Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2
189 DReps voted · 63 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged1.6M ₳Rationale
Eternl is a staple of Cardano, and we just purchased their Pro plan to vote on this proposal. With that said, this proposal circumvents the Cardano Builder DAO, which we firmly believe should be the key funding mechanism for revenue-producing companies on Cardano to reach profitability. By placing this decision in the hands of the DReps rather than the other expert builders on Cardano, this commercial funding decision cannot be compared alongside all other commercial funding proposals in the Cardano Builder DAO, which reduces competition and restricts the ability of the CB DAO to fulfill its purpose. Because our view is not shaped by the proposal itself but rather our preferred funding mechanism for a proposal like this, we choose to abstain.
Earlier votes
No29d agoSuperseded
Eternl is a staple of Cardano, and we just purchased their Pro plan to vote on this proposal. With that said, this proposal circumvents the Cardano Builder DAO, which we firmly believe should be the key funding mechanism for revenue-producing companies on Cardano to reach profitability. By placing this decision in the hands of the DReps rather than the other expert builders on Cardano, this commercial funding decision cannot be compared alongside all other commercial funding proposals in the Cardano Builder DAO, which reduces competition and restricts the ability of the CB DAO to fulfill its purpose. Because our view is not shaped by the proposal itself but rather our preferred funding mechanism for a proposal like this, we choose to abstain.
Yes29d agoSuperseded
Eternl is a staple of Cardano, and we just purchased their Pro plan to vote on this proposal. With that said, this proposal circumvents the Cardano Builder DAO, which we firmly believe should be the key funding mechanism for revenue-producing companies on Cardano to reach profitability. By placing this decision in the hands of the DReps rather than the other expert builders on Cardano, this commercial funding decision cannot be compared alongside all other commercial funding proposals in the Cardano Builder DAO, which reduces competition and restricts the ability of the CB DAO to fulfill its purpose.
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on the revised Eternl proposal as well. The new version still asks the treasury to underwrite a closed-source, private wallet's operating costs, and the lower ADA/USD conversion makes the ask even larger in ADA terms for the same roughly $420,000 yearly run-rate. I appreciate the attempt to clarify audits and oversight, but that does not solve the core issue: this is still an operational subsidy without hard on-chain milestones or an enforceable repayment mechanism. Eternl is useful infrastructure, but I would rather see a smaller maintenance-only scope, stronger controls, or proof that the Pro model can stand on its own before asking the treasury for this much again.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes988.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because Eternl is one of the most important wallets in the Cardano ecosystem and a critical access point for users, developers, DApps, staking and governance.
A strong wallet experience is essential for adoption. Eternl has proven over many years that it can provide reliable infrastructure, broad feature coverage and practical tools for power users, newcomers and governance participants alike. We especially value Eternl’s role in Cardano governance, where it offers one of the most complete in-wallet governance interfaces available.
We also appreciate that this revised proposal adds more clarity around audits, oversight metrics and treasury repayment mechanics. The requested amount is comparatively modest, especially given Eternl’s user base, operational importance and relatively low FTE cost structure.
In our view, keeping Eternl secure, stable and actively maintained is a valuable investment for the Cardano ecosystem. A strong wallet layer is fundamental if Cardano wants to grow real usage.
- Yes954K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes923.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Our guiding framework requires us to prioritize user trust, accessibility, and the long-term viability of the blockchain. Eternl serves as an indispensable bridge for power users and developers alike. Allowing a foundational wallet to degrade or halt operations due to an infrastructure funding gap poses a severe systemic risk to user retention and transaction volume. Because this updated version actively addresses the technical and financial criticisms that led to the expiration of prior iterations, voting "Yes" honors our commitment to maintaining a robust network infrastructure while supporting the team's explicit pivot toward a self-sustaining commercial model.
Latin American Ecosystem Impact
Eternl is widely regarded within the Latin American community as the premier wallet for executing advanced on-chain mechanics, managing native assets, and connecting to decentralized applications seamlessly. For a region heavily focused on onboarding and expanding local transactions, ensuring Eternl's stability directly protects the user experience of thousands of LatAm delegators and builders. Supporting this path to sustainability guarantees that our community retains a top-tier, reliable gateway to participate in Cardano's global economy without frictional interruptions. - Abstain798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes759K ₳No rationale
- No756.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes747.4K ₳No rationale
- No705.1K ₳Rationale
The Pro plan model is speculative - they need 4.2% conversion from 130K installs to break even. Critical infrastructure should be open-source for community trust and security. If current service fees can't cover costs in a down market, the business model may be fundamentally flawed. Market conditions are poor, questioning sustainability of Pro plan model. I love this wallet and all who build on Cardano and I hope they can find the funding but I cannot responsibly for Yes just out of love of the project. We really need to cut back spending
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
Yes
- Yes619.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
Appreciate that they revised their withdrawal request, and now support this effort to gain sustainability.
- YesRevoted587.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes28d agoSuperseded
- Yes545.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
During harsh times we can get eternl wallet on a sustainable path. I have and many consistent users in the Cardano Users have used Eternl for over 5 years. Work hard and make it work Eternl.
- Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes431.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes414K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Yes381.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- No360.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes341.4K ₳Rationale
Voting no is grossly negligent
- Yes320.4K ₳Rationale
Panda votes YES. Just three things:
- Lace v2 browser's extension unbelievably bad.
- Concentration of power by EMURGO via Yoroi
- Eternl has always been on top on everything: stability, functionalities, updates. Just the name "Eternl" without the "a" is so hard to spell and remember. -1000 points to you
PLUS recently the SecondFi case.
That's all - Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES again on this resubmitted proposal for the exact same reasons as before. The core arguments from my previous detailed rationale regarding critical infrastructure, accountability, and the path to self-sustainability still fully apply.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES again on this resubmitted proposal for the exact same reasons as before. The core arguments from my previous detailed rationale regarding critical infrastructure, accountability, and the path to self-sustainability still fully apply.
Read the previous rationale here: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQuKgWzypZYaVeyaf9suvha9cwuPmtJxbUqN24pYz41iU
- Yes313.4K ₳No rationale