IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
236 DReps voted · 80 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote · 7 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 6 to yes, 1 to abstain, together voting with 115.9M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes488.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes481.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes479.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes438.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain379.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes366.6K ₳No rationale
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
Most active Cardano developers will not use formal verification tooling in the near term, and the institutional TVL benefit that justifies the investment scale is a long-tail outcome. With all of the other developments being proposed, adding 13.08M ADA for tooling with a narrow current addressable audience is not the best use of the remaining budget. Resubmit in a future cycle once Blaster adoption among Cardano developers has broadened to justify the investment scale.
- No342.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes338.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳Rationale
I support all IO projects.
- Yes329.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes321.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes318.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain318.1K ₳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. - Abstain314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN. While I strongly support reinforcing Cardano’s high-assurance identity, I am deeply concerned that we risk spending over 13 million ADA on developer tools that may ultimately lack real-world adoption.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I have decided to vote ABSTAIN on the "IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration" Treasury Withdrawal proposal.
Cardano's reputation for security and correctness is its primary differentiator. In the minds of users, the security of the underlying protocol and the DApps built on top of it are deeply interlinked. A vulnerability in a major DApp damages the reputation of the entire ecosystem. Therefore, delivering automated formal verification tools to ensure our DeFi landscape is as secure as possible is an objective I fundamentally agree with.
In fact, I consider ecosystem security so critical that I would normally be willing to overlook my usual strict requirements for budget transparency to protect the network's reputation. Once again, this proposal presents a financial "black box", with 86% of the requested ₳13,078,578 budget (amounting to ₳11,247,577) allocated broadly to "Development" without granular details. I have repeatedly expressed my frustration with this opacity in past IO proposals.
However, the budget structure is not my primary reason for abstaining this time.
My definitive reservation is the risk of non-adoption. The proposal aims to build a Container-Based Developer Environment (CBDE) and open automated formal verification tools (Blaster). Yet, the proposal itself explicitly acknowledges the risk that, without dedicated promotion and developer outreach, these tools might see low adoption despite on-time delivery.
We cannot afford to fund a 13-million ADA public good if it ends up being underutilised or ignored by the developer community. Until there is a clearer, guaranteed pathway to ensure active developer onboarding and the integration of these tools into everyday workflows, I cannot confidently commit treasury funds to this endeavor.
- Yes313.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes308.2K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged301.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain4mo agoSuperseded
- Yes297K ₳Rationale
Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals
May 20th 2026
Summery
Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)
Important Citation
https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360
EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026
I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano $ADA.Charles quote tweeted saying
https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792
Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.Statement
There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.
While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.
I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq...pzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010 - No285.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes275.2K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on “IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration.”
This proposal extends already‑proven formal verification work on Cardano (Blaster on real production contracts such as stablecoin and DeFi protocols) into a full DApp‑level toolkit, with clear, testable deliverables across UPLC equivalence checking, DApp‑wide proofs, a Common Vulnerability Library, multi‑language integrations, and a container‑based development environment (CBDE). It is one of the few proposals that directly strengthens Cardano’s long‑term differentiator—high assurance smart contracts—at a time when AI‑assisted attacks and complex DeFi systems increase the cost of getting security wrong.
The budget is mid‑sized relative to other 2026 technical proposals and is heavily weighted toward engineering work by multiple ecosystem teams, not overhead. I share other DReps’ concerns about IO’s large cumulative treasury allocation and the lack of FTE‑level cost breakdowns per partner, and I expect any future high‑assurance or Blaster‑related funding requests to provide more granular financial transparency and clearer ex‑post reporting before I would support another tranche at this scale. However, on balance, I consider this a justified, one‑time investment in shared high‑assurance infrastructure: even a single major exploit prevented over the coming years would likely exceed the value of this ask, and the resulting tooling will be available to all Cardano developers, not just its authors. - Yes272.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes268.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes236.8K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted233.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes4mo agoSuperseded
- Yes222.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes202.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain189.8K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged185K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes183.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.7K ₳No rationale
- No169.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain161.1K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted157.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
- No157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes155.7K ₳No rationale
- No149.8K ₳Rationale
I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳13 M) is important infrastructure work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure. - Yes142.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain138.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes128.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes127K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes122.8K ₳Rationale
I’m voting yes because I believe Cardano’s emphasis on security and high assurance is one of its strongest differentiators. Making formal verification and advanced tooling more accessible lowers barriers for developers while strengthening ecosystem trust. While adoption is not guaranteed, investing in secure, usable infrastructure aligns with a long-term vision of building resilient systems rather than chasing short-term growth.
It's true that the ecosystem needs more users, apps, and liquidity—not additional specialized tooling for already-technical developers, but Cardano should double down on what makes it different: correctness, formal methods, and secure infrastructure. High assurance is a long-term competitive advantage.
- Yes120.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes107.4K ₳No rationale