[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels
159 DReps voted · 68 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes NO on "[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels". This is not a judgment on the team or the underlying technology, but a considered view on whether the Cardano Treasury is the right funding vehicle for this deployment at this stage.
Rationale
The proposal's own framing undermines the case for treasury funding.
If Circular 11 and GACC create legally mandated demand, the natural funding source is procurement by the stakeholders who face that obligation. Treasury funds are better suited to public goods that cannot attract private or commercial capital, and this proposal has not fully made that case.Ecosystem returns are not commensurate with the ask.
The 75,000 ADA locked at M4 and modest annual fee contributions within a closed MAGIC credit economy do not present a clear pathway to broader Cardano network participation. In a constrained budget cycle, allocations of this scale should demonstrate more direct ecosystem return.Commercial and government procurement channels are the more natural fit.
The agricultural traceability sector is established and commercially active. The Alliance's Bio-ID approach is genuinely differentiated, and we would encourage the team to explore sector-specific investment and government procurement as the primary funding pathway.
Conclusion
Yoroi has genuine respect for the Alliance's field work and commitment to a real supply-chain problem. Our NO reflects a view on funding appropriateness, not a dismissal of the project, and we remain open to a future proposal that addresses the return case more directly. - No435.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on "[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels."
My primary reason is that the ROI is too low relative to the risk.
Ideas such as traceability and government adoption have no precedent of contributing to the long-term sustainability of the Cardano L1 ecosystem, and they constitute a high-risk investment. As the proposer themselves acknowledge within the governance action, justifying a quantitative ROI is extremely difficult.
The 24,000 DID users referenced in claim (2) belong to a closed economy built around MAGIC credits. They do not hold ADA and do not contribute to staking, governance, or DeFi — they are a user class that generates few transactions. No conversion path from these users to L1 liquidity or network revenue is presented.—
私は「[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels」にNOを投票します。
主要な理由はリスクに対して、ROIが低いことです。
トレーサビリティ、政府の採用といった一連のアイデアは、L1のエコシステムの持続可能性に貢献した成功例がなく、リスクの高い投資です。ガバナンスアクション内のメタデータでも本人が認めるように、定量的ROIは極めて困難な状況です。2で言及されるDIDで付与されるユーザーは閉じた経済圏にいる、Txを多く生み出さないユーザーです。
- No293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes NO on the treasury withdrawal titled "[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels", with rationale outlined below.
Rationale
EMURGO recognises the genuine problem this proposal addresses, the technical differentiation of the Bio-ID approach, and the Alliance's substantial self-investment before submitting this governance action. We do not question the team's commitment or capability.
Our concern is with the treasury return case. The proposal's own framing argues that Circular 11 and GACC enforcement create non-discretionary demand, which implies that farmers, exporters, and government agencies have a direct commercial incentive to fund compliant infrastructure themselves. The MAGIC credit economy is a closed system with no presented pathway to broader Cardano participation, and the fee contribution at full scale is modest relative to the ask. EMURGO does not view this as a sufficient return profile for a 2,400,000 ADA allocation in the current budget cycle. - No254.7M ₳No rationale
- No222.9M ₳Rationale
NO on [OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels;
This should not be a treasury proposal. We are sure that at the proposed scale, investors can carry the cost if they want temperature-proof traceability.
- Abstain174.6M ₳No rationale
- No165.7M ₳No rationale
- No120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes NO on OriLife. The proposal seeks a non-refundable grant for a private commercial venture with negligible Treasury return and high execution risks. We encourage a revised submission structured as a loan with openly licensed IP and reduced upfront exposure.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We acknowledge the OriLife Alliance as a committed team that has invested its own capital, deployed across multiple farms over two harvest seasons, and built institutional relationships in Đắk Lắk. We further recognize that the regulatory pressure cited, Vietnam's Circular 11/2026/TT-BCT and China's GACC requirements, is real, and that tamper-resistant traceability is a legitimate problem worth solving.
Our NO vote is not a rejection of the problem or the team, but of this specific request as structured. After reviewing our concerns, rest on the following points:
- Insubstantial and Mischaracterized Treasury Return: The proposal presents "~75,000 ada permanently locked at M4" as a Treasury return. This is incorrect: minADA remains locked in a UTXO, not returned to the Treasury. Against a 2,400,000 ada withdrawal, the stated fee contribution of roughly 28,000–28,800 ada per year implies a payback horizon approaching a century. The non-fee returns the proposal cites, new users and strategic positioning, are real but do not, in our view, justify a withdrawal of this magnitude on these terms.
- A Commercial Venture Better Suited to a Loan: The core technology is protected by four private USPTO provisional patent applications held by GreenSun Tech, and the project plans recurring revenue through B2B compliance SaaS and a proprietary MAGIC token economy. A closed-loop enterprise extracting private, recurring fees is, in our view, more appropriately structured as a repayable loan tied to its commercial revenue than as a non-refundable subsidy.
- Unproven Adoption at Scale: The Alliance's prior TonFarm pilot failed on fraud resistance and cost. The current proposal assumes that a legal mandate will translate into seamless uptake of a biometric, seedless mobile application by elderly, low-tech farmers across 46 communes. Real-world product-market fit among this population remains unproven, and a legal deadline does not, by itself, guarantee adoption.
- Unaddressed Execution Risks: The proposal omits the false-positive and error rates of the Bio-ID system when scanning soiled or degraded fruit skins in field conditions, central to the anti-fraud claim. It also introduces a fiat-to-MAGIC currency abstraction whose friction for rural users is not assessed. We hold proposers to the standard of substantiating their own claims, and these gaps are material.
- Front-Loaded Counterparty Risk: The 360,000 ada M0 mobilisation advance disburses immediately upon ratification. Despite the clawback provisions, an upfront advance of this size places early Treasury capital at counterparty risk before any milestone is delivered.
We would be prepared to reconsider a revised submission that restructures the request as a repayable loan, openly licenses the core validation and identity protocols for the broader ecosystem, and removes or substantially reduces the upfront advance.
The Cardano Foundation votes NO. Our decision reflects the proposal's negligible Treasury return, its character as a private commercial venture seeking a grant, and unresolved risks of adoption and execution, not a dismissal of the underlying problem or the team's evident effort. We encourage the Alliance to return with a loan-based structure, openly licensed core IP, and reduced upfront exposure, and we remain willing to engage constructively on a model that aligns its commercial success with the Treasury's interests.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - Abstain92.2M ₳No rationale
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote NO for proposal: [OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels
My rationale:
While I appreciate your effort to address a real-world problem, I do not believe this is an appropriate use of Cardano Treasury funds.
My primary concern is the proposal's own economic logic. The team repeatedly argues that demand for this solution is effectively guaranteed because traceability compliance will be required by the Vietnamese government and export markets.
If that is true, then there should already be clear commercial demand from the actual beneficiaries of the system: farmers, exporters, traders, processors, or supply chain operators. If compliance becomes mandatory, these stakeholders should be willing to pay for the service themselves.
Treasury funds should not subsidize customer acquisition or commercial deployment for a private business operating in a market that it claims is already guaranteed.
This concern becomes even stronger because the proposal does not offer meaningful direct value back to the Cardano Treasury.
The proposal references locked ADA, transaction fees, and ecosystem growth as forms of return, but these are indirect benefits. There is no meaningful revenue-sharing mechanism, repayment model, profit-sharing structure, or direct treasury return.
In practice, Cardano Treasury absorbs early-stage deployment risk while the private operators appear positioned to capture most of the long-term commercial upside.
The proposal explicitly confirms that the team previously deployed this model on TON before bringing it to Cardano. While migration between ecosystems is normal, it raises legitimate questions about why Cardano Treasury should fund the scaling of a business model that was initially validated elsewhere.
I am also concerned about duplication of existing efforts. The Cardano Foundation has already supported traceability initiatives, including Originate and earlier partnerships focused on supply-chain verification.
More broadly, this is already a highly competitive sector with existing players such as VeChain, IBM, and TE-FOOD. The proposal's core traceability stack does not appear sufficiently differentiated to justify treasury funding at this scale.
The only potentially unique element is the biometric identification of individual durians through image recognition. However, this is also one of the biggest risks in the proposal.
It remains unclear how verification works in practice after the initial registration. If another image must be taken later for verification, the proposal does not sufficiently explain how the system handles real-world conditions. Agricultural environments are highly unpredictable, and the proposal does not provide enough independent validation data to demonstrate that this approach works reliably at the claimed scale of 180 million fruits.
Regarding the technical architecture, the proposal utilizes 12,000 CIP-68 farm NFTs to track harvest data. While this is a technically valid use of Cardano primitives, I am not convinced that such a complex on-chain structure is essential to solve the underlying business problem.
Layering NFTs with DIDs, Merkle batching, Hydra, Midnight, and multiple off-chain systems creates an overengineered stack that introduces significant operational and technical risk. For a project focused on agricultural compliance, a leaner architecture using DIDs and simpler data availability layers would likely be more robust without introducing unnecessary NFT-based state management complexity and associated minADA requirements.
The proposal is also extremely ambitious in its operational scaling assumptions, moving from smaller pilots to 180 million fruits across 12,000 hectares within a relatively short timeframe.
I fully support entrepreneurs choosing Cardano as their infrastructure layer, and the team is free to build on Cardano. A successful deployment could certainly create positive visibility for Cardano and may encourage broader enterprise adoption in similar industries.
However, requesting Treasury funds is a different matter and requires a much stronger public-good justification.
In this case, the proposal operates in an existing commercial market with established competitors and a customer base that the proposal itself describes as mandatory due to regulatory pressure. While broader ecosystem visibility is a potential upside, I do not believe that possibility alone justifies Treasury spending to subsidize the commercial execution risk or market expansion of a private business operating in a commercially viable sector.
For these reasons, I am voting NO.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp - No88.6M ₳Rationale
I cannot support this proposal because I believe the Cardano Treasury should be used for core development and research, as well as large-scale marketing and similar initiatives, while product development that leverages the Cardano platform should raise its own funding independently and build a sustainable revenue model.
- Abstain86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes ABSTAIN on [OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels (Treasury Withdrawal, ₳2,400,000).
SIPO recognizes genuine real-world-adoption value in this proposal. It applies Cardano's technology stack — Identus / Atala PRISM W3C DIDs (PhoenixKey), Midnight selective-disclosure privacy, and eUTXO + Sparse Merkle Tree batching (production-tested on preprod) — to a regulation-driven agricultural traceability deployment in Đắk Lắk, Vietnam (Circular 11/2026 with a 1 December 2026 deadline, plus China GACC, EU EUDR, and US FSMA). It targets ~24,000 new Cardano DID users, ~75,000 ADA permanently locked in Farm NFTs and wallets, and a working proof-of-concept already verified on preprod. The ask is small (₳2,400,000), the team self-invested ~$500,000, and transaction fees are paid by users rather than from this withdrawal, so treasury dependency is low. The proposal's Annex D documents a thorough governance framework on paper: an Intersect-administered escrow, a three-member Independent Oversight Board with conflict-of-interest conditions, nine milestones with concrete pass/fail KPIs, contract-style clawback, and monthly transparency reporting. SIPO does not vote No: the proposal carries real ecosystem value and a good-faith governance design, and the ask is modest.
SIPO abstains for one structural reason. On verification, the on-chain treasury-withdrawal recipient is a key-controlled stake address (a single signing key), not a script-enforced escrow contract. Annex D's milestone-gated release (IOB 2-of-3 signing) and automatic clawback (auto-sweep to the treasury on timeout) cannot be cryptographically enforced by a single-key address; on-chain, those protections would require a script-based recipient. The documented escrow is therefore a commitment that depends on the key-holder honoring it, rather than a trustless on-chain mechanism. SIPO's standard for treasury withdrawals of this kind is on-chain-enforced escrow — for example the audited treasury smart-contract framework used by proposals SIPO has supported. With the funds flowing, on enactment, to a single-key address rather than an enforced escrow, SIPO withholds active support.
SIPO's position is not fixed. SIPO remains open to supporting this work once the escrow is enforced on-chain — funds disbursed to a script-based escrow that enforces the milestone gating and clawback described in Annex D, or confirmed custody by an independent administrator. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、本提案「[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels」（トレジャリー引き出し ₳2,400,000）に棄権（ABSTAIN）を投じます。
SIPO は本提案に実際の社会実装価値があることを認めます。Cardano の技術スタック — Identus / Atala PRISM の W3C DID（PhoenixKey）、Midnight の選択的開示プライバシー、eUTXO + Sparse Merkle Tree のバッチング（preprod で実証済み）— を、ベトナム Đắk Lắk の規制 driven な農産物トレーサビリティ（Circular 11/2026・2026 年 12 月 1 日期限、加えて中国 GACC・EU EUDR・US FSMA）に適用します。約 24,000 人の新規 Cardano DID ユーザー、Farm NFT とウォレットに恒久ロックされる約 75,000 ADA、preprod で検証済みの稼働 PoC を目標とします。要求額は小型（₳2,400,000）、チームは約 $500,000 を自己投資し、取引手数料は本引き出しからでなくユーザーが負担するため、トレジャリー依存は低い構造です。Annex D は、Intersect 管理の escrow、利益相反条件を備えた 3 名の Independent Oversight Board、具体的な pass/fail KPI を持つ 9 マイルストーン、契約的 clawback、月次透明性レポートという、書面上は周到なガバナンス枠組みを記載しています。SIPO は No を投じません。本提案には実際のエコシステム価値と good-faith なガバナンス設計があり、要求額も控えめだからです。
SIPO が棄権するのは、1 つの構造的理由によります。検証の結果、オンチェーンのトレジャリー引き出し先は鍵管理の stake アドレス（単一署名鍵）であり、script で強制される escrow コントラクトではありませんでした。Annex D のマイルストーン解放（IOB 2-of-3 署名）と自動 clawback（timeout 時の Treasury への auto-sweep）は、単一鍵アドレスでは暗号学的に強制できません。オンチェーンでこれらの保護を効かせるには、script ベースの引き出し先が必要です。したがって、文書化された escrow は trustless なオンチェーン機構ではなく、鍵保有者がそれを履行することに依存するコミットメントです。この種のトレジャリー引き出しに対する SIPO の基準は、オンチェーンで強制される escrow（例えば SIPO が支持してきた提案で用いられた監査済みのトレジャリースマートコントラクト枠組み）です。可決時に資金が、強制された escrow ではなく単一鍵アドレスに流れる以上、SIPO は能動的な支持を控えます。
SIPO の立場は固定的ではありません。escrow がオンチェーンで強制されれば — Annex D が記載するマイルストーン解放と clawback を強制する script ベースの escrow へ資金が配分される、または独立した administrator による管理が確認される — SIPO は本作業を支持することに開かれています。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- No84.3M ₳Rationale
Durian is delicious and the provenance use case for blockchains is compelling. However, I am unpersuaded this would be the best use of Cardano Treasury Funds. Our current projected spending would exhaust the Cardano Treasury inside of a decade. We also have many homegrown projects begging for funding just to survive. It doesn't seem compelling that we need to fund a proposal that references a "TonFarm NFT Collection on TON".
- No77.7M ₳No rationale
- No76.8M ₳Rationale
Reject because this is a vertical traceability deployment where blockchain appears incidental to the business workflow. If farms, exporters, or governments have durable demand for the product, they should fund the deployment.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Reject because this is a vertical traceability deployment where blockchain appears incidental to the business workflow. If farms, exporters, or governments have durable demand for the product, they should fund the deployment.
- No75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳Rationale
I have decided to vote NO on this proposal.
I understand the real-world problem and direction this proposal is attempting to address. In particular, I recognize the growing traceability regulations in Vietnam, the fraud-related issues surrounding exports to the Chinese market, and the fact that this proposal is grounded in an actual supply-chain problem rather than a purely theoretical blockchain use case. I also acknowledge the team’s existing PoC, field activity, and meaningful self-investment as signs of serious commitment.
However, at this stage, I still find it difficult to evaluate how much broader impact this initiative could realistically generate for the overall Cardano ecosystem. While I understand it as a use case targeted toward a specific region and industry, I believe it is still necessary to carefully evaluate how much impact or competitive advantage it can truly achieve within the broader traceability market itself.
I am also not fully convinced by the argument that this solution specifically needs to be built on Cardano. While the proposal explains the use of eUTXO, DID infrastructure, and Midnight-related architecture, I believe it is still important to critically evaluate whether this approach can establish a sustainable long-term advantage compared to alternative chains or existing systems.
In addition, given the current Treasury situation, I believe careful prioritization of limited ecosystem funds is necessary. While this proposal is more aligned with real-world adoption than many others, I still have concerns about whether allocating a significant amount of Treasury funding to this initiative should be considered a priority at the current stage.
僕は本提案に対してNOを投じます。
本提案が扱っている課題や方向性については理解しています。特に、ベトナムにおけるトレーサビリティ規制強化、中国向け輸出市場における不正問題、そして現実のサプライチェーン課題に基づいた提案である点は評価しています。また、PoCや現地での活動実績、自主投資を行っている点についても、一定の本気度を感じています。
一方で、現時点では、この取り組みがCardano ecosystem全体へどれほど大きな波及効果を持つのかについては、まだ判断が難しいと感じています。特定地域・特定業界向けのユースケースとしては理解できるものの、トレーサビリティ市場全体に対してどれほど大きなインパクトや競争優位性を持てるのかについては、慎重に見る必要があると考えています。
また、「なぜCardanoでなければならないのか」という点についても、完全には納得できませんでした。提案内ではeUTXO、DID、Midnightなどの活用理由は説明されていますが、他チェーンや既存システムと比較した際に、長期的な優位性をどこまで確立できるのかは、引き続き注視すべきだと考えています。
さらに、現在のTreasury状況を考慮すると、限られた資金をどこへ優先的に配分するべきかという観点も重要だと考えています。実需寄りの提案であることは理解していますが、現時点で大規模なTreasury資金を投じる優先順位として適切かについては疑問が残りました。
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO. While the technology is innovative, a 2.4M ADA request for a localized pilot is highly speculative. Fiduciary responsibility dictates that any substantial draw from the treasury must be justified by a clear, quantifiable return on investment, which this proposal lacks.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am formally registering a NO vote on this proposal. While the biometric tracing technology is innovative, a 2.4 million ADA request for a localized pilot represents a highly speculative use of community capital.
Fiduciary responsibility dictates that any substantial draw from the treasury must be justified by a clear, quantifiable return on investment. Unfortunately, the direct financial ROI presented here is too ambiguous and extended to warrant public funding. As a DRep, I must prioritize treasury replenishment and strict financial metrics over abstract ecosystem benefits. Furthermore, the 15% upfront mobilization advance directly conflicts with my requirement for strict, milestone-driven accountability.
- No62.7M ₳No rationale
- No53.8M ₳No rationale
- 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. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/ [Japanese version follows] 本提案に反対票を投じます。私はすべてのトレジャリー出金ガバナンスアクションを、公開済みの投票フレームワークに基づいて、エコシステムの健全な発展と持続可能性を重視して評価しています。本提案はフレームワークの要件を満たさないため、反対票を投じます。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Abstain50M ₳Rationale
In my view, using the Cardano blockchain for RWA is absolutely the right direction, and overall I like this proposal. However, I unfortunately cannot support it.
My main concern is the return on investment. Based on the figures provided, it seems unlikely that the direct financial benefit to Cardano would exceed the amount being requested.
That said, I also do not want to vote No. A successful implementation could generate meaningful value for the Cardano ecosystem even if the full investment is never returned to the treasury. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to assess at this stage, as there are few comparable examples to draw from.
For that reason, I am voting Abstain.
- No49.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain42.9M ₳No rationale
- No40.1M ₳No rationale
- No38.1M ₳Rationale
I voted NO on this proposal.
While I appreciate the real-world adoption effort, I am not convinced blockchain is the optimal solution for agricultural traceability.
The core issue remains the oracle problem: blockchain can preserve submitted data, but it cannot guarantee the data is true.
In practice, food safety and compliance still rely on accountable real-world entities, audits, enforcement, and reputation systems.
Given the current environment, I do not believe this is the best use of Treasury funds.
- No37.8M ₳No rationale
- No36.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳Rationale
1,200万本の木という「具体的な数」がKPIとして設定されており、成果が目に見えやすいため、トレジャリーの使い道として説明責任を果たしやすいです。2026年末の法的規制という期限があるため、来年でいいが通用しません。
- No34.3M ₳Rationale
Socious votes No. OriLife × TonFarm requests 2,400,000 ADA to deploy tamper-evident durian traceability across 12,000 hectares in Đắk Lắk, Vietnam, ahead of a December 2026 compliance deadline under Vietnamese law.
This is not a No on quality. The proposal is unusually well-prepared — a working proof of concept, roughly $500,000 of prior self-investment by the proposers, escrow and clawback protections, and an ADA-price hedge — and the supply-chain fraud problem it addresses is real and well-documented.
The objection is fit. This is one alliance's commercial deployment — a single crop, a single province, driven by a specific national regulation — and end-users, not this withdrawal, already cover its on-chain running costs. A legally-mandated traceability product serving a $3.36B export market has clear paths to private capital and to Project Catalyst, the mechanism built to fund ecosystem applications of exactly this kind. The withdrawal returns nothing to the Treasury beyond a small locked balance, and the headline "180 million durians" is off-chain Bio-ID identification — the compliance-required on-chain core settles as only a few thousand Cardano L1 transactions a year.
Socious holds that treasury withdrawals of this size should be reserved for platform-level and ecosystem-wide capability that many builders draw on; the proposal's MIT-licensed SDK is closer to that than its regional rollout. For a single-vertical commercial deployment, however well-executed, the Treasury is not the right funder. Socious votes No.
ソーシャスは反対します。OriLife × TonFarmは、ベトナム・ダクラク省の12,000ヘクタールのドリアン農地に、改ざんを検知できるトレーサビリティを展開するため、2,400,000 ADAを求めています。背景には、ベトナムの法令が定める2026年12月の遵守期限があります。
これは品質を理由とした反対ではありません。本提案は非常によく練られています。実際に動作する概念実証があり、提案者は事前に約50万ドルを自己投資し、エスクローとクローバックによる保護やADA価格のヘッジも組み込まれています。対象とする産地偽装の問題も、現実に起きた、十分に裏づけのあるものです。
反対の理由は、トレジャリー資金との適合性にあります。本件は一つのアライアンスによる商業展開であり、対象は一つの作物、一つの省に限られ、特定の国内規制によって動いています。さらに、オンチェーンの運用にかかる費用は、本引き出しではなく、すでに利用者が負担しています。法的義務を背景に約34億ドル規模の輸出市場を相手にするトレーサビリティ製品には、民間資本や、まさにこの種のエコシステム向けアプリケーションを支援するために設けられたProject Catalystという、明確な資金調達の道があります。一方この引き出しは、わずかなロック残高を除けばトレジャリーに何も還元しません。また、「1億8,000万個のドリアン」という見出しの大半は、オンチェーンではなくオフチェーンのBio-ID識別であり、法的に必須となるオンチェーンの中核部分は、年間でCardano L1上の数千件の取引にとどまります。
ソーシャスは、この規模のトレジャリー引き出しは、多くの開発者が共通して頼れる、プラットフォーム全体・エコシステム全体に資する能力にこそ充てるべきだと考えます。本提案のなかでそれに近いのは、地域的な展開そのものではなく、MITライセンスで公開されるSDKです。一つの分野に特化した商業展開については、その完成度がいかに高くとも、トレジャリーは適切な資金提供者とは言えません。ソーシャスは反対します。
- No31.4M ₳Rationale
After careful review, I will vote No on this proposal.
While I appreciate the real-world adoption focus and alignment with Cardano technologies such as DID, Hydra, and CIP-68, I am not convinced this is an appropriate Treasury investment at this stage.
The proposal appears closer to a private business operation than a public good. Key components such as MAGIC credits, LampNet, and operational infrastructure remain highly centralized and dependent on a specific organization.
I am also concerned about long-term sustainability and future Treasury dependency. It is still unclear whether the project can become fully self-sustaining without continued ecosystem funding.
In addition, for a 2.4M ADA request, I believe the transparency and proven large-scale execution track record of the team are currently insufficient.
I support Cardano real-world adoption, but Treasury funds should prioritize decentralized, reusable public infrastructure with clear long-term value for the entire ecosystem.
- No30.7M ₳No rationale
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal. Although OriLife seems like an interesting project, I don’t believe this is the right use of Cardano Treasury funds right now. The proposal asks for 2.4M ADA, but the direct return to Cardano appears limited. Historically, we also haven’t really seen traceability proposals translate into meaningful on-chain transaction volume.
I also think the hardest parts of this proposal are off-chain and difficult for DReps to verify. Blockchain can prove that data was anchored, but it cannot by itself prove that fruit identification, field data, farmer onboarding, regulatory integrations, and supply-chain workflows are correct at scale. I would rather see the Treasury prioritize core infrastructure, alt. nodes, Leios, high assurance, developer tooling, and use cases that clearly depend on Cardano itself.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- No26.3M ₳No rationale
- No26.1M ₳No rationale
- No25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on supporting the [OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels proposal. Model does not provide any path to meaningfulk RIO and Durian is stanky.
- No23.5M ₳Rationale
No interest in seeing this funded over actual protocol improvements.
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain21.4M ₳No rationale
- No21.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No19.9M ₳Rationale
This team should approach Draper Orion Fund which was recently funded with a large treasure chest. Orion Fund has real world assets as one of their core areas, this proposal could be a good fit for. VC vetting would also help the team to fine tune their proposal. I thus vote NO on the direct treasury withdrawal.
- Abstain17.3M ₳Rationale
[OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels
- No16.7M ₳Rationale
We like the idea as a commercial real-world adoption project, but this looks more like a sector-specific business rollout than a broad Cardano public infrastructure. For a 2,400,000 ADA treasury ask, we would need stronger budget transparency, team/FTE detail, milestone acceptance evidence, confirmed customer commitments, and a clearer public return to Cardano.
We would suggest exploring more suitable routes like membership as a company in CB DAO, funding via the Orion Fund, or checking whether Intersect grants could help co-fund the project. As submitted, we do not think this should be funded directly from the treasury.
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA abstains on the [OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels treasury withdrawal proposal.
RCADA appreciates the ambition and real-world relevance of this proposal. Agricultural traceability, farmer onboarding, export-market integrity, food safety, fraud reduction, and sustainability-aligned supply-chain transparency are all areas where Cardano could provide meaningful value. The proposal identifies a real problem: physical QR labels can be detached, moved, or falsified, weakening the integrity of traceability systems. OriLife’s attempt to use biological fruit identification, Cardano-based identity, dynamic NFTs, and verifiable data batching is a creative response to that problem.
RCADA also recognises the proposal’s sustainability and real-world adoption potential. A deployment across 12,000 hectares of durian production in Đắk Lắk, Vietnam, with claimed targets of 180 million fruits per season, 24,000 PhoenixKey DIDs, 12,000 CIP-68 Dynamic Farm NFTs, and significant on-chain activity, would be a meaningful demonstration of Cardano utility if executed successfully.
However, RCADA cannot give full support at this time.
The proposal is currently shown as not constitutionally approved, and that is a serious concern for a Treasury Withdrawal. While RCADA forms its own independent judgment as a DRep, the Constitutional Committee’s position is an important signal that cannot be ignored. A proposal seeking treasury funds must satisfy not only a compelling use-case narrative, but also the constitutional and governance requirements needed to protect the legitimacy of Cardano’s treasury process.
Beyond the constitutional concern, the proposal carries a high verification and execution burden. It relies on a broad set of legal, institutional, technical, and adoption claims: Vietnamese traceability regulation, export-market pressure from China, institutional support in Đắk Lắk, prior field deployment, AI-based fruit identification, PhoenixKey DIDs, LampNet, VeData, MAGIC credits, CIP-68 NFTs, optional Midnight integration, escrow structures, and future SDK expansion. Many of these elements are promising, but together they create a complex execution model that is difficult for DReps to validate confidently within the voting window.
RCADA is also cautious about the adoption pathway. The proposal argues that demand is non-discretionary because food-production establishments face legal traceability obligations. RCADA accepts that regulatory pressure may create a strong market need, but a legal requirement for traceability does not automatically guarantee adoption of this specific platform. The proposal would benefit from clearer independent evidence that the proposed system is accepted, or likely to be accepted, as a practical compliance route by the relevant farmers, exporters, buyers, and authorities.
RCADA’s abstention should not be read as opposition to agricultural traceability, sustainability-focused adoption, or real-world use of Cardano. On the contrary, RCADA wants to see more credible real-world utility on-chain. The challenge is that ambitious adoption proposals must still meet high standards of constitutional clarity, independent verifiability, risk reduction, and execution readiness.
RCADA therefore abstains as a constructive signal.
We encourage the OriLife × TonFarm team to return with a revised proposal that resolves the constitutional concerns, strengthens independent verification of legal and institutional claims, simplifies or better evidences the technical architecture, and provides clearer assurance that the deployment pathway is accepted by the relevant real-world stakeholders. RCADA would welcome a stronger version of this proposal because the underlying category — sustainable agricultural traceability using Cardano — is exactly the kind of real-world utility the ecosystem should be working toward.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
While we do value projects that seek to have direct impact on local communities, we would like to refer this proposal to the Orion Fund given its details and proposed operational structure.