share of mainnet transactions go through Eternl, it has run reliably for over five years, and it currently offers the most complete in-app governance UI of any wallet, which makes it infrastructure that has genuinely contributed to the ecosystem.
Even so, I'm voting No on this proposal for the following three reasons.
There are no milestones. This proposal isn't performance-based, staged disbursement. It secures 12 months of operating funds upfront. I believe treasury funds should be tied to clear deliverables and step-by-step verification, and a flat operating subsidy with no gating doesn't meet that standard.
Repayment only happens when there's a surplus. The proposal commits to repaying the treasury only if Pro plan income and remaining funds exceed costs. That isn't a guaranteed recovery structure. It's closer to a best-effort promise to pay back if the business does well. As long as the repayment obligation carries no real binding force, this should effectively be treated as an unconditional grant.
It draws on treasury funding while the core code isn't open-source. The main UI stays closed, with only some libraries published. If infrastructure is sustained by community funds, I believe its output should be returned to the ecosystem as a public good. The combination of public funding and a closed source is hard to accept.
This isn't a denial of Eternl's value. But on the question of the conditions under which treasury funds should be deployed, I can't agree with the way this proposal is structured.
- Yes50.5M ₳Rationale
Keeping Eternl secure, compatible, stable, and available as Cardano keeps evolving should be a priority. We cannot afford to lose a top wallet like Eternl like we lost a top analytic platform like Taptools. I also think the amount requested is fair and I do like the possible repayment to the treasury.
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. As a DRep, I evaluate all treasury withdrawal governance actions against my published voting framework. This proposal is classified as Tier 4 — Application Layer: a non-custodial wallet application. This classification is not a judgment on the quality or importance of the work — it reflects the type of initiative and the appropriate funding source. Application-layer products generate direct value for their users and should be funded by those who benefit from them. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/
[Japanese version follows]
本提案に反対票を投じます。DRepとして、私はすべてのトレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションを、公開している投票フレームワークに基づいて評価しています。本提案はTier 4 — アプリケーション層に分類されます：非カストディアル型ウォレットアプリケーションです。この分類は提案の質や重要性への評価ではなく、プロジェクトの種類と適切な資金調達手段を示すものです。アプリケーション層のプロダクトはユーザーに直接価値を提供するものであり、恩恵を受ける人々が資金を負担すべきと考えます。
参考: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/ - Abstain50M ₳Rationale
I haven't had the chance to review this proposal yet, and I'm going to do that a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain in case I don't manage to get to it before the deadline, just to allow the proposal to move forward.
- Yes49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain38.1M ₳Rationale
Eternl is my favorite Cardano wallet and an important part of the ecosystem.
That said, I generally believe treasury funds should be focused on public infrastructure rather than individual applications. With its strong user base, I hope Eternl can find sustainable revenue models or pursue Catalyst funding for new innovations built around the wallet. For now, I will vote Abstain.
- Abstain37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes36.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.6M ₳Rationale
マイルストーン（成果物）ごとの段階的な支払いではなく、12ヶ月分の一括支給（非マイルストーン型）になっているのがガバナンス的に甘いと感じます。しかしながら今後も考えると今回は保留。
- Yes34.3M ₳Rationale
Socious votes Yes. Eternl is one of Cardano's most-used non-custodial wallets — the infrastructure many holders rely on every day for payments, staking, DRep delegation, and on-chain voting. This 1,680,000 ADA request (about $420,000) funds twelve months of operations, maintenance, and improvements from August 2026 through July 2027: frontend (55%), backend (25%), support, audits, and administration.
Two things make this a Yes rather than a reluctant one. First, the governance tooling itself. Improving DRep dashboards and voting flows inside the wallet most delegators already use is a direct investment in participation — the scarcest resource Cardano governance has. Second, and more important, the proposal is named "Path to Sustainability" for a reason: Eternl commits to a Pro subscription model ($96/year personal, $384/year company) designed to replace treasury dependence over time and to repay the treasury from surplus revenue. That is exactly the discipline DReps should reward — a public-good team with a credible plan to stop drawing on the treasury, not one returning to it indefinitely.
We weigh the trade-offs honestly. The withdrawal is self-administered through Tastenkunst GmbH rather than milestone-administered through Intersect, which is weaker on accountability than we would prefer. We set that against Eternl's multi-year track record of shipping, the modest size of the ask for a team maintaining a wallet across extension, web, iOS, and Android, and the explicit commitment to wean off treasury funding. On balance, Socious supports this proposal.
ソーシャスは本提案に賛成します。Eternlは、Cardanoで最も利用されているノンカストディアル・ウォレットの一つであり、多くの保有者が決済、ステーキング、DRepへの委任、オンチェーン投票に日々用いている基盤です。本提案は1,680,000 ADA（約42万ドル）を投じ、2026年8月から2027年7月までの12か月間の運用・保守・改善を支えます。内訳はフロントエンド55%、バックエンド25%、サポート、監査、運営管理です。
これを消極的な賛成ではなく明確な賛成とする理由は二つあります。第一に、ガバナンス機能そのものへの投資です。多くの委任者が既に使っているウォレットの中でDRepダッシュボードや投票フローを改善することは、Cardanoガバナンスにとって最も不足している資源、すなわち参加そのものへの直接的な投資です。第二に、より重要な点として、本提案が「Path to Sustainability（持続可能性への道筋）」と名付けられていることです。Eternlは、トレジャリーへの依存を段階的に解消し、余剰収益からトレジャリーへ返済することを目指すPro課金モデル（個人向け年96ドル、法人向け年384ドル）の導入を表明しています。これはまさにDRepが評価すべき規律です。公共財を担うチームが、トレジャリーに依存し続けるのではなく、依存から抜け出す現実的な計画を示しているのです。
トレードオフについても率直に記します。本引き出しはIntersectによるマイルストーン管理ではなく、Tastenkunst GmbHによる自己管理であり、説明責任の面では私たちが望む水準より弱いものです。それでも、Eternlが拡張機能・ウェブ・iOS・Androidにわたってウォレットを維持してきた複数年の実績、ウォレットチームの要求額として控えめな規模、そしてトレジャリー依存からの脱却という明確な表明を重く見ます。総合的に判断し、ソーシャスは本提案を支持します。
- Yes33.5M ₳Rationale
Yes. ₳1,680,000 for 12 months of Eternl wallet operations and the Pro plan transition, with a conditional repayment commitment (100% of Pro plan surplus until $420k USD returned, 50% donation tier beyond). Funded because Eternl is the broadest independent in-app DRep tooling on Cardano.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Vote: Yes
₳1,680,000 for 12 months of Eternl wallet operations and the planned Pro plan transition, paid through a conditional repayment commitment that goes beyond what a typical treasury grant carries.
Eternl is one of the few Cardano wallets that has shipped continuously for over five years across four platforms with no VC dependency, and is currently the most comprehensive in-app governance client in the ecosystem. The HOSKY Cardano First framework reads strongly across multiple pillars.
Pillar Analysis
Governance Transparency (lead pillar)
Eternl is currently the only Cardano wallet offering a full in-app DRep voting and proposal-browser experience, and a meaningful share of DRep voting traffic flows through it, including HOSKY's own DRep submissions. Reduced funding for the wallet that the governance system runs on top of is a direct hit on participation infrastructure.
The repayment commitment is itself a transparency artifact: every Pro plan purchase recorded on-chain with metadata, repayment transaction hashes published, public company wallet for monitoring stablecoin reserves. The right shape for a public-good operating budget.
Adoption
Eternl serves about 130,000 installs across browser extension and mobile, ships in 66 languages, and supports the broadest hardware-wallet matrix on Cardano (Ledger, Trezor, OneKey, Keystone, with Bluetooth and additional vendors in progress).
The proposer's claim of 10-18% mainnet transaction share is large enough that ecosystem adoption metrics move with this wallet's reliability. Cross-platform shipping and continuous CIP work (CIP-30, NFT standards, future L2 connectors) is the integration plumbing that keeps Cardano accessible.
Decentralization
Non-custodial light wallet, independent of the Cardano Foundation, Input Output, and Emurgo. Independent in-app DRep tooling that does not depend on GovTool, IO products, or any single-vendor governance stack.
The Cardano governance layer is more resilient when client tooling has multiple independent implementations rather than concentrating around one provider. Eternl is one of the few wallets currently providing that diversity.
Economic Sustainability (contested)
The repayment structure is the strongest part: USD cap (only $420,000 in stablecoins retained, ADA surplus returned at conversion), bi-annual assessment, 100% of surplus directed to treasury repayment until the full USD value is returned, plus a 50% surplus-donation tier beyond.
Structurally closer to a debt instrument than to a grant, even though the obligation is contingent on Pro plan adoption rather than legally enforceable.
Set against the second consecutive year of asking and the unproven Pro plan migration, the conditional-repayment design is a reasonable middle path: the ecosystem funds critical wallet infrastructure through a thin market while the team executes a paid-plan transition, with explicit downside accounting if that transition fails.
Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes
Repayment is contingent, not contractual
Binding only to the extent that Pro plan adoption succeeds and the team chooses to honor it. No escrow, no smart-contract lockup, no third-party administrator with enforcement authority. Closer to a public-record good-faith commitment than to a loan.
The formula also excludes existing Tastenkunst service-fee and overhead income from the threshold calculation, so the $420,000 repayment trigger sits at the team's stated operating cost rather than at any independently verified number. If Pro plan revenue never crosses that threshold, nothing is repaid.
Second consecutive treasury draw without a proven sustainability path
The 2025 proposal funded Eternl operations on the same promise of a future paid-plan model. The Pro plan was deferred at that time. A third consecutive draw on the same logic would be much harder to justify.
Self-administered, not milestone-gated
Tastenkunst GmbH administers its own treasury draw. No Intersect TRSC milestone structure, no third-party Assurer, no tranche-gated disbursement. Mitigation is the public stablecoin wallet and on-chain Pro plan metadata, but reliance on operator integrity is higher than for the Intersect-administered pattern.
Non-open-source main UI
Libraries get npm-published, but the main Eternl UI stays proprietary. Treasury-funded software that is not open-source caps how much the broader community can salvage if the team disengages from Cardano, and sets a precedent for treasury draws supporting closed-source infrastructure that is worth being explicit about.
Closed-loop voting position
The proposer has stated they will vote on the proposal. Permitted, but worth naming.
Bottom Line
Independent governance-tooling surface, structured repayment, second-year exception for a thin-market bridge. Yes.
- Yes31.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES.
Eternl is a critical wallet for payments, staking, governance, and dApp interactions across Cardano. This proposal ensures stable maintenance and development at a modest cost, providing clear ecosystem value.
The team’s sustainability plan through a Pro subscription model demonstrates reduced long‑term Treasury dependence. As a low‑cost yet essential piece of infrastructure, this proposal merits support. - Yes30.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain27.9M ₳Rationale
I am a big fan of Eternl wallet and wish to see them find a sustainable business model. That said, I'm not necessarily convinced that a Pro plan will get the usage they are hoping for to reach that level of sustainability. I'm also a bit wary of voting in favor of a wallet that is not open source and simultaneously the 5th most powerful dRep. However I respect that they have voted ABSTAIN on their own proposal and so I too will vote ABSTAIN.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- No26.3M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted26.1M ₳Rationale
I verified the core budget inputs before drafting: the Eternl proposal is listed as ₳1,680,000 for 12 months of operations, maintenance, and improvements
Wallets are critical infrastructure. But critical infrastructure should eventually stand on its own financially.
Eternl’s proposal is not flashy, but it addresses a real issue.
Wallet infrastructure is expensive, and someone has to pay for it.
The important distinction here is that Eternl is not simply asking for permanent support. It is asking for a bridge toward user-funded sustainability.
Conclusion: Conditional pass, sustainability-dependent
Vote: YES, with clear reporting expectationsEternl is one of Cardano’s most important access points.
Without wallets, users cannot easily stake, vote, use DeFi, connect hardware wallets, or interact with applications.
This proposal requests ₳1,680,000 to fund roughly 12 months of operations while Eternl transitions toward a paid Pro subscription model.
That transition matters.
Most operational proposals ask:
“Please keep funding us.”
Eternl is closer to asking:
“Help us bridge the gap until users can fund us directly.”
That is a materially better framing.
Previous proposal history: I did not find a prior approved or rejected standalone Eternl treasury withdrawal matching this current request. This appears to be Eternl’s current direct treasury ask for operations and sustainability, not a continuation of an already approved recurring treasury program.
Ask vs current NCL: The active NCL is 350M ADA. Verified enacted withdrawals under this NCL total approximately ₳207.26M. Eternl’s ask is ₳1.68M.
If approved, the projected enacted-plus-Eternl total becomes approximately ₳208.94M, leaving about ₳141.06M of NCL capacity before accounting for other pending or approved-but-not-yet-enacted proposals.
Financially, the ask is modest relative to the remaining verified NCL capacity. It represents less than 0.5% of the total NCL and about 1.18% of verified remaining capacity before this proposal.
The ask is not the issue.
The issue is whether ongoing wallet operations should be treasury-funded without a clear exit path.
Eternl helps answer that concern by proposing a sustainability model where users who derive value from the wallet increasingly pay for the wallet.
Stablecoin utilization: This is one of the strongest parts of the proposal.
Eternl explicitly commits to converting funding into stablecoins, using a public treasury monitoring wallet, providing periodic reporting, and creating repayment commitments.
That is exactly the kind of financial discipline treasury-funded operators should show.
For a 12-month operational runway, stablecoin conversion is not optional polish. It is a delivery-readiness signal.
It protects salaries, backend costs, support, audits, and maintenance work from ADA downside volatility.
Hoping a volatile asset remains at a certain price is not financial management.
The risk is that the Pro model may not gain enough adoption.
If subscription uptake is weak, this could become another recurring operational funding request. That would be a problem, because the treasury cannot become the permanent operating budget for every infrastructure provider.
That is why reporting matters.
Eternl should be expected to report Pro adoption, revenue progress, expense management, repayment progress, and whether future treasury dependence is declining.
The end-user case is clear.
Users get continued wallet support, governance tooling, hardware wallet support, mobile and browser access, and maintained dApp compatibility.
DReps benefit because Eternl provides one of the stronger governance user experiences in Cardano.
Developers benefit from maintained wallet APIs and ecosystem integrations.
This proposal is supportable because Eternl is critical infrastructure, the ask is financially reasonable, and the team is presenting a path away from treasury dependence.
But the condition is simple:
If the Pro model works, this should be the last treasury request of this type.
If it fails, the ecosystem will need to decide whether wallet operations are a permanent public good or a market service users should fund directly.
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- No23.5M ₳Rationale
I use Eternl. It's a great wallet. It's also closed source. It's not a public good.
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
The proposal “Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)” (9a020ea7a6a0d813ff08c92bd8300b26077ae69a4b827c4d432ac665120325d7#0) has already been deemed unconstitutional by 4/7 CC members and has subsequently been resubmitted by the proposers (fbb8d1a4a8d6b62f8cd706944a0582b884c2b90187b8fada7953d5c6a33eb5a7#0). Therefore, I vote NO in this instance. I will review the v2 submission and submit my vote with more detailed rationale there.
- Abstain21.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
Eternl is my wallet frontend of choice, as a power user.
Cardano is an ever moving chain, so wallet software needs maintenance.
Sustainability is of critical importance, and I am glad the team is pursuing options to become sustainable in the future, to not always depend on treasury funding, hopefully.
I would have appreciated first ideas on pro vs free future plans, but I understand those plans are not finalized yet.
This proposal follows a best practice to offer a full repayment to the treasury, provided of financial surplus.
Given Eternl is a power user wallet, I am hopeful they will succeed and wish the team best of luck in their pursuit of sustainability without alienating users. - Yes17.3M ₳Rationale
Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)
- Abstain16.7M ₳Rationale
We strongly value Eternl’s contribution to Cardano and agree that wallets are critical infrastructure that need ongoing maintenance, hard-fork readiness, CIP implementation, governance compatibility, and security updates.
However, we are not fully comfortable funding a broad commercial wallet roadmap from the treasury. We have doubts that a Pro subscription will yield enough to make Eternl self-sustainable at this scope, and similar user-support models have already been partially tested before. If the Pro plan can work, it should be tested immediately; if not, Eternl should a) find another revenue stream, b) reduce costs, or c) open-source important components and then request broad treasury support.
We would support a smaller scope focused on maintenance and protocol-critical work. But as submitted, we are not ready to support full team funding for a commercial roadmap, so we abstain. It is not a hard NO, but due to the above-mentioned arguments, we can't vote YES either.
- No16.4M ₳Rationale
Vote: NO
Eternl is foundational user-facing infrastructure. A reliable non-custodial wallet covering payments, staking, governance, and DApp interaction is exactly the kind of work the ecosystem depends on, and the team has a delivery record under prior treasury disbursements. On project merit, this proposal is the type of work Vampyre Fund supports.
Vampyre Fund votes NO on grounds of timing, not merit.
ADA's market price is presently depressed. Funding any multi-million-ADA treasury withdrawal under these conditions destroys treasury purchasing power: the same deliverable funded after price recovery costs the treasury materially fewer tokens in real terms. Treasury preservation under bear-market conditions is itself a long-term action — the treasury exists to be deployed across decades, not to be drawn down at cyclical lows.
We encourage Eternl to resubmit, or to extend operations through alternative bridging arrangements, with the expectation that Vampyre Fund will vote YES on a substantively similar proposal once market conditions improve. This vote is a position on treasury timing discipline, not on Eternl's work.