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.
- Abstain457.4M ₳Rationale
"Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027. Yoroi recognises the importance of responsible governance during periods of ecosystem uncertainty.
- Ecosystem Situation: The trust our delegators place in Yoroi requires that we act only when we can do so with full confidence. In light of the current situation, Yoroi is choosing to withhold its vote on this proposal and will reassess our position once conditions allow for a considered decision."
- Yes441.6M ₳Rationale
Please check the following link for the reasons for the vote.（投票理由は次のページを参照してください。)
- Abstain350.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain304.6M ₳Rationale
"EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027, with rationale outlined below.
Given the ongoing situation in the ecosystem, responsible governance requires us to act with full clarity and confidence. Until the current situation reaches resolution, EMURGO prefers to withhold judgment rather than vote without the certainty our mandate demands. We will revisit this proposal once the situation is resolved."
- Abstain278.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes216.7M ₳Rationale
The recent improvements made it clear, that Daedalus, as the only full node wallet, can have a future. The ask is modest to keep it maintained until end of 2027.
- Yes185M ₳No rationale
- Abstain182.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes170.6M ₳Rationale
This document includes the Cardano Foundation’s voting decisions and individual voting
rationales for 3 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions connected to the 2026 Intersect-facilitated budget process: Ticketing Platform, Daedalus Wallet Maintenance & Improvements and Cardano Builder DAO.A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We apply a consistent evaluation framework (see "Cardano Foundation Voting Decisions for the 2026 Intersect Budget Process") and present our reasoning in a single document. Fund-administration clarity is a central consideration: our expectation is that treasury funds are held and released under diligent, transparent, independently-overseen administration with robust custody controls and milestone-based accountability.
Voting Record
For the Ticketing Platform and Daedalus withdrawals, no material change has emerged since our original budget assessment, and our YES votes reflect that assessment. For the Cardano Builder DAO, we are changing our vote from YES to NO due to a change in the proposal relating to the administration of the funds. The updated proposal discloses that the full 20,000,000 ada is paid upfront to a self-selected "independent council" and held under a three-person native multi-sig with only two of three signatories disclosed. This creates continuity and security risks which would usually mitigated by a setup such as the TRSC/PSSC framework with independent external oversight and milestone-gated disbursement.
Voting Record
Governance Action ID Title Vote Rationale gov_action1fda...ccn9gc Cardano Builder DAO (2026) NO The proposal aligns with Cardano governance and ecosystem growth, and the team has a demonstrated record of delivering ecosystem grants, running on-chain governance rounds, and returning unused funds to the treasury. However, the disclosed fund administration, 20,000,000 ada withdrawn upfront to a self-selected council held under a partially-disclosed three-person native multi-sig, outside the independently-overseen TRSC/PSSC framework used for comparable withdrawals, does not provide adequate custody security, key-management assurance, or governance-risk controls at this scale. On this basis, CF changes its vote from Yes to No. gov_action1xk6...p0ga3d Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform YES This proposal by Anvil seems to credibly contribute to adoption and utility: the system uses CIP-68 metadata, native multi-asset issuance, and on-chain royalty enforcement to support a ticketing business already serving 200,000 users. The proposal is expected to generate meaningful on-chain activity through direct network usage with documented 12-month targets of NFT mints, on-chain interactions, new wallets, and in ticket revenue processed on-chain. Anvil team has a proven track record of Cardano delivery, and Sellout has operated a functioning ticketing platform since 2017. The budget is appropriately justifi ed given the clearly defi ned deliverables, milestone-gated disbursement, third-party security audit, and the equity provision to the Cardano treasury. However, Yellowstone Club anchor deployment and the relatively modest Sellout self-funding to date, compared to the requested amount, should be tracked through quarterly reporting. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1mr0...4yjd6j Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026–2027 YES The Daedalus Wallet proposal credibly contributes to adoption, utility, and ecosystem growth because its deliverables provide essential maintenance and functional extensions to Cardano's foundational full-node wallet infrastructure. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement by reactivating idle legacy user accounts and securing independent network access suffi cient to justify treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has demonstrated the necessary expertise to maintain the solution, and the budget is appropriately justifi ed given a fair balance between core upgrades and optional, refundable security audit allocations. However, the proposal would benefi t from clearer long-term fi nancial planning, with the understanding that approval should not imply a commitment to continued annual treasury support. Based on this, CF votes Yes. These three votes are the outcome of a review anchored in our publicly stated principles. The Ticketing Platform and Daedalus withdrawals carry forward our original YES assessments unchanged. For the Cardano Builder DAO we vote NO, due to security and continuity concerns related to the custody and administration arrangements.
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. - Yes105.9M ₳Rationale
I support this proposal.
I believe Daedalus is one of the pieces of infrastructure that Cardano cannot afford to lose.
At present, there is effectively no alternative full-node wallet for Cardano. Daedalus remains indispensable for users who value self-verification and self-sovereignty. It has also earned a strong reputation over many years—particularly within the Japanese community—and that trust is itself a valuable asset to the ecosystem.
Furthermore, recent security incidents surrounding wallet infrastructure have reinforced the importance of solutions that minimize reliance on third parties. I believe demand for trustworthy full-node wallets will continue to grow, making it even more important to preserve the reputation and confidence that Daedalus has built over the years.
For these reasons, I believe continued maintenance and improvement of Daedalus is a worthwhile investment in Cardano's long-term decentralization, resilience, and user trust, and I support this proposal.
本提案を支持します。
私は、DaedalusはCardanoにとって失ってはならない基盤インフラの一つであると考えています。
現在、Daedalusに代わるフルノードウォレットは実質的になく、自己検証・自己主権を重視するユーザーにとって不可欠な存在です。特に日本では長年にわたり高い信頼を築いてきたウォレットであり、その実績と安心感はCardanoエコシステムにとって重要な資産です。
また、近年のウォレットを取り巻くセキュリティインシデントを踏まえると、自らノードを運用し、第三者への依存を最小限に抑えられるフルノードウォレットへの需要は今後さらに高まると考えています。その意味でも、Daedalusが築いてきた「信頼できるフルノードウォレット」という価値を失うべきではありません。
本提案は、ハードフォーク対応や継続的な保守、セキュリティ維持など、Cardanoの長期的な分散性と信頼性を支えるために必要な投資であると判断し、支持します。
- Yes96M ₳No rationale
- Yes93.3M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote YES on the proposal: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026–2027.
My rationale:
According to the proposal, Daedalus has approximately 4,000 monthly active users. That is not even 1% of stakers, which number around 1.3M. I assume Daedalus users are primarily OGs, or a small portion of users who want the most decentralized solution possible.
This is still a relatively small user base compared to the requested budget. From a pure adoption or user-growth perspective, this would be difficult to justify.
However, I see Daedalus as public-good infrastructure. An open-source full-node wallet is essentially the most secure and self-sovereign solution that every ecosystem should offer, even if its user base is relatively small.
Daedalus is Cardano’s only full-node desktop wallet for regular users. It allows users to verify the chain directly, run their own local node, submit transactions without relying on third-party APIs, and preserve a stronger self-sovereign trust model than lite wallets.
This is important for decentralization and resilience. Cardano should not depend only on backend-based wallets, even if they are more convenient for most users.
Daedalus maintenance is not the same as building the Cardano node itself. The core node work is prepared upstream, including Leios and Peras. Daedalus integrates and ships that node in a wallet product. Although it is necessary to integrate the wallet with new features carefully, I do not see this as deep protocol R&D.
The proposal mentions Japanese localization. I do not consider localization alone to be a strong cost driver. The Daedalus codebase already has a structured i18n workflow, and AI tools can significantly reduce the cost of generating translations. Adding draft translations for additional languages should be relatively inexpensive.
A key reason for my YES vote is that the proposal includes improvements that make Daedalus more useful, especially CIP-30 support. Today, Daedalus users are largely excluded from the dApp and DeFi ecosystem unless they switch to a browser wallet. That is a serious limitation. If Daedalus is supposed to remain relevant, full-node users need a path to interact with dApps without fully abandoning the benefits of the full-node wallet model.
At the same time, I have reservations.
The proposal does not provide enough FTE transparency. It gives a total labor budget, but it does not clearly break down the number of FTEs, hourly or monthly rates, named roles, or allocation between maintenance, new features, support, and architecture assessment.
This is tolerable only because the IO did not provide this information either. However, DReps should strictly require it from the next NCL period.
For future funding requests, I expect more details. DReps should be able to understand what team size is being funded and how the monthly burn is justified.
Eternl decided to implement a sustainability plan. Wallets should not rely on subsidies forever. Especially since if we only support some wallets from Treasury, we are picking winners and putting other vendors at a disadvantage. Treasury cannot fund all wallets in the ecosystem.
Some parts of Daedalus may remain a public good, but the team should also explore whether non-core services can be commercialized or externally supported without compromising the wallet’s trust model.
My position is as follows. Daedalus has relatively few users and will definitely not trigger adoption growth. Nevertheless, Daedalus should be funded because Cardano benefits from having at least one maintained, open-source, full-node wallet available to non-technical users.
I strongly recommend reducing costs. I also encourage the team to explore sustainability options for Daedalus.
Some parts of Daedalus may remain a public good, but non-core services could potentially be commercialized or externally supported without compromising the wallet’s trust model. For example, after CIP-30 support is implemented, the team could evaluate optional swap or DEX aggregator functionality, with transparent fees and without weakening Daedalus’s full-node, self-sovereign model.
I understand that commercializing Daedalus with 4,000 users is challenging. However, I believe the team should still explore realistic sustainability options.
For context: A new Catalyst round with a budget of ₳2M is expected to be launched. This round is intended to support several teams. The costs of maintaining wallets should not be comparable to the budget for several teams. Cardano needs to invest in growth and adoption. Daedalus is a must-have wallet, but it will not fundamentally support ecosystem growth.
If the budget is even tighter next time, it may be necessary to make difficult trade-offs between maintaining Daedalus and funding growth-oriented initiatives.
I vote YES, but I consider this a one-year public-good maintenance bridge. Future proposals should provide clearer FTE details, stronger cost justification, transparent reporting, and a credible plan for long-term sustainability.
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:
drep1y2m0g4r66...skqwqp - Yes89.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes89.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes88.1M ₳Rationale
Daedalus is our ecosystem's only full node wallet. The price tag seems worthwhile to maintain our only full node wallet.
- Yes83.9M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on the treasury withdrawal "Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027" (1,785,333 ADA).
This action funds one year of maintenance and improvement of Daedalus — Cardano's only full-node desktop wallet — from 1 September 2026, delivered by Se7en Labs, Inc. as a time and materials engagement. Scope covers protocol maintenance (node and wallet-backend currency, a compatible release at least two weeks before each mainnet hard fork, and Leios, Peras and Nested Transactions readiness), ecosystem expansion (Keystone and Flex hardware wallet support, a CIP-30 dApp connector, Japanese localisation), user support, and an architecture assessment published regardless of outcome. Intersect administers the funds and independently verifies milestones under Article II.7.5 of the Constitution, disbursing monthly against verified work, with unspent labor, hardware or audit budget returned to the treasury.
Disclosure of prior process. SIPO voted Yes on this proposal in the 2026 Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting phase, where it received 55.00% against the 67% threshold and so did not proceed on-chain through that process. Se7en Labs subsequently submitted it directly on-chain. The proposal does not mention this history. SIPO records it here because it is material to how DReps should read the action, and because SIPO's own prior position belongs in the record. SIPO's assessment has not changed: scope and contract period are materially unchanged, and while the amount is 54.8% higher in ADA than the 1,153,600 ADA put to the Hydra vote, the USD-equivalent at the ADA price prevailing at each point is materially unchanged — roughly $289k in June against roughly $284k now. That is a currency effect, not a repricing of the work. SIPO notes, however, that because the Net Change Limit is denominated in ADA, asks holding a USD budget constant consume proportionally more of the limit as ADA falls.
Fund control. The on-chain recipient is the 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract at the script credential stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v, on the Sundae Labs treasury-contracts framework. Disbursement runs through a Project-Specific Smart Contract; authorization requires a quorum spanning Intersect admins, Intersect leadership and independent trusted entities; an Oversight Committee of six external parties independently verifies key administrative actions using on-chain logic; the contracts cannot be staked with an SPO and are delegated to the auto-abstain DRep; and a public dashboard lets the community audit the flow. This is the strongest fund-control class SIPO recognizes, and the same structure SIPO supported across the eleven withdrawals of the 2026 Intersect Budget Process.
Why SIPO supports this. Daedalus is the primary way non-technical holders run a full Cardano node: every installation is a node, deriving wallet and governance data from the chain with no third-party API and no trusted backend. Maintaining it maintains client diversity and self-sovereign access — a category SIPO has consistently supported. The work is a public good in the strongest sense: Apache 2.0, no monetization, no captured customer relationship, no IP exclusivity, forkable by anyone in perpetuity. The delivery record is independently verifiable: after 242 days with no release, Daedalus 8.0.0 shipped on 28 April 2026 and 11.0.0 — the first wallet able to cross the node 11.0 hard fork — on 13 May 2026, with continuous public development since. Roughly 93% of the request is labor for a team spanning cardano-node integration, Nix build systems, Electron and release engineering, at a cost modest for that breadth. The commitment to keep Daedalus fully translated into Japanese across every feature shipped, and to give the Japanese community first-class support, matters directly to the constituency SIPO represents.
Expectations attached to this Yes.
(1) CIP-30 security design. SIPO's outstanding check point from its Hydra review remains unresolved: the proposal commits to a CIP-30 dApp connector but does not describe its security design. Bringing dApp connectivity into a full-node wallet changes that wallet's exposure. SIPO expects the design — origin handling, permissioning, signing UX, and isolation between connector and key material — to be published and reviewable before the connector ships.
(2) Disclosure when re-submitting. Where a proposal has already been put to a DRep vote and did not reach threshold, SIPO expects that outcome to be stated in the proposal itself. The result is public, but a DRep should not have to reconstruct it. This expectation is directed at the practice, not at Se7en Labs alone.
(3) Role transparency. Intersect is named as administrator and independent milestone verifier. The proposal's sole author and signatory currently chairs the Intersect Product Committee, and the proposal cites the Cardano Vision and Strategy framework — produced under that chairmanship — as its primary alignment basis, while describing those roles in the past tense. SIPO does not treat this as a self-dealing risk: the author holds no material DRep voting power, and the Product Committee sits outside the disbursement path. SIPO does expect current roles to be stated in the present tense where the same organization is presented as the independent verifier.
(4) Continuity of process. SIPO expects the 2027 engagement to be brought through the Intersect budget process.
None of these conditions the vote. They are the basis on which SIPO will assess the 2027 request. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、トレジャリー引き出し提案「Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027」（1,785,333 ADA）に、期待事項を付して賛成（YES）を投じます。
本件は、Cardano 唯一の full-node desktop wallet である Daedalus を 2026 年 9 月 1 日から 1 年間、Se7en Labs, Inc. が time and materials 契約で保守・改善するための資金です。範囲は、プロトコル保守（node / wallet backend の追随、各メインネット hard fork の 2 週間以上前の互換リリース、Leios・Peras・Nested Transactions 対応）、エコシステム拡張（Keystone・Flex ハードウェアウォレット対応、CIP-30 dApp connector、日本語ローカライゼーション）、ユーザーサポート、そして結果にかかわらず公開されるアーキテクチャ評価です。資金は Intersect が憲法 Article II.7.5 に基づき管理し、マイルストーンを独立検証したうえで月次で支払います。労務・機材・監査の未消化分はトレジャリーへ返還されます。
先行プロセスの開示。SIPO は本提案に対し、2026 Intersect Budget Process の Hydra Voting phase で賛成を投じています。同提案はそこで 55.00% にとどまり 67% 閾値に届かず、そのプロセス経由ではオンチェーン提出に進みませんでした。その後 Se7en Labs は直接オンチェーンに提出しています。提案書はこの経緯に触れていません。SIPO がここに記録するのは、これが DRep の判断にとって重要な情報であり、かつ SIPO 自身の従前の立場も記録に属するからです。SIPO の評価は変わっていません。範囲と契約期間に実質的な変更はなく、金額は Hydra 投票に付された 1,153,600 ADA より ADA 建てで 54.8% 高いものの、各時点の ADA 価格で見た USD 相当額は実質的に変わっていません（6 月に約 28.9 万ドル、現在約 28.4 万ドル）。これは為替効果であり、作業の値上げではありません。ただし SIPO は、Net Change Limit が ADA 建てである以上、USD 予算を一定に保つ提案は ADA 下落に応じて枠をより多く消費する点を指摘しておきます。
fund-control。オンチェーンの受領先は 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract（script credential: stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v）で、Sundae Labs の treasury-contracts フレームワーク上にあります。支払いは Project-Specific Smart Contract を経由し、承認には Intersect の admin・leadership・独立した信頼エンティティにまたがる定足数を要します。6 者の外部エンティティからなる Oversight Committee が、オンチェーンロジックを用いて主要な管理アクションを独立検証します。これらのコントラクトは SPO へ委任できず、auto-abstain の DRep に委任されます。公開ダッシュボードによりコミュニティが資金の流れを監査できます。これは SIPO が認める最も強い fund-control の類型であり、2026 Intersect Budget Process の 11 件の引き出しで SIPO が支持したのと同一の構造です。
SIPO が支持する理由。Daedalus は、技術者でない保有者が Cardano のフルノードを動かすための主要な手段です。インストールの一つ一つがノードであり、第三者 API にも trusted backend にも依存せず、ウォレットとガバナンスのデータをチェーンから直接取得します。これを維持することは、クライアント多様性と self-sovereign なアクセスを維持することであり、SIPO が一貫して支持してきた類型です。作業内容は最も強い意味での公共財です。Apache 2.0、収益化なし、顧客関係の囲い込みなし、IP の独占なし、誰でも恒久的にフォークできます。実行実績は独立に検証可能です。242 日間リリースが途絶えたのち、2026 年 4 月 28 日に Daedalus 8.0.0 が、5 月 13 日に 11.0.0 — node 11.0 hard fork を越えられた最初のウォレット — が出荷され、以降も公開の開発が継続しています。要求額の約 93% は、cardano-node 統合・Nix ビルドシステム・Electron・リリース工学にまたがるチームの労務であり、その専門範囲に対して控えめな水準です。出荷される全機能にわたって日本語訳を維持し、日本語コミュニティに first-class のサポートを提供するというコミットメントは、SIPO が代表する委任者に直接関わります。
本賛成に付す期待事項。
(1) CIP-30 のセキュリティ設計。SIPO が Hydra レビュー時に挙げた確認ポイントは未解消です。提案は CIP-30 dApp connector を約束していますが、そのセキュリティ設計を記述していません。dApp 接続性をフルノードウォレットに持ち込むことは、そのウォレットの露出を変えます。SIPO は、origin の扱い・権限付与・署名 UX・connector と鍵素材の分離を含む設計が、connector の出荷前に公開されレビュー可能になることを期待します。
(2) 再提出時の開示。すでに DRep 投票に付され閾値に届かなかった提案については、SIPO はその結果が提案書自体に記載されることを期待します。結果は公開されていますが、DRep がそれを自力で再構成しなければならない状態は適切ではありません。この期待は慣行に向けたものであり、Se7en Labs のみに向けたものではありません。
(3) 役職の透明性。Intersect は administrator かつ independent milestone verifier として記載されています。提案の唯一の著者・署名者は現在 Intersect Product Committee の chair を務めており、提案はその chair 職のもとで作られた Cardano Vision and Strategy framework を主要な整合根拠として引用していますが、これらの役職は過去形で記述されています。SIPO はこれを自己取引リスクとは扱いません。著者は実質的な DRep 投票力を持たず、Product Committee は支払い経路の外にあります。ただし SIPO は、同一組織が独立検証者として提示される場面では、現任の役職が現在形で記載されることを期待します。
(4) プロセスの継続性。SIPO は、2027 年分が Intersect budget process を経由して提出されることを期待します。
これらはいずれも本投票の条件ではありません。SIPO が 2027 年分の要求を評価する際の基礎です。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes80.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes75.5M ₳Rationale
LFG boys!
- Yes75.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026–2027 treasury withdrawal.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES on the Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026–2027 treasury withdrawal. As Cardano's only desktop full-node wallet, Daedalus is a critical pillar of network decentralization, ensuring privacy-conscious users can self-verify the chain without relying on third parties. The Se7en Labs team is engaged and passionate, and I've seen significant advancements in Daedalus capabilities through their recent contributions. I want to emphasize that open-source wallets absolutely have a place in Cardano, and I am very happy to support this.
Keep up the great work guys!
- Yes69.8M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged55.4M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the Daedalus Wallet Maintenance proposal by Se7en Labs (1,785,333 ADA). Daedalus is, at present, the only full-node desktop wallet on Cardano, generating all wallet and governance data directly from the chain with no third-party APIs or trusted backends, and with keys generated and stored on-device. This is Tier 1 infrastructure that the market cannot supply, and the proposal is structured as a pure public-good grant under Apache 2.0, with no monetization, no captured users, and all outputs public in perpetuity. As any wallet can claim it does not exfiltrate keys but only an open-source wallet can prove it, this is exactly the model the Treasury should fund. The recent SecondFi incident is a direct illustration of why this matters. A browser-extension wallet is updated unilaterally through the browser's update channel, and a closed-source wallet cannot be independently verified, so users can be exposed to fund loss through no fault of their own, even from a previously trusted vendor after an acquisition or a change of control. A full-node, open-source, self-custodial wallet is the structural answer to that risk. The value of Daedalus is also not measured by active user count. As the only full-node wallet, it is the ecosystem's last-resort infrastructure, remaining functional when lite wallets fail, for example under high chain utilisation where lite wallets can be unavailable for hours, and across hard forks. This is option value: even a few thousand users today justify guaranteeing that a fully self-sovereign, auditable, API-free path to the chain always exists. On scale and discipline, the ask is modest at roughly 1.78M ADA on time-and-materials terms with unspent funds returned, in a different category from the large open-ended maintenance budgets I have opposed. This vote is consistent with my support for genuine Tier 1 infrastructure such as consensus and Layer 2 scaling, and with my opposition to over-scaled or commercial proposals that the market should fund. I vote YES. [Japanese version follows] Se7en LabsによるDaedalusウォレット保守提案（1,785,333 ADA）に賛成します。Daedalusは現時点でCardano唯一のフルノード型デスクトップウォレットであり、サードパーティAPIや信頼されたバックエンドに依存せず、すべてのウォレット・ガバナンスデータをチェーンから直接生成し、秘密鍵は端末内で生成・保存されます。これは市場が供給できないTier 1インフラであり、本提案はApache 2.0の下での純粋な公共財グラントとして構成されています。収益化なし、ユーザーの囲い込みなし、全成果物は永続的に公共物です。どのウォレットも鍵を抜き取らないと主張できますが、それを証明できるのはオープンソースだけであり、これはまさにTreasuryが資金を出すべきモデルです。近時のSecondFi事件は、この点を端的に示しています。ブラウザ拡張型ウォレットはブラウザの更新経路を通じて一方的にアップデートされ、クローズドソースのウォレットは第三者による検証ができません。そのため、ユーザーに何の落ち度がなくても、また買収や経営権の移転を経てそれまで信頼されていた提供者からであっても、資産流出のリスクにさらされ得ます。フルノードでオープンソースの自己管理型ウォレットは、このリスクに対する構造的な答えです。またDaedalusの価値は、アクティブユーザー数では測れません。唯一のフルノードウォレットとして、これはエコシステムの最終的な選択肢としてのインフラであり、Lite walletが機能不全に陥る局面、たとえば高負荷時にLite walletが数時間利用できなくなる状況やハードフォークをまたぐ場面でも、確実に機能し続けます。これはオプション価値です。今日のユーザーが数千人であっても、完全に自己主権的で、監査可能で、API非依存のチェーンへの経路が常に存在することを保証する価値があります。規模と規律の面でも、約1.78M ADAという要求は控えめで、実費（T&M）方式で未使用分は返還されるため、私が反対してきた大規模で青天井の保守予算とは別のカテゴリーに属します。この投票は、コンセンサスやLayer 2スケーリングといった真のTier 1インフラを支持し、市場が資金を出すべき過大または商業的な提案に反対してきた私の立場と一貫しています。賛成します。
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
I am voting No on this proposal. This year's Net Change Limit (NCL) has been set well above the level I consider sustainable. Under my published voting framework, an appropriate NCL is roughly 15% of the previous year's staking rewards (on the order of 82M ADA), whereas the NCL currently in force is several times that amount. Because the treasury is already authorized to disburse far beyond my personal NCL threshold, I am voting No on all treasury withdrawal proposals until aggregate withdrawals are brought back within a sustainable limit — regardless of the individual merits of any single proposal. This vote reflects a position on total treasury spend, not a judgment on the value of your specific project. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/\n\n[Japanese version follows]\n\n本提案に反対票を投じます。今年のNet Change Limit（NCL）は、私が持続可能と考える水準を大幅に上回って設定されています。公開済みの投票フレームワークでは、適正なNCLは前年のステーキング報酬の約15%（82M ADA）ですが、現行のNCLはその数倍に達しています。トレジャリーは既に私のpersonal NCL（個人として許容する上限）を大きく超える出金が認められている状態にあるため、出金総額が持続可能な範囲に戻るまで、個別提案の良し悪しに関わらず、すべてのトレジャリー出金提案に反対票を投じます。本投票はトレジャリー支出全体に対する立場の表明であり、貴提案の価値そのものを否定するものではありません。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Yes53.3M ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes on the Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027 proposal.
Daedalus is Cardano's only full-node desktop wallet. It verifies data directly from the chain without third-party APIs or trusted backends, making it something of a last bastion for decentralized access.
The recent SecondFi hack showed once again that a security flaw in a wallet translates directly into user losses. In times like these, the continued maintenance and improvement of trustworthy wallets should be a priority for the ecosystem. Daedalus in particular is open source, so anyone can verify its code, which makes a strong case for sustaining it with public funds.
For these reasons, I'm voting Yes.
- Abstain50.8M ₳Rationale
Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.
More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703
- No43.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes41.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain40.2M ₳No rationale
- No39.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on governance action d8de068952df50...64d6#0.
First, I do not believe I have a conflict of interest in voting on this. Sundae Labs has not discussed participating in this contract in any way.
I believe Daedalus is critical infrastructure, and must be maintained through hard forks.
However, we just approved 62 million ADA for Ensurable Systems to perform critical maintenance activities, 13 million ADA to support Cardano upgrades, and 27 million ADA for the various consensus upgrades.
Collectively, that represents 102 million ADA, just over 15 million USD even at the current depressed prices.
While not explicitly stated in any of their proposals remits, the maintenance proposal in particular was sold as broad, general, and flexible to the network needs.
Part of maintaining Cardano, and delivering those upgrades, is ensuring critical infrastructure like Daedalus is brought along for the ride.
I have to vote no on this proposal, not because I don't believe in the value or the team, but because I feel that this was already paid for, and between the three proposals above, they can find it in the budget to pay the team for these activities.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Yes37M ₳No rationale
- Abstain36.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes36.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes32.4M ₳Rationale
Daedalus is Cardano’s only full-node wallet and therefore constitutes critical, life-support infrastructure for the ecosystem. Maintaining protocol compatibility, hard fork readiness, security updates, and multi-platform support is essential to ensure users can continue to access the chain without disruption. The requested amount (1,785,333 ADA) is reasonable for a year-long maintenance contract, the deliverables are measurable, and the governance structure provides strong oversight. As a public good under an open-source license, this proposal directly supports Cardano’s operational integrity and merits approval.
- Yes31.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain30.6M ₳Rationale
Socious abstains on this GA because we are not sure of the proposal.
- Yes30.6M ₳Rationale
Daedalus Wallet may not be the most popular choice among retail users, but it remains an important tool for stake pool operators (SPOs) and other advanced users. It continues to play a key role in the ecosystem, and for the amount requested, I believe this proposal is worth supporting.
- Yes28.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes28.1M ₳Rationale
Having at least one well-maintained full node wallet in the Cardano ecosystem is of critical importance. It is one of the only ways for users to have direct access to Cardano without having to rely on an intermediary with their own node. I want to see Deadalus thrive and this is a great team to do it. Easy YES.
- Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes26M ₳No rationale
- Yes25.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements. I am on this team but it's a really good team. We will make Daedalus useful and desireable again.
- No25.8M ₳Rationale
I vote No, just as I did for Eternl.
All wallets need to find a way to become profitable today. Daedalus has not innovated enough to keep pace with other wallets, particularly when it comes to integrating with DeFi and the broader Cardano ecosystem.
Therefore, I do not consider Daedalus critical infrastructure for Cardano. If IOG believes it is, then IOG should allocate funding to support its development.
- Yes23.6M ₳Rationale
Say it with me, folks. Full node, open source wallets are the industry standard for security.
- Yes22.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.7M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal action “Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027” (d8de068952df50...64d6#0).
As a user of Daedalus since March 2018 I am happy to see a team once again pick up the maintenance of Cardano’s only full-node wallet after years of neglect from IOG. The Yoroi/SecondFi incident recently highlighted the importance of self-sovereignty and the potential risks of closed-source light wallet providers. Running your own node is also central to the cypherpunk vision and an aspect of Bitcoin that staunch defenders have held onto and continue to champion today.
Daedalus, running cardano-node, had become a resource intensive platform and restricted its recent adoption after the being the only wallet available for the first year of Cardano’s existence. Back then the chain size meant that it had reasonable resource usage. When this crept up to 16-24 GB RAM and hundreds of GB in storage it became increasingly untenable for everyday users. Enter Mithril. The perplexing nature of IOG is that it designed and built Mithril, the solution to the painfully slow Daedalus sync times but it never merged the two technologies and wondered why Mithril adoption was slow. It sometimes appears as though IOG focuses on the “what can be built” and not enough on the “what have we built”.
I was sad to see that this did not get funded last year but the day that updated Daedalus was released by Se7en Labs, with the blessing of IOG, was genuinely one of the most positive days that I have had in this ecosystem in recent years, such is the contentious nature of Cardano governance these days. An updated Daedalus, hard fork ready on node version 11, with integrated Mithril. It went from fresh install to fully synced in an hour and the memory footprint on my Apple silicon Macbook Pro was just 4 GB. This is not all Mithril of course. Reduced sync times, yes. Reduced memory footprint, that is thanks to the newly implemented LSM trees and the ability to run UTXO-HD instead of having everything in memory.
I look forward to an expanded feature set for Daedalus now that it has a committed and dedicated team supporting it. I also hope that it can help bring some of those long dormant ada holders, sceptical of anything but an “official” wallet might once again find their way to participating in the ecosystem. Even if that means simply moving to a non-retied stake pool and delegating to DReps once that becomes available in Daedalus. Ada should be participating in the security of the ecosystem, not lying dormant in neglected wallets.
By the way, while you’re here, stake to a Mithril Signer SPO and support helping make Daedalus great again, find one on the HephyPool website, and delegate in a few clicks on Cexplorer.
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
We recognize Daedalus as an important open-source public-good wallet and Cardano’s full-node desktop wallet option. It supports self-sovereign access without relying on third-party APIs or hosted backends, which has value for ecosystem resilience.
However, we do not believe the case for continued treasury funding is strong enough in the current form. Daedalus serves a relatively small user base compared with light wallets, and the proposal would benefit from clearer evidence of current demand, usage trends, support load, release cadence, and long-term sustainability.
We also want clearer justification of which improvements are essential maintenance versus new feature development, and how future funding needs should be handled if Daedalus remains a niche wallet.
This is not a rejection of Daedalus. It is a decision that the public-good value is real, but not sufficiently justified against current usage and competing treasury priorities.
- Yes20.3M ₳Rationale
Every blockchain needs at least one open source full node wallet. Deadalus is that wallet for Cardano.
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3M ₳Rationale
Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026-2027
- Yes12M ₳Rationale
私はこの提案に賛成します。当初は、同期に時間がかかり、機能面でもライトウォレットに比べて遅れを取っていることから、Daedalusはすでにその役割を終えつつあると考え、この提案に反対するつもりでした。しかし、提案内容を確認したことで考えが変わりました。Keystone Walletをはじめとする新しいハードウェアウォレットへの対応や、CIP-30 dAppコネクターの実装など、Daedalusは単なる保守ではなく、ユーザー体験の向上に向けて進化を続けています。さらに、フルノードウォレット自体がCardanoエコシステムにおいて重要な役割を担っていることを改めて認識しました。そのため、Daedalusを今後も発展・維持していくことには十分な意義があると判断し、私はこの提案に賛成します。\n\nI vote Yes on this proposal. Initially, I intended to vote against it because I believed Daedalus had largely fulfilled its role. Because of its long synchronization time and limited functionality compared with light wallets, I believed it was used mainly by a small group of dedicated users. However, after reviewing the proposal, I changed my mind. Daedalus is not simply being maintained—it continues to evolve by adding support for new hardware wallets such as Keystone Wallet and implementing the CIP-30 dApp connector, both of which will improve the user experience. I also recognized the important role that a full-node wallet continues to play in the Cardano ecosystem. I therefore believe it is worthwhile to continue developing and maintaining Daedalus, and I support this proposal.
- Yes11.9M ₳Rationale
Daedalus remains an important open-source public good within the Cardano ecosystem, providing users with a full-node wallet option that supports self-custody, independent validation, client diversity, and reduced reliance on centralized or third-party infrastructure. Continued maintenance is therefore strategically important for protocol compatibility, hard-fork readiness, security, and the long-term resilience of the ecosystem.
We recognize the concerns around the size and structure of the requested labor budget, the time-and-materials funding model, the broad scope of the engagement, and the need to clearly separate costs from other treasury-funded infrastructure initiatives. We also believe that greater transparency around team composition, labor rates, monthly expenditure, feature-level costs, and the verification of completed work would strengthen accountability and demonstrate value for money. If a subsequent proposal is submitted with absence of these details, we wouldn't support.
Nevertheless, the proposal presents a credible and necessary continuation of Daedalus maintenance, and the executing team has already demonstrated relevant delivery through its ongoing work on the wallet, including protocol compatibility, release engineering, backend improvements, and infrastructure modernization. The proposed governance, hardware-wallet, CIP-30, localization, and protocol-readiness improvements further enhance the value of maintaining Daedalus as a relevant full-node client.
We therefore support this governance action.