Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget
220 DReps voted · 88 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged1.6M ₳Rationale
I'm changing my vote from NO to ABSTAIN.
This is done as a vote of confidence in the goodwill of the committee members, trusting that they recognise the importance of their role and will act in the best interest of the protocol rather than their personal interests.
Additionally, this decision was also influenced by the announcement by CF of their plan to invest an 8-figure amount in the same market.
With this in mind, the context changes considerably,
In the event this proposal does not pass, but CF still invests a considerable amount in the small market, the problem that I was trying to avoid by voting NO would still persist.
In this context, the two entities should be able to balance each other in the event of poor decisions. With this in mind, a YES vote is on the table, but I would need to receive some feedback from the people I'm representing before such a change.
Earlier votes
No10mo agoSuperseded
The proposal lacks any safeguards against the inevitable bias of the committee members, namely, a prohibition for committee members to hold tokens associated with protocols that will inevitably benefit from their decision-making.
I would also strongly discourage a UI on top of the smart contract, as it constitutes an important security issue (see ByBit hack via the Safe wallet UI), I would suggest a local cli tool to be used on an air-gapped machine.
If any of the committee members do not know how to use a cli tool, they are not qualified to manage such liquidity.
I will consider support once these issues are addressed.
- No1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting No on Treasury Stablecoin Liquidity Fund
Cardano treasury funds should be used for development, infrastructure, and public goods, not for converting ADA into fiat-backed stablecoins.
I prefer peer-to-peer trade in ADA itself, this directs value away into USD-based assets alone.
If the community wants experiments with stablecoin liquidity, they should be proposed through Catalyst or voluntary initiatives, not with 50 million ADA from the treasury.
Cardano represents more than money alone: RWA, NFTs, smart and financial contracts, BOS integration, and scaling are all stronger reasons for treasury investment. - Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I support the strategic goal: deeper, resilient stablecoin liquidity on Cardano is essential. I buy into serious, well-governed use of treasury capital to bootstrap critical public goods. Yet this proposal, in its current form, is dangerously under-specified, legally exposed, and operationally risky. It asks for 50M ADA to build what should be a surgical, legally robust, and transparency-first intervention; yet it delivers vague governance mechanics, fragile custody design, and large execution risks without credible mitigation. I cannot, in good conscience, approve this.
The idea is valid and has been bandied around for years. Stablecoin liquidity is a key missing piece for growth, on-/off-ramp stability, and deeper DeFi activity. However, a 9-person multisig with 5-of-9 signers plus a dRep tDAO oversight centralizes execution risk in a human committee with weak, undefined real-world legal safeguards and key-management procedures. The legal standing of dReps, committee members, and the smart contract’s “ownership” is not established. If something goes wrong — say, a breach, hack, or regulator inquiry — who is legally liable? The proposal punts this, again, to later “legal structure” discussion. That is unacceptable for deploying tens of millions of ADA.
And speaking of legal: the proposal promises "legal entities and counsel later" but requires the full 49.5M withdrawal only after “legal structure in place.” That sequencing is ambiguous and insufficient, because the first 500k ADA withdrawal already contains a material legal budget but no binding terms. Ouch.
Then there's the treasury accounting and peg risk. While the fund design allows assets to include fiat-backed stablecoins and liquidity tokens, we're left completely in the dark about how protocol insolvency, stablecoin issuer failure, or depeg events are handled. This is not defined at all.
I'd deem the committee pay of $9k/month total as slightly overpriced, but the real kicker is that contingency legal/audit/KYC costs are baked into the fund with no spending caps or community-approval triggers. Double ouch.
I am not opposed in principle to deploying treasury capital to bootstrap stablecoin liquidity. I also respect the ambition to build open-source governance and legal frameworks. But for the reasons outlined above,** I cannot support this proposal as written: it asks for a very large capital allocation without binding legal protections, executable counterparties, phased risk mitigation, or a hard contingency plan for stablecoin failure or market stress.**
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes949.1K ₳Rationale
Liquidity is one of the biggest challenges facing our ecosystem right now. Despite the risks associated with voting YES on this proposal, I believe the potential benefits outweigh those risks.
That said, I would like to see a clearer and more structured protocol for how these funds will be managed during the TW, as this is essentially a fund management operation above all else.
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Deep Stablecoin liquidity is a key driver for DeFi. Cardano is behind other ecosystems in this front. This proposal addresses this need in a well structured an sustainable way.
- Yes820.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.6K ₳Rationale
Support for the stablecoin liquidity budget has shifted now that there’s clear alignment between capital deployment and treasury growth. The plan no longer centers on simply holding stablecoins but on actively using them to generate yield that flows back into the treasury—enhancing both liquidity and long-term sustainability for Cardano.
- Yes798.4K ₳Rationale
I’m voting yes because Cardano badly needs deeper stablecoin liquidity. Without it, DeFi here will always lag behind other chains. This plan puts treasury funds to work in a way that grows the ecosystem while still keeping control in community hands.
The setup isn’t perfect, but it’s pragmatic: a 9-person multisig under oversight of the tDAO means no single group can run off with the money. Reports are public, funds sit in a contract, and revenue flows back to the treasury. That’s solid accountability.
Yes, fiat-backed stables are centralized, but they’re the only way to quickly get serious liquidity. Think of it as scaffolding — we use it now to build depth and volume, and later it helps attract more decentralized options and market makers.
Bottom line: it’s a smart, contained risk that gives Cardano a shot at real growth in DeFi.
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
I believe this proposal is a positive investment in the Cardano DeFi ecosystem. It deepens liquidity, thereby reducing slippage and price impacts during trades. It strengthens visibility and user confidence in our native stables (e.g. USDM). And, the liquidity provisioning arrangement includes a flow back to our Treasury as yield. There are solid provisions for oversight, legal framework, and sustainability. Does this solve all of our issues with respect to stables? No. Is it a positive, community driven first step forward? Yes.
- Yes776.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes731.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes719K ₳Rationale
Cardano needs to grow, and one of the things that it has been missing for a long time was stablecoins in sufficient amounts. Over the time for a number of reasons Cardano was unable to onboard USDC or USDT, which left the ecosystem hungry for solutions.
To the challenge rose Cardano native projects with innovative stablecoin solutions and with possibly better approach and technology. What is still lacking is accelerated growth and adoption of it.
In this sense, I believe we as a community can use treasury to push this through the early stages and provide deeper liquidity on DEXes and thus enabling a more vibrant ecosystem. Stablecoins are not usable just for trading but for all sorts of lending protocols, DePIN projects and other utility focused projects.
There are risks in properly executing movements of such a large amount, but the people in the committee are well known in the Cardano community as well as to be personally. Failure in execution will be visible and reputations will be tarnished forever.
I vote YES, because Cardano needs stablecoins like any other L1 ecosystem in any future scenario so lets give it a flying start and boost it with our own war chest.
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
I’ve been following the push for ADA stablecoin growth via funding it from the treasury for quite some time now, and I genuinely believe this is exactly the kind of boost we need. Deep initial liquidity is necessary in the grand scheme of what ADA stands for — not paying centralized entities for insider relief, but funding revolutionary progress ourselves. I think with this push, stablecoin liquidity can reach a self-sustaining level, and that’s the whole point: building something that lasts without reliance on outside control.
The 9-person committee is a great idea, and so is the system of checks and balances where dReps can veto members, or freeze and return funds to the treasury if fraud or corruption ever occurs. That kind of accountability is essential to avoid the same failures that have taken over traditional systems.
What I don’t like is the idea of paying dReps or turning governance roles into something people pursue for profit. That’s exactly how old-world governments became corrupted — people running for power because it pays, not because it serves. If some compensation is truly necessary due to the burdens described in the proposal, then so be it — but I would strongly prefer it be done only after responsibilities are fulfilled, not promised upfront.
I also appreciate that this proposal isn’t just about throwing liquidity at the problem, it’s building actual infrastructure with legal protections, transparency requirements, and a smart contract framework the community can reuse in the future. This proposal respects constitutional limits, keeps all assets trackable on-chain, and requires public reporting every month, showing that this isn’t reckless spending but rather a strategic investment with guardrails.
This is how we attract serious builders and market makers: not through speculation, but through dependable liquidity and deep markets.
In the end, this isn’t just funding, it’s an evolution of how Cardano governs itself. If we get this right, we prove that a decentralized treasury can act with the precision of an institution, but without becoming one. That’s the difference between repeating old systems and rebuilding them. - Yes705.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes because Cardano's DeFi ecosystem suffers from a fatal weakness: anemic stablecoin liquidity. This proposal deploys 50 million ADA to solve it, and not as a handout, but as infrastructure investment that generates 4% annual returns back to the treasury while cutting stablecoin slippage in half. The current 4-6% slippage on trades makes Cardano uncompetitive and chokes user onboarding. Deep stablecoin liquidity isn't optional; it's the difference between a viable financial layer and a ghost chain.
The structure mitigates risk: a nine-person committee (including CF, EMURGO, IOHK reps) manages deployment through a 5-of-9 multisig, while a treasury DAO composed of DReps holds veto power to freeze spending or shut down the fund entirely. All liquidity tokens sit on-chain in the governing contract, that is publicly auditable, no black boxes. The proposal phases work intelligently: 500K ADA covers legal setup, smart contract development, and audits before the remaining 49.5M touches DeFi protocols. ADA liquidation uses OTC desks and gradual sales to avoid price shock, ADA is spread across exchanges with 30M+ daily volume, the impact is negligible.
This isn't picking winners arbitrarily; protocols apply and demonstrate security, yield potential, and growth plans. The committee evaluates openly with tDAO oversight. Yes, there's centralization risk in a small committee, but the alternative is permanent liquidity stagnation, which guarantees failure. The legal framework and governance contracts become reusable public goods for future treasury initiatives. We learn, adapt, or shut it down if KPIs aren't met. Perfect is the enemy of good, and Cardano can't wait for flawless proposals while competitors eat our lunch. Let’s get it done. - No605.7K ₳Rationale
📌 Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget: My Decision as a DRep
🔎 Proposal Summary
On September 16, 2025, a vote was initiated for a 50,000,000 ADA budget from the Cardano Treasury.
The funds are planned to be used for:- converting ADA into fiat-backed stablecoins (USDC, USDT, USDM, USDA),
- providing liquidity to DEXs and lending protocols,
- creating a legal framework and a smart contract to manage the fund,
- forming a pool managed by a 9-person committee with oversight from the tDAO (dReps).
Goals:
- reduce stablecoin slippage by at least 50%,
- provide users with easier on/off-ramps into the ecosystem,
- attract market makers and developers,
- return part of the revenue (15%) back to the Treasury.
⚠️ The Problem
The requested amount is 50M ADA.
That is almost 3% of the entire Treasury. At the current ADA price (~$0.9), that equals roughly $45 million.Risks:
- centralized control in the hands of 9 people,
- vulnerabilities in smart contracts or DeFi protocols,
- offshore legal structures where funds can easily “disappear,”
- ADA in this fund will not be staked (constitutional restriction),
- even partial loss of such an amount would be a serious blow to the Treasury.
✅ My Proposal
The idea is right — deep stablecoin liquidity is necessary for Cardano DeFi growth. But the implementation must be gradual and safe.
- Start with a pilot phase at 0.25–0.5% of the Treasury (≈4–8M ADA).
- Define KPIs: reduced slippage, higher trading volume, revenue generation.
- Require:
• external audits,
• transparent reporting,
• storage of all LP tokens in the smart contract. - After 3–6 months of proven success — consider scaling up the budget.
🗳️ My Vote
I am voting AGAINST the current version (50M ADA).
Reason: the amount is excessively large and dangerous for the Treasury in case of mismanagement or abuse.My position:
- I support the idea, but the budget must be significantly smaller.
- With a reasonable amount, this initiative can benefit the ecosystem without threatening the Treasury.
📢 My Comment in the Vote
“I support building stablecoin liquidity on Cardano, but 50M ADA is far too large and risky. I propose starting with a 4–8M ADA pilot and then scaling up if results are positive. Therefore, I vote AGAINST the current amount.”
🖤 My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr
You can also find me under the name MREDGARCROSS.I have registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem.
- I am optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world.
More details here 👉 https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
- Yes590.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
Stablecoin liquidity is critical for DeFi growth, adoption, and building resilience. This proposal provides a way to bootstrap liquidity, attract market makers, and showcase the fact that Cardano Defi is up there with (and beyond) the best.
Carpe diem
- Yes545.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
As a dRep, I will vote yes for this 50 million ADA proposal to boost stablecoin liquidity on Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem because enhancing liquidity is critical for creating robust alternatives to legacy financial systems. By seeding DEXs and lending protocols, the proposal fosters user growth and enables higher-yielding DeFi products, driving adoption. The gradual liquidation of ADA through OTC deals minimizes price impact, and I’m confident in the diverse 9-person committee’s ability to manage the fund transparently under tDAO oversight. The 50% stablecoin slippage reduction target is essential for ecosystem stability, and the public goods, like an open-source governance contract and legal framework, make this a valuable learning opportunity for Cardano, justifying the funding.
- No501K ₳Rationale
Firstly, how badly do we need stablecoin liquidity? Very very badly. I must admit, it’s long overdue. Cardano needs this like yesterday… but this current proposal doesn’t do it for me.
I appreciate what this team is trying to achieve. I think deeper stablecoin liquidity would genuinely help Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem. The people involved seem capable, and honestly I don’t know most of them well enough to have strong opinions either way, which probably helps keep this objective.
But I’m voting no because this proposal feels like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
Fifty million ADA is an enormous amount of money… roughly 3% of our entire treasury. That’s a massive bet on experimental DeFi strategies when we haven’t even proven smaller-scale versions work effectively.The governance structure worries me too.
A 9person committee which we have started referring to fondly as the NSWF committee, with reps from Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, IOG, and SNEK basically puts all the major players in charge of a fund larger than most venture capital rounds. The community oversight sounds good on paper, but the actual mechanisms feel theoretical when real decisions need to be made quickly.
Then there’s the legal complexity of setting up entities across multiple countries, dealing with different regulatory frameworks, and hoping no government decides to freeze community assets because they don’t like crypto that week.
Furthermore, 4% return target assumes DeFi protocols will consistently generate positive yields, which ignores how quickly things can go sideways in this space. We’ve seen billiondollar protocols collapse overnight.
What I’d need to see for a YES vote:
Start smaller. Maybe 10-15 million ADA to prove the concept works. Add real sunset clauses so this doesn’t become a permanent institution. Replace the institutional committee with community members who don’t have conflicts of interest. Include actual insurance or protection mechanisms for when things go wrong.
Most importantly, show me how this helps regular Cardano users, not just DeFi yield farmers and institutional players.While I have serious concerns about the size, complexity, and execution risks of this proposal, I want to acknowledge its ambition. It’s clear the team is thinking long-term about Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem, and the focus on transparency, governance, and stablecoin liquidity is exactly the kind of forward-looking work our community needs.
Even if I’m voting no for now, I hope the ideas here spark discussions and lead to solutions that strengthen Cardano for everyone.
The treasury is there to experiment carefully, and with proper safeguards, initiatives like this could help us grow in meaningful ways. - Yes499K ₳Rationale
- Yes478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes450.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳Rationale
100% support this.
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes389.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
As a keyholder for Krypto Labs DRep and a member of the non-profit organization Krypto Labs in Norway, I am now an active voter within the Cardano Constitution (CC) as part of the Norwegian consortium Tingvard. As promised during the election process for a CC seat and in accordance with the Cardano Constitution and ethical best practices to avoid conflicts of interest, Krypto Labs will abstain from voting until epoch 726