Securing Generic Top-Level Domains for the Cardano Ecosystem
199 DReps voted · 79 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on the governance action for .ada and .cardano gTLDs. I prioritize proposals that solve real problems for Cardano’s users and developers, like Python’s practical tools drove its growth. This is an expensive branding effort with no clear use case, such as wallet or DApp integration, to boost users or developers. The costs, potentially $2 million per year, are high for unproven impact. Although the Cardano Foundation (CF) uses its own funds, these were once community assets, and their occasionally obstructive stance conflicts with Cardano’s decentralized, community-driven vision. Transparency is promised but doesn’t deliver tangible benefits. Pros: A gTLD could increase Cardano’s visibility and potentially spark Web3 innovation, like .xyz or .crypto. Cons: Without a concrete application, this is a symbolic investment with little measurable impact. The CF’s control over domain sales could centralize power, letting them profit or favor certain projects without strong community oversight, undermining decentralization. I only support projects with proven, community-driven value.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted1.1M ₳Rationale
The Foundation argues for digital presence and infrastructure positioning, and I accept the premise that owning strategic TLDs can confer branding and control benefits. However, **Cardano’s marginal returns from a gTLD, even if secured, are speculative compared to direct investments in developer grants, tooling, Hydra/L2 growth, or enterprise integrations. **The proposal does not quantify expected ecosystem value (revenue, user adoption, developer activity) relative to alternative uses of Foundation effort and community attention.
Furthermore, **ICANN gTLD ownership is not the only, nor necessarily best, route to achieving the stated objectives. **The Foundation must justify why owning the TLD is superior to these options (e.g. strategic agreements with blockchain-native naming providers such as Unstoppable Domains) and creating seamless resolver bridges to Cardano wallets.
**Owning .ada and .cardano could be valuable, but only if justified by demonstrable demand, robust risk mitigation, and a clear alternatives analysis showing gTLD ownership is the best way forward and necessary for adoption. **
The Foundation covering costs is laudable, but that alone does not justify asking the community for an endorsement that would commit our reputation and governance machinery to a materially risky program. ICANN gTLD applications may expose the ecosystem to significant, uncertain financial burdens (contention auctions, legal/IP disputes, and ongoing operational scaling) and reputational/legal liabilities absent rigorous contingency planning and governance safeguards.
Earlier votes
No9mo agoSuperseded
The ambition behind securing .ada and .cardano is understandable and strategically coherent at a high level. But ambition without discipline is waste. The current Info Action is a pitch without the necessary rigor: no costs, no demand validation, no governance safeguards, and no alternatives analysis. Cardano’s stewardship requires precise, accountable decisions. At this moment, endorsing an application motion that exposes the community to potentially large financial and reputational downside without detailed planning would be reckless.
Cardano faces higher-priority, mission-critical investments today: on-chain developer incentives, Layer 2 adoption (Hydra, Rollups, Leios), real-world integrations, and developer tooling. Allocating operational focus and resources to ICANN applications now risks opportunity cost against initiatives that directly expand network utility and transaction volume. The authors did not convincingly prioritize gTLDs versus these higher-leverage activities.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes949.1K ₳Rationale
Voted yes, as it will be funded by the CF and is in the best interest of Cardano. Hopefully the CF doesn't hold these domains as hostage in the future, as they will be the owners of them and we the community have no representation in the CF. I trust it will be fine.
- Yes948.9K ₳Rationale
Definitely a great idea, I wanted to do this myself at some point.
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Althoug we have some concerns regarding the control of public goods such as the Cardano brand and .ada and .cardano domains in the hands of a single entity. We trust the Cardano Foundation to put in place measures that will allow for the control of this assets to be trustless and less centralized.
- Yes820.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.6K ₳Rationale
I support this proposal in principle as securing key generic top-level domains (gTLDs) is a strategic move to protect and fortify the Cardano brand globally.
- No798.4K ₳Rationale
Will vote no as long as the foundation does not allow community participation
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
CF is proposing to commit their funds and time/resources to managing dedicated domains. This has the potential of strengthening our brand. I'm "for" this only to the extent that it is not a direct trade-off against deliverables that are of much bigger consequence.
- No776.8K ₳Rationale
While I can see the interest in obtaining such domains, I do not believe that leveraging such "unique" domains achieves any meaningful outcome. The task of expanding our ecosystem, in my opinion, is not achieved by showcasing domains that would indicate exclusivity. There are cases where others may want to obtain vanity domains, but this is not a pursuit that provides many benefits to the ecosystem as a whole, and therefore, should not use treasury funds to pursue.
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes759K ₳No rationale
- Yes756.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
This would give all Ada Dapps and anything Ada related, the chance to use a .Ada domain which is beyond awesome and it strengthens our ecosystem as a whole. I think this is an important step to give Ada the proper credibility it deserves. Super Cool!
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
I support this initiative from the Cardano Foundation to register the .ada and .cardano gTLDs with ICANN. This is a strategic move to strengthen Cardano’s digital identity, enhance visibility, and create new opportunities for innovation and interoperability between Web2 and Web3. By using its own resources and involving the community through transparent governance and advisory structures, the Foundation demonstrates responsible leadership and long-term vision for the ecosystem.
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes because this is a zero-cost, time-sensitive strategic move that secures critical digital infrastructure for the entire Cardano ecosystem. The Cardano Foundation is applying for .ada and .cardano generic top-level domains (gTLDs) during ICANN's Q1 2026 application window, the first new gTLD registration opportunity since 2012 and the first in the crypto era. This is a rare, closing window that won't reopen for years, and only the Foundation is positioned to act in time. This info action costs the treasury nothing. The Cardano Foundation is funding the entire ICANN application and ongoing management from its own resources. The vote simply gauges community support and provides formal endorsement for the application, a mechanism to demonstrate ecosystem alignment without spending a single ADA. That makes this the easiest yes vote imaginable: strategic upside with zero financial downside.
Securing .ada and .cardano domains protects Cardano's brand at the DNS level and unlocks innovation pathways bridging Web2 to Web3. Without these gTLDs, third parties could register them, fragmenting identity and creating confusion or exploitation. Owning them ensures the ecosystem controls its own digital namespace, users get .ada and .cardano domains like .org or .xyz, but tied to Cardano's infrastructure. This strengthens visibility, credibility, and adoption by giving the ecosystem recognizable, brandable internet real estate.
The Cardano Foundation is the right steward. They're already custodians of Cardano trademarks and have managed them openly, allowing free community use without gatekeeping. They commit to transparent reporting on gTLD operations and will establish a Community Advisory Group to guide development, ensuring the ecosystem retains influence over how these domains are deployed. This is accountable and community-aligned governance. The alternative is doing nothing while the window closes, leaving Cardano's digital identity vulnerable to capture or irrelevance. This is brand protection, infrastructure investment, and strategic positioning rolled into one, and at no treasury cost. - Yes605.7K ₳Rationale
📢 Vote: Securing Generic Top-Level Domains for the Cardano Ecosystem (.ada & .cardano)
As a DRep, I vote — YES.
🌐 About the Proposal
The Cardano Foundation proposes registering the top-level domains .ada and .cardano with ICANN — the international organization that governs internet domain names.
This will establish Cardano’s official digital identity and strengthen the bridge between Web2 and Web3.
⚙️ Why I Support It
- Funded entirely by the Cardano Foundation, not the Treasury.
- Protects and legitimizes the Cardano and ADA names from misuse or fraudulent registration.
- Expands Cardano’s reach and innovation potential through official Web3 integration.
- Builds a strong, recognizable presence for the Cardano ecosystem in the global digital infrastructure.
💬 My Decision
I vote “YES” because .ADA and .CARDANO must belong to the ecosystem — not to external corporations or speculators.
This step strengthens Cardano’s independence and global visibility.
🗳 My vote: YES — Securing gTLDs (.ada & .cardano)
I’m registered as a DRep and ready to help shape the future of the Cardano ecosystem.
Optimistic about building the world’s largest decentralized community. 🖤
More details here: https://t.me/PROCENT666/338 - Yes590.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
This stands to be a net positive for the cardano ecosystem so I support.
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
Generic Top-Level domains should be accessible to the entire ecosystem.
- No501K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no not because I'm against domains conceptually, but because this feels like a resource allocation that doesn't match ecosystem pain points. The info action contains no CIP, no technical architecture, no smart contract specifications. I was told tokenization and Web3 integration are "ambitions" that will be figured out after ICANN delegation, but i don't see the specifics. All that aside, the SEO disadvantage of new gTLDs is well-documented and wasn't adequately addressed. Most projects will keep their .com/.io domains for discoverability and use .ada as vanity redirects at best. The visibility and legitimacy benefits are theoretical. The defensive registration argument against scams doesn't hold up - scammers will continue using hundreds of other TLDs regardless of who owns .ada. Furthermore, the Community Advisory Group is informal and not yet formalized. We don't know its structure, its powers, or its accountability mechanisms. Advisory means CF retains final decision-making authority. I don't really really like that. For infrastructure that affects the entire ecosystem's namespace, we need binding governance before endorsement, not promises to figure it out later. Also, the economics of this investment are quite questionable. At $25 per domain with $350k annual operating costs, this requires 14,000 registrations yearly to break even. CF's own domain experts estimate anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 annual registrations... wildly uncertain. If volume falls short, either CF subsidizes losses indefinitely from their substantial treasury, or the project fails after burning the initial investment. There's no clear sustainability plan. Our ecosystem faces real infrastructure gaps. DeFi needs liquidity depth, developers need better tooling, projects need security audits and ecosystem coordination. $4.2M over 10 years could address those concrete needs instead of buying namespace from ICANN. We're spending millions to subordinate our namespace to Web2 gatekeepers rather than investing in truly decentralized alternatives. I want to be proven wrong. I want this to be brilliant strategy I'm too shortsighted to see. But based on the information provided, I can not in good conscience endorse spending on ICANN namespace with vague governance and uncertain utility when that capital could address concrete problems facing Cardano builders today.
- Yes499K ₳Rationale
- Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes478.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes450.2K ₳Rationale
The acquisition of .ada and .cardano domains serves the best interests of the Cardano ecosystem and will be fully funded by the Cardano Foundation.
- Abstain409.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Yes381.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes378.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes353.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes323.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳Rationale
Panda Paw
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes on this proposal. It benefits Cardano, and I see no real drawback.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I'm voting yes on this proposal. It benefits Cardano, and I see no real drawback.
On the objections raised by others:
Funding: The Cardano Foundation is paying for this. You might prefer they spend those funds elsewhere — I hear it — but these are not treasury funds under DRep control. It's better to see CF spend to advance Cardano (even if you consider it suboptimal) than spend nothing at all.
CF governance: The same arguments again and again—CF doesn't elect board members from the community, it isn’t representative, etc. I'm tired of this debate. Yes, I’d prefer community-elected board members, but let's face it: this isn't happening right now. One of my core philosophies is to accept what we cannot change (outside our control) and focus on what we can. CF's board is not in our control. Let's stop pushing against a wall. Whether CF elects board members from the community or not is irrelevant to this proposal. I'm assessing this proposal on its own merits.
ROI and opportunity cost: This might not be profitable, even long-term. Since these are CF's funds that they likely wouldn't redirect to other activities we control, I don't mind. Even with opportunity cost considered, I'd still say yes: our ecosystem is too big not to secure these domain names. It's good for branding and marketing, and the potential integration with AdaHandles is promising. Honestly, I can't wait to get my own domain.
To sum up, I see clear reasons for CF to apply for these domains and no compelling reason not to—so I’m voting YES.
- Yes313.4K ₳Rationale
"Yes" vote: I support the information action “Securing Generic Top-Level Domains for the Cardano Ecosystem.” I see this as a rare window of opportunity, and ensuring gTLDs like .ada or .cardano are reserved for our ecosystem helps protect Cardano’s identity, reduces future brand and security risks, and positions us alongside major crypto networks pursuing the same. This proposal is funded by the Cardano Foundation, and community sentiment gathered here strengthens the application. Securing our namespace now is a proactive step for Cardano’s long-term growth and recognition.