IO: Cardano Upgrades
245 DReps voted · 79 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 592.3M ₳ Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes YES on Cardano Upgrades, as a targeted and well-sequenced set of platform enhancements that address real adoption barriers and strengthen Cardano’s economic architecture.
Rationale
Micro-fees and L2 foundations
CIP-159 removes the minUTxOValue constraint that has limited wallet revenue models and batcher economics since launch, and unlocks L2 reserve patterns that solutions like Midgard require. These are practical improvements with immediate downstream impact.
Treasury resilience
The Multi-Asset Treasury CIP begins the design process for allowing the Treasury to hold stablecoins, reducing the ADA price exposure that every funded team currently carries across a funding cycle.
Seamless onboarding via Babel Fees
Babel Fees addresses the most common point of abandonment for new users bridging to Cardano. Enabling fee payment in any native asset converts first-time bridge users into active participants without an additional acquisition step, well-timed given USDC on Cardano and upcoming Bitcoin bridge activity.
Conclusion
Yoroi votes YES. The three workstreams in this proposal are coherent, practically motivated, and sequenced correctly relative to the broader protocol roadmap. Taken together they meaningfully expand what Cardano can offer to developers, wallet operators, and new users alike.
- Yes 428.5M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on "IO: Cardano Upgrades," "IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration," and "IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability."
Cardano Upgrades: I believe that "Account Address Enhancement" and "Babel Fees" are ultimately necessary for the Cardano ecosystem. These will enable progress toward micropayments (and the resulting strengthened sustainability of DApps and wallets), various features that are convenient under an account model, payment of transaction fees in tokens other than ADA (and—though this is outside the scope of this proposal—ultimately the removal of minimum UTXO ADA in native asset transactions). As for "Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury," I think it's likely not necessary right now, but in the future, when ADA's price improves, we may want to convert the treasury's ADA back into stablecoins. Preparing now so that this can be executed if and when we want to may be a good thing, since no one knows when prices will move.
Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration: Various AI-powered hacks have been occurring across different ecosystems, with many tokens being stolen and sold by hackers. This tool can strengthen security, which is one of Cardano's strengths. If we can use 13,078,578 ADA to reduce the likelihood of hacks exceeding 13,078,578 ADA in value, this potentially makes sense.
Enhancing Plutus: Improving the efficiency of Cardano's smart contract functionality, strengthening security features, and enhancing the developer experience are all necessary pieces.
ーーー
私は「IO: Cardano Upgrades」「IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration」「IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability」にYESを投票します。
Cardano Upgrades：
私は「Account Address Enhancement」と「Babel Fees」は最終的にCardanoのエコシステムに必要だと考えています。これにより少額決済（とそれによるDAppsやウォレットの持続可能性強化）やアカウントモデルによれば便利である様々な機能、ADA以外でのトランザクションフィーの支払い、（そしてこれはこの提案書の範疇ではないですが、そして最終的にはネイティブアセットTxにおける最小UTXO ADAの削除）へ進むことができます。私は「Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury」に関しては今必要ではない可能性が高いと思っていますが、将来的にADAの価格が改善した際に、トレジャリーのADAをステーブルコインに返還しておきたいと私たちは思う可能性があります。そう思った場合にそれが実行できるように準備をしておくことは良いことかもしれません。価格はいつ変動するか誰にもわからないからです。Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration：
AIを活用したさまざまなハッキングが種々のエコシステムで発生し、多くのトークンがハッカーに盗まれ、売られています。このツールにより、Cardanoの強みの１つのセキュリティを強化することができます。13,078,578ADAを使用して、13,078,578ADA以上のハッキングの可能性を下げることができるのであれば、これは理にかなっている可能性があります。Enhancing Plutus：
Cardanoのスマートコントラクト機能の効率性の向上、セキュリティ機能の強化、開発者体験の強化はいずれも必要なピースです。 - Yes 328.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 297.4M ₳ Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes YES on the treasury withdrawal titled “IO: Cardano Upgrades”, with rationale outlined below.
Rationale
The Cardano Upgrades proposal addresses three platform-level capabilities that are individually valuable and collectively transformative. CIP-159 lifts the minUTxOValue constraint blocking micro-fee collection and L2 reserve patterns. The Multi-Asset Treasury CIP begins design work to allow the Treasury to hold stablecoins, insulating funded teams from ADA price volatility. Babel Fees enables any native asset to serve as a transaction fee medium, removing the ADA acquisition requirement for new users.
Each workstream resolves a practical barrier the ecosystem is encountering today, not a theoretical future problem. EMURGO is also satisfied with the dependency structure: CIP-159 targets the Dijkstra era already on the roadmap, the Multi-Asset Treasury CIP builds directly on CIP-159, and Babel Fees builds on CIP-118 Nested Transactions. The sequencing is coherent and the technical prerequisites are either in place or actively being delivered. For these reasons, EMURGO votes YES.
- Yes 240.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 221.8M ₳ Rationale
YES on IO: Cardano Upgrades;
CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement, CPS-23 Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury, Babel Fees are all worthwhile upgrades to the ledger rules enabling more possibilities for all protocol participants.
- Yes 174.4M ₳ Rationale
In my mind, account support for Cardano is a big bet, which is exactly the kind of bet we should be making as an ecosystem at the moment. I think it will simplify a lot of things (esp. in relation to the treasury), will strengthen concepts like observer scripts (esp. in relation to multi-token support which can be used as indicators of the state of an account), and help avoid a lot of min UTXO issues that have been bottlenecks for different apps.
Given the fact a lot of the power of account address comes from using token to encode state, I think the "Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury" part of this proposal makes sense. In my mind, the main benefit is not really the treasury, but the fact that the treasury is an account means that it indirectly benefits from this multi-token account work and could enable for some more interesting treasury proposals (esp. in relation to stablecoin holdings as part of the treasury).
Lastly, I think the Nested Transactions feature outlined will be critical in making a lot of this work. Right now, there's no way for dApps to upgrade atomically between Plutus versions (you can't use two different Plutus versions in the same tx). Similarly, people won't be able to update their dApps to the new account address system atomically without this feature. Even more, new VMs like Starstream will need this feature to talk easily with Plutus.
In my mind, these three features together form a very logical bundle, and a strong logical bet on how we can increase adoption of Cardano.
- Yes 160.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 135.1M ₳ Rationale
This document includes the Cardano Foundation’s voting decisions and individual voting rationales for nine Treasury Withdrawal governance actions submitted by Input Output Global.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We have decided to create a unified document to record our votes as many of the initiatives are connected.
We invite the proposers and anyone else from the Cardano Community to carefully review our individual rationales below per proposal, as well as the following table.
Governance Action Title CF DRep Vote 97. IO - Developer Experience Initiative NO 98. IO - Cardano Upgrades YES 99. IO - Consensus Initiative YES 100. IO & Ensurable Systems - Cardano Maintenance Initiative ABSTAIN 101. IO & Midgard Labs - L2 Scalability Initiative ABSTAIN 102. IO - Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration YES 103. IO & VacuumLabs - Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability NO 104. Blockfrost - Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing NO 105. Pogun - Capital Without Compromise YES Individual Rationales
The following section contains all nine individual voting rationales for the above-mentioned proposals.
97. IO - Developer Experience Initiative
SummaryThe Cardano Foundation votes NO. We are eager to collaborate on DevX, but this proposal is expensive, lacks financial granularity, and risks duplicating ecosystem efforts. We encourage returning with a leaner, more detailed, and coordinated resubmission addressing the points as recommended below.
Rationale StatementWe recognize that developer onboarding is a critical vertical, and we appreciate the proposers targeting legitimate ecosystem pain points. While we fully support the overarching goals, we cannot approve this treasury withdrawal in its current form due to the following structural and financial concerns:
- Costs Lacking Granularity: The request for approximately 900k USD is exceptionally high for a 6-month timeframe. The budget lacks a meaningful Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) breakdown, allocating 81% to a broadly categorized "Development & Engineering" bucket. This makes it difficult to distinguish between community bounties, hackathon prizes, and administrative overhead, hindering our ability to evaluate financial proportionality.Creating CLI tooling, cleaning documentation, and building contract templates can be achieved in a cost-effective way which does not require a budget of this size.
- Overlap with Active CF and Intersect Initiatives: The proposal intends to restructure the "Developer HUB" using the Developer Portal as its primary entry point. The Developer Portal is already actively maintained, funded, and strategized by the Cardano Foundation alongside Intersect committees. While we are highly receptive to ecosystem contributions, requesting nearly 900k USD to duplicate or restructure ongoing work is inefficient. We would welcome collaboration on this workstream to improve cost efficiency.
- Severe Execution Risk: The proposal requests funding for only six months. The proposer indicates that the engineering team for these workstreams has not yet been established and will be hired using the funds released from this withdrawal. Setting up a new team and familiarizing them with the necessary ecosystem intricacies will conservatively consume a significant portion of this short timeframe, jeopardizing the delivery schedule. A future proposal would be significantly strengthened by establishing an upfront execution structure. Clearly identifying, aligning, and sharing ownership with ecosystem partners from the outset ensures precise accountability for all deliverables.
- Lack of Long-Term Ownership and Maintenance: There is no clear transition strategy for the resulting products (such as cardano-init or the contracts library) after the initial six-month funding period. The ecosystem requires continuous, ongoing feedback and maintenance for developer tools, rather than a highly expensive, short-term sprint that risks leaving behind abandoned infrastructure if subsequent funding is not secured.
- Open Source Fragmentation: While cardano-init is explicitly designed as an aggregation layer to unify and elevate existing ecosystem tools rather than replace them, its long-term value hinges heavily on sustained community buy-in. The proposal’s strategy for allocating bounties and incentives to existing tool maintainers is a strong step toward coordination. However, the primary risk shifts from community fragmentation to the execution of integrations: we must ensure that external toolmakers actively maintain these integrations over time so the aggregator remains a reliable, up-to-date entry point for new developers.
The Cardano Foundation votes NO. While the ambition to improve Cardano's developer experience is valued, this proposal's steep cost, execution risks, and overlapping scope prevent us from approving it in its current form. To secure approval, a resubmission must be leaner, more cost-effective and provide a granular FTE budget breakdown for financial transparency. It should also integrate with active Cardano Foundation and Intersect initiatives to avoid duplicating ongoing work, establish an execution structure with a pre-identified team to ensure delivery within the tight six-month window, and outline a strategy for long-term maintenance and community buy-in.
98. IO - Cardano Upgrades
SummaryThe Cardano Foundation votes YES. CIP-159, CPS-23, and Native Babel Fees have potential to improve L2 reserves, protect against volatility, and improve onboarding. Despite certain budget and execution concerns, we view the 13.1M ada ask as an acceptable investment.
Rationale StatementWe recognize the impact these three platform-level capabilities will have on Cardano’s economic models and ecosystem growth. We are voting YES based on the following technical and strategic assessments:
- Critical Infrastructure and Economic Resilience: The CIP-159 (Account Address Enhancements) upgrade bridges the gap between UTXO and Account models. By solving the minUTxO constraints, it enables micro-fee collection, cheaper DeFi batcher operations, and introduces new smart contract paradigms more familiar to EVM developers. Furthermore, it is a prerequisite for seamless L2 reserve management. CPS-23 (Multi-Asset Treasury) enables the Cardano Treasury to hold stablecoins or other native assets, which is a next step for long-term sustainability. It could protect the ecosystem's funding runway from ADA price volatility and introduce the potential for diverse treasury holdings.
- Native Babel Fees and Onboarding: While non-native (smart contract-based) Babel fees currently exist within the ecosystem, they have struggled to gain significant traction. Allowing users to interact with Cardano DApps using stablecoins or bridged assets without first acquiring ADA will hopefully be a driver for mainstream institutional and retail adoption.
3. Feedback for Ongoing Alignment: While we support funding this initiative, there are elements of this proposal which raised concerns and we wish to offer feedback.
Implementing CIP-159 fundamentally alters Cardano's accounting model. With alternative nodes like Amaru and Dingo actively in development, introducing such massive ledger changes requires careful coordination. Making frequent, significant modifications directly onto the Layer 1 core ledger introduces substantial maintenance fatigue for open-source builders, which can be lessened with coordination. We urge IO to collaborate to establish a clear framework for alignment with other node implementation and material downstream tooling teams to prevent consensus fragmentation.
Workstream 2 allocates roughly $565,000 USD primarily to design and draft the Multi-Asset Treasury CIP. For a design-phase deliverable, this is a premium investment. We expect this effort to feature rigorous, high-quality deliverables, contributions to improvements to the overall CIP process and extensive community consultation to reflect the amount.
Workstream 3 includes integration with the Lace wallet. Given the use of treasury funds, we expect the IO team to ensure that the underlying infrastructure for Native Babel Fees is open and easily accessible for all ecosystem wallets, Tx builders (e.g., Mesh, Lucid Evolution), and indexers, rather than focusing support solely on its own products.
Although these concerns are valid, we appreciate the dialogue with IOG on this proposal which contributed to this voting decision.
ConclusionThe Cardano Foundation votes YES. The combination of Account Enhancements, a Multi-Asset Treasury, and Native Babel Fees represents a step forward for Cardano's scalability, developer experience, and economic sustainability.
99. IO - Consensus Initiative
SummaryThe Cardano Foundation votes YES. Leios is important for scaling Cardano and long-term competitiveness. Despite concerns over budget opacity and prior funding overlaps, delaying this upgrade risks ecosystem stagnation. We approve to ensure development continuity.
Rationale StatementWe recognize the impact that the Consensus Initiative (Leios) will have on the network’s capacity. We are voting YES based on the following technical and strategic assessments:
- Essential Base Layer Scaling: Scaling through Leios is fundamentally positive and provides Cardano with a massive upgrade. To ensure Cardano remains competitive with newer Layer 1 blockchains in terms of throughput, upgrading the base protocol is non-negotiable. This prevents the network from adopting unsustainable design patterns, such as forcing all high-volume activity to Layer 2 solutions.
- Core Infrastructure Investment: This proposal is a direct investment in the core protocol infrastructure. The Leios research phase has produced solid, academic-level work fully in the spirit of a peer-reviewed blockchain.
- Development Continuity: Leios development requires highly specialized knowledge. Voting NO at this critical juncture would risk halting momentum, meaning expert engineering teams would need to be replaced or re-assembled at a later date. Approving this proposal ensures the unbroken continuation of the roadmap toward the Dijkstra era.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. We recognize that Leios is a credible path available to meet Cardano's 2030 scaling ambitions. While we have significant concerns regarding the insufficiently detailed, escalating budget, the risk of derailing base-layer scaling is too significant.
100. IO & Ensurable Systems - Cardano Maintenance Initiative
SummaryThe Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN. We appreciate the dialogue with IOG on this proposal, which contributed to our voting decision. While continuous maintenance is important for long-term network stability, this 62.1M ada proposal presents fiscal uncertainty and the scope appears to duplicate funding of other concurrent initiatives.
Rationale StatementWhile the critical importance of keeping the network operating securely is undisputed, our evaluation reflects several material concerns regarding the current formulation of the proposal:
- Lack of Budget Detail/Potential Duplications: This proposal bundles nine maintenance workstreams into a single budget, grouping 74% (46M ada) of the funds into a broad "Development" category, which, without a granular Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) headcount breakdown, limits the capacity to verify cost efficiency. Additionally, given that the same development teams contribute across multiple initiatives, there appears to be a funding overlap with resources already requested in the Upgrades, Plutus, Consensus, and Developer Experience proposals. Providing a more detailed budget breakdown would help the community in conducting a clear cost-benefit analysis and ensure there is no duplication of funding.
- Lack of Quantifiable Deliverables: The proposal functions structurally as an open-ended funding commitment lacking defined technical boundaries, presenting a deficit of tangible deliverables, milestones, or open-source repository evidence mapping out the work. Without clear engineering baselines, it acts as an unquantifiable blanket retainer that challenges our ability to properly assess the proposal.
- Substantial Budget Inflation: The requested amount of 62.1M ada (approximately 14.9M USD) represents a high allocation of treasury resources. Industry baselines indicate that these costs are significantly inflated relative to the actual operational overhead required for equivalent DevOps and core maintenance tasks.
- Structural Preference for Targeted Initiatives: The Cardano Foundation maintains a clear structural preference for a modular funding framework wherever possible. Funding generalized blanket proposals introduces fiscal uncertainty, whereas smaller, targeted sub-proposals (such as specific consensus, developer experience, or scaling layer initiatives) feature transparent line-item budgets and clearly defined milestones that allow for rigorous milestone-based verification.
- Node Diversity Risks: To support a healthy multi-client ecosystem, overarching services such as global network monitoring and core documentation (e.g., the Cardano Blueprint) should be gradually decoupled from node-specific maintenance to ensure a completely product-agnostic and inclusive infrastructure landscape.
The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN. We appreciate the critical nature of network maintenance and the expertise of the proposing teams. However, we require greater financial transparency, and a more node-agnostic approach to ecosystem tooling in order to properly assess this proposal. If this proposal does not reach the required approval threshold, we ask the proposers to refine and resubmit. A resubmission would greatly benefit from a decoupled structure, detailed FTE allocations, and an independent oversight mechanism to ensure verifiable and neutral delivery.
101. IO & Midgard Labs - L2 Scalability Initiative
SummaryThe Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN. While Layer 2 scaling is important for enterprise DApps, the proposal's lack of budget granularity, contested IP, and unresolved 2025 milestones introduce uncertainty. While we do not oppose this proposal, we urge a refined resubmission if it does not pass.
Rationale StatementWe support the technological objectives and the necessity of Layer 2 scaling, however we require further clarity regarding the following uncertainties before we are able to support:
- Unclear Scope and Structural Bundling: The proposal bundles two Layer 2 technologies at different stages of their respective product lifecycles into a single governance action. Furthermore, the financial distribution is skewed; despite being a titular focus of the initiative, the Midgard workstream receives only 9% of the allocated funding, while Hydra consumes approximately 73%.
- Milestone Accountability and Prior Deliverables: Midgard's 2025 funded milestones under contract EC-0001-25 were previously reported as past due and paused. While new evidence was submitted on May 19 to claim milestones 2–5, these submissions remain pending final verification. Committing additional treasury resources without a fully finalized reconciliation of past deliverables introduces significant fiscal uncertainty.
- Budget Granularity and Potential Overlaps: The 10.4M ada request lacks a granular breakdown. The technical scope for Workstream 2 (Hydra) closely mirrors the team's existing public roadmap and open pull requests, making it difficult to isolate net-new work from previously funded core engineering efforts. Additionally, the 1.8M ada requested for a bespoke Data Availability (DA) prototype does not sufficiently clarify why existing modular alternatives are unsuitable.
- Technical, IP, and Organizational Risks: The proposal contains contradictory timelines regarding the Midgard mainnet launch (end of 2026 versus Q1 2027). Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) also noted unresolved authorship and payment disputes (e.g., PR #434) that introduce contested-IP risks. Finally, the legal distinction and relationship between "Midgard Labs" and Anastasia Labs require clarification to ensure accountability.
- Unsubstantiated Metrics and Commercial Dependencies: Performance claims such as "10,000+ TPS" are presented without concrete benchmarking data or baseline metrics. Furthermore, the proposal relies heavily on specific commercial partners (like Delta DeFi and Masumi) continuing to build, without providing contingency plans. Ideally, commercial entities utilizing the stack for enterprise applications should contribute to the hardening of the infrastructure they rely upon.
The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN. We appreciate the dialogue with IOG on this proposal which contributed to our voting decision. We value the technical ambition of this initiative and respect the engineering teams involved, but we cannot support this proposal in its current state without proper budget breakdowns, clarity on IP, and clear accountability for past milestones. If this proposal does not reach the required approval threshold, we ask the proposers to refine and resubmit their initiative.
102. IO - Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
SummaryThe Cardano Foundation votes YES. Automating formal verification is a strategic public good that reinforces network security. Despite significant concerns regarding budget opacity and adoption risks, the ecosystem benefits outweigh the reservations.
Rationale StatementWe support this proposal because it aligns with Cardano's core value proposition of security, correctness, and determinism. Our YES vote is grounded in the following primary drivers:
- Strategic Digital Trust Infrastructure: Cardano’s underlying smart contract model, based on Lambda calculus and determinism, is uniquely positioned for formal mathematical verification. Recent high-profile vulnerabilities in EVM-based DeFi protocols, such as the ~$300M Kelp DAO exploit, highlight that verifiable security is a strict prerequisite for institutional adoption. This enables a shift away from high-risk environments toward highly secure, institutional-grade DeFi applications.
- Universal Ecosystem Support via UPLC: The proposed automated verification tool, Blaster, operates directly on Untyped Plutus Core (UPLC). This architectural choice is strategic, as it avoids siloed development and simultaneously supports developers across the ecosystem, regardless of whether they write in Aiken, Plutus, or other high-level smart contract languages.
- Lowering the Barrier to Entry: Historically, formal verification has been restricted to specialized experts. By providing a Lean4-based verification enabler, integrating it directly into native toolchains (e.g., VS Code), and offering extended "one-click" containerized developer environments, this initiative significantly democratizes access to production-ready, secure smart contract development.
- AI-Agentic Workflow Readiness: As software engineering transitions toward AI-assisted development, the emphasis on robust Command Line Interfaces (CLIs) within this proposal provides a strong, secure foundation for future integration with autonomous AI agents, ensuring Cardano's toolchain remains forward-looking.
- Reusable and Auditable Components: The initiative focuses on d
- Yes 93.3M ₳ Rationale
As a DRep, I have decided to vote YES on the proposal: IO: Cardano Upgrades.
My rationale:
This is a strategically important proposal. Although it is a bundled proposal, the work streams are naturally connected around economic UX and treasury mechanics. In this case, I consider bundling acceptable.
The three core components are meaningful:
CIP-159 / Account Address Enhancement: This represents fundamental protocol infrastructure. Enabling micro-fees, reducing batching costs, improving L2 reserve management, and supporting future multi-asset account logic would bring tangible benefits to the ecosystem.
Multi-Asset Treasury Design: This is strategically valuable from a governance and financial perspective. A treasury held solely in ADA is exposed to volatility, and enabling support for stablecoins or other native assets could strengthen long-term resilience. The proposal focuses on delivering a CIP, which is an appropriate first step. At the same time, given the sensitivity of this topic, broader alignment with the community and DReps would be beneficial.
Babel Fees: This is likely the most adoption-focused component. Requiring users to acquire ADA before interacting with the network introduces real friction. Fee abstraction is a meaningful UX improvement. However, the current deliverable is limited to a single provider. While this may be acceptable as an initial step, it should be clearly understood as a centralized prototype rather than a fully decentralized infrastructure. The proposal states that the architecture will be designed for future extensibility towards a permissionless model.
I find the budget section of this proposal insufficiently detailed for a treasury withdrawal of this size.
While high-level categories are provided, there is no clear information on the number of engineers involved, salary assumptions, or time allocation across work streams. This level of detail is commonly expected even from smaller treasury proposals, where teams often provide transparent breakdowns to justify their funding.
For example, the proposal by Blink Labs for the Dingo clearly outlines team size, cost per FTE, duration, and contingency assumptions. This allows DReps to properly assess cost efficiency and realism.
Governance standards should be applied consistently across all entities, regardless of size or submitter. It is therefore reasonable to expect the same level of transparency and rigor from IO as from smaller teams. Without this level of granularity, it is difficult to fully assess whether the requested funds are justified and responsibly allocated.
At the same time, I recognize the broader context in which these proposals are submitted.
I am prepared to support selected proposals from IO, even where certain aspects are not fully specified or could be improved. While I strongly encourage higher standards of transparency and more granular budget breakdowns in future submissions, I also acknowledge the importance of ensuring that core contributors to the ecosystem remain operational and capable of delivering critical infrastructure.
It is also important to recognize the evolving cost structure of the ecosystem. Cardano is moving towards supporting multiple independent node implementations, which will require recurring funding similar to what has been provided to IO.
If we want to preserve the ability to fund other critical areas, such as community builders, DeFi development, governance, liquidity, and marketing, we must remain disciplined and responsible in how Treasury funds are allocated.
My view is that a significant portion of the Net Change Limit (around 50% or potentially less over time) should be sufficient to support the development and maintenance of all node implementations in the ecosystem, not just those led by IO.
To summarize, all three components of this proposal address real limitations in the current Cardano ecosystem and have the potential to deliver meaningful improvements. CIP-159 strengthens the protocol by enabling more flexible and efficient account mechanics, which can lower costs and improve infrastructure for developers and L2 solutions. Multi-asset treasury design enhances financial resilience and governance by reducing dependence on ADA volatility and enabling more sophisticated funding models. Babel Fees directly improves user experience by removing a key onboarding barrier, allowing users to interact with the network without first acquiring ADA.
Together, these features contribute to a more accessible and economically robust ecosystem. While the proposal could benefit from greater transparency in its budget and delivery structure, the overall direction is aligned with Cardano’s long-term growth and competitiveness.
- Yes 92.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8M ₳ Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES on IO: Cardano Upgrades.
Governance Action ID: gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qz6es0cp
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-05-09SIPO supports this proposal as a coherent platform-level upgrade combining three technically independent but mutually reinforcing workstreams: CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement, CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury, and Babel Fees. Together they advance Cardano on three structural fronts simultaneously: ledger primitives that unlock new economic models, governance-layer maturation toward multi-asset Treasury, and adoption barrier removal for Bitcoin and stablecoin holders.
Why SIPO votes YES
CIP-159 fills a structural gap in ledger primitives. The minUTxOValue restriction has prevented wallets from charging micro-fees below ~1 ADA when the average tx fee is only ~0.39 ADA. CIP-159 lifts this by enabling direct deposits into account addresses with PlutusV4 script support. Downstream effects are structural: viable wallet revenue models, cheaper batchers/aggregators, and account-based deposit primitives needed by Layer 2 solutions. SIPO has voted YES on the L2 Scalability Initiative in this same round and considers CIP-159 the ledger-level prerequisite for L2 reserve management.
CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury extends governance to the financial layer. Cardano's Treasury currently holds only ADA, exposing all funded projects to ADA price volatility. CPS-23 produces the CIP defining ledger changes for the Treasury to hold stablecoins, partner-chain tokens, and Real World Assets. This directly implements Pillar 5 Focus Area E.1 (Financial Stewardship and Tokenomics) and the Cardano 2030 commitment to evolve Treasury from a passive pool to a yield-generating, multi-asset reserve. SIPO consistently supports treasury withdrawals categorized under governance-institutional design, and CPS-23 belongs to that category.
Babel Fees removes the largest onboarding friction for Bitcoin and stablecoin holders. Babel Fees enables users to pay transaction fees in any Cardano native asset — including bridged BTC and USDC — without acquiring ADA first. SPOs can optionally operate as Babel Fee providers earning competitive markups (10-50%), supplementing staking rewards. Babel Fees connects directly to Pogun (institutional-grade Bitcoin DeFi infrastructure, also under SIPO YES vote in this round): together they address the onboarding problem and the credit infrastructure problem for Bitcoin holders, both leveraging Cardano's structural EUTXO advantage.
Governance and oversight structure is identical to the standard SIPO has approved on Amaru, Dingo, HLabs Pebble + Gerolamo, DeFi Liquidity Budget, and Orion Fund (Sundae Labs treasury-contracts framework, Intersect administration with TRSC + per-workstream PSSC, 5-entity Oversight Committee, multi-signature disbursement, refund clause). The Ensurable Systems co-venture distributes platform stewardship across multiple organizations, the same Pillar 5 pattern SIPO supported in HLabs Pebble + Gerolamo.
Expectations (YES with binding operational commitments)
Babel Fees permissionless roadmap: MVP delivers one provider with closed network layer. SIPO expects a publicly documented roadmap for transitioning to open, permissionless multi-provider in the next budget cycle, with concrete criteria (provider count, geographic distribution, fallback behavior, censorship resistance).
CPS-23 community consultation: The Multi-Asset Treasury CIP affects governance via amendments to CIP-1694 and the Constitution. SIPO expects open consultation with DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee from Q4 2026 onward, similar to the Constitution v2.4 ratification cycle.
L2 reserve coordination with the L2 Scalability Initiative: CIP-159's account-based deposit primitive is referenced as a structural enabler for L2 reserves. SIPO expects coordination with the L2 Scalability team to align CIP-159 deliverables in time and interface with L2 use cases, avoiding interim workarounds.
Quarterly reporting in stable format: SIPO expects the same reporting discipline already standard on Amaru, Dingo, and HLabs.
Closing
This proposal advances Cardano along three structural fronts that no other proposal in this round addresses with the same combination of breadth and ledger-level precision. CIP-159 unblocks economic models Cardano cannot currently support. CPS-23 matures the governance layer to handle financial stewardship at the scale Cardano 2030 envisions. Babel Fees removes the largest onboarding friction for Bitcoin and stablecoin holders. With expectations above treated as binding operational commitments, SIPO DRep votes YES.
For these reasons, SIPO DRep votes YES.
SIPO DRepとして、本提案「IO: Cardano Upgrades」に賛成（YES）を投じます。
Governance Action ID: gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qz6es0cp
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-05-09SIPOは本提案を、技術的には独立だが相互補完的な3つのワークストリーム（CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement、CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury、Babel Fees）を組み合わせた首尾一貫したプラットフォームレベル強化として支持します。3つは同時にCardanoを構造的に前進させます。新たな経済モデルを解放する台帳プリミティブ、Treasury多資産化に向けたガバナンス層成熟、そしてBitcoin/ステーブルコインホルダーの採用障壁除去です。
SIPOがYESと判断する理由
CIP-159は台帳プリミティブの構造的ギャップを埋める。minUTxOValue制約により、ウォレットは平均tx手数料が約0.39 ADAであるにもかかわらず約1 ADA未満のマイクロ手数料を徴収できませんでした。CIP-159はPlutusV4スクリプトサポート付きでアカウントアドレスへの直接デポジットを可能にし、この制約を撤廃します。下流への影響は構造的です。ウォレット収益モデルの成立、batcher/aggregatorコスト削減、Layer 2が必要とするアカウントベース・デポジットプリミティブの提供。SIPOは本ラウンドでL2 Scalability InitiativeにもYESを投じており、CIP-159はL2 reserve管理のための台帳レベル前提条件と評価します。
CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasuryはガバナンスを金融層に拡張する。現在TreasuryはADAのみを保有し、資金提供される全プロジェクトをADA価格変動に晒しています。CPS-23はTreasuryがステーブルコイン、パートナーチェーン・トークン、RWAを保有可能にする台帳変更CIPを作成します。これはPillar 5 Focus Area E.1（財務スチュワードシップとトークノミクス）、およびCardano 2030の「Treasuryをpassive poolからyield-generating multi-asset reserveへ進化させる」コミットメントを直接実装します。SIPOはガバナンス制度設計分類のTreasury Withdrawalを一貫支持しており、CPS-23はそのカテゴリに属します。
Babel FeesはBitcoin/ステーブルコインホルダーの最大onboarding摩擦を除去する。ユーザーがADAを取得することなく、保有する任意のCardano native asset（bridged BTC、USDC等）でtx手数料を支払えるようにします。SPOは任意でBabel Fee providerとして運用し、競争的マージン（10-50%）を獲得することでstaking報酬を補完できます。Babel Feesは本ラウンドで同様にYESを投じるPogun（institutional-grade Bitcoin DeFiインフラ）と直接接続し、両者はBitcoinホルダーのonboarding問題とcreditインフラ問題をCardanoが同時解決する構図を作ります。両者ともCardanoの構造的EUTXO優位性を活用します。
ガバナンス・監視構造はSIPOがAmaru、Dingo、HLabs Pebble + Gerolamo、DeFi Liquidity Budget、Orion Fundで承認した標準と同一です（Sundae Labs treasury-contractsフレームワーク、Intersect管理のTRSC + PSSC、5エンティティOversight Committee、マルチシグdisburse、refund clause）。Ensurable Systemsとのco-ventureは、SIPOがHLabsで支持した複数組織へのstewardship分散と同じPillar 5パターンです。
期待事項（YESには拘束力のある運用上のコミットメントを伴う）
Babel Fees permissionlessロードマップ：MVPは1 provider・closed network layer。次サイクルでオープンpermissionless multi-providerへ移行する公開ロードマップを期待（provider数、地理的分散、fallback、検閲耐性の具体基準を含む）。
CPS-23コミュニティ協議：Multi-Asset Treasury CIPはCIP-1694とConstitutionへの修正を伴うため、Q4 2026からDRep、SPO、Constitutional Committeeへの公開協議をConstitution v2.4 ratification cycleに準じて期待。
L2 Scalability Initiativeとの連携：CIP-159のアカウントベース・デポジット・プリミティブはL2 reserve構造的イネーブラーとして参照。SIPOはCIP-159 deliverablesが時間的にもinterface的にもL2ユースケースと整合するよう両チーム間調整を期待。
安定フォーマットでの四半期報告：Amaru、Dingo、HLabsで既に標準となっている報告規律を期待。
結び
本提案は、本ラウンドの他のいずれの提案も同等のbreadthとledger-level precisionの組み合わせで対応していない3つの構造的フロントでCardanoを前進させます。CIP-159はCardanoが現在サポートできない経済モデルをアンブロックします。CPS-23はCardano 2030が想定する規模で財務スチュワードシップを扱うようガバナンス層を成熟させます。Babel FeesはBitcoin/ステーブルコインユーザー基盤の最大onboarding摩擦を除去します。上記期待事項が拘束力のある運用上のコミットメントとして扱われることを前提として、SIPO DRep は本提案に賛成（YES）を投じます。
以上の理由により、SIPO DRepとして本提案に賛成（YES）を投じます。
- Yes 89.3M ₳ Rationale
Yes to Babel Fees! This is another long awaited infrastructure goal.
- Yes 89.2M ₳ Rationale
This proposal bundles three upgrades: CIP-159 account address enhancement, a multi-asset Treasury, and Babel Fees. Babel Fees in particular lets users pay fees in any native asset they hold without first acquiring ADA, directly removing a barrier to entry, while a multi-asset Treasury improves resilience to ADA price volatility. It advances both adoption and Treasury strength — so I vote YES.
- Yes 76.1M ₳ Rationale
These enhancements are extremely relevant for capturing the current total addressable market of blockchain (DeFi)
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Support protocol upgrades that are implemented at the right layer, including CIP-159 account address enhancement, multi-asset treasury support, and Babel Fees when they are protocol-, node-, or SPO-native. Multi-asset treasury can improve treasury flexibility, and Babel Fees can improve user experience by allowing non-ADA fee payment, but a secondary-market or validator-level workaround does not solve the core fee problem. It is critical that babel fees be implemented directly into the node as an opt-in feature for SPOs and not as a secondary market / service that needs to be run independently.
- Yes 74.7M ₳ Rationale
there is the practical issue that there is no developer that can fully absorb the risk of ADA price fluctuations. I am aware of concerns regarding the speed of development, etc. However, I believe that this would only be the case if an alternative development group with a proven track record were to propose it. In some cases, it is possible that the new group could negotiate with IO and Charles after the proposal is approved.
- No 71.3M ₳ Rationale
I vote NO. While I like the first two upgrades, sweeping 11.2M ADA into an opaque development bucket without detailing headcount or hourly rates is not something I can support, the proposal ask for this in my opinion is too high against the deliverables stated.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting NO on the Cardano Upgrades Treasury Withdrawal. I want to explicitly commend the teams involved for proposing solutions that could undeniably bring immense technical value to our ecosystem. However, as a representative tasked with the prudent management of our Treasury, I must ground my decisions in strict financial reality rather than purely technical ambition. When reviewing an expenditure of this magnitude, the financial mechanics must be rigorously scrutinized.
The proposal requests over thirteen million ADA, which the authors themselves estimate at a dollar value exceeding three million one hundred thousand USD based on a twenty four cent ADA price. Of that immense total, a staggering eleven million two hundred sixty eight thousand six hundred fourteen ADA is broadly swept into a generalized development category. While I acknowledge that the document provides a macro total for each individual workstream, there is an absolute absence of a granular development breakdown. Without detailed accounting of headcount, hourly rates, or specific engineering resource allocations, I cannot comfortably support a funding request of this scale.
Furthermore, the practice of bundling three distinct initiatives into a single all or nothing vote creates an environment of financial ambiguity that I simply cannot endorse. While I genuinely recognize the merit in the first two proposed upgrades, I personally believe the total requested capital is too high for the deliverables stated. This is a genuinely tough decision for me.
- Yes 70.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 68M ₳ Rationale
The core value of this proposal lies primarily in Babel Fees. Rather than being a simple improvement in convenience, Babel Fees represents a critical piece of infrastructure with the potential to fundamentally transform how capital flows into the Cardano ecosystem. Under the current model, users must hold ADA in advance in order to interact with the network. This requirement has served as a significant barrier to entry for new users and external capital. In particular, for Bitcoin holders and stablecoin users, the need to first acquire ADA introduces both psychological and operational friction, causing many potential participants to drop off at this initial stage.
Babel Fees removes this structural friction. It allows users to execute transactions using the assets they already hold, such as USDC or BTC, effectively eliminating the initial barrier to accessing Cardano. As a result, it creates a direct pathway for external capital—previously unable or unwilling to enter the ecosystem—to flow in seamlessly.
What is particularly important is that this shift goes beyond simply increasing user numbers; it directly enables capital inflow. Assets that already exist on other chains or off-chain, such as Bitcoin and stablecoins, can now access Cardano-based DeFi and applications without requiring additional conversion steps. By lowering the barrier to “trying” the network, Babel Fees significantly increases the likelihood that users will not only engage with the ecosystem but also retain and deploy their capital within it.
In light of this, Babel Fees can be understood as a key step in transforming Cardano from a network primarily for ADA holders into a platform where external assets can naturally flow in and be utilized. From this perspective, the proposal demonstrates strong strategic rationality and contributes meaningfully to Cardano’s mid- to long-term growth trajectory.
本提案の中核的価値は、特にBabel Feesにあります。Babel Feesは単なる利便性向上の機能ではなく、Cardanoにおける資金流入構造そのものを変える可能性を持つ重要なインフラです。従来のCardanoでは、ユーザーがネットワークを利用するためには事前にADAを保有している必要があり、この点が新規ユーザーや外部資金の流入における大きな障壁となっていました。特に、ビットコイン保有者やステーブルコインユーザーにとって、「まずADAを購入する」というステップは心理的・実務的なハードルとなり、多くの潜在的ユーザーがこの段階で離脱していたと考えられます。
Babel Feesは、この構造的な摩擦を取り除きます。ユーザーはUSDCやBTCなど、自身が保有する資産のままトランザクションを実行できるようになり、Cardanoにアクセスするための初期障壁がほぼゼロになります。これにより、これまでCardanoに参入していなかった外部資金が、直接エコシステム内に流入する導線が生まれます。 重要なのは、この変化が単なるユーザー数の増加にとどまらず、実際の資金流入に直結する点です。既に他チェーンやオフチェーンに存在するビットコインやステーブルコインといった資産が、追加の変換プロセスなしにCardano上のDeFiやアプリケーションにアクセスできるようになることで、「試す」ハードルが大きく下がり、その結果として資金が滞留し、エコシステム内で循環する可能性が高まります。
以上を踏まえると、Babel FeesはCardanoを「ADA保有者のためのネットワーク」から、「外部資産が自然に流入し、利用されるプラットフォーム」へと進化させるための重要な一歩と位置付けることができます。この観点から、本提案は中長期的な成長に資する合理性を持つものと評価できます。
- Abstain 65.7M ₳ Rationale
While I like what the proposal offers I once again think the amount asked for is outrageous - therefore abstain
- Yes 62.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.8M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting Yes on IOG's Cardano Upgrade proposal.
Sharing the value of the Cardano ecosystem is one of my top priorities, but I see Cardano's network R&D as a necessity, not just a priority.
This Cardano Upgrade proposal contains several core elements needed for mass adoption. Among them, I want to focus on CIP-159 and Babel Fee.
- CIP-159: Account Address Enhancement
Reward accounts have so far been limited to receiving staking rewards only, but this upgrade expands them into general-purpose balance accounts that anyone can deposit into. Previously, every UTxO required a minimum ADA amount, which made micro-fees like 0.1 ADA essentially impossible. CIP-159 solves this constraint at the root.
This matters especially from the perspective of the AI agent economy. In an era where agents settle 0.01 USD per API call, a 1 ADA minimum was effectively a barrier to entry. CIP-159 lays the groundwork for Cardano to function as the payment infrastructure for the agent economy. There's a deeper meaning too.
The existing Reward account was a limited account-model area within Cardano. With CIP-159, Cardano keeps the strengths of eUTXO while gaining the flexibility of Ethereum's account model on top, becoming a hybrid structure. A new accounting dimension is being added on top of Cardano's unique eUTXO model.
- Babel Fee
One of the biggest entry barriers in the blockchain market is poor UX, and gas fees are the single largest cause of that friction. That's why many networks are investing in account abstraction, letting users pay gas in stablecoins or other tokens, building environments where users don't even feel like they're using a blockchain. This is the broader trend.
Babel Fee will play a central role for Cardano in this trend. Users will be able to pay gas with stablecoins like USDM without holding any ADA. This will drive the biggest changes in financial use cases like remittance, payments, and lending.
To put it simply, Babel Fee will play the biggest role in creating an environment where users don't even realize they're using the Cardano network.
I think strong technology introduced at the protocol layer manifests in diverse ways as it moves up to the product layer, delivering maximum utility to users through a range of products.
I believe this Cardano Upgrade is an important proposal that will bring real, practical value to Cardano.
- CIP-159: Account Address Enhancement
- Yes 51.1M ₳ Rationale
This proposal supports important protocol and ecosystem improvements that can strengthen Cardano’s long-term competitiveness. Features such as better account support, Babel fees, and a multi-asset treasury have clear strategic value and can improve accessibility, usability, and future flexibility. These are forward-looking infrastructure upgrades that are reasonable to support if Cardano wants to keep evolving.
- Yes 50.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 49.8M ₳ Rationale
I definitely want these features to be implemented.
- Yes 49.7M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes on "IO: Cardano Upgrades — CIP-159 / Multi-Asset Treasury / Babel Fees". This proposal covers three distinct but related Tier 2a ledger improvements. CIP-159 account address enhancement enables micro-fee collection and L2 reserve patterns, directly expanding Cardano's programmability at the ledger layer. Multi-Asset Treasury CIP design work strengthens the governance infrastructure underpinning future treasury diversification. Babel Fees removes a critical onboarding barrier by enabling fee payment in any native asset, lowering the entry threshold for users who do not yet hold ADA. The accountability structure is strong: Intersect milestone-based smart contract management, 3rd-party assurance, and unspent fund refund conditions provide transparent execution and recovery mechanisms. ₳13.1M over 2 years for three workstreams is reasonable. The CIP-118 dependency risk for Babel Fees is noted but does not disqualify the proposal as a whole. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/ [Japanese version follows] 私は、「IO: Cardano Upgrades — CIP-159 / Multi-Asset Treasury / Babel Fees」に賛成票を投じます。本提案はTier 2aのレジャー改善を3つのワークストリームで構成しています。CIP-159のアカウントアドレス拡張はマイクロフィー収集・L2リザーブパターンを可能にし、レジャー層でのプログラマビリティを直接拡張します。Multi-Asset Treasuryのための設計CIP作業は、将来のトレジャリー多様化を支えるガバナンス基盤の強化として適切です。Babel FeesはADAを保有していないユーザーへのオンボーディング障壁を取り除くプロトコル機能であり、エコシステムの入口を広げます。Intersectのマイルストーンベースのスマートコントラクト管理・第三者保証・未使用資金返還条件は透明性の高い説明責任体制を構成しています。₳13.1Mは2年間3ワークストリームとして妥当であり、Babel FeesのCIP-118依存リスクは留意点ではあるものの、提案全体の否定理由にはなりません。YESと判断します。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Yes 42.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 42.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 40M ₳ Rationale
Not a fan of this Babel Fee implementation because we already have at least 2 competing babel fee solutions live on Cardano. But the Account Address Enhancement & Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury are big improvements.
That being said it's extremely overpriced. Still voting yes because we should implement these improvements.
- Abstain 38.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 34.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 34.3M ₳ Rationale
Socious votes Yes. This 13,103,039 ADA proposal funds three initiatives that each remove a concrete economic constraint. CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement lets wallets collect micro-fees and makes DeFi cheaper for end users while providing building blocks for Layer 2. Multi-Asset Treasury begins the design work for the Cardano Treasury to hold stablecoins and other native assets alongside ADA. Babel Fees lets users pay transaction fees in any native asset, removing the long-standing requirement to hold ADA before transacting at all.
Of the three, Multi-Asset Treasury is the one Socious weighs most heavily. A treasury denominated entirely in a volatile asset exposes the whole funding process — including every proposal in this cycle — to price swings; design work toward diversification is prudent stewardship, not a luxury. Babel Fees, meanwhile, addresses a real onboarding barrier that quietly costs Cardano new users.
The initiatives are coherent, the friction points they target are genuine, and Intersect administers the funds on milestones with unspent balances returned. Socious supports this proposal.
ソーシャスは本提案に賛成します。本提案は13,103,039 ADAを投じ、それぞれが具体的な経済的制約を取り除く三つの取り組みに資金を充てます。CIP-159によるアカウントアドレスの改良は、ウォレットによる少額手数料の徴収を可能にし、利用者にとってのDeFiのコストを下げるとともに、Layer 2のための部品を提供します。マルチアセット・トレジャリーは、CardanoのトレジャリーがADAに加えてステーブルコインなどのネイティブ資産を保有できるようにするための設計作業に着手します。Babel Feesは、利用者が任意のネイティブ資産で取引手数料を支払えるようにし、取引のためにまずADAを保有しなければならないという長年の前提を取り除きます。
三つのうちソーシャスが最も重く見るのはマルチアセット・トレジャリーです。トレジャリーを変動の大きい単一資産だけで構成することは、今サイクルのすべての提案を含む資金プロセス全体を価格変動にさらします。分散化に向けた設計作業は、贅沢ではなく堅実な資産管理です。またBabel Feesは、Cardanoが新規利用者を静かに取りこぼしている実際の参入障壁に対処するものです。
各取り組みは一貫しており、対象とする摩擦は現実のものです。Intersectがマイルストーンに基づき資金を管理し、未使用分が返還されることも踏まえ、ソーシャスは本提案を支持します。
- Yes 32.3M ₳ Rationale
Yes. ₳13.10M for CIP-159 (account address deposits, micro-fees, L2 reserves), CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury CIP design, and Babel Fees (pay tx fees in any native asset). Removes the "need ADA first" barrier for BTC and stablecoin onboarding; enables wallet micro-fee economics.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Vote: Yes
₳13.10M for three coordinated platform-level upgrades: CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement, CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury CIP design, and Babel Fees. Each removes a concrete barrier to adoption and ecosystem economics.
The HOSKY Cardano First framework reads strongly across multiple pillars.
Pillar Analysis
Adoption (lead pillar)
Babel Fees lets users pay transaction fees in any Cardano native asset (USDC, bridged BTC, stablecoins) instead of requiring ADA first. For Bitcoin holders bridging in and stablecoin users entering DeFi, this removes the most concrete friction point in onboarding.
CIP-159 lifts the minUTxOValue floor that today blocks wallets from charging micro-fees, which directly enables wallet product-market fit on Cardano fees. Cheaper batcher and aggregator economics follow from the same change.
Economic Sustainability
CPS-23 Multi-Asset Treasury begins the CIP design work to let the Cardano Treasury hold stablecoins alongside ADA, which directly addresses ADA-price-volatility exposure on multi-year treasury budgets. The Eternl proposal in the broader budget surfaces exactly this problem ($133k short of the proposed USD amount due to ADA price decline). Multi-Asset Treasury is the structural fix.
Babel Fees creates a new SPO revenue stream (10 to 50% markup on fee conversions), broadening SPO economics beyond staking rewards.
Scalability (indirect)
CIP-159 provides the account primitives that L2 solutions need to manage user-deposited ADA reserves cleanly. Not a throughput pillar in itself, but the L1 plumbing that L2 economics require. Direct enabler for the Midgard-class rollup workstream and any future Cardano L2 that manages user funds.
Governance Transparency
Standard Intersect 2025 TRSC pattern: milestone-gated disbursement, third-party Assurer, unspent funds return to Treasury. Same shape as Pebble + Gerolamo, Dingo, Amaru, and the Plutus collaboration.
The IO and Ensurable Systems collaboration distributes delivery between two teams. CIP-159 Phase 1 is targeted for Dijkstra (cardano-node-12.x, Q3 2026); Babel Fees rides on top of the separately funded CIP-118 Nested Transactions primitive; CPS-23 design feeds into a future implementation cycle.
Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes
Bundle of three workstreams at different maturity levels
CIP-159 is concrete protocol work targeted for a specific era. WS2 (Multi-Asset Treasury) is CIP design only, not implementation. Babel Fees depends on separately funded CIP-118 Nested Transactions. The legs deliver standalone value but the bundle hides cross-leg dependency risk.
Hard-fork timing
CIP-159 needs Dijkstra to actually land. If Dijkstra slips, the engineering is complete but economically inert until activation. The funded work has standalone value either way.
WS2 is design, not implementation
Multi-Asset Treasury is the CIP specification work; the actual treasury changes are downstream and will need separate funding. A Yes here is not a Yes on the future implementation ask.
Babel Fees deployment is contingent on CIP-118
Babel Fees is built on top of Nested Transactions. If CIP-118 implementation is delayed, Babel Fees cannot deploy regardless of what this proposal funds.
Slate aggregation
Part of the roughly ₳141.9M IO slate across seven actions. Each action stands alone.
Bottom Line
Foundational L1 work that pays back to every wallet, DApp, and onboarding flow on Cardano. Yes.
- Yes 31.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 31M ₳ Rationale
I support this proposal because it directly strengthens Cardano’s L1 roadmap, improves protocol reliability, and delivers essential upgrades that protect long‑term network value.
- Yes 30.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 29.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 28.2M ₳ Rationale
Account Enhancement, the Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury, and Babel fees are some of the most high-impact and exciting upgrades planned for Cardano that I have seen. These will hopefully allow us to unlock new fee mechanisms that help us avoid the pains of minUTxO, and hopefully new funding mechanisms that allow the treasury to hold and disburse stablecoins to teams proposing to build on Cardano. This is an easy YES for me.
- Yes 27.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 27.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 26.1M ₳ Rationale
Rationale — CIP-159 + Multi-Asset Treasury + Babel Fees
HeaderUsers should not need to buy ADA before using Cardano. Treasury management should not depend entirely on ADA price stability.
Constitutional Gate
Assessment: Pass, high strategic alignment
The proposal supports adoption, sustainability, fee abstraction, user experience, and treasury modernization.
It includes clear workstreams, milestone structure, CIP pathways, governance integration, and platform-level economic justification.
Decision Declaration
Vote: YES — High leverage, system-level impact.
This proposal reduces user friction while introducing better treasury design.
Core Rationale
This proposal combines 3 coordinated upgrades: CIP-159 account address enhancement, Multi-Asset Treasury design, and Babel Fees.
Together, they address 2 major problems: users needing ADA before they can transact, and the treasury being structurally exposed to ADA volatility.
Strategic Alignment
The proposal aligns with adoption growth, treasury sustainability, cross-chain onboarding, stablecoin usage, wallet revenue models, and broader economic-layer evolution.
It helps Cardano operate more like a usable financial platform instead of requiring every user and treasury function to route through ADA first.
Economic Impact
CIP-159 can unlock micro-fees, direct deposits, L2 reserve mechanics, and cheaper DeFi interactions.
Multi-Asset Treasury design introduces the foundation for stable-value budgeting, asset diversification, and stronger treasury management.
Babel Fees reduce onboarding friction by allowing fees to be paid in native assets rather than requiring users to acquire ADA first.
Execution Risk
Key risks include dependency on related CIPs, ledger-level changes, community debate around treasury design, and limited initial Babel Fee provider support.
Adoption will also depend on wallet integration, bridge support, and practical implementation by ecosystem applications.
These risks are mitigated by phased delivery, CIP governance, and extensible architecture.
Accountability
The proposal has 3 clearly scoped workstreams with logical dependencies and governance pathways.
The main limitation is that Multi-Asset Treasury is still in the design phase, while Babel Fees may begin with a limited provider set.
Stablecoin Utilization
Assessment: Strong
This proposal directly supports stablecoin utilization by enabling the treasury to hold assets beyond ADA, including stablecoins.
That is a major improvement in treasury discipline. Stable-value budgeting allows funding programs, grants, operations, and vendor payments to be protected from ADA downside volatility.
For proposers, this creates a pathway to receive or convert funds in a way that protects delivery budgets.
For treasury disbursement, it creates the foundation for staged stablecoin allocation, diversified reserves, and predictable purchasing power.
Relying on ADA to remain at a certain price is not a treasury strategy. This proposal directly addresses that problem.
End-User Lens
For users, this means they may be able to use Cardano without first buying ADA.
For builders, it enables cheaper products, better wallet flows, and new fee models.
For the treasury, it creates a path toward stable budgeting and more disciplined capital management.
Conditions to Change Vote
This rationale would materially change if CIP-159 implementation fails, the Multi-Asset Treasury design breaks down, Babel Fees are not adopted by wallets, or the final design does not meaningfully reduce user onboarding friction and treasury volatility exposure.
- Yes 25.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 25.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 22.7M ₳ Rationale
A multi-asset treasury is reason enough to support this.
- Yes 22M ₳ No rationale
- No 22M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale