Strike Finance Liquidity Deployment
163 DReps voted · 56 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes9.2M ₳No rationale
- No8.6M ₳Rationale
本提案はCardano DeFi流動性向上という目的自体は理解できます。しかし、9M ADAというTreasury資産を投入する対象として、USDMを選択する十分な市場分析および他のステーブルコイン基盤との比較検討が提示されていません。特にCardanoエコシステムではUSDCxなど複数のステーブルコイン基盤が存在する中で、USDMを主要な流動性提供先として選択する合理性および優位性について十分な説明がありません。そのため、本提案に反対します。\n\nI understand the objective of improving Cardano DeFi liquidity. However, for deploying 9M ADA of Treasury assets, this proposal does not provide sufficient market analysis or comparative evaluation of USDM against other stablecoin platforms. In particular, given that multiple stablecoin platforms, such as USDCx, exist within the Cardano ecosystem, the rationale and advantages of selecting USDM as the primary liquidity asset are not sufficiently explained. Therefore, I vote No on this proposal.
- NoChanged7.4M ₳Rationale
Voting NO as submitted
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v9 – Intelligent Risk Edition (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13EcIlJguBz-MJv91a3YYtb8O96K8uf9B9AOHsDOxeVE/edit?usp=sharing). The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
Rationale: I would vote No as submitted. Strike is a real Cardano DeFi product with meaningful traction, public smart-contract repositories, and a serious market thesis for Cardano-native perpetuals. The proposal also uses a better instrument than a grant because the Treasury would own the deployed liquidity position and receive returned yield. But the ask is still too large and too risky for the controls offered. It sells 9,000,000 ADA into USDM, exposes the Treasury to ADA upside loss, stablecoin risk, smart-contract risk, operational custody risk, derivatives-market risk, and protocol-specific execution risk, while giving Strike significant competitive liquidity advantage over other Cardano DeFi venues. Current public DeFiLlama data apparently shows lower cumulative volume and revenue than the proposal claims, so an independent reconciliation might be needed before trusting the headline figures (if this is correct) . The audit and assurance structure is also not strong enough for a deployment of this size, the drawdown triggers are too soft, and the proposal does not provide first-loss capital from Strike or other private parties. I like the direction and would reconsider a smaller, capped pilot with completed audit, enforceable custody documents, hard exit rights, independent reporting, wash-trading exclusions, and private first-loss protection. For this version, the risk-adjusted value is not good enough for the Cardano Treasury.
Scoring Table
# Category Weight Score Reason 1 Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap, and market timing 12 9 Perpetuals are strategically important, and Cardano lacks deep native derivatives liquidity. The proposal addresses a real gap, but the public value is tied heavily to one private protocol. 2 Team quality, traction, and adaptive execution 7 6 Strike has shipped a working product and has public usage. DeFiLlama tracks Strike as an open-source Cardano derivatives protocol, but V2 has a short operating history. 3 Price versus value 6 3 9,000,000 ADA is a very large request. The expected return is modeled, not guaranteed, and the proposal does not show enough benchmarking for why this exact size is needed. 4 Applicant integrity and past delivery 8 5 I found no approved Catalyst funding involving Strike, but I did find prior not-approved Catalyst proposals involving Strike. The team has product delivery evidence, but the proposal’s headline metrics need independent reconciliation. 5 Public asset, open-source, verifiability, and data rights 12 8 Strike has public repositories and verifiable on-chain elements. However, the V2 execution layer and vault performance reporting still require stronger independent assurance for Treasury-scale capital. 6 Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 14 9 A treasury-owned liquidity position is the right basic instrument. But the Treasury still takes first-loss exposure without strong private first-loss capital, insurance, guarantee, or enforceable loss-sharing. 7 Milestones, verification, and anti-gaming design 13 8 Monthly reports and third-party assurance are promised. The proposal needs stronger binding terms, clearer independent data access, and explicit exclusion of wash volume, related-party activity, and subsidized trading from success metrics. 8 Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 12 7 The proposal names major risks, including ADA appreciation, USDM, custody, smart-contract, and yield risk. The controls are not strong enough for the size of the exposure, and the 20% drawdown wind-down trigger is too loose. 9 Sustainability and exit plan 8 6 The 12-month return plan is useful, and renewal requires a new proposal. Still, the plan does not prove that Strike can maintain the added liquidity depth after Treasury capital exits. 10 Strategic opportunity cost, competitive neutrality, and ecosystem coordination 8 4 The proposal coordinates with known ecosystem actors and USDM, but it strongly subsidizes one trading venue. A neutral DeFi liquidity program or smaller competitive pilot would be fairer. Base score 100 65 Ecosystem Coordination Premium +5 max +1 Some useful ecosystem coordination exists through USDM and the independent council, but it is not broad enough to justify a larger premium. DRep Conviction Adjustment -5 to +5 -2 The product is real, but the request is too large before final audit, hard legal controls, first-loss protection, and independent reconciliation of metrics. Final score 100 64 No as submitted. Revise and resubmit with a smaller pilot and stronger Treasury protections. Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
Voting ABSTAIN as I am developing a more structured approach to Commercial and Hybrid proposals
I'm working on my own rulebook (+ scoring framework) for assessing Commercial (and Hybrid) Treasury Withdrawal requests.
I need more structure.
I will change my votes to Abstain on all such active proposals at this moment.
Sharing latest rulebook v4 doc (link in tweet below):https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xp9jkdT23bVy1igj4HeCVKjdHvAcPhjtM1zlMtKzGUo/edit?usp=sharing
No1mo agoSuperseded
Voting NO, in line with my previous votes
I am a DRep without deep investment experience from the real-fi sector. That is a limitation.
I also suspect most DReps are not highly successful investors who happen to moonlight as amateur DReps in Cardano.
For the Treasury, this is not only a liquidity deployment. It is also a diversification bet. And it only works if everything goes right.
Strike looks like one of Cardano’s more useful DeFi products. I want it to succeed.
But this proposal carries many risks at once: smart contract risk, stablecoin risk, custody risk, market-making risk, execution risk, and ADA upside risk.
As a DRep, I am uncomfortable funding, loaning, or granting Treasury assets to commercial projects on a first-come, first-served basis. Especially when we do not yet have a general framework that applies to everyone.
Open-source work and public infrastructure are different in my eyes. There the public benefit is clearer.
But private commercial projects are harder. I do not have the credit risk or lending experience to judge them properly. That is why I usually do not vote Yes on commercial projects asking for Treasury funding.
I do not think the current system is well designed for amateurs to disburse multi-million ADA sums to commercial projects.
Cardano needs a clearer framework for this kind of proposal. The current approach feels too lax: submit your own deal, ask DReps to approve it, and off we go.
I voted No on Pogun. Also Eternl. Also Snek. And others.
These may be good projects. That is not the same thing as being safe Treasury deals.
Commercial proposals carry private product-market risk, moral hazard risk, key-person risk, sudden retirement risk, and many other risks. We saw some of these problems before in Catalyst and BuilderDAO funding, including TapTools.
I am not able to assess the full commercial risk of each proposal when no common risk framework exists and is being developed. I think this is a gaping hole.
A good commercial project does not automatically mean a safe Treasury allocation.
A few years ago, if Treasury withdrawals had already been active, we might have allocated millions to projects like Axo, The Ape Society, Meld, and others. At the time, many people might have supported that. In hindsight, this should make us careful.
As a small DRep, I know my limits. By voting No, I help set the bar higher. Only exceptionally strong projects with very broad support should be able to overcome that bar.
I also vote early. That gives unhappy delegators time to redelegate away from me. It is part of liquid delegation.
I cannot vote Yes when the risk picture is not clear enough to me.
- Yes7.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES.
One of the legitimate risks in this proposal is the opportunity cost of converting ADA into USDM. If ADA appreciates significantly over the next 12 months, the treasury could end up with fewer ADA than if it had simply held the original allocation.
Obviously, no investment is without risk, but neither is standing still. While we should recognize the potential opportunity cost of not simply holding ADA, I believe allowing proven ecosystem momentum to pass us by carries its own risk. On balance, I’m comfortable supporting this proposal and giving Strike the opportunity to continue building on what it has already demonstrated.
I believe the greater opportunity lies in supporting one of the few products on Cardano that has already demonstrated meaningful traction. Strike has shown sustained growth in users, trading activity, and on-chain volume, and additional liquidity addresses what appears to be its current limiting factor. All of this in a very ruthless bear market.
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- No4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.4M ₳No rationale
- No4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Strike Finance Liquidity Deployment" (gov_action1sus...kz5nwj), pois compreendemos que a proposta apresenta uma forma inovadora e responsável de utilizar temporariamente recursos da Tesouraria da Cardano sem caracterizar um financiamento a fundo perdido. Avaliamos positivamente o fato de que os 9.000.000 ADA permanecem como patrimônio da Tesouraria, com prazo de utilização previamente definido, retorno programado do principal e dos rendimentos obtidos, além de mecanismos de supervisão por multisig independente, relatórios públicos periódicos e asseguração por terceiros. Também consideramos relevante que a Strike Finance já tenha demonstrado demanda real pelo protocolo, com volume expressivo de negociações, geração de receitas e participação significativa na atividade de derivativos da Cardano. Em nossa avaliação, isso reforça a percepção de que o principal desafio para o crescimento da plataforma está na disponibilidade de liquidez, e não na ausência de adoção do produto. Entendemos que fortalecer a liquidez nativa da Cardano em mercados de futuros perpétuos pode gerar benefícios estratégicos para todo o ecossistema, incluindo melhor execução para traders, maior retenção da atividade on-chain, crescimento das receitas dos protocolos, atração de novos usuários e potencial geração de retorno financeiro para a própria Tesouraria. Reconhecemos que existem riscos inerentes à estratégia, especialmente relacionados à conversão para USDM, ao desempenho dos mercados, aos contratos inteligentes e à custódia operacional. No entanto, avaliamos que a proposta contempla mecanismos adequados de mitigação, incluindo gatilhos de revisão, transparência mensal, supervisão independente e devolução programada dos recursos ao final do período. Por esses motivos, entendemos que a iniciativa representa um experimento prudente de tesouraria produtiva e uma oportunidade de fortalecer a infraestrutura DeFi da Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Strike Finance Liquidity Deployment" (gov_action1sus...kz5nwj), because we believe the proposal presents an innovative and responsible way to temporarily deploy Cardano Treasury resources without constituting a non-recoverable grant. We view positively that the 9,000,000 ADA remains Treasury-owned capital, with a defined 12-month deployment period, scheduled repayment of both principal and realized returns, as well as oversight through an independent multisig, regular public reporting, and third-party assurance. We also consider it significant that Strike Finance has already demonstrated genuine market demand, with meaningful trading volume, revenue generation, and a substantial share of Cardano’s derivatives activity. In our view, this suggests that the platform’s primary constraint is liquidity depth rather than product adoption. We believe that strengthening native liquidity for perpetual futures markets on Cardano can generate strategic benefits for the broader ecosystem, including better trade execution, greater on-chain activity retention, increased protocol revenues, attraction of new users, and the potential to generate financial returns for the Treasury itself. We recognize that the proposal carries inherent risks, particularly those related to USDM conversion, market performance, smart contract security, and operational custody. However, we believe these risks are mitigated by appropriate safeguards, including review triggers, monthly transparency reports, independent oversight, and the scheduled return of Treasury funds at the end of the deployment period. For these reasons, we believe the proposal represents a prudent experiment in productive Treasury management and an opportunity to strengthen Cardano’s DeFi infrastructure. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
This is another difficult decision. I agree with dori_coin, that Srike 2.0 is fundamentally moving themselves away from the Cardano ecosystem, and by choosing to fund this, we are using Cardano public money to fund expansion and focus to other ecosystems like Ethereum. There is clear logic well reasoned by Dori on what that doesn't make sense.
However, I am looking at this through the following lenses:
As an entrepreneur, the Cardano ecosystem during this bear market isn't self-sustaining. We should be focusing on supporting what works and Strike has been one of the most successful ecosystem projects we have. This expansion likely will increase their odds of survival and growth.
I use the Belt-and-Road model of China's development where the expansion while benefiting others in the short-term ultimately is likely to bring rewards back home.
I support using the treasury as a bank which provides loans to promising businesses over a grant-based model. I believe Strike is one of the most credit worthy businesses on Cardano and as a bank manager, I would approve funds as expansion capital to a growing business.
- No3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳Rationale
Although somewhat risky, I see a lot of value investing in already established ecosystem builders. Strike has proven their ability to produce revenue and hype around their product, something many others in Cardano have not been able to do. I see this as an opportunity to drive focus and engagement around 1 protocol, that we can then push to the greater space/retail. We need to invest in something other than chain updates if we want to succeed.
I will be supporting this proposal with a YES vote.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- No2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本提案の方向性には理解を示しますが、現行案には反対します。
Strike FinanceはCardano-native perpetual futures基盤として実績があり、Cardano DeFiにstablecoin流動性と取引深度が必要であることも理解しています。
しかし、本提案はADAが安値圏にある現在、9,000,000 ADAをUSDMへ売却し、特定DeFiプロトコルの流動性として12か月間運用する設計です。ADA価格が回復した場合、Cardano Treasuryは単純にADAを保有した場合と比べて大きく劣後する可能性があります。
Treasury資産を生産的に使う実験には賛成ですが、現時点では、まず小規模な試験として実施し、かつADA建てでの損益評価を明確に行う必要があると考えます。
これはStrike Finance自体への否定ではなく、現在価格で大量のADAを売却し、公共資金を特定DeFi流動性に直接投入する設計への反対です。現行案にはNOを投じます。
I understand the strategic value of this proposal, but I do not support it in its current form.
Strike Finance has demonstrated real Cardano-native perpetual futures activity, and I agree that Cardano DeFi needs deeper stablecoin liquidity and better execution depth.
However, this proposal effectively sells 9,000,000 ADA into USDM while ADA is trading near a very low level, and deploys public treasury assets into liquidity for a specific DeFi protocol for 12 months. If ADA recovers during this period, the Cardano Treasury may significantly underperform a simple hold-ADA strategy.
I support productive treasury deployment in principle, but at this stage it should first be tested with a smaller amount, and its performance should be clearly evaluated in ADA-denominated terms.
This is not a rejection of Strike Finance. It is a rejection of selling a large amount of ADA at current low prices and directly deploying public treasury funds into protocol-specific DeFi liquidity under the current structure. I vote NO.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- No2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
This project offers several benefits:
- Supporting a protocol with proven track record
- Capital remains treasury owned, yet in a productive form
- The Cardano ecosystem also needs commercial growth
There are also riskd:
- Exposing funds to DeFi risk
- Concetration in a single protocol
- Operational and custody complexity
The treasury opportunity cost argument applies to all funded projects; therefore, despite the difficult market situation, this cannot be the reason for exclusion in this case.
My point is that this Ecosystem needs growth. And with growth, I also mean commericial growth.
We cannot afford to simply sit back and focus on great technologies that lack commercial relevance.
I hold the view that the treasury must not be limited to public goods and core protocol development.Therefore, I am voting with "Yes".
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the Strike Finance Liquidity Deployment proposal.
This is not a vote against Strike Finance, Cardano DeFi, perpetual futures, or productive treasury thinking. Strike has built a real product with meaningful traction, and I recognise the argument that deeper stablecoin liquidity could support more Cardano-native trading activity.
However, I do not believe this is the right use of the Cardano Treasury at this time.
The proposal requests 9,000,000 ADA to be sold for USDM and deployed into Strike Finance V2 liquidity infrastructure for 12 months. Although the proposal is structured as a returnable deployment rather than a grant, it still exposes treasury assets to material risk, including ADA price appreciation risk, stablecoin risk, smart-contract risk, yield underperformance, custody risk and market-making risk.
My concern is also one of precedent. I am not comfortable with the Cardano Treasury becoming an active liquidity allocator into a derivatives venue. That is a materially different function from funding open-source public goods, security-critical infrastructure, developer tooling, wallet maintenance, protocol readiness or clearly scoped ecosystem infrastructure.
In the current NCL environment, I believe DReps need to be especially disciplined. The NCL is a ceiling, not a spending target. Treasury capacity should be prioritised for proposals with broad public-good value, direct ecosystem utility, limited downside risk and clear long-term benefit to Cardano.
Strike may be valuable to the ecosystem, but this proposal asks the Treasury to take on risk that I do not think is appropriate for a public treasury at this stage. The potential return does not outweigh the governance, precedent and capital-risk concerns for me.
For these reasons, I vote NO.
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
This is an opportunity for two wins: support a top Cardano project, and earn a yield for the treasury.
Like any investment it comes with risk. However, with drawdown triggers, multisig council managing funds, and Strike’s track record, the risk appears manageable.
Strike is a Cardano success story – supporting their growth helps Cardano as a whole.
- Abstain1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.5M ₳Rationale
This is not a proposal I fundamentally oppose. Strike Finance has demonstrated real traction, the liquidity flywheel thesis is sound, and Cardano-native stablecoins and derivatives infrastructure are necessary for long-term ecosystem competitiveness.
However, the timing is wrong. We are in a bear market cycle where USDM depeg risk is materially elevated. Deploying 9,000,000 ADA of treasury capital into a stablecoin position — at a moment when stablecoin liquidity on Cardano is still shallow and under stress — introduces a risk profile that is inappropriate for treasury funds at this stage of the cycle. A depeg event under current conditions is a plausible scenario, not a tail risk.
I would reconsider a productive treasury deployment of this kind in a future cycle, when Cardano-native stablecoins have demonstrated sustained peg stability at greater scale and market conditions are more favorable.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I respect Strike Finance as one of the more visible DeFi protocols in the Cardano ecosystem. My NO vote is not a vote against Strike, perpetuals, or Cardano DeFi.
However, I do not believe the Cardano treasury should act as a liquidity provider for one specific protocol. This proposal would sell treasury ADA into a dollar-denominated stablecoin position and deploy it into a single application, creating asset-allocation risk, opportunity-cost risk, protocol risk, smart-contract risk, stablecoin risk, and precedent risk.
Without a broader treasury management framework, neutral access criteria, formal risk limits, and stronger independently verified safeguards, this is not an appropriate use of public treasury funds.
For that reason, I vote NO.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The proposal focuses on competing with established perpetual exchanges rather than leveraging Cardano's unique advantages. The 20% drawdown trigger for mandatory review is quite high for treasury funds. Strike has no prior track record with treasury deployments. The projected 10% annual yield (900K ADA) is aggressive for a conservative treasury deployment.
Modeled estimates assume optimal market conditions that may not persist.
Historical vault performance (43.52% APR) is based on a short 2-month period during favorable market conditions. Deploying during a period of market uncertainty increases risk. The Cardano Treasury should prioritize lower-risk, ecosystem-building investments that align with Cardano's long-term vision and research-driven approach. While Strike Finance shows promise, the risk-reward profile of this deployment doesn't justify exposing 9M ADA to the volatile perpetual futures market.