IO: Consensus Initiative
248 DReps voted · 80 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 592.3M ₳ Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes YES on “IO: Consensus Initiative”, as the proposal that directly determines whether Cardano can meet its 2030 throughput targets and sustain economic self-sufficiency as the Reserve diminishes.
Rationale
The primary scaling lever
Leios is how Cardano gets from 800,000 to 27 million monthly transactions. No combination of parameter tuning or incremental optimisation closes a gap of that magnitude. This proposal funds the critical path.
Built on demonstrated progress
The 2025/26 cycle delivered a public testnet and a feature-complete alpha. This proposal is the maturation phase of work already underway, with formal specification conformance, adversarial testing, and hard fork enablement as its defined outputs.
Ecosystem readiness included in scope
SPO workshops, developer documentation, DB-Sync and Mithril support, and updated governance artifacts are all part of this proposal. Hard fork readiness is treated as a shared responsibility, not an afterthought.
Conclusion
Yoroi votes YES. Leios is not a discretionary upgrade. It is the mechanism by which Cardano’s stated 2030 commitments become technically achievable, and this proposal represents the right investment at the right moment in its development.
- Yes 428.5M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on the "IO: Consensus Initiative" governance action.
Leios is necessary for Cardano to compete with rival L1s whose scalability already far exceeds ours.
I hold three significant concerns about this proposal, but on balance I still recognize that this work is needed.- Trade-offs imposed on SPO operations are not quantified
The disclosure on this point is, in my view, insufficient. Parameters will of course be chosen carefully, but based on the publicly available information, the impact on SPOs is unlikely to be small, and the possibility that some smaller SPOs are pushed out cannot be ruled out. There may well be internal data that would refute this concern, but none of it is visible in the proposal.
That said, ultimately these are parameter-level questions and therefore tunable. Even taking these possibilities into account, the necessity of Leios outweighs them. - Cardano does not currently have transaction volume that demands Leios-level capacity
This has been a long-standing critique. However, this may well be a chicken-and-egg situation: it is plausible that projects requiring that level of throughput are not being built on Cardano precisely because the chain does not offer that capacity. At the very least, without being able to demonstrate capability on par with competing L1s, Cardano cannot win. - Mainnet activation of Leios is explicitly outside the scope of this proposal's commitments
Given the heavy parameter-consensus work and governance work that will be required, this is unavoidable. In fact, my recollection is that the current timeline is already considerably more aggressive than what Well-Typed originally envisioned — to the point that several developers have voiced the opposite concern, that the schedule is too rushed. Because this is a foundational change to the protocol, we should not hold excessive expectations about activation timing.
There may be various other smaller concerns, but none of them outweigh the necessity of this work. I am therefore voting YES.
For reference, here is my slightly negative AI scoring and demo page. Even considering the concerns analyzed by the AI, I still vote YES.
https://adatool.net/leios-demo
https://adatool.net/io-proposals
私は「IO: Consensus Initiative」にYESを投票します。
私たちよりはるかにスケーラビリティの高い競合L1との競争のためにはLeiosが必要です。
３つの大きな懸念はありますが、それを踏まえてもなお、私はこれが必要だと認識します。
- SPOの運営に対するトレードオフが定量的に提示されていない
この記載が不十分であると感じます。もちろん、パラメータは慎重に決定されるはずですが、公開情報から元に判断すると、SPOへの影響は小さくなく、一部の小規模なSPOが撤退する可能性は否定できません。仮に否定できるデータが内部にあるのかもしれませんが、それが見えません。
ただし、結局のところこれらはパラメータの問題で調整可能です。よって、これらの可能性を踏まえても、Leiosの必要性は上回ると考えています。
- Leiosの容量が必要であるほどのTxはない
これは以前から指摘されていた事項ですが、ただし、鶏と卵の関係である可能性があります。つまり、Leiosの容量がないチェーンであるから、そのレベルのTxのプロジェクトが構築されていないという可能性があります。少なくとも、競合L1と対等に比較できるレベルの能力を証明できないと、Cardanoは勝てません。
- Leios Mainnetは提案書では明示的に約束の対象外です
重いパラメータの合意作業、ガバナンスの作業も必要ですので、これはやむを得ないでしょう。そもそもこのタイムラインは当初のWellTypedが想定していたタイムラインと比べるとかなり前倒しになっている記憶で、むしろ「タイムラインが拙速すぎる」という複数の開発者の声も聞くほどです。根本的な変更になるため、私たちは過度な期待を持つべきではないと思います。
他の様々な細かな懸念事項はあるかもしれませんが、差し置いても、この必要性を上回りません。よって私はYESを投票します。
参考までに、私の少しネガティブなAIのスコアリングとDemoページを紹介します。AIにより分析された懸念点を考慮しても私はYESを投票します。
https://adatool.net/leios-demo
https://adatool.net/io-proposals - Trade-offs imposed on SPO operations are not quantified
- Yes 328.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 297.4M ₳ Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes YES on the treasury withdrawal titled “IO: Consensus Initiative, with rationale outlined below.
Rationale
Cardano’s 2030 ambitions rest on a single critical dependency: throughput capacity that does not yet exist at the required scale. Leios, designed as an overlay on Ouroboros Praos, delivers a 10 to 65x throughput increase while preserving Cardano’s security guarantees and decentralisation properties. Without it, the 2030 target of 27 million monthly transactions is structurally out of reach.
This proposal picks up from a 2025/26 cycle that has already delivered an early public testnet and a feature-complete alpha. The 26/27 cycle focuses on the hardest phase: maturing to a mainnet-ready release candidate, completing conformance testing against the formal Agda specification, and doing everything within IO’s control to enable the Leios hard fork. This is not speculative research. It is the execution phase of a protocol upgrade the community has already directionally endorsed.
The 27.7 million ADA request is consistent with the complexity of what is being delivered, spanning consensus engineering, ledger, networking, cryptography, formal methods, and performance validation. SPO workshops and updated guardrails documentation reflect a responsible approach to hard fork preparation. For these reasons, EMURGO votes YES.
- Yes 240.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 221.8M ₳ Rationale
Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:
❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO ResearchCombined:
✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USDAll proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.
We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.
But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.
- Yes 174.4M ₳ Rationale
I think Linear Leios (the proposed version of Leios being implemented) makes sense architecturally, and is a reasonable way to introduce Leios concepts on a modular way. Leios also introduces some ideas and architectures that can also be reused for DA layer concepts on Cardano, which I think will speed up scalability and functionality
I would have liked more transparency in the proposal on:
- Expected future governance to implement any future ideas cut from Linear Leios. I understand that probably, given the trajectory, future work won't be called "Leios" anymore and we'll need a new name. However, given consensus improvements are a never ending endeavor, it could be interesting to know what future steps this research work will unlock
- Expected compatibility with DA layer ideas. I think it's not unlikely we'll see a large treasury ask for DA next year at the latest (since the ecosystem really needs it), so it would be useful to know that the architecture of Leios is either complementary or at the least compatible with DA plans (I know this is a very hard question to ask without doing a lot of deep thought though, as a DA is a very complex in itself)
However, I think the proposal and extra document as-written is sufficient to get a good idea of what the team is working on, and the value to the ecosystem
- 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: Consensus Initiative.
My rationale:
This is a must-have proposal for Cardano.
It directly addresses a fundamental limitation of the network, namely throughput at the consensus layer. Without a meaningful increase in L1 capacity, Cardano cannot realistically meet its 2030 ambitions or compete in high-throughput use cases.
Ouroboros Leos represents a critical step in this direction. By extending Praos with Endorser Blocks and committee-based validation, it aims to deliver an order-of-magnitude increase in throughput while preserving decentralization and security.
I want to be clear about prioritization.
In previous votes, I rejected proposals related to L2 scaling. These solutions may become important over time, but they are not substitutes for a strong and scalable base layer.
Cardano must first ensure that its L1 is capable of supporting meaningful economic activity at scale. For this reason, I consider L1 scaling through Leios to be a higher priority than current L2 initiatives.
At the same time, I do recognize the value of L2 solutions for specific use cases. They are a natural extension of the base layer. However, given the current budget constraints, the scale of funding requested by IO, and broader industry trends such as Ethereum's evolving stance on rollup-centric scaling, I believe L2 initiatives can be deferred in favor of strengthening L1 first.
This proposal focuses on progressing Leios from testnet to a mainnet-ready release candidate. It includes substantial engineering work on consensus integration, conformance testing against formal specifications, large-scale validation and adversarial testing, and preparation for hard-fork enabling.
While the proposal does not guarantee mainnet activation, it delivers the necessary conditions to make it possible. Given the complexity and risk of consensus-layer upgrades, this is a reasonable and expected approach.
I would also welcome clearer communication from IO regarding the longer-term scalability roadmap beyond the current Leios implementation. In particular, it would be important to clarify whether a more advanced version, often referred to as Full Parallel Leios, is realistically achievable and on what timeline.
Competing blockchain platforms are already targeting even higher levels of throughput and performance. Cardano may ultimately require additional scalability improvements beyond this iteration to remain competitive. Greater transparency in this direction would help DReps better assess the long-term value of this investment.
It is also important to acknowledge that protocol-level upgrades, such as Leios, create ecosystem-wide obligations. Alternative node implementations, such as Amaru, Dingo, and others, will need to adopt and maintain compatibility with these changes. This introduces additional downstream costs that should be considered as part of the broader funding strategy.
Leios is essential infrastructure for Cardano's future. It enables the network to scale, supports long-term sustainability through increased transaction capacity, and strengthens its competitiveness across key use cases. While the proposal would benefit from improved transparency and clearer cost justification, it addresses a critical need that cannot be deferred. For this reason, I support it.
- Yes 92.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8M ₳ Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES on IO: Consensus Initiative (Leios).
Governance Action ID: gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qyxkn2yk
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-05-09SIPO supports this proposal as the consensus-layer foundation that, together with L2 scaling infrastructure, completes Cardano's scaling roadmap to 2030 targets. Leios is the engineered path from today's ~7-10 TPS to the 27 million monthly transactions Cardano 2030 envisions. By enhancing rather than replacing Ouroboros Praos, it preserves Cardano's security guarantees while delivering 10-65x throughput.
Why SIPO votes YES
Leios is the only path to 2030 throughput targets. Cardano 2030 sets a target of 27 million monthly transactions (30x today's 800,000). At sustainable 50-70% utilization headroom this requires at least 6x current capacity; Leios delivers 10x or more. This is not theoretical maximum-chasing — it is the engineered capacity Cardano needs to be a credible foundation for DeFi, RWA, and enterprise adoption, and to generate sufficient fee revenue as the Reserve diminishes.
Leios enhances Praos rather than replacing it — preserving security and node-diversity doctrine. Endorser Blocks and committee-based validation are added as an overlay protocol on top of the proven Praos consensus. Praos's safety and liveness guarantees are preserved. The implementation-independent technical documentation (cardano-blueprint), conformance test suite, and stable client interfaces (N2C, utxo-rpc) directly support alternative node implementations such as Amaru and Dingo, which SIPO has voted YES on as essential infrastructure insurance.
The proposal scope is the right scope: release candidate, high confidence, hard-fork enabling. Three objectives structure the work. Release Candidate matures the implementation through Software Readiness Levels 5-8 with substantial consensus engineering, conformance testing against Agda formal specification, and primary node integration. High Confidence systematically validates the protocol through parameter exploration, load testing, and adversarial red-teaming. Hard-Fork Enabling delivers everything within IO's control to make the Leios hard fork possible — stable interfaces, SPO and developer workshops, governance artifact preparation, contingency procedures. Importantly, the proposal explicitly excludes external dependencies (community hard-fork vote, third-party infra readiness) from its acceptance criteria — these are captured as risks, not promises.
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, 5-entity Oversight Committee, multi-signature disbursement, refund clause). 86% Development allocation is consistent with prior approved IO Treasury withdrawals. Net Change Limit compliant.
Expectations (YES with binding operational commitments)
Delta EB assumption transparency: The proposal acknowledges Medium likelihood / High severity risk on meeting the Delta EB assumption at hard-fork. SIPO expects transparent monthly reporting on parameter exploration progress and graduation plan, including the contingency plan if target parameters are infeasible at activation.
Alt-client compatibility benchmarks: Leios's stable client interfaces (N2C, utxo-rpc) and conformance test suite are core Pillar 1 infrastructure. SIPO expects published benchmarks demonstrating that Amaru and Dingo can integrate against the Leios release candidate, ensuring node-diversity continues to compound rather than fork.
Hard-fork window contingency: Including Leios in the Dijkstra era hard-fork is a Medium likelihood risk. SIPO expects a published contingency plan for the case where the Dijkstra era window is missed (intra-era fork, next-era timing).
Quarterly reporting in stable format: SIPO expects the same reporting discipline already standard on Amaru, Dingo, and HLabs.
Closing
Together with the L2 Scalability Initiative (also under SIPO YES vote in this round), Leios completes Cardano's scaling architecture: L1 throughput at 10-65x via Leios, L2 throughput at 10,000+ TPS via Hydra and Midgard. This is the engineered package Cardano needs to compete on adoption verticals (DeFi, RWA, AI agents, gaming, payments) where finality and fees are pre-selection filters before technical evaluation begins. 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: Consensus Initiative (Leios)」に賛成（YES）を投じます。
Governance Action ID: gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qyxkn2yk
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-05-09SIPOは本提案を、L2 scalingインフラと組み合わさることでCardano 2030ターゲットへのスケーリングロードマップを完成させる、合意層 (consensus layer) の基盤として支持します。Leiosは現在の約7-10 TPSからCardano 2030が想定する月2,700万トランザクションへの工学的な道筋です。Ouroboros Praosを置換ではなく拡張することで、Cardanoのセキュリティ保証を保ったまま10-65倍のスループットを実現します。
SIPOがYESと判断する理由
Leiosは2030スループットターゲットへの唯一の経路。Cardano 2030は月2,700万トランザクション（現在の800,000の30倍）を目標としています。持続可能な50-70%利用率ヘッドルームでは現容量の少なくとも6倍が必要で、Leiosは10倍以上を提供します。これは理論的最大値の追求ではなく、CardanoがDeFi、RWA、エンタープライズ採用の信頼できる基盤となり、Reserve減少時にも十分な手数料収益を生成するために必要な工学的容量です。
LeiosはPraosを置換ではなく拡張する — セキュリティとノード多様性ドクトリンを維持。Endorser Blockと委員会ベースの検証は、実証済みのPraos合意の上にオーバーレイプロトコルとして追加されます。Praosのsafetyとliveness保証は維持されます。実装非依存の技術文書 (cardano-blueprint)、コンフォーマンステストスイート、安定クライアントインターフェース (N2C, utxo-rpc) は、SIPOがessential infrastructure insuranceとしてYESを投じてきたAmaruやDingo等の代替ノード実装を直接支援します。
提案スコープは正しい：release candidate、high confidence、hard-fork enabling。3つの目標が作業を構造化します。Release CandidateはSoftware Readiness Level 5-8を通じて実装を成熟させ、合意コンポーネントのsubstantial rewrite、Agda formal specificationへのconformance test、primary node統合を含みます。High Confidenceはパラメータ探索、継続的負荷試験、adversarial red-teamingを通じてプロトコルを系統的に検証します。Hard-Fork EnablingはLeios hard forkを可能にするためにIOがコントロール下にある全てを提供します。重要なことに、本提案は外部依存性（community hard-fork vote、第三者インフラreadiness）をacceptance criteriaから明示的に除外しています — それらはpromiseではなくriskとして認識されています。
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、5エンティティOversight Committee、マルチシグdisburse、refund clause）。86% Development配分はIOの過去承認Treasury Withdrawalと整合し、Net Change Limitに準拠します。
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）
Delta EB assumptionの透明性：本提案はhard-fork時点でのDelta EB assumption達成に関しMedium likelihood / High severityのriskを認識しています。SIPOはパラメータ探索進捗とgraduation planの透明な月次報告を期待します。activation時点でターゲットパラメータが達成困難な場合のcontingency planも含めて。
代替クライアント互換性ベンチマーク：Leiosの安定クライアントインターフェース (N2C, utxo-rpc) とconformance test suiteはcore Pillar 1インフラです。SIPOはAmaruとDingoがLeios release candidateに統合できることを示す公開ベンチマークを期待します。ノード多様性が分岐ではなく加算される形で進化することを保証するために。
Hard-fork window contingency：LeiosのDijkstra era hard-forkへの組み込みはMedium likelihoodのriskです。SIPOはDijkstra era windowを逃した場合（intra-era fork、次のeraタイミング）の公開contingency planを期待します。
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
L2 Scalability Initiative（本ラウンドで同様にYES）と組み合わさることで、LeiosはCardanoのスケーリングアーキテクチャを完成させます：L1スループット10-65倍をLeios、L2スループット10,000+ TPSをHydraとMidgardで。これはCardanoがfinalityとfeesがpre-selectionフィルタとなる採用vertical（DeFi、RWA、AIエージェント、ゲーム、決済）で技術評価の前段階で除外されないために必要な工学的パッケージです。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 Leios! Been looking forward to this for a long time.
- Yes 89.2M ₳ Rationale
The Consensus Initiative (Leios) is a critical technology for taking Cardano to the next level. Leios substantially increases throughput and meets the capacity Cardano's 2030 targets demand, while enhancing rather than replacing Ouroboros Praos so that decentralization and security are preserved. Without this implementation Cardano loses its competitiveness. Therefore I vote YES.
- Yes 77.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 76.1M ₳ Rationale
Support because throughput, Leios, endorser blocks, and production-ready consensus improvements directly affect Cardano's competitiveness, app UX, bridge viability, and external liquidity access.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Support because throughput, Leios, endorser blocks, and production-ready consensus improvements directly affect Cardano's competitiveness, app UX, bridge viability, and external liquidity access.
- 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.
- Yes 71.3M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES. Leios delivers crucial scalability whilst maintaining our decentralization. The team has handled community feedback exceptionally well, incorporating our challenges gracefully. This great leadership gives me full confidence in their execution. Keep up the great work!
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES on the Leios Treasury Withdrawal. As a representative who consistently demands strict financial discipline, approving an expenditure of this magnitude is not a decision I take lightly. However, true fiscal responsibility does not mean freezing all capital. It means deploying it precisely where it drives absolute foundational value. While the twenty seven million ADA ask is undeniably high, the step change in throughput that Leios delivers is absolutely crucial to the future of Cardano.
I have closely monitored the ongoing work of this development team. They have established an exceptional standard for transparently showcasing their progress, which I consider to be hugely important for any initiative funded by our Treasury. I would love to see this continued transparency and close community alignment so we can collectively amplify this progress. Achieving massive scalability whilst maintaining our core decentralization and security is a unique selling point for Cardano that we must champion.
Additionally, I highly appreciate the specific focus on hard fork enabling Leios within the proposal. This crucial section directly addresses the broader ecosystem dependencies and the various other moving parts that will be required to allow Leios to operate effectively in the real world.
Finally, I want to commend how exceptionally well the team has handled community feedback. I and others have actively challenged certain decisions, and I deeply respect how the team has responded and incorporated our input. It is my firm belief that this receptiveness is a sign of great leadership. As a result, I am entirely confident in their ability to execute upon this proposal to the highest standard. Keep up the great work!
Cardano will scale.
- Yes 70.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 68M ₳ Rationale
This proposal represents a fundamental upgrade to Cardano’s scalability and should be understood as a critical infrastructure investment aligned with its 2030 growth strategy. In particular, the throughput improvements enabled by Leios are essential for supporting future increases in transaction volume, as well as the expansion of DeFi, real-world assets (RWA), and enterprise use cases. From a long-term perspective, this makes the proposal both necessary and strategically sound. Therefore, I support this proposal (Yes).
However, it is important to recognize that this proposal focuses on expanding processing capacity and does not, by itself, generate user adoption or capital inflow. Even with significantly higher throughput, the network’s value will not increase unless that capacity is actively utilized. Without sufficient demand, there is a risk that this investment results in underutilized infrastructure.
For this reason, maximizing the value of this proposal requires parallel efforts on the marketing and business side to attract users and capital into the ecosystem. This includes reducing onboarding friction through mechanisms such as Babel Fees, creating pathways for external assets like BTC and stablecoins to enter Cardano, and developing compelling use cases at the DeFi and application layers.
In essence, Leios expands the “capacity” of the network, but it must be complemented by strategies that drive actual usage and capital inflow. Only through the combination of infrastructure development and demand generation can Cardano achieve sustainable ecosystem growth. From this perspective, while I support the proposal, I strongly emphasize the importance of coordinated efforts to build demand alongside technical advancement.
本提案は、Cardanoのスケーラビリティを根本から引き上げるものであり、2030年に向けた成長戦略を実現する上で重要な基盤投資であると考えています。特にLeiosによるスループット向上は、将来的なトランザクション増加やDeFi、RWA、エンタープライズ利用の拡大を支えるために不可欠であり、長期的な視点では必要性の高い取り組みです。そのため、本提案については基本的に賛成（Yes）と判断します。
一方で、本提案はあくまで「処理能力の拡張」であり、それ自体がユーザーや資金の流入を直接生み出すものではありません。スループットがどれだけ向上したとしても、実際に利用されなければネットワークの価値向上には繋がらず、結果として過剰なインフラ投資に終わるリスクも存在します。
したがって、本提案の価値を最大化するためには、技術開発と並行して、ユーザーを引き込むためのマーケティングやビジネスサイドの取り組みが不可欠です。具体的には、Babel Feesのようなオンボーディング障壁を下げる仕組みの実装、外部資産（BTCやステーブルコイン）を取り込む導線の整備、さらにはDeFiやアプリケーションレイヤーにおける魅力的なユースケースの創出が求められます。
要するに、Leiosは「受け皿」を拡張するものであり、その受け皿に実際の需要と資金を流し込むための戦略が同時に進行して初めて、エコシステム全体としての成長が実現されます。この観点から、本提案には賛成しつつも、今後は技術開発だけでなく、需要創出と資金流入を促進する取り組みとの一体的な推進が強く求められると考えます。
- Yes 62.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.8M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting Yes on IOG's Consensus and Maintenance proposals.
Network scalability and core infrastructure maintenance are not optional priorities, they are the foundation everything else in the Cardano ecosystem depends on.
- Leios: Sustainable L1 Throughput
Cardano's current 10 to 15 TPS makes it structurally difficult to host products that require high transaction frequency — perpetual DEXs, on-chain games, AI agent micro-payments, enterprise-grade RWA infrastructure. Leios changes this at the protocol level, targeting a 10x to 65x throughput increase.
The 2030 Vision of scaling from 800,000 monthly transactions to over 27 million is not achievable through L2 alone. L1 must scale, and Leios is the mechanism designed to get there. The multi-vendor consortium and the fail-safe fallback to Praos make this an ambitious but disciplined upgrade.
- Maintenance: The Layer Everything Depends On
Every stake pool, every dApp, every transaction runs on what this work delivers. By the end of 2026, stewardship of Cardano's Haskell engineering capability is set to move to a dedicated entity exactly the kind of structural decentralization the ecosystem has been asking for, and it has to be funded through to completion.
Consensus and Maintenance are also inseparable. Leios specifications come from the Consensus workstream, but integration into the node and long-term stability depend on Maintenance.
Strong tech at the protocol layer only really pays off when it's tested properly and kept up over time. Leios is a pretty ambitious upgrade, and that means it needs to be delivered carefully, not rushed. I'm voting Yes because both proposals have milestone-based funding, a multi-vendor delivery setup, and a clear handoff plan in place.
- Yes 51.1M ₳ Rationale
Consensus research and scalability are critical to Cardano’s future. While the request is large and the work is highly technical, Leios remains one of the most important scaling paths for the ecosystem. There are valid concerns around continued funding needs and delivery expectations, but the strategic importance of this work is significant enough to justify support.
- Yes 50.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 49.8M ₳ Rationale
I definitely want to see Leios implemented on mainnet.
- Yes 49.7M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes on "IO: Consensus Initiative — Leios". Leios is a Tier 1 consensus protocol upgrade — the most critical category for treasury funding. A 10–65x throughput increase is essential for Cardano's 2030 transaction targets. IO has demonstrated clear progress in the prior cycle: CIP-164 was merged and an early public testnet was deployed, establishing a credible track record. ₳27.7M for release candidate maturation, high-assurance conformance testing, and hard fork enabling activities is appropriate for work of this scope and criticality. Intersect milestone management and the clear deliverable structure provide sufficient accountability. This is the single most important protocol upgrade currently under treasury consideration. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/ [Japanese version follows] 私は、「IO: Consensus Initiative — Leios（テストネット→メインネット対応）」に賛成票を投じます。LeiosはPraosを拡張する合意プロトコルの大型アップグレードであり、Tier 1の純粋プロトコル作業として最も優先度の高い資金用途です。10〜65倍のスループット向上はカルダノの2030年戦略目標（月間2700万TX）を実現するための技術的必須条件です。前サイクルではCIP-164のマージと初期パブリックテストネットの展開という実績が示されており、継続性に信頼性があります。₳27.7Mのリリース候補成熟化・高信頼性検証・HF有効化準備はこの規模と重要性の作業として妥当であり、Intersectのマイルストーン管理体制も説明責任の観点から適切です。現在のトレジャリー審査対象の中で最も重要なプロトコルアップグレードと考えます。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
Leios is very important to Cardano. That being said, the costs are very intransparent and by my estimates much over the typical 30% profit a software development agency would charge. That being said there's not really a choice here, we have to get Leios.
- Yes 38.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 34.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 34.3M ₳ Rationale
Socious votes Yes. Throughput is the binding constraint on Cardano's real-world adoption, and Leios is the credible answer. This 27,714,342 ADA proposal funds the path from Leios's public testnet to a mainnet-ready release candidate, targeting a 10–65x increase in transaction capacity. The need is concrete: Cardano's 2030 strategy contemplates growth from roughly 800,000 to over 27 million monthly transactions, and Leios is engineered to deliver that headroom by enhancing Ouroboros Praos with endorser blocks and committee-based validation — without compromising decentralisation or stake-pool viability.
Two things strengthen the case beyond the technology. First, the proposal scopes itself honestly: it explicitly excludes events outside IO's control, such as the community hard-fork vote, from its acceptance criteria, recording them as risks rather than promising them. Second, it budgets for adversarial red-teaming and load testing, not just implementation — confidence-building is treated as part of the deliverable.
The amount is among the largest in this cycle, but it funds Cardano's single most important scaling milestone. With milestone-based administration through Intersect, Socious supports it.
ソーシャスは本提案に賛成します。スループットはCardanoの実用的な普及を縛る最大の制約であり、Leiosはその現実的な解です。本提案は27,714,342 ADAを投じ、Leiosの公開テストネットからメインネット投入可能なリリース候補までの工程に資金を充て、取引処理能力の10〜65倍の向上を目標とします。必要性は具体的です。Cardanoの2030年戦略は、月間取引数を約80万件から2,700万件超へ伸ばす成長を想定しており、Leiosはエンドーサーブロックと委員会型の検証によってOuroboros Praosを強化し、その伸びしろを、分散性やステークプール運営の成り立ちを損なうことなく実現するよう設計されています。
技術面以外にも、賛成を後押しする点が二つあります。第一に、提案が自らの範囲を誠実に定めていることです。コミュニティによるハードフォーク投票など、IOの制御が及ばない事象を受け入れ基準から明確に除外し、約束ではなくリスクとして記録しています。第二に、実装だけでなく、敵対的なレッドチーム検証や負荷試験にも予算を割いていることです。信頼性の確認が成果物の一部として扱われています。
金額は今サイクルでも最大級ですが、その対象はCardanoにとって最も重要なスケーリングの節目です。Intersectによるマイルストーン管理も踏まえ、ソーシャスは本提案を支持します。
- Yes 32.3M ₳ Rationale
Yes. HOSKY Cardano First names Leios by name under Scalability. ₳27.7M funds path from testnet to release candidate. Hard-fork-vote risk and coarse cost detail flagged.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Voting Yes. The HOSKY Cardano First framework names Leios by name under Scalability: "prioritize solutions like Ouroboros Leios, Hydra, Plutus V3, and ZK Rollups that increase throughput while preserving decentralization." This action funds the path from public testnet to mainnet-ready release candidate. That's the work the platform asks for. Cardano 2030 targets about 27M monthly transactions versus today's ~800k. Sustainable utilization at that level needs at least 6x current L1 capacity. Leios gives 10x at the floor of the envelope. The 10–65x technical range is not a promise; budget around 10x. The design builds on Ouroboros Praos instead of replacing it, and SPO operability is called out as a design constraint, so decentralization comes out neutral on net. Throughput is a precondition for the verticals the chain wants (DeFi at scale, AI-agent micropayments, gaming, payments). Same logic as my Yes on Increase Memory Units. ₳27.7M is proportionate to the work: RC engineering, conformance testing, adversarial validation, hard-fork enablement across DB-Sync, Mithril, Blockfrost, wallets. Two flags. Per-milestone cost detail is coarser than the ask warrants. And the acceptance criteria leave out the community hard-fork vote because IO doesn't control it. Reasonable framing, but if the RC ships and the hard-fork vote then fails, some of the money is stranded. A Yes here is not a Yes on the hard-fork vote. Same Cardano First logic as Dingo (Blink Labs is building Leios alongside IO) and Increase Memory Units. Strongest pillar fit in the IO slate. Slate aggregation sits at about ₳141.9M across seven IO actions; each stands on its own. Yes.
- Yes 31.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 31M ₳ Rationale
I support this proposal as it advances Ouroboros research, enhances Cardano’s security guarantees, and aligns with the core roadmap for long‑term resilience.
- Yes 30.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 29.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 28.2M ₳ Rationale
Ouroboros Leios is a necessary upgrade that will enable enough transaction throughput for Cardano SPOs to be sustainable without having to rely on treasury emissions indefinitely. The scalability that this will unlock is critical to the success of the blockchain.
- Yes 27.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 27.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 26.1M ₳ Rationale
Rationale — Leios Consensus Upgrade
Header
If L2s unlock access, Leios ensures the base layer does not become the bottleneck again.
Constitutional Gate
Assessment: Pass, strategic core upgrade
The proposal supports long-term sustainability, scalability, and core protocol evolution. It includes defined milestones for release candidate work, validation, and hard-fork readiness.
The structure includes milestone-based disbursement, oversight, formal methods, testnet validation, and adversarial testing.
Decision Declaration
Vote: YES — Foundational, long-term critical.
Leios is required for Cardano to meet future throughput needs and support a sustainable fee-based economic model.
Core Rationale
Cardano’s long-term growth targets require a major increase in transaction capacity. Leios aims to improve throughput by enhancing Ouroboros Praos rather than replacing it.
The key value is that L2s may create new activity, but Leios helps ensure L1 can absorb, settle, and monetize that activity without becoming a bottleneck.
Strategic Alignment
The proposal aligns with Cardano’s 2030 roadmap, long-term scalability, DeFi expansion, real-world usage, and fee-based sustainability.
This is not optional research. It is base-layer economic survival infrastructure.
Economic Impact
Leios enables higher transaction capacity, supports growth in network fees, and reduces the risk of congestion-driven cost spikes.
Its strongest economic argument is that it helps Cardano scale usage while preserving L1 settlement value. Without this, new activity from L2s or applications could outgrow the base layer’s ability to process and capture value efficiently.
Execution Risk
Key risks include consensus-level complexity, hard-fork coordination, parameter uncertainty at scale, and ecosystem readiness across infrastructure, wallets, and tooling.
These risks are partly mitigated by testnet iteration, formal specification work, red-teaming, adversarial validation, and gradual parameter rollout.
Accountability
The proposal includes a clear 3-phase structure: release candidate, high-confidence validation, and hard-fork readiness.
It also acknowledges external dependencies, including hard-fork governance and ecosystem readiness. That is important because it separates delivery from activation and avoids overpromising mainnet deployment.
Stablecoin Utilization
The proposal does not appear to include a clear stablecoin treasury management strategy.
That is a weakness given the long delivery timeline and high engineering cost. Multi-phase protocol upgrades require stable purchasing power for staffing, testing, formal methods, and coordination work.
The proposer should consider converting an appropriate portion of received ADA into stablecoins, and the treasury disbursement process should support staged stablecoin conversion where predictable delivery budgets are needed.
Long-term protocol upgrades should not rely on favorable ADA price conditions. Hoping a volatile asset remains at a certain price is not a strategy.
End-User Lens
For builders, this means more capacity for applications and less risk of congestion.
For users, this means the network can handle more activity without fees spiking or performance degrading.
For capital providers, it improves confidence that Cardano can scale with demand.
Conditions to Change Vote
This rationale would materially change if the release candidate fails, throughput gains are not demonstrated, hard-fork coordination breaks down, ecosystem readiness is not achieved, or security assumptions cannot be validated under load. - Yes 25.9M ₳ Rationale
I support this vote, as Leios is key for Cardano scalability.
I would prefer to see a complete breakdown of the work, effort ($) and timeline for such a big project for transparency pruposes.
- Yes 25.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 22.7M ₳ Rationale
We need throughput to win.
- Yes 22M ₳ No rationale
- No 22M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale