Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027
Discussed in the Governance Review for epochs 647 to 649.
180 DReps voted · 64 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, together voting with 50.4M ₳ of voting power.
Voting concentration
8 of 180 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 12.5%, top 5 combined 40.1% of 4.6B ₳ voted.
The 8 largest voters together held as much voting power as the 67.0% threshold required in yes votes.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on "Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027" because Cardano should retain at least one open-source full-node wallet for users who want to verify the chain locally rather than rely on a hosted backend. Daedalus will not be the right wallet for most people, but its role is reliability and self-sovereignty, not mass adoption; maintaining Mithril/partial snapshot sync is especially important to keep the full-node route usable on ordinary hardware. I also support CIP-30 and hardware-wallet work because full-node users should not have to abandon that trust model to use dApps. This is a one-year bridge, not an automatic subsidy: future funding should show independently useful usage and support data, clear FTE/cost detail, public milestone results, sustainable maintenance ownership, and no ADA/USD top-up.
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
Having a full-node wallet is a plus for Cardano., The improvemens to Daedulus by this team have made it usable. heir ask is modest to maintain it to the end of 2027
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
The recent SecondFi hack highlights just how important it is to use a wallet like Daedalus that acts as a full node, without depending on outside APIs or backends. This setup greatly cuts down on the risk of attacks compared to lightweight wallets or browser-based options, which are more susceptible to supply-chain issues and API hacks. Se7en Labs is doing a great job keeping Daedalus updated with protocol hard forks and security fixes, which helps reduce the risks revealed by these incidents.
However, this proposal shouldn’t become a blank check simply because of these external threats. The treasury needs to demand thorough security audits, clear communication on code changes, and observable improvements in resilience in order to ensure accountability for the funding. The recent hack and Emurgo's sloppiness in allowing it serves as a reminder that while open-source auditability is essential, it's not enough on its own; we need ongoing proactive development and community oversight.
Backing Daedalus maintenance now is a smart defensive move: it strengthens the network’s most secure wallet infrastructure against new threats, provided we stick to strict accountability regarding security and essential compatibility.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes987.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes984.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes969.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes966.3K ₳No rationale
- No929.9K ₳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.
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes926K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes866.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes829.9K ₳Rationale
Cardano needs to keeps a full node wallet alive. Daedalus is the best option.
- Yes796.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes737.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes622K ₳No rationale
- Yes604.7K ₳Rationale
YES, Daedalus is Cardano's only full-node desktop wallet. Se7en Labs has proven delivery since Jan 2026. Apache 2.0 public assets, strong oversight, ~$1.07M justified by complexity. Core infrastructure maintenance with positive decentralization impact.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Daedalus is the only full-node desktop wallet in the Cardano ecosystem. Losing it would shrink the full-node footprint and strand a meaningful user base who depend on its self-sovereign security model. The team at Se7en Labs inherited a broken codebase in January 2026 and shipped two major releases within months, including the first wallet capable of crossing the node eleven hard fork. This is not a speculative grant. It is maintenance of critical operational infrastructure with a proven team, clear milestones, and strong oversight through Intersect and a six-member independent Oversight Committee. All outputs are Apache two licensed public assets, meaning the community owns the code regardless of what happens to any vendor. The amount of approximately one point zero seven million dollars is justified by the complexity of a multi-platform full-node wallet with release engineering, Nix builds, and security maintenance. The sustainability concern is real but acceptable for core infrastructure. The team should use this contract period to plan for long-term funding continuity. The decentralization delta is positive. Every Daedalus user is a full node, and the Vision and Strategy framework explicitly targets client diversity.
- Yes591.1K ₳Rationale
Daedalus holds a place in my heart so I vote yes in hope that it can continue.
- Yes579.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes573.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes568K ₳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
- Yes503.6K ₳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. - Yes488.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes481.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes438.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes433.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳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.
- No366.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes356.1K ₳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.
- No342.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes321.6K ₳Rationale
Panda votes YES. The KEY to not be ruled by THEM
- No318.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes297K ₳Rationale
Daedalus needs maintenance and Cardano needs Daedalus.
- Abstain285.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes275.2K ₳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.
- Yes268.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes260.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes222.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes216.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes189.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes185K ₳No rationale