IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
236 DReps voted · 80 with a rationale · 15 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of the Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration. This proposal ensures that the network continues to double down on the security guarantees and I believe this is the right focus for our community to maintain.
By funding this collaboration, we are protecting one of Cardano's most valuable asset—its reputation for being the top prospect of high-assurance engineering.
Also I believe that as the ecosystem expands into complex DeFi, identity systems, and enterprise solutions, the cost of a single major exploit would far outweigh the cost of this proposal.
Security is an ongoing process and we should keep funding it and keep the experts in the community working on it. This proposal is a strategic investment in one of the main features that makes Cardano unique. - Yes107.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes85.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes59.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes52.4K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.7K ₳Rationale
I support this proposal because it aligns with what I believe Cardano must become to achieve the 2030 vision: not only secure in theory, but usable, measurable, and accessible in practice.
As a voting member of the Cardano Product Committee, KPI measurability is very important to me. I want to see treasury funding assessed not only by whether the work sounds valuable, but by whether it clearly advances the outcomes that matter most: stronger developer adoption, safer applications, more resilient infrastructure, and measurable progress toward real-world use.
This proposal is strong because it sits directly at the intersection of Cardano’s high-assurance identity and developer experience. Blaster, DApp-level formal verification, language integrations, a VS Code extension, a Common Vulnerability Library, and a container-based developer environment all point toward the same outcome: making Cardano’s security advantage easier for builders to actually use. The proposal’s own roadmap includes these deliverables across formal verification and CBDE workstreams.
This also connects with my broader thesis: Cardano needs convenience without dependency. Treasury funding should move the ecosystem from service dependency toward ecosystem capacity. In this case, the strongest argument for support is that the proposal can turn high-assurance tooling into shared public infrastructure used across multiple teams, languages, and developer communities — not just a private capability held by specialists.
I also see this through a practical education and talent-pipeline lens. Through judging 70+ senior student projects at FIU’s Capstone Senior Showcase, and through work alongside the now extinct IO Education team to help develop FIU’s blockchain awareness and curriculum for undergraduate and graduate courses, I have seen how important developer onboarding really is. Students and emerging builders need tools that reduce unnecessary setup friction while still teaching strong engineering discipline. If Cardano wants more builders to move from learning into industry-ready contribution, we need environments and workflows that are easier to start with, easier to trust, and easier to measure.
That is why I see value in this proposal — but my support depends on disciplined execution. The proposal should be judged by concrete evidence: working open-source deliverables, successful language integrations, usable documentation, adoption by real developers, clear milestone acceptance criteria, and transparent reporting. The KPI claims around TVL, MAU, transactions, and protocol revenue should be treated as indirect outcomes, not automatic results. The direct measurable outcomes should be developer usage, verification workflows completed, integrations shipped, and real DApps using the tooling.
For me, this is a YES because it funds ecosystem capacity in an area where Cardano should lead: secure, high-assurance application development. But the vote should come with a clear expectation: deliver the tooling, prove usage, measure adoption, and make the benefits accessible beyond IO and formal methods experts.
- Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
I shall continue to vote in favor of the Input Output Global (iOG formerly known as iOHK) proposals due to the fact that iOG has continuously year in and year out built, upgraded, innovated, and further strengthened the ecosystem through various market upheavals, negative press, and technological shifts. Through continuous efforts this cadre of developers, educators, various business persons, scientists, and experts in their fields have proven more than capable of the continued maintenance and innovation necessary to further the Cardano blackchain. I find value in all proposals from iOG until a suitable development group or lab can prove not only innovative, but evolutionary for the technology in which we all utilize and enjoy. The blockchain has survived based off of the creators of the protocol, we must continue the path set forth until we have a suitable substitute that can create viable upgrades and are capable of pushing the community and the blockchain into a realm of technological dominance I vote Yes for this proposal.
LourdeOuroborus Imperator Aeternalis - Yes46.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes39.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes31.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes29.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- No15.3K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted15.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes12.9K ₳Rationale
I believe that io has cardano's best interest at heart.
- Yes9K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.1K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted2.4K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.7K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes997 ₳No rationale
- Yes684.4 ₳No rationale
- Yes682 ₳No rationale
- Yes340.7 ₳No rationale
- Yes84 ₳No rationale
- Yes11.9 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale