IO: Developer Experience Initiative
248 DReps voted · 94 with a rationale · 14 changed their vote · 4 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 11 to yes, 1 to no, 2 to abstain, together voting with 1.3B ₳ of voting power.
- No501.3K ₳Rationale
- Yes488.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes481.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes479.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes438.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes435.9K ₳Rationale
My Rationale for Voting “Yes”
I am voting YES on this proposal because I trust Robertino Martinez’s leadership. His experience with the Cardano Education Team gives him a clear understanding of where developers face challenges. This plan is not just theoretical; it directly addresses feedback from more than 100 active builders who pointed out that fragmented tools and poor onboarding are our main obstacles to growth.
Strategic Value & Alignment
The data shows that our developer growth rate is much lower than Ethereum’s and Solana’s. I believe this initiative is the missing piece we need. By aiming for a 30% increase in developer growth, we are not just supporting code; we are helping the whole ecosystem grow. More builders will create more DApps, boosting utility and economic stability.
Harmonizing the Community
I especially appreciate the focus on Community Alignment. Instead of starting from scratch, this project will:
- Align and Map Tooling: List all current ecosystem tools to set a baseline and cut down on duplication across teams.
- Incentivize Existing Maintainers: Offer bounties to encourage open-source contributors to improve their libraries, focusing on issues like hard-fork readiness and on- and off-chain interactions.
- Collaborate with Leaders: Work with Intersect and TxPipe so that several strong organizations help maintain these improvements.
Practical Deliverables
I am excited about the cardano-init CLI and the OpenZeppelin-style Contracts Library. These tools help new builders get started quickly, letting them go from nothing to a testnet MVP in less than two weeks. By bringing all the documentation together in the Developer Portal, we make it easier for people to follow a clear path, with support for modern AI tools.
Accountability
I trust this team to deliver because the proposal sets clear 2030 KPIs, uses milestone-based payments managed by Intersect, and ends with a hackathon to measure real improvements in the developer experience. This investment is needed to make Cardano the top choice for the next generation of builders.
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳No rationale
- No379.3K ₳No rationale
- No366.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes356.1K ₳Rationale
I find this to be a very fair value-per-ADA proposal from the IO portfolio at only 3.6M ADA. The cardano-init scaffolding CLI, OpenZeppelin-style ContractsLibrary, unified Developer HUB, community bounties, and controlled hackathon with a built-in quantitative baseline collectively address the leading causes of developer attrition from Cardano as identified by a survey of 109 active developers. The measurable KPI (30%+ improvement in developer growth rate benchmarked against a hackathon baseline) makes this one of the few proposals in the entire portfolio with genuine accountability built in.
- No342.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳Rationale
I support all IO projects.
- Yes329.7K ₳No rationale
- No321.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes318.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain318.1K ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES. While I have serious concerns about IOG's budget opacity and the lack of a long-term maintenance plan, lowering the barrier to entry for developers is an absolute must-have. Tools like cardano-init and a battle-tested smart contract library are critical for ecosystem growth.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
My initial inclination was to vote "NO" on this proposal, but after deeper reflection and past conversations with developers building on Cardano, I have decided to vote YES.
Cardano cannot thrive solely on theoretical capabilities; without an ecosystem of amazing DApps, having smart contract capability means very little. Right now, our main issue is a lack of users and real-world demand, and DApps are the vehicle to drive that demand. However, to get those DApps, we must attract more developers, and our current builders suffer from fragmented, outdated documentation.
Lowering the barrier to entry is no longer a "nice-to-have" - it is an absolute "must-have". Features like the cardano-init CLI, which allows developers to spin up a project in minutes (similar to a React app), alongside a battle-tested smart contract library, will vastly reduce the time from a developer's start to their MVP.However, my support comes with significant reservations that haven't been addressed so far:
- Budget Opacity: I am highly disappointed by how IOG presents its budget details, just like the rest of their proposals. A staggering 81% of the total requested amount is hidden behind a black box labeled "Development & Engineering teams", providing us with zero granular visibility.
- Entity Responsibilities: Ideally, an initiative focused on foundational developer experience and documentation should be spearheaded and funded by the Cardano Foundation (CF), as I believe this falls under their mandate. Since they haven't initiated this, I am glad IOG stepped in, but we need better alignment on responsibilities moving forward.
- Future Maintenance: The proposal lacks a clear post-completion maintenance plan. Who will maintain this code and documentation once this is finished and these funds are depleted? Without a dedicated strategy, we risk falling right back to where we are today with outdated resources.
Despite these serious concerns, the sheer utility of improving the developer experience outweighs the negatives. I am voting YES because we must equip our builders with the tools they desperately need to succeed.
- Yes313.8K ₳No rationale
- NoChanged301.3K ₳Rationale
I’m a big fan of IO and everything they’ve accomplished over these nearly 10 years regarding Cardano. I believe it’s a top-tier company in terms of research, implementation, and blockchain, and I don’t question their capabilities at all.
However, as an observer—since I’m not deeply involved, but would still like to share my perspective. I feel that IO owes the community a clear, solid, and concise explanation of what has been achieved in previous governance actions. From my point of view, it’s very confusing; it feels like there are overlaps between this year’s proposals and last year’s, and it’s not clear at all.
It creates a lot of confusion, raising questions like: “Didn’t we already pay for this last year?” or “Why are we paying again if this was supposed to have been implemented already?” This starts to generate distrust across the community.I would like to see clear, measurable frameworks and informative checkpoints for all these governance actions something like a “Messari-style” State of Cardano report. I understand that a report like that isn’t cheap, but considering that we are about to spend nearly $40 million, the minimum expectation would be a clear report outlining what is intended to be achieved and what was accomplished last year.
This is a humongous amount of money, and it’s unreasonable for there to be so much confusion especially knowing that IO does very good work, yet their efforts start to be questioned. I wouldn’t like to see that happen. If producing such a report costs $50,000 or $100,000, then include it in the budget it doesn’t matter. There needs to be clarity and a formal way to track the return on what is being done. It’s simply too much money for this to remain so informal.
This time, I won't support this proposal. Market conditions do not allow me to do that.
Earlier votes
Abstain4mo agoSuperseded
- YesRevoted297K ₳Rationale
Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals
May 20th 2026
Summery
Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)
Important Citation
https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360
EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026
I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano $ADA.Charles quote tweeted saying
https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792
Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.Statement
There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.
While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.
I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq...pzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes285.2K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted280.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
No3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes275.2K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on “IO: Developer Experience Initiative” at 3,601,926 ADA. This is a focused, six‑month program aimed squarely at one of Cardano’s clearest bottlenecks: developer onboarding and retention. The proposal funds concrete deliverables—a stack‑agnostic “cardano‑init” starter CLI, an OpenZeppelin‑style contracts library with at least five ready‑to‑audit smart contracts, a unified Developer Portal “hub” optimized for key personas, a targeted bounty program for existing tooling, and a measurement‑oriented hackathon—all driven by prior survey data from 109 Cardano builders and the Cardano Foundation’s developer ecosystem findings. These outputs directly support a 20–30% uplift in developer onboarding and a ≥30% improvement in relative developer growth rate, which should translate into more DApps, higher MAU, and more transactions over time, aligning closely with Pillar 2 (Adoption & Utility) and Pillar 4 (Community & Ecosystem Growth) in the Cardano 2030 strategy.
The scope is well bounded and the budget is proportionate for the work: roughly 81% of the 3.6M ADA request goes to development and engineering, with the remainder covering ecosystem support, bounties, the measurement hackathon, and standard audit/oversight costs. Governance and constitutional compliance are strong—the withdrawal is denominated in ADA, sits within the 350M NCL, and is administered via Intersect’s audited TRSC/PSSC framework with auto‑abstain delegation, multi‑sig oversight, third‑party assurance, and a commitment to return unspent funds. Compared to many larger, less targeted proposals this epoch, this initiative offers a clear link between cost and ecosystem utility. My support comes with the expectation that IO keeps the work collaborative and upstream‑oriented (so it strengthens, rather than replaces, existing community tools) and that it publishes concrete DevX metrics—such as time‑to‑MVP, NPS, and adoption of the CLI, contracts library, and Developer Portal flows—so that any future DevX‑related asks can be evaluated against demonstrable impact. - Yes272.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain268.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes254.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes236.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes222.9K ₳No rationale
- No216.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes202.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes189.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes185K ₳No rationale
- Yes183.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain161.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- No157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes155.7K ₳No rationale
- No149.8K ₳Rationale
I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳3.6 M) is important SDK improvement work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure. - Yes142.9K ₳Rationale
I vote in favor of this proposal because it addresses a structural bottleneck in the ecosystem documented with quantitative evidence: the stagnation around 550 active developers
- Abstain138.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes128.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes127K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes122.8K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes because I view developer experience as one of the most immediate barriers to Cardano’s ecosystem growth. Infrastructure and scaling investments only realize their potential if developers can efficiently build, experiment, and deploy applications.
Cardano’s fragmented tooling, scattered documentation, and steep learning curve create friction for both new and experienced builders. I support efforts that reduce these barriers through improved onboarding, standardized patterns, simplified setup, unified documentation, and reusable contract libraries.
My support is not an endorsement of every tooling initiative. I remain mindful of overlap with other proposals, but view this one differently because it focuses less on deep protocol refinement and more on practical builder accessibility.
I believe reducing time-to-first-project and improving developer retention may provide a more direct path toward ecosystem growth and adoption. While ambitious growth targets should be evaluated critically, improving the builder experience addresses a current constraint rather than a future one, making this a worthwhile investment in Cardano’s long-term utility and resilience.
- Yes120.5K ₳No rationale