Global Order Book connect Cardano DeFi to increase transaction
137 DReps voted · 56 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain5.4M ₳Rationale
as per rationale through intersect process
- No4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
This is a promising idea that would undoubtedly benefit the ecosystem. However, I do not believe it should be a priority at this stage, especially while ADA is trading at the cycle’s ATL and the annual NCL is close to being fully depleted. We need to remain highly selective with treasury spending right now.
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Global Order Book Connect Cardano DeFi to Increase Transaction" (gov_action1cpn...4h586r), pois entendemos que a proposta aborda um desafio relevante do ecossistema Cardano: a fragmentação da liquidez e a limitada interoperabilidade entre protocolos DeFi. A criação de um padrão aberto para livros de ofertas, de um registro público, de novos produtos financeiros e de um SDK reutilizável pode aumentar a composabilidade entre aplicações, ampliar a atividade on-chain e facilitar o desenvolvimento de novas soluções no ecossistema. Embora o valor solicitado, de ₳3.333.000, seja significativo, avaliamos que o orçamento apresenta uma boa relação entre custo e benefício por estar estruturado em entregas concretas, com marcos claramente definidos, critérios de aceitação e indicadores mensuráveis. Esse modelo permite acompanhar a execução do projeto e verificar de forma objetiva a entrega dos resultados propostos. Também consideramos positivos os mecanismos de governança, controle e transparência previstos, incluindo revisão independente de segurança antes da implantação em mainnet, relatórios públicos periódicos, acompanhamento pela Minswap Labs, possibilidade de retenção ou devolução de recursos não utilizados e compartilhamento de parte das taxas geradas pelos protocolos. Esses elementos reforçam a responsabilidade na utilização dos recursos da Tesouraria e oferecem meios adequados para acompanhamento e prestação de contas pela comunidade.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Global Order Book Connect Cardano DeFi to Increase Transaction" (gov_action1cpn...4h586r), because we believe the proposal addresses a significant challenge within the Cardano ecosystem: fragmented liquidity and limited interoperability between DeFi protocols. By introducing an open order book standard, a public registry, new financial products, and a reusable SDK, the initiative has the potential to improve composability across applications, increase on-chain activity, and simplify the development of new decentralized services. Although the requested ₳3,333,000 is substantial, we believe the proposal offers a reasonable cost-benefit balance because the budget is tied to concrete deliverables, clearly defined milestones, measurable acceptance criteria, and objective performance indicators. This structure enables effective monitoring of project execution and verification of the proposed outcomes. We also view the proposal’s governance, oversight, and transparency mechanisms positively. These include an independent security review before mainnet deployment, regular public reporting, oversight by Minswap Labs, provisions for withholding or returning unused funds, and a commitment to share a portion of protocol-generated fees. Together, these mechanisms strengthen accountability, improve transparency, and provide the community with effective oversight of Treasury resource utilization. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
I agree with others that have well written rational that this proposals bundles a public good, which should be treasury funded, with 2 commercial products for Danogo which would be built upon the public good. Those products while potentially valuable should be financed with risk based money, not public money.
I suggest to the team splitting these apart and submitting the public good only for treasury funding.
Note: I will be specifically looking for included padding in such a proposal or hidden funding for the commercial product. Such behavior would cause me to vote no on such a proposal and prejudice any future funding requests from Danogo.
- Yes3.1M ₳Rationale
Happy to vote yes for this, DANO finance has regularly delivered open source tooling for the Cardano ecosystem for free, and this time they are asking for funding for open sourced tooling that will benefit the financial ecosystem of Cardano. Seems like a necessary spend from a trusted source that has constantly delivered for Cardano.
- Abstain2.8M ₳Rationale
As much as i trust the proposers to accomplish this work. I simply cannot break my own principles when it comes to showing clear financial breakdowns and FTE rates. I will be abstaining as to not block this proposal. Would be willing to move to a YES given the right budget clarity was provided.
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに反対します。
DeFi Kernel Registry、共通metadata、Composable DeFi Transaction Builder SDKという方向性は、Cardano DeFiの断片化を減らし、wallet、bot、indexer、dAppによる統合を容易にする可能性があり、技術的意義は認めます。
しかし、本提案は公共標準としてのDeFi Kernel Registry / SDKと、Dano FinanceのSpot Leverage Order BookおよびAmerican Options Market-Making Poolsという高度金融商品開発が混在しています。
Leverageとoptionsは取引量を増やす可能性がある一方で、oracle、清算、LP損失、risk parameter、audit、user protectionの設計難度が高く、公共Treasury支出としては慎重に扱うべき領域です。
また、Treasury-funded contractsからのprotocol fee 5%返還は評価できますが、12か月限定であり、商業性を含むプロトコル開発へのTreasury支援としては還元設計が十分とは言えません。
将来、DeFi Kernel Registry / SDKなど公共財部分に焦点を絞り、OSSライセンス、外部統合実績、audit範囲、risk controls、protocol fee return、Treasury還元設計をより明確にした形であれば再評価します。
I vote No on this Treasury Withdrawal.
I recognize the technical value of the DeFi Kernel Registry, shared metadata, and the Composable DeFi Transaction Builder SDK. These could help reduce fragmentation in Cardano DeFi and make integration easier for wallets, bots, indexers, and dApps.
However, this proposal combines public-standard work, such as the DeFi Kernel Registry and SDK, with advanced financial product development by Dano Finance, including the Spot Leverage Order Book and American Options Market-Making Pools. Leverage and options may increase transaction volume, but they also involve complex risks around oracles, liquidations, LP losses, risk parameters, audits, and user protection. I believe this area should be treated cautiously when using public Treasury funds.
I also appreciate the proposed 5% protocol fee return from Treasury-funded contracts, but it is limited to 12 months. For a proposal that includes commercially useful protocol development, I do not consider this Treasury return design sufficient.
I would reconsider a future version if it focuses more clearly on the public-good components, such as the DeFi Kernel Registry and SDK, and provides stronger clarity on OSS licensing, external integrations, audit scope, risk controls, protocol fee returns, and Treasury value-capture.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.2M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
The proposal has a good goal: to reduce Cardano DeFi fragmentation.
However, it seems to mix up public infrastructure with Dano Finance product expansion: While DeFi Kernel registry and SDK are closer to public goods, the two largest work packages (1M for spot leverage and 1M for American options) look like funding specific Dano products. - No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the DeFi Kernel / Global Order Book proposal.
I want to be clear that this is not a vote against Cardano DeFi, shared liquidity, composable financial applications, Dano Finance, or the broader idea of improving DeFi infrastructure on Cardano.
The proposal is interesting and has merit. Cardano DeFi would benefit from better contract discoverability, shared liquidity standards, reusable transaction tooling, and improved composability between protocols. I also recognise that the proposal is more Cardano-native and ecosystem-focused than some other commercial adoption proposals.
However, I do not believe this is the right treasury allocation at this time.
The proposal requests 3,333,000 ADA, made up of 3,300,000 ADA for delivery and a 33,000 ADA administration fee. It funds a DeFi Kernel registry and submission process, a Spot Leverage Order Book, an American Options Protocol, and a Composable DeFi Transaction Builder SDK.
My concern is that a significant portion of the ask is not simply maintenance of existing core infrastructure, but the development of new DeFi primitives and protocol-level financial products. Those may be valuable, but they sit in a different category from the infrastructure, wallet security, self-custody, developer tooling and open-source maintenance proposals I have supported.
This proposal is exactly the kind of action that, in my view, should be evaluated inside a pre-agreed DeFi / liquidity / treasury investment budget bucket. Cardano has not yet agreed that bucket, its size, its risk limits, or its priority relative to core infrastructure and public-good maintenance.
This ties directly to my broader view on NCL reform.
I believe Cardano should move toward shorter NCL windows, category-level budget buckets, market-aware spending, sovereign reserves built in stronger markets, and clear rules for any VC-style or treasury-investment function. Until that framework exists, I am reluctant to approve further higher-stack growth or DeFi expansion proposals from the same long, undifferentiated NCL window.
I am not opposed to DeFi funding in principle. I am not opposed to treasury-backed growth in principle. But I believe DReps should first agree how much of the NCL should be available for DeFi, liquidity, growth and investment-style proposals, and what standards those proposals must meet.
A future version of this proposal could be more compelling within a clearer DeFi or growth allocation framework, especially if the public-good deliverables, open-source scope, adoption targets, risk controls, and ecosystem-wide benefits are specified against an agreed category budget.
As submitted, I do not believe this proposal should be prioritised ahead of preserving remaining NCL capacity for the rest of the current window.
For these reasons, I vote NO.
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
The DeFi Kernel is a promising idea. It uses Cardano’s unique ledger design to deliver a permissionless DeFi experience, and offers a plausible path to improve liquidity.
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.5M ₳Rationale
I approve of the vision set forward in this proposal, however I question the practicality. There is a clear lack of coordination on Cardano, but it is more of a cultural issue than a technical one. I am not confident that the coordination of platforms will be sufficient to obtain the goals of this collaborative smart contract implementation. TapTools, and the majority of its competitors, didn't/don't properly implement the CIP-68 standard -- the only on-chain standard for fungible token data. If the DeFi platforms cannot even support a basic read-only implementation to get up-to-date token data for their users, I am not confident they will overhaul their smart contracts to integrate with this proposal. Because we support the vision but are not confident in the external factors aligning, we abstain.
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote ABSTAIN on "Global Order Book connect Cardano DeFi to increase transaction." The DeFi Kernel registry and reusable SDK could improve Cardano DeFi discoverability and composability, and Dano Finance has relevant delivery experience. However, most of the 3,333,000 ADA request funds two Dano commercial products, while independent adoption commitments, detailed cost breakdowns, and a proportionate, enforceable Treasury return remain insufficient. I would support a revised, separately assessable proposal for neutral registry and SDK infrastructure with external integration evidence and stronger milestone-gated accountability.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The idea of a DeFi Kernel standard with a public registry and metadata to make things easier to find makes sense and could help reduce integration issues between different protocols. But asking for ₳3.3M is stretching it, given where the Cardano ecosystem is right now and the fact that there are new composability solutions popping up elsewhere.
This proposal relies on the idea that a centralized registry and SDK will become the go-to framework for DeFi, which could turn it into a single point of failure or a gatekeeper, thereby going against Cardano’s principles of decentralization and permissionlessness. Also, the Spot Leverage Order Book and American Options protocols are ambitious, but they overlap with other existing or similar projects; this duplication can waste valuable treasury funds. Unless there’s clear evidence that these outputs will gain widespread adoption or that community-driven efforts can’t provide similar tools at a lower cost, this is just another overly complicated solution with a hefty price tag.
What Cardano needs are simple, modular building blocks, not big frameworks that could end up centralizing DeFi innovation in one place.
- Yes988.7K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because Cardano DeFi needs better composability, shared liquidity infrastructure, and more advanced financial primitives. Today, many Cardano DeFi protocols operate as separate liquidity and integration silos. This creates friction for wallets, bots, indexers, builders and users, and makes it harder to build more advanced applications across the ecosystem. A common DeFi Kernel standard, public registry and reusable transaction builder SDK can help improve discoverability, integration quality and composability. We also support the practical focus of the proposal. It does not only describe an abstract standard, but combines registry work with concrete DeFi primitives such as a Spot Leverage Order Book and an American Options Market-Making protocol. These are useful building blocks for a more mature financial ecosystem on Cardano.
The requested amount is meaningful, but the scope is focused, milestone-based, and includes security reviews, public reporting, KPI targets and Minswap Labs as budget administrator. In our view, this makes the proposal more accountable than a broad or vague ecosystem funding request. For these reasons, we support this proposal as a reasonable investment into Cardano’s DeFi infrastructure, developer tooling and recurring on-chain activity.
- Abstain988.4K ₳No rationale
- No964.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes924.2K ₳No rationale
- No881.9K ₳No rationale
- No870.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes862K ₳No rationale
- No830.3K ₳Rationale
The concept of a global order book is great and we believe it would have positive impact. We are voting NO but would vote YES pending changes suggested by Inputendorsers.
- Yes799.1K ₳Rationale
Reason: The proposal addresses a genuine weakness in Cardano's DeFi ecosystem by combining public infrastructure (a registry, metadata standard, and SDK) with practical financial primitives that demonstrate the standard in production. While there is execution risk—particularly around ecosystem adoption and the options market—the proposal includes concrete milestones, measurable KPIs, security reviews, and a budget that is proportionate to its scope. The inclusion of reusable open infrastructure and a commitment to share a portion of protocol fees with the Treasury further strengthens the case for funding.
- No795K ₳No rationale
- Abstain753.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes698.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes626K ₳Rationale
Vote Yes on Dano Finance DeFi Kernel. Funds public registry SDK and two protocols proving global orderbook standard. Team #1 in TVL on Cardano today. Registry and SDK are public goods. Scope is broad but value is strong at 3.3 million ADA.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting Yes on this proposal. The DeFi Kernel addresses a genuine structural gap in Cardano DeFi and Dano Finance is a credible team with demonstrated track record. The registry and SDK work packages are clear public goods that justify the ask on their own. The Spot Leverage Order Book and American Options protocols serve as both commercial products and reference implementations that prove the standard works in production.
I acknowledge the scope is broad and the commercial terms for the protocols are weaker than ideal. The 5 percent fee return to Treasury is modest and there is no named security auditor yet. However the overall value proposition is strong and the risks are manageable at 3.3 million ADA. I particularly support this proposal because the DeFi Kernel vision aligns with my belief that Cardano's eUTxO model can host financial infrastructure that exceeds what is possible on account model chains.
I will be watching execution closely. If milestones slip or KPIs are missed I will factor that into future votes on follow on funding. For now the team has earned the benefit of the doubt based on their existing operations and the clear public value of the registry and SDK.
- No620K ₳No rationale
- No608.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes535.2K ₳Rationale
This is a worthy play to increase liquidity and transaction volume on Cardano. Efficient liquidity is also extremely helpful.
- No501.2K ₳Rationale
I liked this proposal when I first looked at it, but then a deeper look at what the money actually buys, most of it buys Dano building Dano. Two of the four work packages are their own products, wrapped in a standard that currently has one author and one adopter, both named Dano Finance. An open standard nobody else has adopted is not ecosystem infrastructure yet. It is a company roadmap which dano should fund themselves.
The KPIs also do not justify the size of the ask. A million ADA for a leverage order book that targets one million dollars in rolling monthly volume, and another million for an SDK whose success bar is a single external integration started or completed.
I like this team. I want them to build these things. I want them to build them, prove the standard attracts one adopter that is not themselves, and then come ask. For now it’s a no from me. - No499K ₳Rationale