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.
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
A secure full node wallet should always be available. Se7en Labs will deliver that for dedalus and will become quite a great wallet with high assurance security. Critical moving forward
- Yes501K ₳Rationale
What changed my read is who is actually still in that building. A meaningful share of Cardano’s largest holders, including significant whales in Japan and elsewhere, still run Daedalus specifically because it is the full-node wallet. They validate the chain locally rather than trusting a third-party server, and for someone holding a serious position, that trustless property is not a nice-to-have, it is the entire reason they sleep at night. Low headline user count was hiding high-value, high-conviction usage. That distinction matters. A wallet used by ten thousand casual holders and a wallet used by the holders anchoring a large share of stake are not the same thing to fund, even if the download numbers look similar.
So the public-good case holds up better than I first gave it credit for. Daedalus is the reference implementation of “you don’t have to trust anyone to use Cardano,” and the people leaning hardest on that guarantee are still here. Maintenance that keeps it current with protocol upgrades and hardware wallet support is protecting real, in-use security infrastructure, not embalming a relic.
I still want to see a serious answer on long-term sustainability so this does not become a permanent treasury line, and I will be watching for that next cycle. But on this ask, the case is sound and my earlier objection does not survive the facts.
Changing my vote to yes, because better information is supposed to change votes. - Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes438.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes431.7K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳Rationale
Daedalus is just not worth it.
There are enough better wallet apps. A full-node wallet doesn't make much sense anymore with the ever-increasing size of the chain. And it doesn't provide any relevant advantages for average users.
Power users can just run a node and do not need the subpar wallet interface of Daedalus.
- No365.7K ₳No rationale
- No360.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳Rationale
Panda votes YES. The KEY to not be ruled by THEM
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
Daedalus needs maintenance and Cardano needs Daedalus.
- Abstain294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on “Se7en Labs Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026–2027.” Daedalus is Cardano’s only full-node desktop wallet, and every installation also runs a full Cardano node, contributing directly to client diversity, P2P resilience, and a strong self-sovereign security model. This proposal funds a bounded time-and-materials engagement for protocol maintenance (including Leios, Peras, and nested-transaction hard fork readiness), ecosystem improvements such as Keystone and Flex hardware-wallet support and CIP‑30 dApp connector integration, and dedicated user support with continued focus on the Japanese community and full Japanese localisation.
The scope is focused on maintenance and targeted enhancements rather than speculative new product work, and it aligns well with the 2030 strategy’s emphasis on security, client diversity, developer experience, and localized engagement. IOG’s continued binary signing mitigates release integrity risk, while Se7en Labs takes on the ongoing engineering and support workload. Even though Daedalus serves a relatively small but privacy-conscious user base, maintaining at least one high-quality full-node wallet is important for Cardano’s decentralization and for users who explicitly require that trust model. Under current NCL pressure, this 1.78M ADA request is a modest but defensible use of remaining headroom, so I will be voting YES.
- Yes260.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes245.5K ₳Rationale
This is Cardano's only full node wallet, and is a staple of Japanese Ada holders' user experience in token holding and transacting. It is critical that it is maintained - at least until alternatives exist - and this is a fantastic team to do so.
- Yes234.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.2K ₳No rationale
- No215.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes193.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes118.7K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes because Daedalus remains a foundational piece of Cardano's infrastructure. As the ecosystem's only full-node wallet, it provides users with a uniquely self-sovereign experience by validating the blockchain directly, without relying on third-party APIs or backend infrastructure. Maintaining that option strengthens Cardano's resilience, decentralization, and client diversity as the network continues to evolve.
This proposal aligns with my broader support for maintaining critical ecosystem infrastructure. As major protocol upgrades such as Leios, Peras, and future hard forks are introduced, ensuring that Daedalus remains secure, compatible, and fully operational is essential for the users who depend on it. I also support expanding hardware wallet compatibility, implementing CIP-30 to enable dApp interactions for full-node users, and continuing support for global communities through localization and ongoing maintenance.
While Daedalus serves a smaller user base than light wallets, its value cannot be measured solely by user count. It represents an important public good for the Cardano ecosystem: open-source, independently auditable infrastructure that advances decentralization and preserves user choice. For these reasons, I believe continued maintenance and improvement of Daedalus is a worthwhile investment in Cardano's long-term health and resilience.
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes107.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.4K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- No15.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged0 ₳History
Earlier votes
No22d agoSuperseded