DRepTalk
Sign in
Enter as DRepEnter as SPOEnter as CC memberEnter as proposerRegister as DRep
Governance ActionsDiscussionsDRepsTreasury
Sign in
More ways to sign in
Enter as SPOEnter as CC memberEnter as proposerRegister as DRep

IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative

System3mo ago1 post
DReps 239SPOs 0

239 DReps voted · 88 with a rationale · 12 changed their vote

Open a row to read the rationale.

  • Yoroi W₳llet
    Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale

    Summary
    Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on "IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative." While Yoroi recognises the importance of Layer 2 infrastructure for Cardano's long-term competitiveness, the structure of this proposal makes a considered YES difficult to justify at this time.
    Rationale
    The Hydra workstream has clear and immediate justification.
    Delta DeFi and Masumi represent live production commitments that give the Hydra hardening work a specific and demonstrable ecosystem rationale. Yoroi would find it straightforward to support this component independently, precisely because it is anchored in demonstrated demand rather than projected future adoption.

    The bundled structure creates an uneven evaluation problem.
    The same vote that covers mature Hydra work also funds early-stage data availability research and the mainnet push for a rollup still resolving its multi-operator coordination model. These components sit at very different points on the maturity curve, and an all-or-nothing governance action does not give DReps a proportionate way to engage with that difference.

    Clearer separation would strengthen the case for each workstream.
    Yoroi is not opposed to any of the three components in principle and recognises their collective importance to Cardano's scalability roadmap. A proposal structure that draws cleaner lines between workstreams, or submits them independently, would allow each to be assessed on its own delivery evidence and risk profile.

    Conclusion
    Yoroi supports the goal of building a credible Layer 2 ecosystem on Cardano and respects the work that IO and Midgard Labs are undertaking. Our abstain is not a rejection of that direction, but a reflection that the current proposal structure makes it difficult to engage with each workstream on its own merits. We would welcome a resubmission that gives each component room to stand independently.

  • YUTA
    No435.8M ₳Rationale

    I am voting NO on "IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative."
    Hydra, which makes up 80% of this proposal, has received significant investment in the past, but I believe it has been—and will continue to be—difficult for it to meaningfully contribute to transaction volume, etc., in the past, present, or future.
    I have discussed Hydra with several developers, and ultimately it's hard to envision a future in which this technology is utilized by Cardano L1 or its general users, or in which some kind of benefit is returned to users. At the very least, the current proposal's development scope will not get us there.
    I do think Midgard has the potential to create good impact, so I hope that, if needed, a governance action for it will be submitted separately from Hydra.

    ーーー

    私は「IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative」にNOを投票します。

    この提案書の８割を占めるHydraは現在のところ過去に多くの投資を受けてきましたが、過去、現在、将来も多くのTxなどに貢献するのが困難な状況にあると思います。

    いくつかの開発者とHydraについて話し合いましたが、最終的にこのテクノロジーがCardano L1またはその一般ユーザーに利用される、あるいは何らかの利益がユーザーに還元される未来が見えづらいと思います。少なくとも現在の提案書の開発スコープではそこへ辿り着きません。

    Midgardは良いインパクトを生み出す可能性があると考えていますため、それは必要であればHydraとは別でガバナンスアクションが提出されることを願っています。

  • Blockdaemon
    Abstain332.2M ₳No rationale
  • EMURGO
    Abstain293M ₳Rationale

    Summary
    EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on the treasury withdrawal titled "IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative", with rationale outlined below.
    Rationale
    The case for Layer 2 infrastructure on Cardano is well established, and this proposal addresses it across three workstreams of genuinely different character. The Hydra hardening work is grounded in live ecosystem demand, with Delta DeFi and Masumi already building production commitments that depend on its continued development. EMURGO recognises the urgency of that and does not take it lightly.

    The difficulty is that the three workstreams differ considerably in maturity and risk profile, and a single governance action does not allow them to be evaluated independently. Shared data availability infrastructure is early-stage research, Hydra hardening is incremental delivery against live commitments, and Midgard represents a new permissionless rollup moving from testnet toward mainnet. Grouping them together makes it difficult to endorse the well-evidenced parts without also underwriting the more speculative ones.

    EMURGO is not opposed to any of the individual workstreams and recognises the importance of each to Cardano's scalability roadmap. A structure that provides clearer accountability boundaries between components, or separates them into distinct proposals, would allow the community to engage more precisely with what is being asked and would make each workstream significantly easier to support.

  • CryptoCrow
    Yes254.7M ₳No rationale
  • Eternl DRep Committee
    No222.9M ₳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 Research

    Combined:

    ✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
    ❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
    ➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

    All 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.

  • Sebastien Guillemot セバ
    No174.6M ₳Rationale

    Before I talk about Hydra, I just want to get the other two sections out of the way:

    1. I think this proposal only has very loose financial connections with Midgard, so I won't talk about it
    2. The proposal only vaguely talks about wanting to build a DA layer, but doesn't elaborate on how it would achieve that. DA layers are a complex topic, so if we're going to fund some DA layer effort (which I think is important), I would rather see a more concrete pitch on how that would actually be achieved. Some technical challenges just for insight:
      1. What cryptography would you use for the DA layer? If it's ellitpic-curve based, it may have to be phased out in a few years due to quantum computers. Therefore, if a proper DA layer takes a few years to build, elliptic curves is not an option (for example, Ethereum's DA layer is based on elliptic curves, and they've already started working on their plan to migrate it to post-quantum cryptography). We can use hashes as the post-quantum scheme (similar to what Ethereum is planning to move to, and there are papers on hash-based DA layers like FRI-based DA), but this would be somewhat unfortunate given Midnight and Starstream are working working on lattices for PQ cryptography (although I don't think there is much research on lattice-based primitives required for DA layers). The reason aligning the cryptography for DA with other choices matter is because, as the ZOTA paper shows, there is quite a lot of performance benefit gained by aligning cryptography across primitives.
      2. How to best model a DA layer in the UTXO context? All other DA layers are in the account setting (other than maybe something like Chia, which isn't a DA layer per-se, but has some ideas). If we instead try and build the DA layer more at the protocol level than at the ledger level, then we're have to think about how this aligns with Leios (since there is quite a bit of overlap, and there was even a "Blob Leios" concept at some point to use Leios for DA)

    Given the above, I feel this proposal is actually mostly for Hydra. In my opinion, although Hydra does have some users, it hasn't quite hit the level of adoption that was originally expected. Even for fixed-party payment systems (the use-case state channels were advertised as best suited for), people have instead been leveraging privacy-preserving ZK solutions (ex: Ligero is used in Midnight City to do fast private payments at ~500tps, which is enough for most use-cases). I see two potential directions for this proposal if it gets resubmitted:

    1. Be very clear about this being a "capstone", and clearly identify which features would be needed by Hydra to make it v1 complete. I don't really feel like existing projects using Hydra are demanding a lot of features, so I feel like we must not be far from this kind of milestone (let me know if I'm wrong)
    2. Be very clear about a new potential direction for L2 strategy (experience and things built for Hydra can be very beneficial for this!). For example
      1. what if we built a more restrictive (not general plutus) version of Hydra that also has ZK that uses UTXOs? There is some prior ideas around this (zSwap-based L2 for Midnight, intmax in ethereum, Ligero in Midnight City, etc.)
      2. what if we want to combine state channels with general ZK solutions? Starstream can somewhat model state channels because within a single transaction, you can "pass" the utxo set to somebody else for them to continue the proof. However, Starstream can't cover the entire set of use-cases you might care about at the moment since you may lose privacy when passing utxos (may require some MPC system for this), and there's nothing stopping somebody from ending the proof by submitting the UTXO diff onchain at any time. I feel ideas from Hydra can be combined with Starstream to achieve this though
  • Everstake
    Abstain165.7M ₳No rationale
  • Cardano Foundation
    Abstain120.2M ₳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

    Summary

    The 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 Statement

    We 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    Conclusion

    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

    Summary

    The 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 Statement

    We 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    Conclusion

    The 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

    Summary

    The 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 Statement

    We 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    Conclusion

    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

    Summary

    The 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 Statement

    While the critical importance of keeping the network operating securely is undisputed, our evaluation reflects several material concerns regarding the current formulation of the proposal:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    Conclusion

    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

    Summary

    The 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 Statement

    We 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:

    1. 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%.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    Conclusion

    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

    Summary

    The 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 Statement

    We 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Reusable and Auditable Components: The initiative focuses on d
  • JAZZ
    Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
  • CardanoYoda (MANDA Pool)
    No91.5M ₳Rationale

    As a DRep, I have decided to vote NO on the proposal: IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative

    This was not an easy decision. However, DReps recently rejected a bundled proposal for Cardano Summit and TOKEN2049 submitted by Cardano Foundation and EMURGO. If governance decisions are to remain consistent and credible, the same standards must apply to proposals submitted by Input Output (IO).

    This proposal combines several distinct components into a single funding request:

    1. L2-agnostic data availability (DA) research and prototyping, intended as shared infrastructure for future L2s.

    2. Hydra production hardening, including performance optimization, tooling, reference DeFi implementations, and ecosystem support.

    3. Midgard rollup development, including its path toward mainnet and multi-operator coordination.

    These components differ significantly in scope, maturity, and risk profile. They range from early-stage research (DA), to ongoing infrastructure development (Hydra), to previously funded but not fully delivered work (Midgard).

    Bundling of components reduces transparency and weakens accountability, particularly where prior milestones remain incomplete.

    Midgard previously received ₳2,162,096 in 2025 through a treasury withdrawal, as well as funding of ₳500,000 through Catalyst. At this stage, key milestones have not yet been delivered.

    While complex infrastructure development can take time, further funding should be contingent on clear evidence of progress and fulfillment of prior commitments.

    The proposal also includes developer relations, ecosystem coordination, and engagement activities, with ₳625,552 allocated to “Engagement & Ecosystem support.” While these functions are important, they are not clearly defined in terms of deliverables or measurable outcomes.

    I believe such activities are better suited to independent, community-led initiatives, which are already emerging within the ecosystem and can often deliver these functions more efficiently and in a more decentralized manner.

    Additionally, the proposal references “contributions from Input Output and Midgard Labs” without providing a clear breakdown of responsibilities, resource allocation, or accountability between the entities. This lack of clarity further complicates evaluation and raises concerns about governance oversight.

    Finally, the proposal presents ambitious performance and adoption outcomes, such as high throughput, low fees, and mainnet readiness, while the defined deliverables are primarily focused on research, prototyping, and incremental improvements. This creates a gap between stated outcomes and funded activities, making it difficult to assess whether the requested funding will result in measurable, production-ready infrastructure within the proposed timeframe.

    To be clear, all three components addressed in this proposal are important for Cardano’s future. Hydra, Midgard, and a DA layer are all critical parts of the ecosystem’s scalability roadmap.

    I would be willing to consider a bundled proposal provided the scope, delivery expectations, and accountability are balanced and clearly defined across all parts. However, in this case, the proposal is too asymmetrical in its composition, combining early-stage research, ongoing infrastructure development, and previously funded but incomplete work, without sufficient clarity on prior delivery.

    I remain open to reviewing future proposals that address these components separately and with stronger guarantees of delivery.

  • BTBF_XSP
    No88.6M ₳Rationale

    The direction of L2 scaling is understandable. At this point, however, priority should go first to improving L1 performance through the Consensus Initiative (Leios). A full L2 implementation can reasonably wait until Leios is in place, and committing Treasury funds to this proposal at this timing is not sufficiently necessary. Therefore I vote NO.

  • SIPO
    Yes86M ₳Rationale

    SIPO DRep votes YES on IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative.

    Governance Action ID: gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qghg4q43
    DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
    Date: 2026-05-09

    SIPO supports this proposal as the Layer 2 half of Cardano's two-layer scaling architecture. Together with Leios (also under SIPO YES vote in this round), this proposal completes Cardano's scaling roadmap to 2030 targets: L1 throughput at 10-65x via Leios, L2 throughput at 10,000+ TPS via Hydra and Midgard. Cardano's current L1 (~7-10 TPS, ~2-hour finality, ~$0.17 per transaction) is structurally pre-eliminated from high-performance verticals (DeFi, AI agent micropayments, gaming, consumer payments) before technical evaluation begins. Leios solves the L1 ceiling; this proposal solves the finality and fee floors that Leios alone cannot address.

    Why SIPO votes YES

    1. Hydra and Midgard are complementary, not competing. Hydra is purpose-built for known-party, high-frequency environments where all participants are pre-agreed and remain online (AI agent networks on Masumi, B2B payment rails, real-time gaming sessions). Midgard is purpose-built for open, permissionless environments where participants are anonymous (public DEXs, lending protocols, NFT marketplaces, consumer-facing applications). The distinction is trust model, not feature overlap. Funding only one would leave a meaningful coverage gap. Together they address the full spectrum of high-performance Cardano applications.

    2. Hydra hardening protects three live production commitments. Delta DeFi is building a Hydra-based DEX (SIPO voted YES on the DeltaDeFi Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budget in January 2026, and this proposal continues that trajectory). Masumi requires machine-to-machine micropayment infrastructure that L1 alone cannot sustain. Midgard requires Hydra-based fast-withdrawal integration. WS2 (Hydra Production Hardening, ₳7.58M, 73% of the proposal) directly funds the performance optimization, operational excellence, and DeFi reference implementations these production builders need to scale on Cardano rather than migrate to competing ecosystems.

    3. Midgard is structurally Cardano-native — a UTxO-based optimistic rollup. Unlike Ethereum L2s where multi-round challenge-response games make fraud proofs operationally complex, Midgard's UTxO design enables single-party fraud proofs: one L1 transaction proves invalidity and slashes a malicious operator. This architectural simplification is a direct consequence of Cardano's EUTXO model, and Midgard cannot be replicated with equivalent simplicity on account-based chains. WS3 (₳947K, 9%) brings Midgard from testnet to mainnet through penetration testing.

    4. WS1 L2-Agnostic Infrastructure (DA solution, ₳1.90M, 18%) is shared infrastructure for every current and future Cardano L2. Building a shared Data Availability layer prevents ecosystem fragmentation and solves a technical bottleneck once for the whole ecosystem rather than once per project. This is the same logic SIPO has applied to Cardano Blueprint (under the Maintenance proposal) for alt-clients.

    5. Midgard sequencer revenue routes back to the Cardano Treasury. The Midgard architecture explicitly includes a mechanism to direct a portion of L2 sequencer revenue back to the Cardano Treasury, similar in concept to how Optimism's Superchain governance routes value from Base to the OP Collective. This is a structural implementation of Pillar 5 Focus Area E.1 — Treasury evolving from a passive pool to a yield-generating multi-asset reserve. The Midgard Labs co-venture itself extends SIPO's stewardship-distribution doctrine.

    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. Net Change Limit compliant.

    Expectations (YES with binding operational commitments)

    • WS3 Midgard multi-operator coordination transparency: The proposal explicitly classifies multi-operator coordination as the most complex engineering challenge with High likelihood / High severity risk. SIPO expects publication of testnet milestone progress on multi-operator coordination, with monthly visibility into round-robin coordination behavior, parameter exploration, and any blockers identified before mainnet activation.

    • DA strategy Stage 1 evaluation community input: The Data Availability solution becomes shared infrastructure for every Cardano L2. SIPO expects the Stage 1 evaluation phase to be open to public community input from L2 teams, SPOs, and DReps before Stage 2 commits to a specific architecture. The wrong architectural choice would create long-term technical debt for the entire Cardano L2 ecosystem.

    • Midgard sequencer-to-Treasury return mechanism specification: The proposal references this mechanism as a structural feature but does not yet publish the specific terms. SIPO expects publication by Q4 2026 of the return percentage, timing trigger conditions, and calculation methodology, comparable to the level of specificity SIPO expects for any treasury investment commitment.

    • Hydra reference implementation utilization KPI: With Delta DeFi, Masumi, and Midgard as live production users, SIPO expects quarterly KPIs on actual reference implementation adoption — not just code delivery, but documented integration with at least these three named production users.

    • Hydra vs Midgard trust model educational material: With both Hydra and Midgard active on Cardano, ecosystem confusion about when to use which is a real adoption risk. SIPO expects publication of educational material — for SPOs, builders, and DReps — clearly delineating the trust models, intended use cases, and selection criteria for each L2 system.

    Closing

    Together with Leios, this proposal completes Cardano's two-layer scaling architecture. WS2 protects three live production commitments (Delta DeFi, Masumi, Midgard) that SIPO considers essential ecosystem signals. WS1 builds shared infrastructure for every Cardano L2. WS3 brings Cardano's first permissionless optimistic rollup to mainnet, leveraging the structural EUTXO advantage that account-based chains cannot replicate. 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 & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative」に賛成（YES）を投じます。

    Governance Action ID: gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qghg4q43
    DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
    Date: 2026-05-09

    SIPOは本提案を、Cardanoの2層スケーリングアーキテクチャのLayer 2側として支持します。本ラウンドでSIPOが同様にYESを投じるLeiosと組み合わさることで、Cardanoの2030ターゲットへのスケーリングロードマップが完成します：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。Cardanoの現在のL1（約7-10 TPS、約2時間finality、約$0.17/tx）は、技術評価が始まる前から高性能vertical（DeFi、AIエージェントmicropayments、gaming、consumer payments）でpre-selectionにより構造的に除外されています。LeiosはL1天井を解決し、本提案はLeios単独では対応できないfinality・fee floor を解決します。

    SIPOがYESと判断する理由

    1. HydraとMidgardは競合ではなく補完。HydraはBe-known partyかつ高頻度の環境（Masumi上のAIエージェントネットワーク、B2B決済レール、リアルタイムゲーミング）向けに設計され、全参加者が事前合意済みかつオンラインで居続ける必要があります。Midgardはopen permissionless環境（public DEX、lending、NFTマーケットプレイス、consumer-facing アプリケーション）向けに設計されています。違いはtrust modelであり、機能の重複ではありません。一方のみへの資金提供では意味のあるカバレッジギャップが残ります。両者組み合わさることで、Cardano高性能アプリケーションの全スペクトラムに対応します。

    2. Hydra hardeningは3つのライブプロダクション・コミットメントを保護する。Delta DeFiはHydraベースのDEXを構築中（SIPOは2026年1月にDeltaDeFi Hydra Trading Infrastructure Budgetに対しYESを投じており、本提案はその軌道の継続）。MasumiはL1単独では維持できないM2M micropayment インフラを必要とします。MidgardはHydraベースのfast-withdrawal統合を必要とします。WS2（Hydra Production Hardening、₳7.58M、本提案の73%）は、これらのプロダクションbuildersがCardanoから競合エコシステムへ移行するのではなくCardano上でスケールするために必要なperformance optimization、operational excellence、DeFi reference implementationsに直接資金提供します。

    3. MidgardはCardano-nativeに構造的に設計された UTxOベースoptimistic rollup。Multi-round challenge-response gamesによりfraud proofsが運用的に複雑となるEthereum L2と異なり、MidgardのUTxO設計はsingle-party fraud proofs を可能にします（1つのL1トランザクションでinvalidityを証明し悪意あるoperatorをslash）。このアーキテクチャ的単純化はCardanoのEUTXOモデルの直接的帰結であり、account-based chainsで同等の単純さで再現することはできません。WS3（₳947K、9%）はpenetration testingを通じてMidgardをtestnetからmainnetへ移行させます。

    4. WS1 L2-Agnostic Infrastructure（DAソリューション、₳1.90M、18%）は全現在および将来のCardano L2の共有インフラ。共有Data Availability層を構築することはエコシステム断片化を防ぎ、技術的ボトルネックをプロジェクトごとではなくエコシステム全体に対し一度解決します。これはSIPOがalt-clients用のCardano Blueprint（Maintenance提案下）に適用したのと同じ論理です。

    5. MidgardのsequencerレベニューはCardano Treasuryに還元される。Midgardアーキテクチャは、L2 sequencerレベニューの一部をCardano Treasuryに直接還元するメカニズムを明示的に含みます。Optimism Superchainガバナンスが BaseからOP Collectiveに価値を還元する仕組みと同様の概念です。これはPillar 5 Focus Area E.1 — Treasuryをpassive poolからyield-generating multi-asset reserveへ進化させる — の構造的実装です。Midgard Labs co-venture自体もSIPOのstewardship分散ドクトリンを拡張します。

    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。86% Development配分、Net Change Limit準拠。

    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）

    • WS3 Midgard multi-operator coordination 透明性：本提案はmulti-operator coordinationを最も複雑なエンジニアリング課題（High likelihood / High severity risk）と明示的に分類しています。SIPOはmulti-operator coordinationのtestnetマイルストーン進捗の公開を期待します — round-robin coordination behavior、パラメータ探索、mainnet活性化前に特定された blocker への月次可視性。

    • DA strategy Stage 1 evaluation のコミュニティインプット：Data AvailabilityソリューションはCardano L2の共有インフラとなります。SIPOはStage 1 evaluationフェーズが、Stage 2が特定アーキテクチャにcommit する前にL2チーム、SPO、DRepからの公開コミュニティインプットに開かれることを期待します。誤ったアーキテクチャ選択はCardano L2エコシステム全体に長期技術債務を生みます。

    • Midgard sequencer→Treasury return mechanism 仕様：本提案はこのメカニズムを構造的特徴として参照していますが、具体的条件はまだ公開していません。SIPOはQ4 2026までに、return率、トリガー条件のタイミング、計算方法論の公開を期待します — Treasury投資コミットメントとして SIPO が他の場面で期待するのと同レベルの具体性で。

    • Hydra reference implementation 利用率KPI：Delta DeFi、Masumi、Midgardをライブプロダクションユーザーとし、SIPOは実際のreference implementa

  • Army of Spies
    No84.3M ₳Rationale

    Unfortunately, we cannot fund every single proposal that we would with infinite money. I am not yet persuaded this is the best use of funds at this time.

  • Dumpling🥟
    No77.7M ₳No rationale
  • Phil UPLC
    Abstain76.8M ₳Rationale

    Abstain due to direct personal involvement.

    A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

    Abstain due to direct personal involvement. If funded, we will return our allocation to the treasury. DA is absolutely critical, and a must have if we want to compete with other smart contract L1s.

  • ranket
    Yes75.2M ₳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.

  • SASA_nagamaru_ながまる
    Abstain74.5M ₳Rationale

    I strongly support the overall direction of this proposal. As Cardano moves toward supporting high-performance use cases such as DeFi, AI agents, gaming, and micropayments, I believe an L2 strategy is becoming increasingly important, and I agree that solutions such as Hydra and Midgard will likely play an important role in Cardano’s future. I also believe the proposal presents a realistic assessment of Cardano’s current challenges around finality, fees, and throughput.

    Among the proposed workstreams, I particularly value the Hydra production hardening efforts. The fact that projects such as Delta DeFi and Masumi already depend on Hydra gives this part of the proposal a strong sense of real-world demand. Improvements related to performance optimization, operational tooling, and reference implementations appear highly practical and directly connected to production adoption. Hydra seems to be transitioning from a research-focused initiative into a real deployment layer, making it one of the more compelling parts of the proposal in the current environment.

    At the same time, I believe the broader full-scope proposal — including Midgard and the L2-agnostic DA strategy — introduces a wider range of technical complexity and execution risk. In particular, the proposal itself identifies multi-operator coordination as one of the most difficult engineering challenges. Given the current treasury environment, I believe a more phased and narrowly prioritized approach would be preferable.

    Personally, I believe I would have been more comfortable supporting the proposal if the Hydra-related and Midgard-related workstreams had been separated into distinct proposals. However, after considering the current scope and overall budget size, I will abstain at this time.

    本提案が目指している方向性には強く賛同しています。特に、Cardanoが今後DeFi、AI agent、ゲーム、マイクロペイメントなどの高性能ユースケースへ対応していくためには、L2戦略そのものは非常に重要であり、HydraやMidgardのような取り組みが必要になること自体には異論はありません。現在のCardanoが抱えるfinality、fee、throughputの課題認識についても、現実的かつ重要な視点だと考えています。

    その中でも、特にHydra production hardeningについては、既にDelta DeFiやMasumiなどの具体的な利用ケースが存在しており、performance optimization、operational tooling、reference implementationなど、実運用に直結する改善が多く含まれている点を高く評価しています。Hydraは研究段階から実利用フェーズへ進みつつあり、現在のCardanoにとって比較的優先順位の高い領域だと感じています。

    一方で、MidgardやL2-agnostic DA戦略まで含めたフルスコープ全体については、現時点ではやや範囲が広く、技術的リスクも高い印象を受けています。特にmulti-operator coordinationなどは提案内でも最も複雑な課題として挙げられており、今のトレジャリー状況を踏まえると、より段階的かつ優先順位を絞ったアプローチの方が望ましいと感じました。

    個人的には、Hydra関連部分とMidgard関連部分を分離した提案構成であれば、より前向きに評価しやすかったと感じています。しかし、現在の提案スコープ全体および予算規模を総合的に考慮し、今回は棄権とします。

  • Dave
    No73.1M ₳Rationale

    I vote NO. Whilst I highly value Midgard's technology, missed 2025 mainnet promises, neglected legacy milestones, and inadequate public communication present unacceptable risks. We require formal progress demonstrations and the completion of all existing milestones before funding.

    A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

    I am formally registering a NO vote on the L2 Scaling Infrastructure Treasury Withdrawal. Whilst I remain a steadfast proponent of the Midgard protocol and readily acknowledge the exceptional technical calibre of its engineering team, I cannot in good conscience endorse this proposal until fundamental operational and communicative deficiencies are rectified. I am generally supportive of the broader Layer 2 concepts bundled herein; however, the project's historical delivery trajectory currently presents an unacceptable governance risk.

    Despite unequivocal public commitments from the team guaranteeing a mainnet launch by the close of 2025, this pivotal milestone remains conspicuously unrealised as of May 2026. Furthermore, a concerning pattern of paused and past-due milestones persists across both the 2025 budget funding and prior Catalyst rounds. Although my independent analysis of the repositories indicates substantial codebase maturity, the sustained failure to formalise these deliverables and execute milestone claims highlights a severe deficit in operational prioritisation.

    Whilst I deeply appreciate the direct, private dialogue with Phil to ascertain the project's true developmental status, ecosystem transparency cannot rely upon private, back-channel communications. The broader community requires radically improved public engagement and consistent, verifiable showcasing of ongoing work to facilitate informed governance decisions.

    I have conveyed comprehensive feedback to key individuals whom I believe possess the capability to realign this project's trajectory and bridge these existing gaps. Moving forward, I strongly recommend the team host a formal, public demonstration of current progress, paired with a transparent explanation regarding the unfulfilled 2025 mainnet commitments. Furthermore, it is imperative that all outstanding Intersect and Catalyst milestones are fully completed prior to any subsequent requests for Treasury capital. I genuinely believe Midgard possesses the potential to succeed, and I view this juncture as a critical, final opportunity for the project to definitively prove its merit to the Cardano ecosystem.

    References regarding 2025 mainnet commitments:

    https://x.com/midgardprotocol/status/1900506931598438482?s=20

    https://x.com/AnastasiaLabs/status/1868427407142584420?s=20

  • Martin Lang
    Abstain69.4M ₳No rationale
  • Hermes Stakepool Germany (HRMS)
    No66M ₳Rationale

    As Cardanians say: "I’m voting NO because this proposal asks for ₳ 10 million while bundling multiple workstreams with different maturity and risk profiles, without providing the level of cost traceability and milestone evidence that a multi-million-ADA treasury withdrawal requires."

  • Peter Bui
    YesChanged62.7M ₳History

    Earlier votes

    Abstain2mo agoSuperseded

  • Dori
    NoRevoted53.8M ₳Rationale

    I am voting No on the IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative proposal.

    I have consistently emphasized the importance of L2 infrastructure for scaling the Cardano network. Scaling solutions like Hydra are essential for Cardano to remain competitive, and I believe that scaling approaches built on the structural strengths unique to the eUTXO model represent a differentiating value for Cardano.

    For these reasons, this decision was not an easy one for me.

    However, my opposition is not about what this proposal aims to build, but rather about how it is structured and what it asks DReps to overlook.

    1. Midgard's prior funding commitments remain unfulfilled.
      Midgard has already received ₳500,000 through Catalyst Fund 12 and ₳2,162,096 through the 2025 Intersect treasury withdrawal, totaling approximately ₳2.66M in prior funding.

    Yet Catalyst F12 currently sits at only 3 of 6 milestones completed, with the core deliverables in milestones 5 and 6 still not remaining undelivered past their scheduled dates.

    This new funding request is essentially a third round of funding being asked for while Catalyst F12 is not even closed out yet. Even though Midgard's share within this proposal is relatively small, granting additional funding before prior commitments have been verified raises legitimate concerns about treasury fund accountability.

    1. The bundled structure makes separate evaluation impossible.
      This proposal combines three components with different maturity levels and risk profiles into a single funding request. When heterogeneous components are bundled into one package, DReps lose the ability to evaluate the proven Hydra track separately from the unverified Midgard track.

    As a result, we are forced into a binary choice where passing the legitimate parts requires also passing the parts we don't agree with.

    I do not believe IO's influence should serve as grounds for exempting it from the transparency and accountability standards that apply to every other proposer. Trustworthy governance is only possible when the same standards are applied consistently.

    1. Responsibility allocation and deliverable definitions are unclear.
      The proposal only states that the work will be "jointly delivered by IO and Midgard Labs," without providing a clear breakdown of how responsibilities, resources, and governance oversight are divided between the two organizations.

    Additionally, ₳625,552 is allocated to "Engagement & Ecosystem support," but no measurable deliverables are defined for this line item.

    This is not an evaluation of the value of any particular project. It is purely about flagging concerns regarding the structure of the proposal and consistency in governance.

    I believe all three components covered in this proposal are important to the Cardano ecosystem. However, overlooking a bundled structure and accepting additional funding requests for unfinished projects would set a precedent that allows the same problems to repeat. To prevent that pattern from recurring, I had no choice but to vote No.

    I would ask that the projects be submitted separately and independently, and that responsibility allocation and deliverable definitions be made more concrete. With those changes, I would be happy to consider future proposals more favorably.

    Earlier votes

    No2mo agoSuperseded

    I am voting No on the IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative proposal.

    I have consistently emphasized the importance of L2 infrastructure for scaling the Cardano network. Scaling solutions like Hydra are essential for Cardano to remain competitive, and I believe that scaling approaches built on the structural strengths unique to the eUTXO model represent a differentiating value for Cardano. For these reasons, this decision was not an easy one for me.

    However, my opposition is not about what this proposal aims to build, but rather about how it is structured and what it asks DReps to overlook.

    1. Midgard's prior funding commitments remain unfulfilled.
      Midgard has already received ₳500,000 through Catalyst Fund 12 and ₳2,162,096 through the 2025 Intersect treasury withdrawal, totaling approximately ₳2.66M in prior funding. Yet Catalyst F12 currently sits at only 3 of 6 milestones completed, with the core deliverables in milestones 5 and 6 still not started, even though their scheduled dates have passed.

    What stands out is that Anastasia Labs filed a formal Change Request during Catalyst F12 to extend all milestones by one month, stating directly that "the time required to deliver these milestones was far larger than what we estimated." Even with that extended timeline, the key milestones remain unmet.

    This new funding request is essentially a third round of funding being asked for while Catalyst F12 is not even closed out yet. Even though Midgard's share within this proposal is relatively small, this conflicts with the basic principle of treasury fund management: that additional funding should be considered only after the fulfillment of prior commitments has been verified.

    1. The bundled structure makes separate evaluation impossible.
      This proposal combines three components with significantly different maturity levels and risk profiles into a single funding request. When heterogeneous components are bundled into one package, DReps lose the ability to evaluate the proven Hydra track (73%, ₳7.58M) separately from the unverified Midgard track (9%, ₳947K). As a result, we are forced into a binary choice where passing the legitimate parts requires also passing the parts we don't agree with.

    I do not believe IO's influence should serve as grounds for exempting it from the transparency and accountability standards that apply to every other proposer. Trustworthy governance is only possible when the same standards are applied consistently.

    1. Responsibility allocation and deliverable definitions are unclear.
      The proposal only states that the work will be "jointly delivered by IO and Midgard Labs," without providing a clear breakdown of how responsibilities, resources, and governance oversight are divided between the two organizations. Additionally, ₳625,552 is allocated to "Engagement & Ecosystem support," but no measurable deliverables are defined for this line item.

    This is not an evaluation of the value of any particular project. It is purely about flagging concerns regarding the structure of the proposal and consistency in governance.

    I believe all three components covered in this proposal are important to the Cardano ecosystem. However, overlooking a bundled structure and accepting additional funding requests for unfinished projects would set a precedent that allows the same problems to repeat. To prevent that pattern from recurring, I had no choice but to vote No.

    I would ask that the projects be submitted separately and independently, and that responsibility allocation and deliverable definitions be made more concrete. With those changes, I would be happy to consider future proposals more favorably.

  • Goofycrisp
    Yes50.5M ₳Rationale

    Scaling is one of Cardano’s most important priorities, and supporting multiple paths for growth is strategically important. This proposal carries execution risk, but it is led by highly respected builders and presents a differentiated approach to L2 development that could strengthen Cardano without simply copying the more extractive L2 models seen elsewhere. I believe this is worth supporting.

  • hix_coffeepool
    No50.4M ₳Rationale

    I am voting No on this proposal. As a DRep, I evaluate all treasury withdrawal governance actions against my published voting framework, with a focus on the healthy development and long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. This proposal does not meet the framework's requirements, and I am voting No on that basis.

  • AdaStat
    Abstain50M ₳Rationale

    I'm going to revisit this proposal a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain just in case I don't manage to do that before the deadline.

  • Chris-O
    Yes49.5M ₳No rationale
  • PoolTool
    No47.6M ₳No rationale
  • HISAI
    Abstain42.9M ₳No rationale
  • Patrick_Tobler
    Yes40.1M ₳Rationale

    Hydra and Midgard are both quite valuable and important for this ecosystem, I also respect the project lead Sharan a lot. Masumi will be a user of Hydra. But it's disappointing that Midgard has no reported completed Milestones submitted for the last proposals - that being said, based on Phils statements the work has been done. I urge you to submit milestones though - doing the work is important but talking about work is also important.

  • drep1yffcjs0njfe...
    No38.1M ₳Rationale

    While L2 scaling technologies like Hydra and Rollups may become important in the future, I do not believe they are the highest priority for Cardano at the current stage.

  • Linda - Cryptofly
    No37.8M ₳No rationale
  • Liqwid DAO
    Yes36.9M ₳No rationale
  • MUEN
    Yes34.6M ₳Rationale

    現在の厳しい財政下ではありますが、L1のアップグレード（Leios/Peras）を待つだけでなく、今すぐL2でシェアを奪いに行くという攻めの姿勢は評価できる。

  • Socious
    Abstain34.3M ₳Rationale

    Socious abstains. This 10,425,871 ADA proposal bundles three things under one vote: shared L2-agnostic data availability infrastructure, production hardening of Hydra, and the mainnet launch of Midgard, a new permissionless optimistic rollup targeting 10,000+ TPS.

    Socious does not question the goal. Cardano's base layer — roughly two-hour finality, fees near $0.17, and 7–10 TPS — genuinely needs a Layer 2 path, and the Hydra hardening work, with named adopters in Delta DeFi and Masumi, is the kind of incremental, evidence-backed delivery a DRep can readily support.

    The difficulty is the bundle. The same vote that funds proven Hydra work also funds the mainnet launch of a brand-new rollup whose throughput targets and treasury-revenue mechanism are still unproven, and an all-or-nothing governance action gives a DRep no way to back the mature workstream without also underwriting the speculative one. Socious is not willing to vote No and slow Cardano's L2 progress, but neither can it fully endorse a request that ties low-risk maintenance to an unproven new-protocol launch. Whether that packaging is acceptable is a reasonable judgement for the wider DRep community to make, and Socious abstains so that consensus, rather than its own decisive vote, settles it.

    ソーシャスは棄権します。本提案は10,425,871 ADAを投じるもので、一つの票のなかに三つの内容を束ねています。すなわち、L2に依存しない共有データ可用性基盤、Hydraの本番品質への強化、そして毎秒1万件超を目標とする新しいパーミッションレス・オプティミスティック・ロールアップMidgardのメインネット公開です。

    ソーシャスはその目的を疑ってはいません。Cardanoのベースレイヤーは、ファイナリティが約2時間、手数料が0.17ドル前後、処理能力が毎秒7〜10件という水準で、Layer 2への道筋を実際に必要としています。なかでも、Delta DeFiやMasumiといった具体的な採用者を伴うHydraの強化作業は、段階的で実績に裏づけられた取り組みであり、DRepとして支持しやすい内容です。

    問題は、その束ね方にあります。実績あるHydraの作業に資金を充てる同じ票が、スループット目標もトレジャリーへの収益還元の仕組みもまだ実証されていない新規ロールアップのメインネット公開にも資金を充てます。一括での可否しか問えないガバナンスアクションでは、DRepは成熟したワークストリームだけを支持し、投機的な部分への出資を避けることができません。ソーシャスは、反対票を投じてCardanoのL2の前進を遅らせるつもりはありません。しかし同時に、低リスクの保守と未実証の新規プロトコル公開を一つに結びつけた要求を、全面的に支持することもできません。この束ね方が受け入れられるかどうかは、より広いDRepコミュニティが判断するにふさわしい論点であり、ソーシャスは自らの決定的な票ではなく合意がそれを決するよう、棄権します。

  • HOSKY
    Abstain33.5M ₳Rationale

    Abstain. ₳10.43M bundles Hydra hardening, shared L2 data availability, and Midgard mainnet launch. Hydra and DA deserve Yes; Midgard mainnet is speculative for a pre-testnet rollup with operator-discretionary treasury return. Bundle forces a single vote. Resubmit Hydra separately.

    A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

    Abstaining. ₳10.43M bundles shared L2-agnostic data availability infrastructure, Hydra production hardening for live adopters (Delta DeFi, Masumi), and the mainnet launch of Midgard. The Hydra hardening leg deserves Yes; the Midgard mainnet leg is speculative on the current record. The bundle forces a single vote on three workstreams with materially different maturity profiles, and the Cardano First framework reads in opposite directions across pillars:

    Adoption: Lead reason for not voting No. The shared L2 data availability workstream has real value across the Cardano L2 stack and would be defensible on its own. Hydra hardening directly supports live production deployments. Delta DeFi has bet a product roadmap on Hydra and Masumi requires Hydra-class infrastructure for machine-to-machine micropayments. These legs deserve to live. A No would penalize work that should be funded.
    Economic Sustainability: Lead reason for not voting Yes. Compare to Pogun: hard-coded 20% of EBITDA paid to the treasury until USD-equivalent is repaid, then 5% in perpetuity. Midgard's mechanism is described as one that "allows L2 operators to allocate a portion of sequencer revenue back to the Cardano treasury." Operator-discretionary is not the same as enforced. Ethereum L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum, Base) have generated multi-billion-dollar sequencer revenue with minimal structural flow back to L1 ETH economics. The proposal cites that comparison favorably; the treasury-stewardship reading is the opposite.
    Scalability: Mixed read. Hydra is research-mature and production-emerging today. Leios (~400 TPS) and Peras (~2-min finality) are funded for L1 through other actions in this same slate. The proposal's framing that "L2 is the only path to close the throughput and finality gap in the current cycle" understates what L1 is already funded to deliver. Funding the mainnet launch of a third L2 (Midgard, optimistic rollup, pre-mainnet, approaching testnet) while Leios is still pre-mainnet is the wrong sequencing for the speculative leg, even if the Hydra and shared-DA legs are well-timed.
    Decentralization: Midgard's open-participation operator design is better than centralized-sequencer rollups, but the proposal does not specify operator concentration limits or anti-collusion mechanics. "Anyone can lock a bond" without operator-set sizing constraints is a known failure mode.

    We would prefer this proposal resubmitted as two separate actions: Hydra hardening plus shared DA would get our Yes; Midgard mainnet belongs in a research-stage round with a measurable mainnet-readiness gate before treasury exposure. Abstain is the honest position when the bundle forces a single up-or-down vote on three workstreams that should be evaluated independently.
    Risks I'm accepting with this Abstain:

    The bundle's Yes-worthy legs go unfunded. Delta DeFi and Masumi depend on Hydra hardening this proposal would have funded. The shared L2 data availability infrastructure would have benefited every current and future Cardano L2. An Abstain does not vote those legs up onto the record; they wait for a resubmission that separates them from the Midgard mainnet leg.
    Silent vote on bundled speculative funding. A clean No would have anchored a position against unbundled mainnet funding for pre-testnet L2 designs with discretionary treasury return; an Abstain does not. The next bundled L2 ask of this shape will need the same case made fresh.
    Signalling ambiguity. Abstain on a mixed-quality bundle reads as a procedural objection to bundling, not a substantive position on L2 strategy. UTXO-native rollups are research worth doing; Midgard's single-party-fraud-proof architecture is a real technical contribution. The substantive position is in the pillar bullets and the Risks block above, not in the vote direction alone.

    The Hydra and shared-DA legs deserve to ride. The Midgard mainnet leg does not yet, and we will not endorse it as part of a bundle. Abstain.

  • Aichi/Tokai_DRep
    Yes31.4M ₳Rationale

    I support this proposal since Hydra and Mithril scalability improvements complement L1 development and help Cardano handle future demand without compromising decentralization.

  • FIMI
    Yes31.1M ₳No rationale
  • NEDSCAVE.IO
    No30.7M ₳No rationale
  • Cerkoryn
    Abstain27.9M ₳Rationale

    I am a big fan of both Hydra and Midgard as L2 solutions for scaling Cardano. That being said there are a few details missing from this proposal that make it hard for me to justify treasury spending as-is. Primarily I think a recurring challenge the Cardano ecosystem has faced is building technical solutions that end up seeing little to no actual use. I greatly appreciate that this proposal explains many of the use cases that both Hydra and Midgard aim to solve, and especially the specific mention of DeltaDefi and Masumi. However, as it currently stands there is a massive surplus of unused capacity on the Cardano L1 and I fear that there is simply no activity that would "flow over" into either Midgard or Hydra. In the case of Midgard specifically I'd like to see mentions of dApp builders wanting to build on-top of it. In the case of Hydra I am curious to know if other advances in Hydra tech such as Gummiworm and Hydrozoa are also being collaborated on through this proposal. Ultimately, I am concerned that the turnaround for the Cardano ecosystem to see any benefits from this may be too far out on the horizon, but am willing to vote YES if some minor improvements are made to it. For that reason I will be voting ABSTAIN.

  • TERA DRep
    No27.9M ₳No rationale
  • Drep One
    Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
  • Florian Volery
    Yes26.3M ₳Rationale

    Midgard is an important scaling solution for Cardano, and I reiterate my support for it.

    As mentioned elsewhere, once these larger proposals (above 10M ADA) are approved, I intend to vote against any further proposals that are not critical to builders or core blockchain infrastructure, with the goal of keeping the NCA around 200M ADA (around $50 millions).

    Any proposal that receives approval should first demonstrate tangible delivery before being allocated additional funding. They will not get anymore money in the future.

  • Blockjock (James Meidinger)
    Yes26.1M ₳Rationale

    Rationale — L2 Scaling Stack
    Header
    Without L2s, Cardano is not seriously considered for the applications it needs to win.
    Constitutional Gate
    Assessment: Pass, high priority
    The proposal supports sustainable growth, scalability, developer retention, and ecosystem competitiveness.
    It includes defined workstreams, milestone gating, oversight, and structured disbursement. Treasury use is justified as critical infrastructure needed for Cardano to remain viable in the current market.
    Decision Declaration
    Vote: YES — Critical, time-sensitive infrastructure.
    This is not optional optimization. It is market access infrastructure.
    Core Rationale
    Cardano’s current limitations around finality, fees, and throughput make it difficult to compete in DeFi, gaming, AI agent payments, and consumer-grade applications.
    This proposal addresses that gap through a portfolio approach: Hydra production hardening, Midgard mainnet rollout, and an L2-agnostic data availability layer.
    Strategic Alignment
    The proposal directly supports adoption, throughput expansion, developer retention, and high-performance application development.
    It also gives builders a credible path to remain on Cardano instead of moving to faster execution environments.
    Economic Impact
    The economic impact is significant.
    Hydra can support near-zero fees and fast settlement for specific use cases. Midgard targets much higher throughput and introduces potential sequencer revenue that can flow back toward the treasury.
    That makes this proposal stronger than a pure infrastructure spend. It includes a potential revenue-aligned model tied to actual L2 activity.
    Execution Risk
    Key risks include Midgard decentralization complexity, data availability architecture decisions, execution timing, and possible fragmentation across L2 solutions.
    These risks are partly mitigated by the portfolio approach, existing production demand, real builders already waiting on the stack, and milestone-based delivery.
    Accountability
    The proposal includes 3 clear workstreams: data availability, Hydra hardening, and Midgard mainnet readiness.
    It also includes structured oversight, milestone gating, and identifiable production dependencies from projects such as Delta DeFi and Masumi.
    Stablecoin Utilization
    The proposal does not appear to include a clear stablecoin treasury management strategy.
    That is a weakness, especially because this is multi-phase, time-sensitive infrastructure work. Delivery budgets, staffing, audits, and operational expenses should not depend on ADA maintaining a favorable price.
    The proposer should consider converting an appropriate portion of received ADA into stablecoins, and treasury disbursement should support staged stablecoin conversion where predictable purchasing power is needed.
    Infrastructure critical to Cardano’s competitiveness should not be exposed unnecessarily to market volatility. Hoping a volatile asset remains at a certain price is not a strategy.
    End-User Lens
    For builders, this means they can build faster, cheaper, higher-throughput applications without leaving Cardano.
    For users, this means faster transactions, lower fees, and a better app experience.
    For capital providers, higher throughput creates more viable DeFi activity and stronger yield opportunities.
    Conditions to Change Vote
    This rationale would materially change if Midgard mainnet readiness fails, the DA layer is poorly executed, early production users leave due to delays, or L2 activity does not create a credible path back to L1 and treasury value.

  • Kyle Solomon
    Abstain25.3M ₳No rationale
  • wolf31o2 (Chris Gianelloni)
    Abstain23.5M ₳Rationale

    My concern is that the L1 reaches sustainable transaction volume. L2 can provide new capabilities but also can take transaction volume off the L1. That being said, I don't want to block this.

  • Duc Tiger
    AbstainChanged22M ₳History

    Earlier votes

    No2mo agoSuperseded

  • DINO
    Abstain21.5M ₳No rationale
  • Hephaestus Stake Pool [HEPHY]
    Abstain21.5M ₳No rationale
  • SIDAN Lab
    Yes21.1M ₳No rationale