Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research
211 DReps voted · 74 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No 16.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 14.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 13.3M ₳ Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure — IO Research.
This is a cautious YES, but a clear one.
RCADA supports this proposal because Cardano’s long-term strength has always been rooted in research, formal methods, careful protocol design, and high-assurance engineering. While Treasury discipline remains essential, we believe continued research investment is necessary if Cardano is to remain technically credible, resilient, and differentiated over the long term.
This proposal funds a broad research and innovation programme across three strategic priorities: human-centred design, scalability, and post-quantum security. It includes work on Leios and Peras analysis, Layer 2 and zero-knowledge infrastructure, light clients, decentralized APIs, SPO incentives, governance, identity, economic systems, bridge security, and quantum-resistant cryptographic migration pathways. These are not minor areas; they are foundational questions that will shape Cardano’s future architecture and competitiveness.
RCADA believes it is prudent to begin this research sooner rather than later. Areas such as post-quantum readiness, ZK infrastructure, scalable consensus, secure interoperability, SPO incentives, and governance participation require long lead times. Waiting until these challenges become urgent would likely make them more expensive, more disruptive, and more difficult to address safely.
We also view this proposal differently from proposals that depend mainly on ambitious adoption projections or commercial upside. Research risk is real, but it is a different kind of risk. Foundational research does not always convert directly into mainnet code, and it should not be judged only by the percentage of papers that become implemented protocol changes. Negative findings, formal analysis, threat modelling, simulations, prototypes, and abandoned design paths can still create value by helping Cardano avoid fragile upgrades, unsafe assumptions, or poorly understood engineering decisions.
The proposal itself acknowledges that IO Research has produced more than 250 peer-reviewed papers, with approximately 20% implemented in Cardano, and it frames Cardano Vision 2026 as a more structured attempt to improve research-to-implementation conversion through an integrated model combining IO Research, Applied Research & Creative Engineering, and Cardano Business Unit product alignment. RCADA welcomes that focus. We believe the research produced to date has been money well spent, even where not every output becomes immediate production code.
The Cardano Vision 2026 programme also builds on an established record. The proposal states that Cardano Vision 2025 exceeded targets by 20%, delivered 24 peer-reviewed papers, advanced 20 research streams, and helped move several technology validation streams toward deployment, including Leios, anti-grinding protections, Jolteon, and ZK verification work. This track record gives RCADA more confidence than we would have in an unproven research organisation making similar claims.
That said, this is a substantial Treasury request. The proposal asks for approximately ₳32.916M, or $7.9M at the reference rate, to fund 36 FTEs across a nine-partner research consortium. RCADA recognises that this is one of the larger asks in the current funding cycle, and large research programmes must meet a high standard of transparency, prioritisation, and public accountability.
Our main concern is breadth. The proposal covers many areas, some of which are clearly urgent or strategically necessary, while others are earlier-stage and more exploratory. Post-quantum security, Leios and Peras analysis, ZK infrastructure, light clients, SPO incentives, governance participation, and secure interoperability all have strong strategic relevance. Other areas, such as sharding, proof-of-useful-work, multi-resource consensus, and agent-based coordination, are more speculative. RCADA accepts that research portfolios need exploratory work, but future proposals would benefit from clearer prioritisation and more modular funding where practical.
We also note potential overlap with other Treasury-funded initiatives. The proposal includes scope clarifications excluding productionisation work covered by other proposals, such as Leios in the Consensus Initiative, Babel Fees in Cardano Upgrades, DA work in L2 Scalability, and maintenance/performance work in the Maintenance proposal. RCADA appreciates these boundaries, but expects them to be actively maintained in delivery reporting so the community can see that funding is not duplicative.
The four-tranche funding model is a positive feature, with funds released in equal 25% tranches tied to the services agreement, mid-year interim report, Q3 R&D session and report, and year-end final report. However, for research funding at this scale, RCADA believes reporting events alone should not be treated as sufficient proof of value. The community should be able to assess the quality, relevance, and translation potential of outputs.
For this reason, RCADA expects Cardano Vision 2026 to report clearly on which outputs become papers, technical reports, Cardano Problem Statements, prototypes, CIPs, implementation handoffs, or explicit “do not pursue” findings. Research should be allowed to discover that some paths are not worth pursuing, but those conclusions should be visible and explained. A well-supported “do not pursue” result can be valuable if it prevents wasted engineering effort or future protocol risk.
RCADA also expects continued attention to SPO impacts. Several workstreams relate directly or indirectly to SPO responsibilities, including Leios, Peras, Mithril, node security, HSM-backed key management, network resource demands, and incentive recalibration. Research should help ensure that Cardano’s future architecture strengthens decentralisation rather than unintentionally raising operational barriers for smaller or independent stake pool operators.
Overall, RCADA believes the case for support is strong. Cardano’s research base is not a luxury; it is part of what made Cardano distinctive. The ecosystem should not allow short-term Treasury caution to erode the long-term capability that underpins protocol safety, scalability, and resilience. At the same time, research funding at this scale must show stronger translation discipline and clearer public evidence of impact.
For these reasons, RCADA votes YES, while emphasising the importance of prioritisation, non-duplication, transparent reporting, research-to-implementation tracking, SPO impact awareness, and clear communication of both successful outputs and research paths that should not proceed further.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- No 12.2M ₳ Rationale
We recognize the strategic importance of research in advancing Cardano's long-term goals, particularly in areas such as scalability, post-quantum security, governance infrastructure, and user experience. The proposal outlines an ambitious vision and addresses several challenges that are relevant to the ecosystem's future.
However, we are not convinced that the level of treasury expenditure requested is sufficiently justified by the certainty of outcomes. A significant portion of the proposal funds exploratory research activities whose practical implementation, adoption, and measurable ecosystem impact remain uncertain. The proposal itself acknowledges the challenges of translating research outputs into deployed solutions, and many deliverables remain several stages removed from production use.
We are also concerned about the breadth and complexity of the proposed scope, which spans multiple disciplines and workstreams. This increases execution risk and makes it difficult for governance participants to assess whether the proposed budget represents the most efficient use of treasury resources relative to alternative ecosystem investments.
While we support continued research and innovation within Cardano, we believe this proposal presents a level of financial, delivery, and implementation risk that outweighs the assurances currently provided.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 10.5M ₳ Rationale
Cardano has already funded a very substantial amount of research. IO’s 2025 IOR/Cardano Vision program alone covered 20 research streams and 6 technology validation streams and IO says it delivered 24 peer-reviewed papers in 2025 while advancing multiple validation tracks. IO also says that across its history, IOR has produced 250+ peer-reviewed papers, with only about 20% implemented in Cardano. That is exactly the key business problem here - the issue is no longer whether IOG can produce research. The issue is whether Treasury should keep paying at this scale when the conversion from research into deployed value is still relatively low.
That is the first reason I voted no - Cardano does not have a research-production problem. It has a research-to-deployment conversion problem.
This proposal tries to answer that by saying it is more "product-aligned" and more "implementation-ready." But when you look at the actual outputs, the proposal is still fundamentally a research umbrella - papers, technical reports, CPSs, prototypes and some CIPs. The proposal itself describes 38 papers/technical reports, 8 CPSs, 12 prototypes and 5 CIPs across seven work packages. Lot of work but it is still mostly pre-product and pre-deployment work, not direct ecosystem shipping.
From a business perspective, that matters because Treasury capital is limited and should become more demanding over time.
At some point, the burden shifts from - "can this produce interesting research?" to
"will this produce enough real-world deployed value relative to cost?"I do not think this proposal clears that bar strongly enough.
The second reason I voted no is overlap
- Leios/Peras analysis
- L2/ZK infrastructure
- Plutus verification
- light clients and decentralized APIs
- Babel fees and intent markets
- bridge and interoperability security
- SPO incentives
- governance incentives
- identity
- dissemination/commercialization pathways
There is overlap with the rest of the 2026 proposals
- the separate Consensus proposal already funds Leios production, validation, adversarial testing and hardfork enabling work- IO even says "the science is done" there
- the separate L2 Scalability proposal already funds Hydra hardening, Midgard mainnet work and shared L2 primitives
- the separate Plutus proposal already funds execution efficiency, formal correctness and developer-experience work around Plutus.
So while this proposal tries to frame itself as the upstream research pipeline, from a Treasury point of view it still looks like a very large umbrella sitting next to several implementation proposals covering closely adjacent areas.
That creates the obvious concern - Where does this proposal end and the others begin? Similar story with other proposals from IOG
The third reason I voted no is weak milestone discipline for a proposal of this size. The total ask is about 32.9 million $ADA/$7.9 million USD for 36 FTEs, which works out to about $219.5k USD per FTE per year. That number is not absurd on its own for senior research heavy work but the payment gates are too soft. Funds are released in four equal tranches based on
- execution of the services agreement
- submission of the interim report
- delivery of the Q3 R&D session and report
- submission of the final report
That is not strong enough for a proposal of this scale. Those are reporting and process checkpoints, not sharp, objective, output-based release gates by work package. For a broad research portfolio, that means Treasury is being asked to fund a large moving program with relatively flexible internal reallocation and comparatively light milestone constraints.
The proposal even says that because of the exploratory nature of the work, it uses a portfolio based approach to dynamic reallocation and re-prioritization. That may be sensible from an R&D management perspective, but it is weaker from a Treasury governance perspective because voters are funding a broad envelope rather than tightly bounded deliverables.
A company or ecosystem with unlimited capital can afford to run many parallel research bets. Treasury should not assume that luxury. Cardano already has deep research depth. Instead this still reads like a large strategic research umbrella trying to cover too much of the future at once.
The fifth reason I voted no is simple - the proposal itself admits the conversion problem.
It says IOR has produced over 250 papers, with about 20% implemented in Cardano. That is useful honesty but it also reinforces my concern. Treasury should not keep rewarding research breadth without demanding stronger implementation conversion and clearer accountability for what gets shipped, adopted and used.
That is why I voted NO
- No 9.6M ₳ Rationale
As a DRep I'm voting NO on Cardano Vision 2026 (CV26).
This is a 32.9M ada (~$8M) treasury withdrawal with no delivery guarantee and no deadlines.
The funds release in four equal 25% tranches, triggered by: signing the services agreement, submitting a mid-year report, holding a webinar plus report, and submitting a final report.
Not one of these four payments requires shipping a single paper, prototype, CPS, or CIP. Payment is tied to reporting events, not to technical output.
Deliverables are listed, but they carry no dates, several are optional ("at least one of") or approximate ("~38 papers," "around 5 CIPs"), and the proposal explicitly reserves the right to deprioritise or drop any of them under its "portfolio-based" approach.
Most importantly, the binding terms (acceptance criteria, delivery dates, dispute resolution) do not exist at vote time.
They are deferred to a private contract between Input Output and Intersect that DReps never see and never vote on. We would be approving $8M against terms written later by the recipient and the administrator.
The only real protection is that undisbursed ada returns to the treasury.
Anything already paid out against a signature or a report is gone regardless of what ships.
I support research funding for Cardano, but I can't approve a withdrawal of this size where payment is decoupled from delivery and the enforceable terms are left blank.
I'd reconsider a revised version that ties tranches to accepted technical deliverables on a defined schedule.
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
私はこの提案に賛成します。本提案は、Cardanoの長期的な競争力を支える基盤研究として、スケーラビリティ、耐量子安全性、ゼロ知識証明、Layer 2、ライトクライアント、分散型アイデンティティ、ガバナンス、および経済モデルなど幅広い領域を対象としており、2030年に向けた技術的基盤の強化に貢献するものだと考えます。特に、研究成果を論文にとどめず、CPS、プロトタイプ、CIP、実装へとつなげる統合デリバリーモデルを採用している点を評価しています。また、LeiosやPeras、耐量子暗号、ZKインフラストラクチャなど、Cardanoの将来にとって重要な技術課題に継続的に取り組むことは、エコシステム全体の持続的な成長にとって重要であると考えます。提案金額は大きく、研究成果が実際の実装や採用につながるかについては今後も注視する必要がありますが、マイルストーン管理、第三者による監督、未使用資金の返還条件などの仕組みも示されています。以上の理由から、私は本提案を支持します。\n\nI support this proposal. As foundational research that supports Cardano’s long-term competitiveness, it addresses a broad range of areas including scalability, post-quantum security, zero-knowledge proofs, Layer 2 solutions, light clients, decentralized identity, governance, and economic models. I believe these efforts will contribute to strengthening the technical foundations needed to achieve Cardano’s vision toward 2030. In particular, I appreciate the integrated delivery model that aims to move research beyond academic papers and translate it into CPSs, prototypes, CIPs, and ultimately implementation. I also believe that continued work on important technical challenges such as Leios, Peras, post-quantum cryptography, and ZK infrastructure is essential for the sustainable growth of the Cardano ecosystem. While the requested budget is significant and it will be important to monitor whether the research outcomes lead to practical implementation and adoption, the proposal includes milestone management, independent oversight, and provisions for returning unused funds. For these reasons, I support this proposal.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
Voting YES
Cardano’s edge is still security, formal methods, eUTXO, and hard infrastructure. Adoption is a bit like unemployment: tough to influence directly as it depends on the macro and on the health of the underlying system. This proposal works on that system, longer term. I do not think there is a magic button for adoption right now. I am not for throwing everything at the wall just to boost transaction volume, because that tends to end badly. Even if adoption only grows gradually in 2026, Cardano is not doomed. Cardano still lacks enough serious monetary research, which would be useful for a protocol aspiring to become hard money. Some streams will likely fail or prove marginal. That is fine only if IO cuts weak work early and redirects effort to what shows a clear path to a CIP, prototype, benchmark, or engineering handoff. I don't feel comfortable pre-selecting research streams, as unexpected hurdles can be found in the ones that seem closest at hand and unexpected breakthroughs may emerge where we don't expect them. However, this is a Yes, not a blank cheque. I also propose to IO to set the highest transparency standard in the ecosystem. That discipline will make the Treasury last longer for everyone.
- Yes 6.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 6M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No.
While I understand the broader vision behind this proposal, I’m not convinced the timing, priority, or funding scale aligns with the ecosystem’s most immediate needs right now. Treasury capital is finite, and at this stage I believe we need to stay disciplined around focusing on initiatives with clearer near-term leverage on adoption, activity, and ecosystem growth.
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
Yes, required.
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
We recognize the main criticism of this proposal: Cardano has historically been stronger at producing rigorous research than at consistently translating that research into deployed products, adoption, liquidity, and visible network activity. IO Research itself acknowledges this challenge, noting that around 20% of its 250+ peer-reviewed papers have been implemented in Cardano. That conversion rate needs to improve.
That said, we do not believe Cardano can afford to abandon one of its clearest competitive advantages. Ethereum also invests heavily in R&D: the Ethereum Foundation spent $32.1M on L1 R&D in 2022 and $34.7M in 2023, representing roughly a quarter to a third of its annual spending. Serious L1s fund deep protocol research because long-term competitiveness depends on it.
The key question is not whether research matters. It does. The question is whether research is being connected more tightly to implementation. This proposal explicitly moves in that direction through a more structured pipeline linking research, applied engineering, and product alignment. We support it on that basis.
Our YES vote comes with a clear expectation: future research funding should show stronger evidence of translation into deployable capabilities, ecosystem adoption, and measurable network outcomes. Cardano should protect its research edge, but it must convert more of that edge into real-world usage, or will in the long-term fail to sustain its own R&D departments. - No 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ Rationale
Quantum research is important. We need to be ahead of this.
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research" (gov_action1ttgs45ulfxs0jwkfrecystc3flduhszmyzk8wnd7yw5za77tsg9qq4afmus), pois entendemos que ela aborda temas estratégicos para o futuro da Cardano: escalabilidade, melhoria da experiência para usuários e desenvolvedores, segurança pós-quântica, governança, identidade e interoperabilidade. Embora o valor solicitado, de ₳32,916 milhões, seja relevante, o orçamento parece proporcional ao escopo, à quantidade de entregáveis previstos e ao consórcio técnico envolvido, especialmente considerando que a proposta busca transformar pesquisa em CIPs, protótipos e capacidades implementáveis para o ecossistema. Também consideramos positivo que a proposta apresente formas de acompanhamento e controle, com entregáveis definidos, relatórios periódicos, marcos de liberação de recursos, monitoramento pela Intersect, validação por terceiro e mecanismos de transparência on-chain. Esses elementos tornam mais viável medir o progresso, cobrar execução e avaliar se o investimento está gerando valor concreto para a rede.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research" (gov_action1ttgs45ulfxs0jwkfrecystc3flduhszmyzk8wnd7yw5za77tsg9qq4afmus), because we understand that it addresses strategic topics for Cardano’s future: scalability, improved user and developer experience, post-quantum security, governance, identity, and interoperability. Although the requested amount of ₳32.916 million is significant, the budget appears proportional to the scope, the number of planned deliverables, and the technical consortium involved, especially considering that the proposal aims to turn research into CIPs, prototypes, and implementable capabilities for the ecosystem. We also view positively that the proposal includes monitoring and control mechanisms, with defined deliverables, periodic reports, funding release milestones, Intersect oversight, third-party validation, and on-chain transparency mechanisms. These elements make it more feasible to measure progress, demand execution, and assess whether the investment is generating concrete value for the network. - Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
I intended to abstain on this vote as it combines too much into one proposal into a take-it-or-leave it yes/no vote. As with all of the other IO proposals I believe it is bloated and should be rejected because this process of vendor-designed direct treasury withdrawal is NOT an acceptable method of procurement. DReps are not in a position to negotiate, prioritize and validate the scope, the requirements, necessity or the price proposed in lumpsum omnibus bills like this.
Additionally, while I respect that research has been core to Cardano, only partway through a deep market downturn with distressed price ADA, this is not the time to be funding beyond what is critical and necessary, and I do not believe this compendium of research projects all fit that bill.
However, momentum is more valuable than absolute certainty and correctness, and if we reject this proposal, I believe Cardano's momentum would be seriously damaged. Also the price downturn over the past week essentially has significantly tightened the purse-strings for IOG, which in the end will end up forcing prioritization of the research, which was my ultimate goal.
I believe it was too broad, and hadn't received enough pushback on the vendor, but the market has basically done that work for the ecosystem over the last week, compensating for what governance is not able to do.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
All the work packages, as described, are crucial for the continued evolution of our ecosystem. Cardano has been built on formal methods, rigorous research papers, and the dedicated efforts of competent teams over many years. We must maintain this commitment, and therefore I fully support IOG’s proposal.
- Yes 3.1M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I have to vote NO on this proposal, as I am not convinced that all the research items present are required at this time.
Research is important, but the Cardano ecosystem has spent an incredible amount of funding on research already, and it has not translated into financial gain for the Cardano blockchain or fully completed work.
At this time I believe it is more important to deliver what has been paid for, and further research can be done when Cardano is in a financially stable position to continue to fund this.
Funding research for the sake of scientific progress is not a sustainable model for use of Cardano treasury funds, and there needs to be some serious community discussion about what that research should look like if IOG does not want to fund this themselves.
The research items I would choose to fund in this bundle would be anything regarding post-quantum security, as this is a real upcoming problem that could expose the Cardano blockchain to serious vulnerabilities. There is opportunity here for collaboration with world governments, as this is an issue that they themselves must already be working on, so possibly not all this research needs to be done by Cardano alone.
Regardless, the cost of this bundled proposal is too substantial for the potential benefits in the short and long term. None of this research may prove any benefit to Cardano, and we have to be willing to determine when to prioritize funding in areas that would build the growth of our chain, and to fill out areas we have been sorely lacking in, like community builders, advertising, and liquidity.
I think there are more important areas to focus on if IOG does not wish to come to the table and discuss with the community about what can be skipped in the research budget for now, and passed along to a future year's budget.
Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.
If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.
I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.
I expect this proposal to complete all deliverables as stated if it is funded, and if this is not done, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.
The fact that IOG has also received a substantial amount of the NCL for this year, and instead of being grateful to the community, Charles has responded in a petulant and disrespectful manner to community members makes me seriously question the effectiveness of any of this funding, how much Cardano will actually benefit, and if all the work will be completed.
I hope I am wrong and that IOG will fulfill all of its responsibilities, so please prove me wrong and come to the community with a humble and respectful attitude in the future.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
had me at quantum
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
私は本提案に賛成します。Cardano Vision 2026は、Cardanoの長期的な競争力を支える研究・技術検証・実装準備のパイプラインであり、ポスト量子安全性、Leios/Perasを含むスケーラビリティ、ZK/L2基盤、Light client、Babel Fees、SPOインセンティブ、ガバナンスとIDなどの重要領域を体系的に扱っています。
特に、ポスト量子安全性を中核テーマに置いている点を高く評価します。量子計算機の実用化時期には不確実性がありますが、暗号基盤の移行は短期間で完了できません。署名、VRF、Ouroboros、ノード運用、ウォレット、L2、ブリッジまで含めた長期的準備が必要です。本提案には研究成果の発信・普及活動も含まれていますが、今後はこの取り組みを内部研究に留めず、Cardanoが将来の暗号リスクに真剣に備えるネットワークであることを、対外的にもさらに分かりやすく発信すべきだと考えます。
費用面では、₳32.916Mという要求額は高額ですが、36 FTEによる国際的な研究・技術検証体制を考えると、過大とは言い切れません。一方で、成果が論文や技術報告で止まるリスクはあります。そのため、CIP化、プロトタイプ、実装移行、SPO負荷評価、四半期報告、第三者保証、未使用資金返還を重視します。研究をCardanoの実装可能な公共財へ変換することを前提に、本提案を支持します。
I support this proposal.
Cardano Vision 2026 is a research, technical validation, and implementation-readiness pipeline that supports Cardano’s long-term competitiveness. It systematically addresses key areas such as post-quantum security, scalability including Leios and Peras, ZK/L2 infrastructure, light clients, Babel Fees, SPO incentives, governance, and identity.
I especially value that post-quantum security is placed as a core theme. The timeline for practical quantum computers remains uncertain, but cryptographic migration cannot be completed quickly. It requires long-term preparation across signatures, VRFs, Ouroboros, node operations, wallets, L2s, and bridges. This proposal also includes dissemination and communication of research outcomes, but I believe Cardano should communicate this effort more clearly to the outside world as evidence that the network is seriously preparing for future cryptographic risks.
From a cost-effectiveness perspective, the ₳32.916M request is substantial, but considering the 36 FTE international research and technical validation structure, it does not appear excessive. At the same time, there is a risk that outcomes may remain limited to papers or technical reports. Therefore, I place importance on CIPs, prototypes, implementation pathways, SPO impact assessment, quarterly reporting, third-party assurance, and the return of unused funds.
On the condition that this research is translated into practical public infrastructure for Cardano, I support this proposal.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Current Rationale: Due to the decline in price of ADA, I believe this proposal shows value in it's current form at about $5.4M.
Original Rationale:
I am voting ABSTAIN on this proposal with the hopes that it will be revised.I do not want to lose our Cardano researchers. But the facts are facts, the market and token price are what they are and we cannot recklessly spend.
Spending money on research without knowing the salaries or overhead costs is irresponsible.
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on Cardano Vision 2026.
While I understand the concerns around the size and breadth of this proposal, I believe this is one of the clearest examples of the type of long-term public-good investment the Cardano Treasury exists to support.
Cardano’s competitive advantage has always been its research-first foundation, high-assurance engineering culture, formal methods, and willingness to solve hard problems properly rather than chase short-term narratives. The work proposed here — including scalability, Leios/Peras research, post-quantum security, ZK, developer experience, governance, incentives and research-to-engineering translation — is not optional if Cardano is to remain technically credible over the long term.
I recognise the concern that this proposal is broad and bundled. However, in this case I believe the workstreams are deeply interconnected. Breaking this into many smaller proposals may appear cleaner from a governance perspective, but it also risks fragmentation, delay, loss of coordination, and potentially the loss of specialised talent that is extremely difficult to rebuild once dispersed.
My support is not a blank cheque. I expect clear milestone reporting, transparent oversight, community visibility, and the return of any unused or undisbursed funds in line with the proposal’s refund commitments. But I believe the strategic risk of failing to fund this research programme is greater than the risk of approving it.
For these reasons, I believe this proposal is aligned with Cardano’s long-term interests, its research-driven identity, and the responsible use of treasury funds for foundational ecosystem infrastructure.
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.9M ₳ No rationale