Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2
189 DReps voted · 63 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale
Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2. Yoroi recognises the importance of responsible governance during periods of ecosystem uncertainty.
- Ecosystem Situation: The trust our delegators place in Yoroi requires that we act only when we can do so with full confidence. In light of the current situation, Yoroi is choosing to withhold its vote on this proposal and will reassess our position once conditions allow for a considered decision.
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
I vote YES for "Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2" for the same reasons as last time.
「Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2」について前回の投票と同様の理由でYESを投票します。
- Abstain332.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain293M ₳Rationale
EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2, with rationale outlined below.
Given the ongoing situation in the ecosystem, responsible governance requires us to act with full clarity and confidence. Until the current situation reaches resolution, EMURGO prefers to withhold judgment rather than vote without the certainty our mandate demands. We will revisit this proposal once the situation is resolved.
- Yes254.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain222.9M ₳Rationale
We abstain from our own proposal. (Did we mention that voting in Eternl v2.1.0 will be much more fun?)
- Yes165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES on this resubmitted proposal. 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.
As this action has been resubmitted without any material differences, the rationale provided below contains our prior arguments in favour of this proposal.
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 2,350,000 ada, which the proposer frames as approximately $420,000 at $0.1787 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.
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. - Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote YES on the proposal: Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2.
My rationale:
Eternl is one of the most used wallets in the Cardano ecosystem, next to Yoroi, now SecondFi. The recent SecondFi wallet-drain incident shows that wallet security is not an abstract concern. When a wallet fails, users can lose real funds, and trust in the whole ecosystem is damaged.
This is exactly why Cardano needs several mature, reliable, and actively maintained wallets. The ecosystem should not depend on one dominant wallet or assume that historically popular wallets will always remain safe and trusted. Wallet diversity is part of ecosystem resilience.
I consider Eternl important infrastructure. Wallets are the interface through which users hold funds, stake, vote, interact with dApps, and participate in governance. If users lose trust in wallets, they lose trust in the ecosystem. For this reason, I believe important wallets need sufficient resources to maintain security and reliability.
I expect wallet teams that receive Treasury support to take security extremely seriously. This should include strong internal review, responsible handling of dependencies, hardware wallet support, careful transaction-building logic, and ideally independent technical security audits of critical wallet components. In my view, technical security audits of wallet software should become a normal expectation for Treasury-funded wallet infrastructure.
Eternl has an acceptable price per FTE, namely $70,000. In the context of other teams in the ecosystem, which often ask for much higher rates, this is a fair offer. I would like to see other teams reduce their development costs, because the Treasury cannot afford to cover excessively high development costs in the long term.
I appreciate the effort to introduce the Pro plan for personal and company use. This is the correct path to long-term sustainability. Wallets should move in this direction. Treasury can support important infrastructure for a limited period, but mature products must eventually be commercialized and not rely on recurring Treasury funding. With dwindling Treasury resources, this is absolutely necessary.
It is also important that Eternl plans to open source some libraries. I would prefer stronger open-source commitments, especially for Treasury-funded software, but this is a positive step. Open source should become a much stronger standard for projects receiving public ecosystem funds. After TapTools went out of business despite generous funding and without a meaningful willingness to open source, I am much less willing to support closed-source projects unless they show a credible path to sustainability, transparency, and public benefit.
I also appreciate that the Eternl DRep abstained from voting on its own proposal. This is the right standard. Conflicts of interest undermine trust in governance. Projects, DReps, and Founding Entities should avoid voting on their own funding whenever possible.
For these reasons, I vote YES.
This vote should not be interpreted as support for permanent Treasury subsidies. I expect Eternl to use this period to launch its Pro model, strengthen sustainability, continue improving wallet security, and reduce dependence on Treasury funding in the future.
If you would like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support helps me dedicate more time to governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp - Yes86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2.
This is a resubmission of "Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)," a proposal SIPO already voted Yes on, with expectations, on 3 June 2026. That earlier version did not pass because Constitutional Committee members voted No, citing a lack of clarity on how audit funds would be spent and overseen. This v2 adds exactly that clarification — the audit spending and oversight metrics the Committee asked for — updates the ADA-to-USD conversion rate, and notes that Eternl's own DRep will abstain on the action. The substance is otherwise the same proposal SIPO has already endorsed.
Eternl is core, non-custodial wallet infrastructure and a Cardano public good. It runs across web, extension, Android, and iOS with an install base around 130,000, carries an estimated 10 to 18 percent of Cardano mainnet transactions, supports 66 languages, has operated for over five years with essentially zero downtime, and is currently the only wallet offering comprehensive in-app governance tooling that lets ada holders browse proposals and see how DReps voted. Reliable access to Cardano that is independent of any single front end or venture backer is exactly the kind of infrastructure the treasury should keep healthy.
The request is 2,350,000 ADA for twelve months. This is a larger ADA figure than the earlier proposal's 1,680,000 ADA, but the underlying budget is essentially unchanged: it is approximately 420,000 USD, and the ADA amount rose only because the conversion rate was updated to about 0.1787 USD per ADA to reflect the lower ADA price. The factor that decided SIPO's earlier Yes applies unchanged here: Eternl commits to a path off treasury dependence through its Pro-plan revenue and to returning surplus to the treasury on a defined schedule, so this is framed as a bridge to self-sufficiency rather than an open-ended subsidy.
SIPO records the same fund-control limitation it disclosed the first time, plainly. The withdrawal recipient is a single key-hash credential, not the audited script escrow that represents SIPO's strongest treasury-protection standard. Repayment and oversight are therefore not enforced on-chain; they rest on the proposal's written commitments, on Eternl's public reporting, and on the reputation of a product that has run reliably for years. SIPO distinguishes this from proposals it has abstained on or opposed: unlike those, Eternl does not claim an escrow it does not have — it is transparent that this is an operating wallet funded to a key-hash with a repayment obligation — and it pairs that obligation with a self-sufficiency plan. On that basis a key-hash recipient is acceptable here where it was not elsewhere. There is no conflict of interest for SIPO, since general use of a wallet is not a basis for recusal, and Eternl's own DRep abstaining on its action is sound governance hygiene.
SIPO therefore votes Yes with the following expectations, carried forward from its first vote and extended for v2: (1) publish the real active-user rate behind the install base, not only the install count; (2) report Pro-plan conversion and concrete progress toward self-sufficiency; (3) publish the treasury-repayment transactions at each defined interval, so the repayment commitment is verifiable on-chain; (4) disclose how this funding relates to the rest of Cardano's wallet-maintenance portfolio, so overlap is avoided; and (5) honour the newly added audit-spending clarity by reporting the audit expenditure and oversight metrics that this v2 was resubmitted to provide. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、本提案「Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2」に、期待事項付きで賛成（YES）を投じます。
本件は、SIPO が 2026年6月3日に期待事項付きで賛成（YES）を投じた提案「Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)」の再提出版です。前回版は、監査資金の使途と監督の明確性を欠くとして Constitutional Committee メンバーが反対（No）を投じたため、不成立となりました。本 v2 は、まさにその明確化 ― 委員会が求めた監査支出と oversight metrics ― を加え、ADA/USD 換算レートを更新し、Eternl 自身の DRep は本アクションを abstain する旨を明記しています。それ以外の本体は、SIPO が既に支持した提案と同一です。
Eternl は、中核となる非カストディ型 wallet インフラであり、Cardano の公共財です。web・拡張機能・Android・iOS で稼働し、install base は約 13 万、Cardano mainnet トランザクションの推定 10〜18% を担い、66 言語に対応、5 年以上ほぼ zero downtime で運用され、現在、ada ホルダーが提案を閲覧し DRep の投票状況を確認できる包括的な in-app ガバナンスツールを提供する唯一の wallet です。特定のフロントエンドや VC に依存しない、信頼できる Cardano へのアクセスは、まさにトレジャリーが健全に保つべきインフラです。
要求額は 12 ヶ月で 2,350,000 ADA です。これは前回提案の 1,680,000 ADA より大きい ADA 額ですが、基礎となる予算は実質的に変わっていません。約 420,000 USD であり、ADA 額が増えたのは、ADA 価格の下落を反映して換算レートが約 0.1787 USD/ADA に更新されたためにすぎません。SIPO の前回の賛成を決めた要因は、ここでもそのまま当てはまります。Eternl は Pro plan 収益によるトレジャリー依存からの脱却と、定められたスケジュールでの余剰返還にコミットしており、本件は青天井の補助金ではなく自立への橋渡しとして枠組みされています。
SIPO は、前回率直に開示したのと同じ fund-control の限界を、ここでも率直に記します。引き出し先は、SIPO の最強のトレジャリー保護基準である監査済み script escrow ではなく、単一の keyHash クレデンシャルです。したがって返済と監督はオンチェーンで強制されず、提案の書面上のコミットメント、Eternl の公開報告、そして長年信頼性高く稼働してきた product の評判に依拠します。SIPO はこれを、abstain・反対した案件とは区別します。それらと異なり、Eternl は持たない escrow を主張しておらず ― これは keyHash に返済義務付きで資金供給される稼働中の wallet だと透明に示しており ― その義務を自立計画と組み合わせています。この点で、他では受け入れなかった keyHash 受領を、本件では受け入れられます。SIPO 側に COI はなく（wallet の一般利用は recusal の根拠になりません）、Eternl 自身の DRep が自案件を abstain することは健全なガバナンス上の作法です。
したがって SIPO は、前回の投票から引き継ぎ v2 向けに拡張した以下の期待事項とともに賛成します。(1) install 数だけでなく、そ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具体的な進捗を報告すること、(3) 返済コミットメントがオンチェーンで検証可能となるよう、定められた各期のトレジャリー返済トランザクションを公開すること、(4) 重複を避けるため、本資金が Cardano の他の wallet 保守 portfolio とどう関係するかを開示すること、(5) 本 v2 が提供するために再提出された監査支出の明確化を履行し、監査支出と oversight metrics を報告すること。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes84.3M ₳Rationale
The Eternl wallet is very important infrastructure in the Cardano ecosystem. I voted "YES" to the proposal before, and it should have passed then. At $70k per FTE and a very low total price tag, this is an easy decision.
- Yes77.7M ₳No rationale
- No76.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain74.5M ₳Rationale
I vote Abstain on this proposal.
First, I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts made to address concerns raised during the previous proposal, particularly regarding transparency and audit oversight. I also respect the team's intention to move toward a sustainable business model rather than relying indefinitely on Treasury funding.
In particular, I view the proposed repayment mechanism and the commitment to return a portion of future surplus revenue to the Treasury as a constructive and responsible approach that aligns well with the long-term sustainability goals of the Cardano ecosystem.
I also fully recognize that Eternl is an important piece of Cardano infrastructure and provides significant value to users, developers, governance participants, and the broader ecosystem.
However, before supporting the proposal, I would like stronger confidence regarding the practical viability of the proposed Pro plan model.
The proposal states that approximately 4.2% of the user base would need to subscribe in order for Eternl to become financially sustainable. While the reasoning is understandable, I do not believe sufficient evidence has yet been provided to demonstrate the likelihood of achieving that conversion rate under current market conditions.
Additional information such as user surveys, market research, demonstrated demand for Pro features, previous monetization results, or benchmarking against comparable products would help provide greater confidence in the sustainability assumptions underlying the proposal.
I appreciate the improvements made since the previous submission and view the overall direction positively. However, because I remain uncertain about the viability of the sustainability model that forms the foundation of this proposal, I am not yet comfortable voting Yes.
For these reasons, I vote Abstain.
僕は本提案に対して Abstain で投票します。
まず、前回提案時に指摘されていた監査や透明性に関する懸念に対して、提案者が真摯に対応し、内容を改善したことを高く評価しています。また、Treasury資金への恒久的な依存を目指すのではなく、Proプランによる収益化を通じて持続可能な事業モデルを構築しようとしている姿勢にも敬意を持っています。
特に、将来的なTreasuryへの返済方針や、追加的な収益の一部をTreasuryへ還元する仕組みは、Cardanoエコシステムにおける責任ある資金活用のあり方として評価できるものだと考えています。
また、Eternlが現在のCardanoエコシステムにおいて重要なウォレットインフラの一つであり、多くのユーザーや開発者に利用されていることも十分認識しています。
一方で、最終的な賛成判断を行うためには、Proプランによる自立モデルの実現可能性について、もう少し具体的な根拠を確認したいと考えています。
提案では、約4.2%のユーザーがProプランへ加入することで運営費を賄えると説明されています。しかし、その前提となるコンバージョン率について、ユーザー需要、市場調査、過去の収益化実績、競合サービスとの比較など、より客観的な裏付けが十分には示されていないように感じました。
本提案の方向性そのものには好意的であり、前回提案から大きく改善されたことも評価しています。しかしながら、持続可能性の中核となる事業計画の実現可能性について、現時点では十分な確信を持つに至らなかったため、今回は Abstain とします。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this resubmission. Eternl is widely used across Cardano and continues to deliver a great user and developer experience. Importantly, the team has successfully addressed the Constitutional Committee's previous concerns by clearly defining independent, third-party audits.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES on this resubmission. Eternl is widely used across Cardano and continues to deliver a great user and developer experience. Importantly, the team has successfully addressed the Constitutional Committee's previous concerns by clearly defining independent, third-party audits.
I also want to credit the team based on a personal experience: I recently reported a bug with a specific voting issue. It was replicated almost instantly and fixed within just a few days. This level of dedication is exactly what I look for when directing treasury funds. Combined with their self-sustaining "Pro" model and treasury payback mechanism, funding this 12-month bridge is essential for the ecosystem.
- Yes69.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes66M ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7M ₳No rationale
- No53.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting No on the Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2 proposal.
First off, I clearly recognize Eternl's role in the ecosystem. A big share of mainnet transactions go through it, it has run reliably for over five years, and it offers the most complete in-app governance UI of any wallet, so as a DRep I feel its value firsthand.
Even so, I can't get behind the fundamental structure, for three reasons.
Eternl is a closed-source commercial product. Treasury funding makes sense when the result comes back to the ecosystem as a public good. If Eternl were open-source, so anyone could build on and verify it, there'd be a solid case.
But the main UI stays closed and only some libraries are published. Something sustained by public funds while its core output stays private is hard to accept.
Not building a sufficient revenue model until now was the team's own business decision, and the consequences are theirs to bear. Delaying monetization was a bet on the market, and now that it didn't pan out, the funding gap is being handed to the community treasury.
Bankrolling a private company's runway to launch a paid product isn't what the treasury is for.
The repayment terms are hard to accept too. It only commits to repaying when paid-plan income and remaining funds exceed costs. That means if the business does well, the support wasn't needed, and if it does poorly, repayment never happens. For lending out treasury funds to make sense, there should at least be an unconditional commitment to repay.
To sum up, this proposal asks the community to bankroll a paid-subscription business while promising self-sustainability, and ties repayment to that same business succeeding.
This isn't a denial of Eternl's value. It's that I can't agree with this structure, so I'm voting No.
- Yes50.5M ₳Rationale
Same rationale as the previous Eternl proposal.
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. This year's Net Change Limit (NCL) has been set well above the level I consider sustainable. Under my published voting framework, an appropriate NCL is roughly 15% of the previous year's staking rewards (on the order of ₳82M), whereas the NCL currently in force is several times that amount. Because the treasury is already authorized to disburse far beyond my personal NCL threshold, I am voting No on all treasury withdrawal proposals until aggregate withdrawals are brought back within a sustainable limit — regardless of the individual merits of any single proposal. This vote reflects a position on total treasury spend, not a judgment on the value of your specific project. 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。今年のNet Change Limit（NCL）は、私が持続可能と考える水準を大幅に上回って設定されています。公開済みの投票フレームワークでは、適正なNCLは前年のステーキング報酬の約15%（₳82M程度）ですが、現行のNCLはその数倍に達しています。トレジャリーは既に私のpersonal NCL（個人として許容する上限）を大きく超える出金が認められている状態にあるため、出金総額が持続可能な範囲に戻るまで、個別提案の良し悪しに関わらず、すべてのトレジャリー出金提案に反対票を投じます。本投票はトレジャリー支出全体に対する立場の表明であり、貴提案の価値そのものを否定するものではありません。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Yes50M ₳Rationale
I hope the team will be able to achieve their plans for self-sustainability in the future. For now, since that has not yet happened, I vote Yes to ensure development does not stop.
- Yes49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes36.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳No rationale
- 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. 2,350,000 ADA for 12 months of Eternl, the only wallet with full in-app DRep voting, through the same conditional-repayment structure (USD cap, surplus returned, public wallet) HOSKY backed before. v2 adds the independent-audit clarity the prior version lacked and the Eternl DRep now abstains.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Vote: Yes
2,350,000 ADA for 12 months of Eternl operations, paid through the same conditional-repayment structure HOSKY supported before and now backed by the audit clarity the earlier version was missing. This is a Yes consistent with our prior Eternl vote on Eternl's path to sustainability.
Eternl is one of the few Cardano wallets that has shipped continuously for over five years across four platforms with no VC dependency, and remains the most comprehensive in-app governance client in the ecosystem. The Cardano First framework reads strongly across multiple pillars, and v2 is a cleaner version of a proposal we already backed.
Pillar Analysis
Governance Transparency (lead pillar)
Eternl is the only Cardano wallet offering a full in-app DRep voting and proposal-browser experience, and a meaningful share of governance traffic flows through it, including HOSKY's own DRep submissions. Reduced funding for the wallet the governance system runs on top of is a direct hit on participation infrastructure.
v2 also directly answers the transparency gap that sank the previous version: the audit allocation now has explicit scope and timing (independent treasury-fund-use audits in February and August 2027, covering receipt, custody, conversion, spending, balances, and repayment), and the Eternl DRep has committed to abstain on its own proposal, closing the closed-loop voting concern from last time. Combined with on-chain Pro-plan metadata, published repayment transaction hashes, and a public company wallet for monitoring stablecoin reserves, the accountability surface is wider than the version we already voted Yes on.
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. The proposer's stated 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 is the integration plumbing that keeps Cardano accessible to newcomers and power users alike.
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 governance layer is more resilient when client tooling has multiple independent implementations rather than concentrating around one provider, and Eternl is one of the few wallets providing that diversity.
Economic Sustainability (contested)
The repayment structure is the strongest part: ADA converted to a USD cap (up to $420,000 in stablecoins, ADA surplus returned to treasury), held in an auditable account delegated to the abstain DRep rather than an SPO, with the Pro plan as the path to replacing treasury funding. At a $70,000 FTE rate, the cost basis is conservative relative to comparable proposals. The honest mark against the pillar is the same as before: this is a second consecutive ask and the Pro-plan migration is still unproven, so repayment is contingent on adoption rather than contractually guaranteed. On balance, funding critical wallet infrastructure through a thin market while the team executes a paid-plan transition, now with explicit audit accounting, is a reasonable middle path.
Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes
Repayment is contingent, not contractual
Repayment binds only to the extent Pro-plan adoption succeeds and the team honors it; there is no escrow, smart-contract lockup, or third-party administrator with enforcement authority. I am accepting this because the public stablecoin wallet, on-chain Pro-plan metadata, and the newly specified independent audits make the commitment publicly verifiable even though it is not legally enforceable.
Second consecutive treasury draw without a proven sustainability path
The prior ask funded operations on the same promise of a future paid-plan model. I am accepting another year because the Pro plan is now live-facing and the audit clarification gives the community a concrete checkpoint in 2027 to judge whether the sustainability path is real before any third ask.
Self-administered, not Intersect-TRSC milestone-gated
Tastenkunst administers its own draw rather than routing through an Intersect TRSC with tranche-gated disbursement and a third-party Assurer. I am accepting this because the public wallet, abstain-DRep delegation, on-chain metadata, and the now-scheduled independent audits substitute a transparency-based accountability model for a custody-based one, the same trade I accepted on the prior Eternl vote.
Non-open-source main UI
Libraries are npm-published but the main Eternl UI stays proprietary, which caps how much the community could salvage if the team disengaged. I am accepting this as an explicit, named cost, consistent with how I treated it last time.
Bottom Line
The independent governance-tooling surface Cardano's voters rely on, a conditional-repayment structure with a USD cap and surplus return, and the audit clarity plus self-abstention that the prior version lacked. Same vote as before, on a cleaner proposal. Yes.
- No31.4M ₳Rationale
I vote NO.
I recognize the value and importance of the work presented in this proposal. However, given the current Treasury balance and the remaining Net Change Limit, I cannot support funding for initiatives that are not essential to Cardano’s operational continuity.
To preserve long‑term financial sustainability, I must vote against this proposal. - 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. However, as a show of support I will be purchasing a Pro plan.
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳Rationale
Having used Eternl for as long as its been avialble and knowng full well the Eternl team isnt going anywhere makes me even more confident in my yes vote for theis gran. Our wallet teams deserve funding and support which is why I have also bot their pro membership, this is a no brainer imo
- Yes25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2. Eternl is integral to the Cardano power user. Emurgo should vote yes too now that they no longer have a wallet.
- No23.5M ₳Rationale
Closed source.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal action “Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2” (fbb8d1a4a8d6b62f8cd706944a0582b884c2b90187b8fada7953d5c6a33eb5a7#0).
I voted YES to funding this last year, with the benefit of the doubt. I was disappointed to see Milestone Acceptance Forms simply state “Eternl was online for users this month” when I first started to check in on various project progress in late 2025. I also voted to fund AdaStat and Cexplorer last year and that funding has resulted in a visible change to my daily interactions with the Cardano blockchain, often for the better. My interactions with Eternl, have not evolved in the same way. With that said, version 2.0 did drop right around budget season last year and 2.1 has just released this year, although I wish these big upgrades didn’t feel like they were held back just for budget season.
I was prepared to vote ABSTAIN or even NO this year but the recent events around other ecosystem wallets have shifted the landscape somewhat. The Lace 2.0 release, and the long-awaited mobile wallet, has been a massive disappointment. So much so I deleted it from my mobile the same day. For a flagship wallet from a founding entity, the one who wrote the original Icarus light wallet reference implementation that Yoroi was built from in 2018 no less, it was an overwhelming let down. For me, a mobile wallet should have hardware wallet support and the ability to send via your own node as a minimum requirement or the cypherpunk dream really is dead.
Secondly, the whole Yoroi/SecondFi incident, from another founding entity, has been a disaster. Forcefully migrating users from the longest standing open-source wallet, available on both desktop and mobile, with nearly 8 years of track record, to a closed-source, poorly implemented wallet which resulted in the massive hack was wholly unacceptable. The brand damage, the financial cost to users who did not ask for the migration, and everything else that came with is reprehensible.
Although Eternl is closed-source and could equally carry the same risk while not having open-source code for the community to evaluate. It has a track record for security, is one of the most widely used wallets, and offers a strong feature set for advanced users. It remains my most used wallet provider. Additionally, it is the only wallet that supports Mainent, Preprod, Preview AND SanchoNet. No other wallet can boast that level of support and much like testnet SPOs, that service provides no income, but allows us all to develop and test new platforms and features ahead of Mainnet. Ensuring Mainnet stays secure, allows new people to experiment with the Cardano technology without any financial risk, burden or implications. That availability alone is invaluable and should be used to onboard more users than it is. For these reasons, I support this bridge funding towards a more sustainable Eternl wallet.
- Yes21.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳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. I appreciate the added transparency and very reasonable FTE compensation.
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.
- No17.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes17.3M ₳Rationale
I vote YES. Eternl has a meaningful impact on the Cardano ecosystem, and supporting its transition toward a sustainable business model is important. The proposal provides a reasonable path to keep a key wallet maintained while moving toward self-sufficiency.
- Abstain16.7M ₳Rationale
We have a lot of respect for Eternl and the team behind it. Eternl is one of the strongest user-facing products in the Cardano ecosystem and, in many practical areas, has outcompeted wallets backed by founding entities or larger institutional support.
Overall, the proposal is well presented, the requested amount is reasonable compared with many other treasury withdrawals, and the team has clearly delivered value to Cardano users over several years.
However, we are abstaining because we do not believe the Cardano Treasury should generally serve as a funding source for commercial proprietary infrastructure. Eternl is a privately operated product, the main UI will not be open-source, and the proposal is mainly operational funding to maintain and develop the product while it transitions toward paid plans.
What would make us reconsider is a stronger public-good component. For example, if Eternl open-sourced core parts of the wallet, delivered reusable infrastructure for the wider ecosystem, or created clearly accessible public-good tooling beyond its own commercial product, the case for treasury funding would be much stronger.
In our view, Eternl may be an excellent fit for a vehicle such as the Orion Fund. It is a proven Cardano product with strong usage, a capable team, and clear commercial potential. A venture-style funding model could help Eternl survive difficult market conditions while also acting as a growth engine, without creating the same expectation that the public treasury should fund proprietary commercial infrastructure.
For these reasons, we abstain. We respect the team and see the value of Eternl, but we are not convinced that this proposal belongs directly in the Cardano Treasury in its current form.