Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
220 DReps voted · 81 with a rationale · 17 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- No360.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes328.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes323.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on Pogun. While we have other Bitcoin solutions, this proposal shifts our Treasury from a charity to a venture fund with its EBITDA repayment and perpetual return model. Its non-margin lending and highly efficient BABE protocol are excellent, though we must monitor finances closely.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Long story short: I would have voted "No" on this proposal had it not been for the repayment and perpetual return structure.
Typically, I prefer to allocate my votes toward protocol updates and core upgrades rather than commercial DApps. For a commercial venture to earn my support, it needs to offer a full repayment, provide yield to replenish the treasury, or be an absolute "must-have" killer product. Since we already have a few alternative Bitcoin solutions in the pipeline, this isn't necessarily a unique "must-have", but it strongly satisfies the first two criteria.
Here is why I am supporting this withdrawal:
Venture Fund Model: This proposal has the potential to transform our Treasury from a "charity" granting free capital into a "venture fund". Pogun commits to returning 20% of its EBITDA until the initial funding is repaid. This is followed by an ongoing 5% perpetual return to the Cardano Treasury. This is the exact kind of financial stewardship we need to sustain the ecosystem.
Institutional Appeal via Non-Margin Lending: The credit market introduces a non-margin, peer-to-peer lending model. Because collateral is only at risk upon definitive default—and not due to intra-day price fluctuations—there are no oracle-driven liquidations. Furthermore, borrowers recover the exact identical Bitcoin UTxO they locked, which avoids triggering a taxable disposal event. This makes it significantly more enticing to institutional capital.
Massive Technical Efficiency: The custom bridge utilizes the BABE witness encryption protocol. Compared to current heavy-weight ZK implementations, BABE is a massive operational improvement, boasting a ~2,000x faster setup time and ~1,868x lower off-chain storage requirement.
A Note of Caution to the Community:
While the financial model is excellent on paper, I recognize the valid fear of "creative accounting". There is always a risk that a project could artificially inflate operational costs or salaries to remain "EBITDA negative" indefinitely, thus indefinitely delaying Treasury repayment. I am optimistic the team will act in good faith, but we as DReps must pay close attention to their quarterly financial transparency reports should this proposal pass. - Abstain313.4K ₳No rationale
- No300.6K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES only for critical things. I dont consider this is critical thing to spend the treadury reserves.
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals
May 20th 2026
Summery
Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)
Important Citation
https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360
EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026
I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano $ADA.Charles quote tweeted saying
https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792
Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.Statement
There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.
While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.
I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010 - No294.4K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted279.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on “Pogun – Capital Without Compromise” at 12,290,000 ADA.
Even acknowledging the technical sophistication, phased milestones, and the attempt to treat the treasury as an investor, this is still a single, vertically integrated commercial venture—bridge, credit protocol, and yield/RWA product—asking for 12.29M ADA with equity‑like risk but without equity‑like rights or protections. The treasury would be exposed to complex execution, legal, and market risk across multiple layers while relying mainly on a soft EBITDA‑based revenue share and quarterly reports, with no clear governance stake, no treatment of related‑party costs, and no hard safeguards around restructuring, spin‑outs, or M&A. That is not, in my view, an appropriate structure for public capital, especially when more neutral ways to support Bitcoin DeFi are available.
In addition to concerns raised by other DReps, I see four further issues. First, the overall positioning feels more like an extraction layer on top of Cardano than a neutral, ecosystem‑first platform, with a private venture capturing bridge/credit/yield fees while public funds underwrite early risk. Second, the yield layer introduces opaque governance and fiduciary risk: there is no clear description of who controls strategy selection and risk, what qualifications they have, or what guardrails protect depositors and underwriters if RWA/private‑credit exposures go wrong. Third, the proposal does not spell out concrete legal fallbacks and client protections across jurisdictions, defaults, and potential changes in corporate structure, which is material for cross‑chain, institutional products. Finally, the design overlaps heavily with work already being pursued by existing ecosystem teams on BTC‑backed lending and bridging; funding a large, IO‑aligned, vertically integrated competitor from the treasury risks crowding out established developers and fragmenting limited demand. Taken together, I do not believe allocating 12.29M ADA to this structure is prudent in this cycle, so my vote is NO. - No261K ₳Rationale
Governance Action Review [EN]
Vote: NO
1. Introduction
Pogun is a Cardano Treasury proposal seeking ₳12.29M, equivalent to approximately $2.95M at a reference rate of $0.24/ADA, to build an end-to-end Bitcoin liquidity and credit engine on Cardano. The proposal presents three integrated components: a non-margin peer-to-peer credit market, a yield dApp, and a BitVM-powered trust-minimized BTC bridge. Its stated objective is to position Cardano as a destination for Bitcoin DeFi by enabling BTC-backed lending, yield generation, and Bitcoin liquidity deployment through Cardano-native infrastructure.
The proposal also includes a return model in which Pogun would pay 20% of quarterly EBITDA to the Cardano Treasury until the original USD-denominated funding amount is repaid, followed by a 5% perpetual return from Cardano-related products. The proposal discloses that Input Output has received or been allocated ₳130,708,860 from the Cardano Treasury across multiple workstreams in the prior 24 months, of which ₳78,459,777 had been received at the time of disclosure.
2. Governance Action Analysis
Positive aspects
The strategic relevance of Bitcoin liquidity for Cardano is recognized.
The decision is not based on the assumption that the Pogun team lacks the technical capacity to develop the proposed solution. The proposal presents an ambitious and potentially valuable thesis: bringing Bitcoin liquidity into Cardano through a credit market, a yield layer, and a BitVM-powered BTC bridge. Cardano’s eUTxO architecture may indeed offer a more secure and structurally compatible environment for Bitcoin-related financial applications than many alternative ecosystems.
Bitcoin/Cardano interoperability, BTC liquidity expansion, and the broader exploration of Bitcoin-based DeFi on Cardano are valid and potentially important directions for the ecosystem.
Negative aspects
Technical ambition and strategic relevance are not sufficient grounds for direct Treasury funding, especially under current market conditions and with a highly contested Net Change Limit.
Pogun is not entering an empty design space. Several initiatives are already exploring different paths toward Bitcoin/Cardano interoperability, Bitcoin liquidity access, BTC-backed DeFi, atomic swaps, or bridge infrastructure. These include Sundial, BitcoinOS, Garden Finance/Tokeo, FluidTokens, and other adjacent efforts. The level of overlap varies across these projects. Some overlap more directly with Pogun’s bridge infrastructure, others with liquidity access, atomic swaps, yield infrastructure, or BTC-backed DeFi primitives.
This does not mean Pogun is irrelevant. It means the proposal should not be treated as a uniquely necessary public-good primitive.
The existence of multiple active efforts materially increases the burden of justification for a large direct Treasury withdrawal. The proposal needs to demonstrate not only that Bitcoin/Cardano integration is valuable, but why this specific vertically integrated commercial stack should receive preferential public funding over other approaches already being pursued by the ecosystem.
A second major concern is the funding instrument.
The Cardano ecosystem has already approved 50M ADA for the Orion Fund, an equity-first investment vehicle designed to support commercially viable ecosystem companies and strategic growth opportunities. This matters because Pogun has a strong commercial profile. It is not merely proposing neutral public infrastructure. It combines infrastructure with a credit market, a yield layer, institutional positioning, and future revenue generation.
If Pogun’s commercial thesis is as strong as presented, then an investment-oriented vehicle such as the Orion Fund, strategic private capital, or another venture-style mechanism appears more appropriate than a direct Treasury withdrawal.
The Treasury should not be used as non-dilutive venture capital for commercial products unless the protections for ADA holders and the upside participation for the public are significantly stronger.
Risks and concerns
The proposal attempts to address the public risk and commercial upside concern through a repayment model based on EBITDA, including 20% of quarterly EBITDA until the original USD-denominated amount is repaid, followed by a 5% perpetual return from Cardano-related products. This is better than a pure grant, but it does not fully resolve the problem.
EBITDA is an accounting outcome, not a hard Treasury protection mechanism. It can be affected by operating expenses, legal costs, infrastructure costs, salaries, related-party services, expansion costs, restructuring, and management decisions. Without stronger definitions, audit rights, enforcement mechanisms, and protections in the event of restructuring, acquisition, spinout, token issuance, or revenue migration, the proposed return model remains too weak for the level of commercial risk being assumed.
In practical terms, the Treasury would absorb significant early-stage risk, while the public upside remains uncertain and highly dependent on future execution, market adoption, accounting treatment, and commercial decisions.
A further concern is concentration.
Input Output already plays a central role in Cardano’s core infrastructure and has received substantial Treasury allocations across multiple workstreams. The Pogun proposal itself discloses that Input Output has received or been allocated significant Treasury funding in the prior 24 months, including a total allocation of ₳130,708,860, of which ₳78,459,777 had been received at the time of disclosure.
Given this existing concentration, it is not healthy for the ecosystem to further expand Treasury-funded activity around Input Output into commercial application development, especially when the proposal is not limited to core protocol infrastructure.
Input Output remains an important actor in the Cardano ecosystem. However, Treasury governance should also promote decentralization of development capacity. In close cases, or where strategic relevance and technical credibility are otherwise comparable, Treasury allocation should favor independent ecosystem builders and broader distribution of execution capacity rather than reinforcing already dominant institutional actors.
3. Vote and Rationale
Vote: NO
While recognizing the strategic relevance of Bitcoin liquidity for Cardano, this Governance Action receives a NO vote.
The issue is the structure of this specific proposal. Pogun may be a technically capable and strategically interesting initiative, but the Cardano Treasury should not directly fund this vertically integrated commercial stack under the current terms, especially when other teams are already exploring overlapping infrastructure and when the ecosystem has already approved an investment-oriented vehicle better suited to commercial opportunities of this nature.
This vote should not be interpreted as opposition to Bitcoin/Cardano interoperability, BTC liquidity expansion, or the broader exploration of Bitcoin-based DeFi on Cardano. Those are valid and potentially important directions for the ecosystem.
The combination of existing overlap, commercial risk, insufficient Treasury protections, the existence of the Orion Fund as a more appropriate investment vehicle, and further concentration around Input Output makes the current structure difficult to justify.
4. Conclusion
Pogun presents a strategically relevant and technically ambitious direction for Cardano, but the current structure does not justify direct Treasury funding. Existing ecosystem overlap, weak public upside protections, commercial risk, opportunity cost under the Net Change Limit, and further concentration around Input Output support a NO vote.
Revisão de Ação de Governança
Voto: NÃO
1. Introdução
A Pogun é uma proposta ao Tesouro da Cardano que solicita ₳12,29 milhões, equivalente a aproximadamente US$2,95 milhões a uma taxa de referência de US$0,24/ADA, para construir um motor completo de liquidez e crédito em Bitcoin na Cardano. A proposta apresenta três componentes integrados: um mercado de crédito peer-to-peer sem margem, uma yield dApp e uma bridge BTC trust-minimized baseada em BitVM. Seu objetivo declarado é posicionar a Cardano como um destino para Bitcoin DeFi, permitindo empréstimos lastreados em BTC, geração de yield e uso de liquidez em Bitcoin por meio de infraestrutura nativa da Cardano.
A proposta também inclui um modelo de retorno no qual a Pogun pagaria 20% do EBITDA trimestral ao Tesouro da Cardano até que o valor original denominado em dólares fosse repago, seguido por um retorno perpétuo de 5% sobre produtos relacionados à Cardano. A proposta divulga que a Input Output recebeu ou teve alocações de ₳130.708.860 do Tesouro da Cardano em múltiplas frentes nos 24 meses anteriores, dos quais ₳78.459.777 haviam sido recebidos no momento da divulgação.
2. Análise da Ação de Governança [PT]
Aspectos positivos
A relevância estratégica da liquidez de Bitcoin para a Cardano é reconhecida.
A decisão não se baseia na premissa de que o time da Pogun não tenha capacidade técnica para desenvolver a solução proposta. A proposta apresenta uma tese ambiciosa e potencialmente valiosa: trazer liquidez de Bitcoin para a Cardano por meio de um mercado de crédito, uma camada de yield e uma bridge BTC baseada em BitVM. A arquitetura eUTxO da Cardano pode, de fato, oferecer um ambiente mais seguro e estruturalmente mais compatível para aplicações financeiras relacionadas ao Bitcoin do que muitos ecossistemas alternativos.
A interoperabilidade Bitcoin/Cardano, a expansão de liquidez em BTC e a exploração mais ampla de DeFi baseado em Bitcoin na Cardano são direções válidas e potencialmente importantes para o ecossistema.
Aspectos negativos
Ambição técnica e relevância estratégica não são suficientes para justificar financiamento direto do Tesouro, especialmente nas condições atuais de mercado e com um Net Change Limit altamente disputado.
A Pogun não está entrando em um espaço vazio. Várias iniciativas já estão explorando caminhos diferentes para interoperabilidade Bitcoin/Cardano, acesso à liquidez de Bitcoin, DeFi lastreado em BTC, atomic swaps ou infraestrutura de bridge. Entre elas estão Sundial, BitcoinOS, Garden Finance/Tokeo, FluidTokens e outras iniciativas adjacentes. O nível de sobreposição varia entre esses projetos. Alguns se sobrepõem mais diretamente à infraestrutura de bridge da Pogun, enquanto outros se relacionam mais com acesso à liquidez, atomic swaps, infraestrutura de yield ou primitivas DeFi lastreadas em BTC.
Isso não significa que a Pogun seja irrelevante. Significa que a proposta não deve ser tratada como um primitivo público único e indispensável.
A existência de múltiplas iniciativas ativas aumenta materialmente o ônus de justificativa para uma retirada direta e significativa do Tesouro. A proposta precisa demonstrar não apenas que a integração Bitcoin/Cardano é valiosa, mas por que este stack comercial verticalizado específico deveria receber financiamento público preferencial em relação a outros caminhos já sendo explorados pelo ecossistema.
Uma segunda preocupação central é o instrumento de financiamento.
O ecossistema Cardano já aprovou 50M ADA para o Orion Fund, um veículo de investimento com lógica equity-first voltado a empresas comercialmente viáveis e oportunidades estratégicas de crescimento no ecossistema. Isso importa porque a Pogun tem um perfil fortemente comercial. Ela não propõe apenas infraestrutura pública neutra. A proposta combina infraestrutura com mercado de crédito, camada de yield, posicionamento institucional e geração futura de receita.
Se a tese comercial da Pogun é tão forte quanto apresentada, então um veículo orientado a investimento, como o Orion Fund, capital privado estratégico ou outro mecanismo de venture capital, parece mais adequado do que uma retirada direta do Tesouro.
O Tesouro não deve ser usado como venture capital não-dilutivo para produtos comerciais, a menos que as proteções para os detentores de ADA e a participação pública no upside sejam significativamente mais robustas.
Riscos e preocupações
A proposta tenta responder à preocupação sobre risco público e upside comercial por meio de um modelo de retorno baseado em EBITDA, incluindo 20% do EBITDA trimestral até que o valor original denominado em dólares seja repago, seguido por um retorno perpétuo de 5% sobre produtos relacionados à Cardano. Isso é melhor do que um grant puro, mas não resolve totalmente o problema.
EBITDA é um resultado contábil, não um mecanismo rígido de proteção do Tesouro. Ele pode ser afetado por despesas operacionais, custos jurídicos, custos de infraestrutura, salários, serviços de partes relacionadas, custos de expansão, reestruturações e decisões gerenciais. Sem definições mais fortes, direitos de auditoria, mecanismos de execução e proteções em caso de reestruturação, aquisição, spinout, emissão de token ou migração de receita, o modelo de retorno proposto permanece fraco demais para o nível de risco comercial assumido.
Na prática, o Tesouro assumiria um risco relevante de estágio inicial, enquanto o upside público permaneceria incerto e altamente dependente de execução futura, adoção de mercado, tratamento contábil e decisões comerciais.
Outra preocupação é a concentração.
A Input Output já exerce um papel central na infraestrutura crítica da Cardano e recebeu alocações substanciais do Tesouro em múltiplas frentes. A própria proposta da Pogun divulga que a Input Output recebeu ou teve alocações significativas do Tesouro nos 24 meses anteriores, incluindo uma alocação total de ₳130.708.860, dos quais ₳78.459.777 já haviam sido recebidos no momento da divulgação.
Diante dessa concentração já existente, não é saudável para o ecossistema expandir ainda mais atividades financiadas pelo Tesouro em torno da Input Output para o desenvolvimento de aplicações comerciais, especialmente quando a proposta não se limita à infraestrutura essencial de protocolo.
A Input Output continua sendo um ator importante no ecossistema Cardano. No entanto, a governança do Tesouro também deve promover a descentralização da capacidade de desenvolvimento. Em casos próximos, ou quando relevância estratégica e credibilidade técnica forem comparáveis, a alocação do Tesouro deveria favorecer builders independentes e uma distribuição mais ampla da capacidade de execução, em vez de reforçar atores institucionais já dominantes.
3. Voto e Justificativa
Voto: NÃO
Embora a relevância estratégica da liquidez de Bitcoin para a Cardano seja reconhecida, esta Ação de Governança recebe voto NÃO.
O problema está na estrutura desta proposta específica. A Pogun pode ser uma iniciativa tecnicamente capaz e estrategicamente interessante, mas o Tesouro da Cardano não deve financiar diretamente este stack comercial verticalizado sob os termos atuais, especialmente quando outros times já exploram infraestruturas sobrepostas e quando o ecossistema já aprovou um veículo orientado a investimento mais adequado para oportunidades comerciais dessa natureza.
Este voto não deve ser interpretado como oposição à interoperabilidade Bitcoin/Cardano, à expansão de liquidez em BTC ou à exploração mais ampla de DeFi baseado em Bitcoin na Cardano. Essas são direções válidas e potencialmente importantes para o ecossistema.
A combinação de sobreposição com iniciativas existentes, risco comercial, proteções insuficientes para o Tesouro, existência do Orion Fund como veículo mais adequado para esse tipo de oportunidade e maior concentração em torno da Input Output torna a estrutura atual difícil de justificar.
4. Conclusão
A Pogun apresenta uma direção estrategicamente relevante e tecnicamente ambiciosa para a Cardano, mas a estrutura atual não justifica financiamento direto do Tesouro. Sobreposição com iniciativas existentes, proteções frágeis ao upside público, risco comercial, custo de oportunidade sob o Net Change Limit e maior concentração em torno da Input Output sustentam o voto NÃO.
- No245.5K ₳Rationale
This is a commercial DeFi product with a viable venture capital funding pathway. Treasury funds may occasionally be used to fund products with high user acquisition potential but a lack of early-day profit generation, but should not subsidise products with established profit models when private capital alternatives exist. The BitVM bridge depends on technology whose honest-operator security assumptions are not yet battle-tested at production scale.
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳12.29M for Bitcoin DeFi credit market, yield platform, and bridge) is interesting and aligns with growth ambitions, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership. - Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
- No234.2K ₳No rationale
- No233.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes232.7K ₳No rationale
- No228.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain215.5K ₳No rationale
- No207.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes200.5K ₳Rationale
I like the repayment structure and support Bitcoin defi.
- Abstain191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes181.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes142.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- No128K ₳No rationale
- Yes120.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting no on this proposal. While I can appreciate the proposal's potential upside for the ecosystem, I do not think this is an appropriate use of treasury funds. My main concern is that other teams are also trying to bring Bitcoin DeFi to Cardano. Even with the proposal including a revenue-sharing aspect, this would still be outside of what I believe direct treasury funding should be used for. If the treasury is used for this type of proposal, it should be done through a funded incubator like Catalyst.
- Yes107.2K ₳No rationale
- No92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes89.9K ₳No rationale
- No85.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain52.4K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.7K ₳Rationale
I see Pogun as strategically important because it targets one of the largest liquidity opportunities in crypto: productive Bitcoin capital. If executed well, it can support Cardano 2030 goals around TVL, transactions, users, ADA fee demand, interoperability, and treasury sustainability.
At the same time, I do not see this as a normal grant. Pogun should be treated as a treasury investment precedent. That means the standard must be higher: enforceable repayment terms, clear EBITDA definitions, audit rights, milestone-gated disbursements, public reporting, independent security reviews, and a credible failure/recovery plan.
My core lens is simple: Cardano needs convenience without dependency. Treasury funding should move us from service dependency toward ecosystem capacity. So my support depends on whether Pogun delivers reusable infrastructure, not just a convenient BTC yield product. The bridge, credit primitives, documentation, audits, SDKs, and integration paths should help wallets, DApps, institutions, and future builders participate without becoming dependent on one provider.
I also believe any long-lived BTC infrastructure funded by the treasury should include post-quantum readiness, strong key hygiene, upgrade paths, and emergency-response assumptions. Quantum risk is not a reason to reject the proposal by itself, but it is a reason to raise the standard for BTC bridge design.
I would measure success not only by headline TVL, but by durable usage, third-party integrations, ADA fees generated, treasury repayments, independent operators, audit completion, and ecosystem reuse. If Pogun can meet that standard, it can become a meaningful step toward Cardano becoming a serious home for Bitcoin liquidity. If not, the risk is that the treasury funds a private commercial product while inheriting technical, legal, and market risk without enough ecosystem ownership.
- Abstain49.6K ₳Rationale
Further research on my part is required for this proposal
LourdeOuroborus Imperator Aeternalis - No46.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes42.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes31.9K ₳No rationale