Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2
189 DReps voted · 63 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No16.4M ₳Rationale
Vote: NO
This is Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2 (gov_action1lwudrf9g66mzlrxhq62y5pvzhzzv9wgps7u04kne202udge7kknsqlgmhse), a Treasury Withdrawal submitted June 16, 2026 with voting closing July 18, 2026. It requests 10,000,000 ADA over a 12-month horizon to sustain Eternl, a widely used non-custodial Cardano wallet, disbursed as 5,000,000 ADA on approval and a further 2,000,000 ADA and 3,000,000 ADA gated on observable evidence at milestones M1 and M2. It is administered by Intersect via the standardized Treasury Reserve / Project-Specific Smart Contract framework built by Sundae Labs, with a five-entity independent Oversight Committee verifying administrative actions. This v2 revises the expired 2026-2027 version by adding the clarification on audit-fund spending and oversight metrics that Constitutional Committee members requested in their vote rationales. No ADA burning is involved.
Eternl remains foundational user-facing infrastructure with a demonstrated delivery record under prior treasury disbursements, and this proposal answers the specific accountability gap that sank the prior version: the audit-spending and oversight-metric clarifications the CC asked for are now present, the disbursement runs through a standardized smart contract with milestone gating, and an independent five-member Oversight Committee sits over administration. On project merit, and on governance structure, this is a materially better-formed proposal than most treasury requests, and Dracula DAO recognizes the responsiveness.
Dracula DAO votes NO on grounds of treasury timing, consistent with our vote on the prior version dated June 14, 2026. That vote was explicit that our objection was timing, not merit, and that we would support a substantively similar proposal once market conditions improved. One month later the condition that drove that NO has not changed: ADA trades near multi-year lows, and approving a 10,000,000 ADA withdrawal at a cyclical price trough destroys treasury purchasing power — the same twelve months of Eternl operations funded after a price recovery would cost the treasury materially fewer tokens in real terms. Preserving the treasury's token base through a bear market is itself the ultra-long-term action; the treasury exists to be deployed across decades, not drawn down at its weakest point. The audit clarification, welcome as it is, does not touch this objection.
A secondary concern reinforces the NO. Half the request — 5,000,000 ADA — is front-loaded on approval, before any milestone delivery. Milestone-gating with independent sign-off on the remaining 5,000,000 ADA is a real improvement over a lump sum, but a 50% up-front tranche is far from Dracula DAO's standard that treasury funds follow delivered, verifiable work rather than pre-fund a single team's operating runway; there is no competitive bidding, and the up-front tranche is not delivery-gated. We would prefer a structure weighted toward completion-gated payments with a smaller or eliminated front-load. Dracula DAO reaffirms its standing commitment: we expect to vote YES on a substantively similar Eternl proposal once ADA prices recover, and we encourage resubmission at that point, ideally with more of the total gated on observable delivery. This is a position on treasury timing discipline, not on Eternl's work.
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on governance action fbb8d1a4a8d6b62f8cd706944a0582b884c2b90187b8fada7953d5c6a33eb5a7#0.
First, I do not forsee any conflict of interest in voting on this proposal. I have no ongoing contract with Eternl, and will receive no funds from this proposal.
Eternl has been a staple of Cardano for as long as I've been using it seriously. First as ccVault, then as Eternl, they have been my wallet of choice for 4 years. I believe their 4.3% conversion rate targets are ambitious but realistic, especially in the face of what we all hope is a growing Cardano ecosystem.
Additionally, this proposal represents a net income opportunity for the Treasury should the team succeed, and I am strongly in favor of such proposals and the precedent they set.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Yes13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on this updated Eternl Path to Sustainability Treasury Withdrawal.
This proposal is a resubmission of the earlier Eternl funding request that RCADA previously supported. The core purpose remains the same: to provide 12 months of operational runway for Eternl while the team transitions toward a more sustainable revenue model through paid Pro plans. Eternl remains an important user-facing access layer for Cardano, supporting payments, staking, governance participation, DApp interaction, hardware wallets, mobile users, and power users across the ecosystem.
The main difference in this resubmission is that the proposal now directly addresses the concern that led to Constitutional Committee NO votes on the previous action: lack of clarity around audit funding. The updated metadata clarifies that the audit allocation is for independent audits of treasury fund use and oversight metrics, not for technical security audits. It also specifies that independent parties unaffiliated with Tastenkunst GmbH or the Eternl team will review receipt, custody, conversion, spending, remaining balances, Pro-plan income relevant to repayment, and any refunds or repayments to the Cardano Treasury in February 2027 and August 2027. This materially improves the transparency and accountability profile of the proposal.
RCADA also notes that the higher ADA amount reflects a lower ADA/USD conversion assumption, not an expanded USD operating budget. The proposal continues to target approximately $420,000 for 12 months of operations. The commitment to convert only up to that USD amount into stablecoins, return any excess ADA to the Treasury, hold funds in an auditable account, avoid SPO delegation, and delegate to the predefined abstain voting option are positive safeguards.
We continue to view Eternl’s sustainability plan as important. The proposal does not simply ask the Treasury to permanently subsidise a wallet; it sets out a pathway where Pro-plan revenue may replace Treasury support over time. The repayment framework, public wallet monitoring, on-chain Pro-plan metadata, published income reporting, and repayment or donation transaction hashes create a reasonable basis for public oversight.
That said, RCADA’s support remains conditional and expectations-based. This proposal is not milestone-based, the main Eternl UI is not open source, and Tastenkunst GmbH remains both the submitting entity and fund administrator. These factors mean the community must rely heavily on transparent reporting, independent audit follow-through, and public accountability. RCADA therefore expects Eternl to publish clear audit outputs, treasury wallet activity, conversion rates, repayment calculations, Pro-plan adoption data, and progress updates during the funding period.
On balance, RCADA believes this updated proposal meets the standard for support. It preserves continuity for a widely used Cardano wallet, strengthens access to governance and DApp participation, responds constructively to the previous constitutional concern, and includes a credible transition path toward self-sustainability.
RCADA votes YES, while making clear that this support should not be interpreted as automatic approval of recurring wallet funding. Future support should depend on demonstrated progress toward sustainability, transparent use of funds, delivery against the stated operational commitments, and evidence that Eternl continues to provide meaningful value to the wider Cardano community.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
Eternl has established itself as one of the most widely used wallets in the Cardano ecosystem, providing essential infrastructure for staking, governance participation, decentralized applications, and day-to-day user interactions. Maintaining this infrastructure requires continuous engineering, security updates, protocol compatibility, user support, and governance feature development. We believe that these are ongoing operational needs that directly contribute to the health and usability of the Cardano ecosystem.
We previously abstained on the earlier version of this proposal due to concerns around governance accountability, particularly the lack of clarity regarding audit and oversight mechanisms. We appreciate that the proposers have responded constructively to that feedback in this revised submission by providing additional information on audit arrangements, improving budget context, clarifying staffing assumptions, and strengthening transparency around the use of treasury funds. This demonstrates a willingness to engage with community feedback and improve the proposal.
While we acknowledge that some concerns remain—including the need for stronger measurable KPIs, more detailed budget reporting, and a clearer long-term path toward financial self-sustainability—we do not consider these shortcomings sufficient to outweigh the ecosystem benefits of ensuring the continued maintenance and development of a critical wallet relied upon by a significant portion of the Cardano community.
We encourage the team to provide regular public progress reports, publish the outcomes of independent audits, and continue strengthening accountability and sustainability throughout the funding period. These practices will help build confidence for future treasury funding requests.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.4M ₳Rationale
Etnernl is becoming more and more vital to the Cardano ecosystem. Builders need to be supported in Cardano. FEs are getting too much funding for too little results. We need to focus on sustainability, and that starts with supporting builders
- Yes9.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.8M ₳Rationale
私は本提案について棄権します。EternlはCardanoの主要ウォレットの一つであり、エコシステムにおけるその重要性は理解しています。一方で、本提案はProプランによる収益化を前提とした持続可能性への移行を目指すものであり、その成功可能性には不確実性が残ります。また、Treasuryへの返済条件は示されているものの、その実効性は今後のProプラン収入に依存します。Eternlの重要性は認めるものの、現時点では本提案への賛否を明確に判断するには不確実性が残るため、棄権します。\n\nI am abstaining on this proposal. I understand the importance of Eternl as one of the major wallets in the Cardano ecosystem. However, this proposal aims to transition toward sustainability through monetization based on the introduction of a Pro plan, and there remains uncertainty regarding the likelihood of its success. In addition, while conditions for repayment to the Treasury are described, their effectiveness depends on future income from the Pro plan. Although I recognize the importance of Eternl, there is still too much uncertainty for me to make a clear judgment either in favor of or against this proposal at this time, and therefore I am abstaining.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting NO based on my current voting framework
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v11 – Intelligent Risk, Protected Infrastructure & Ecosystem Coordination Edition. The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
I would vote No / Revise and Resubmit. Eternl is a real and important Cardano wallet, not a speculative startup. The Chrome listing shows 100,000 users and a July 1, 2026 update, Google Play also shows a July 1, 2026 update, and Cardano’s own app directory describes Eternl as a power-user wallet for browser and mobile. Prior Catalyst records show strong delivery: Enable Eternl, Evolve Eternl, Translate Eternl, Enable Eternl F10, and Accessible Multi-sig F10 are marked complete. But v11 raises the bar for closed or protected infrastructure. Eternl does not justify the closed main UI as legally, security, privacy, custody, or compliance sensitive. It keeps the main commercial product closed, excludes service-fee revenue from repayment, and asks for a large non-milestone runway payment. The repayment promise is better than a plain grant, but it depends on future Pro-plan surplus and lacks hard enforcement. The proposal adds public fund-use audits and on-chain Pro-plan reporting, which helps. It still does not give Cardano enough open infrastructure, neutral access, binding upside, or downside control for ₳2,350,000.
Field Assessment Proposal name Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2 Applicant Tastenkunst GmbH / Eternl Proposal type under v11 Hybrid public/commercial wallet infrastructure Protected strategic infrastructure exception Not accepted ADA requested ₳2,350,000 USD budget claimed About $420,000 Delivery period 12 months Scorecard used v11 General Investor-Hard Scorecard Prompt-injection check No manipulative assessment commands found Ecosystem Coordination Premium +0 DRep Conviction Adjustment +3 Base score 63 / 100 Final score 66 / 100 Vote stance No / Revise and Resubmit # v11 category Max Score Reason 1 Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap, and market timing 12 9 Eternl has clear Cardano utility. Wallet continuity matters. The timing is credible because the proposal links the ask to low ADA price and lower fee income. 2 Team quality, traction, and adaptive execution 7 7 Strong. The team has shipped and maintained a live wallet with real users and completed several funded proposals. 3 Price versus value 6 5 $420,000 for 6 FTE-equivalent work is not abusive. The salary logic is reasonable. The issue is the funding instrument, not the payroll math. 4 Applicant integrity and past delivery 8 7 Prior delivery record is strong. The proposal discloses prior Catalyst, Intersect, and Treasury funding. It also states that the Eternl DRep will abstain. 5 Public asset, open-source, verifiability, and data rights 12 4 Weak. The main UI remains closed. Some libraries and Eternl Hub may become public, and the proposal adds fund-use reporting, but Cardano does not receive a strong reusable public asset. 6 Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 14 8 The repayment and donation promise improves the deal. But it is conditional, future-income based, and not clearly enforceable. Existing service fees are excluded from payback. 7 Milestones, verification, and anti-gaming design 13 7 The added audits help, but they audit treasury fund use, not technical security. The proposal is explicitly not milestone-based. 8 Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 12 6 Stablecoin conversion and public treasury wallets reduce some risk. But there is no strong staged disbursement, clawback, technical audit plan, or failure rule. 9 Sustainability and exit plan 8 5 The Pro plan is plausible, but unproven. The proposal itself says the team may downscale or shift away if revenue is not enough. 10 Strategic opportunity cost, competitive neutrality, and ecosystem coordination 8 5 Eternl is important, but funding one closed wallet gives one commercial operator a treasury-backed advantage. v11 would prefer neutral wallet standards, shared audit support, open tooling, or stronger public rights. Base score 100 63 Ecosystem Coordination Premium +5 cap +0 No formal joint infrastructure proposal, no named independent partners with budgeted roles, no binding coordination covenant. DRep Conviction Adjustment ±5 +3 Strong team, real product, real users, and clear ecosystem relevance. This cannot override failed v11 thresholds. Final score 100 66 Lean No / Revise and Resubmit v11 threshold / rule Result Public value minimum: 8 / 12 Passed Applicant integrity minimum: 5 / 8 Passed Milestones / verification minimum: 9 / 13 Failed Risk management minimum: 8 / 12 Failed Sustainability minimum: 6 / 8 Failed Hybrid treasury-upside minimum: 9 / 14 Failed Hybrid public asset / verifiability minimum: 8 / 12 Failed Protected infrastructure exception Failed / not applicable Ecosystem coordination premium 0 Automatic no / revise issue Yes: large upfront/non-milestone funding, weak open/public asset, weak enforceability, and competitive-neutrality risk Final decision No / Revise and Resubmit Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
Voting ABSTAIN as I am developing a more structured approach to Commercial and Hybrid proposals
I'm working on my own rulebook (+ scoring framework) for assessing Commercial (and Hybrid) Treasury Withdrawal requests.
I need more structure.
I will change my votes to Abstain on all such active proposals at this moment.
Sharing latest rulebook v4 doc (link in tweet below):https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xp9jkdT23bVy1igj4HeCVKjdHvAcPhjtM1zlMtKzGUo/edit?usp=sharing
No1mo agoSuperseded
This is a slightly modified proposal, but my original Rationale for voting NO still stands.
This is a slightly modified proposal, but my original Rationale for voting NO still stands.
- Yes7.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
Voting yes - and that is consistent with my original vote on this proposal - https://most-brass-sun.quicknode-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmVkFkxPAWv3vRqyF73D3zU3BLg5K5Jdeam7Hbojsd4cLE (original proposal - https://adastat.net/governances/9a020ea7a6a0d813ff08c92bd8300b26077ae69a4b827c4d432ac665120325d700)
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.3M ₳Rationale
Abstaining until the team advise that the auditor has been changed.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.6M ₳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 previously, was insufficient. Thank you for deciding to abstain now.)
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.
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2" (gov_action1lwudrf9g66mzlrxhq62y5pvzhzzv9wgps7u04kne202udge7kknsqlgmhse), pois compreendemos que a Eternl é uma infraestrutura essencial para o ecossistema Cardano, oferecendo uma carteira não custodial amplamente utilizada para pagamentos, staking, participação na governança e interação com aplicações descentralizadas. Avaliamos que a proposta apresenta uma justificativa consistente para garantir a continuidade operacional da plataforma pelos próximos 12 meses, contemplando recursos destinados à manutenção do frontend, backend, suporte aos usuários, administração e auditorias relacionadas à utilização dos recursos do Tesouro. Também consideramos positivo que a equipe tenha incorporado esclarecimentos em relação à versão anterior da proposta, especialmente quanto aos mecanismos de supervisão financeira, auditorias independentes e disponibilização de métricas públicas para acompanhamento da execução. Também apoiamos esta proposta porque ela busca assegurar a disponibilidade, a segurança e a evolução contínua de uma ferramenta amplamente utilizada por usuários, desenvolvedores e participantes da governança da Cardano, ao mesmo tempo em que estabelece um caminho para maior sustentabilidade financeira por meio do plano Eternl Pro. Entendemos que mecanismos como a conversão de receitas, a eventual devolução de recursos excedentes ao Tesouro e a possibilidade de reembolso futuro demonstram compromisso com transparência, responsabilidade fiscal e boa gestão dos recursos comunitários. Dessa forma, votamos "SIM" por considerar que o financiamento solicitado contribui para a resiliência do ecossistema, fortalece uma infraestrutura crítica e ajuda a garantir a continuidade de serviços essenciais para a comunidade Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2" (gov_action1lwudrf9g66mzlrxhq62y5pvzhzzv9wgps7u04kne202udge7kknsqlgmhse), because we recognize Eternl as an essential piece of infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem, providing a widely used non-custodial wallet for payments, staking, governance participation, and interaction with decentralized applications. We believe the proposal presents a well-founded justification for ensuring the platform’s operational continuity over the next 12 months, allocating resources to frontend and backend maintenance, user support, administration, and independent audits related to the use of Treasury funds. We also view positively the fact that the team addressed the concerns raised in the previous version of the proposal, particularly regarding financial oversight, independent auditing, and the publication of public metrics to monitor execution. We also support this proposal because it seeks to preserve the availability, security, and continued evolution of a tool that is widely relied upon by users, developers, and governance participants across the Cardano ecosystem, while establishing a path toward greater financial sustainability through the Eternl Pro subscription model. We believe that mechanisms such as revenue conversion, the potential return of surplus funds to the Treasury, and the possibility of future reimbursement demonstrate a strong commitment to transparency, fiscal responsibility, and sound stewardship of community resources. For these reasons, we vote "YES", as we believe the requested funding strengthens the resilience of the Cardano ecosystem, supports critical infrastructure, and helps ensure the continuity of essential services for the community. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
I really like Eternl, it is my first choice wallet. I would also like to fund this as a signal to other projects that treating the treasury as a loan-provider as opposed to a grant provider is the way to go.
However, as a CFE and CFA credential holder, I can not consider a Yes vote on a proposal where the recipient is also the auditor. Basic accounting concepts such as Separation of Duties, Conflict of Interest, Auditor Independence, and Self-Review Threat among others precludes accepting a proposal written this way irrespective of its other merits. This is a simple principles based decision.
- 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.
- No3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に賛成します。
Eternlは、Cardano dApp利用者や開発者にとって重要な接続ウォレットの一つであり、DeFi、NFT、staking、governance参加を支える実用インフラです。主要な非カストディアル・ライトウォレットとして、Cardanoの実需、分散性、ガバナンス参加を支える公共性の高い基盤と考えます。
今回のv2では、監査・資金管理の説明が追加され、Pro planによる自立計画、余剰資金のTreasury返済、追加寄付の設計も示されています。₳2.35Mは、12か月の主要ウォレット運用費として妥当な範囲と判断します。
I support this proposal.
Eternl is an important connection wallet for Cardano dApp users and developers. It supports practical infrastructure for DeFi, NFTs, staking, and governance participation. As a major non-custodial light wallet, I believe it provides public-good value by supporting Cardano’s utility, decentralization, and governance participation.
In this v2 proposal, the team has added clearer explanations regarding audits and fund management. It also presents a path to sustainability through the Pro plan, as well as a plan to return surplus funds and make additional donations to the Treasury. I consider ₳2.35M to be a reasonable amount for 12 months of operation of a major wallet.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
keep up the great work eternl team
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
Eternl is a flagship wallet within the Cardano ecosystem. Being a wallet, it has the characteristics of a public good and should be supported.
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on Eternl: Path to Sustainability v2.
Eternl is important user-facing infrastructure for Cardano. It supports ordinary ADA holders, delegators, DRep participation, staking, dApp usage, governance interaction, and the broader usability of the ecosystem. In my view, mature wallet infrastructure is not optional if Cardano is serious about adoption, decentralised governance, and real-world utility.
The previous proposal failed to receive a constitutional vote from the Constitutional Committee, and I believe the feedback was valid. Treasury withdrawals must meet a high standard around audit allocation, oversight metrics, administrator responsibility, refund conditions, and transparency. This revised version appears to have responded directly to that feedback by clarifying the audit and oversight provisions, naming the administrator, disclosing prior treasury receipts, and setting out refund / repayment mechanics.
I also support the sustainability direction of the proposal. Treasury funding should not become permanent dependency, but in this case the proposal includes a pathway toward paid-plan revenue, public reporting, and potential repayment or return of surplus value to the Cardano Treasury. That is the correct model: support critical infrastructure while expecting discipline, transparency, and a route away from ongoing treasury reliance.
My YES vote is therefore based on three points: Eternl’s proven value to the Cardano ecosystem, the improvements made in v2 following constitutional feedback, and the expectation that the team will provide transparent reporting, auditable use of funds, and clear accountability throughout the funded period.
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
Proposal to apply for Treasury funds to continue maintaining and developing Eternl, one of the most popular light wallets on Cardano for power users. The development team promises to bring Eternl towards financial independence by launching the "Pro plan" paid package, with a provision to return funding to the Treasury if the project achieves a financial surplus.
Strengths:
- Ethereum is essential infrastructure. Continuous maintenance for compatibility with Cardano network upgrades is essential.
- Commitment to repay when profitable is a good standard worth noting.
Concerns:
- Long-term fund dependence: Eternl has received funding through many rounds (Catalyst, Intersect, etc.) but is still not financially independent.
- Vague business plan: The "Pro plan" package should have been implemented many years ago. Currently, there is no basis for the projection that 4% of users will sign up for a monthly fee
- Conflict of interest: There is strong opposition to the wallet using entrusted voting power to vote for its own money proposal.
Rationale:
Although we highly appreciate the quality of Eternl's product and use it regularly, we are forced to vote NO. The community's Treasury Fund should not become a source of long-term subsidies for projects that continuously request capital without a clear business model. The Eternl team needs to redesign the financial structure, announce detailed features and roadmap of the Pro version to prove its self-profitability, instead of continuing to depend on Treasury.
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
My main issue with this proposal is that there is no commitment to making Eternl open source.
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale