Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027
141 DReps voted · 40 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
We absolutely need ongoing maintenance for Cardano’s only full node, and the team behind it has an excellent track record.
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES for this. Although I would like to see a better breakdown of funding, this is an initiative that clearly needs funding given recent events, and the ask is well within moderation. I remember running mine for the first time, I would love to see people go back to running their own Deadalus Wallets. I trust the team behind this proposal to get work done.
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに賛成します。
Daedalusは、Cardanoにおける重要なfull-node desktop walletであり、第三者APIやtrusted backendに依存せず、ユーザー自身がCardano chainを検証できる自己主権型のアクセス層です。SPO分散性を直接高めるものではありませんが、wallet backendやAPI providerへの依存を下げ、Cardanoのaccess decentralization、resilience、client/access diversityを支える公共インフラとして評価できます。
本提案は、今後のhard fork、Leios、Peras、Nested Transactionsへの追従、Keystone/Flex対応、CIP-30 dApp connector、日本語ローカライズ、ユーザーサポートを含み、Cardanoの長期的な安全性と利用継続性に資するものです。
また、Intersect管理、smart contract disbursement、monthly disbursement、oversight、dashboard、未使用資金返還の設計も、Treasury資金管理として評価できます。
一方で、Daedalusのopt-in MAUは限定的であり、1,785,333 ADAの費用対効果については継続的な説明が必要です。今後は、hard fork前release、CIP-30 interoperability、support実績、日本語対応、利用KPI、未使用分返還の公開を求めます。
総合的には、Daedalusを大衆向けlight walletに変える提案ではなく、Cardanoに自己検証可能なfull-node walletの入口を残す公共財保守として支持します。
I support this Treasury Withdrawal.
Daedalus is an important full-node desktop wallet in the Cardano ecosystem. It provides a self-sovereign access layer where users can verify the Cardano chain themselves, without relying on third-party APIs or trusted backends. While Daedalus does not directly increase SPO decentralization, it reduces dependence on wallet backends and API providers, supporting Cardano’s access decentralization, resilience, and client/access diversity.
This proposal includes support for future hard forks, Leios, Peras, Nested Transactions, Keystone/Flex hardware wallets, a CIP-30 dApp connector, Japanese localization, and user support. These are important for Cardano’s long-term security, compatibility, and continuity of use.
I also value the treasury management design, including Intersect administration, smart contract disbursement, monthly disbursements, oversight, dashboard transparency, and return of unused funds.
At the same time, Daedalus has limited opt-in MAU, so the cost-effectiveness of spending 1,785,333 ADA should continue to be clearly explained. Going forward, I expect public reporting on pre-hard-fork releases, CIP-30 interoperability, support activity, Japanese localization, usage KPIs, and any unused funds returned to the Treasury.
Overall, I support this proposal as public-good maintenance that preserves an important self-verifying full-node wallet access point for Cardano, rather than as an attempt to turn Daedalus into a mass-market light wallet.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
DUH! we need this.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I consider this important work to be done.
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026–2027 proposal.
Daedalus remains a unique and important part of the Cardano ecosystem. It is Cardano’s only full-node desktop wallet, allowing users to verify the chain directly rather than relying on third-party APIs or trusted backend services. That makes Daedalus materially different from light wallets and important for self-sovereignty, client diversity, decentralisation, and resilient access to Cardano.
This proposal is a focused maintenance and improvement request, not a speculative growth proposal. It funds ongoing protocol compatibility, hard fork readiness, node and wallet backend updates, dependency and security maintenance, platform support, release engineering, user support, Japanese localisation, hardware wallet support, and future-facing improvements such as CIP-30 dApp connector support.
In the current NCL environment, I believe DReps need to be selective and prioritise core infrastructure. My approach is to support proposals that maintain essential public goods, security-critical systems, developer/user access, self-custody, and decentralised infrastructure before larger or more speculative treasury requests.
Daedalus clearly fits that category.
I also note positively that the proposal includes a defined scope of work, measurable success criteria, independent financial audit funding, Intersect administration, milestone-based oversight, and return of unspent funds. These are important safeguards for a treasury withdrawal.
The ask is material, but I consider it proportionate given the importance of maintaining Cardano’s only full-node desktop wallet through upcoming protocol changes and ecosystem upgrades.
For these reasons, I believe this is a responsible use of treasury funds.
I vote YES.
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Daedalus offers a Cardano wallet that is unique in the ecosystem, for users who want maximum security at every layer. This proposal funds ongoing maintenance and new features, including additional hardware wallet support and a direct dapp connector.
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
It's easy to lose focus of the core blockchain principles in today's climate with socials full of distractions, but having a self-hosted node is a necessity. Will the majority of users use a self-hosted node? No, of course not. But as with any industry, the "power users" are the ones that drive it forward while the majority of users follow their path. Shutting down maintenance of a self-hosted node would isolate power users and likely remove them from the ecosystem, which is a huge net negative.
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes988.4K ₳No rationale
- No971.5K ₳Rationale
We vote NO on this proposal.
We recognize the historical importance of Daedalus as Cardano’s full-node desktop wallet and appreciate the role it has played in supporting self-custody, decentralization and direct interaction with the Cardano blockchain.
However, we are not convinced that additional treasury funding for Daedalus maintenance and improvements is justified at this stage. The wallet experience no longer feels competitive compared to modern alternatives in the Cardano ecosystem. Synchronization can take a very long time, the user interface feels outdated and overloaded, and the overall benefit for most users is not clear enough.
While a full-node wallet has value from a decentralization perspective, we believe the practical user demand and ecosystem impact are limited compared to other wallet infrastructure, light wallets, hardware wallet support, and tools that provide a better experience for everyday users.
Given limited treasury resources, we believe funding should prioritize infrastructure and products with clearer adoption impact, stronger usability, and broader relevance for current Cardano users. For these reasons, we do not support this proposal.
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes923.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes891.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Cardano needs to keeps a full node wallet alive. Daedalus is the best option.
- Yes798.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes747.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes619.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
Daedalus holds a place in my heart so I vote yes in hope that it can continue.