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.
- Yes 1.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
This is a large sum of ada for research, but on balance I support this proposal. The priorities are essential for Cardano’s long-term growth, and IOR has the experience to do the work.
Yes, this is more sell pressure that we could do without given the current market conditions. But the current market conditions won’t determine Cardano’s position in 5, 10, 20+ years time… it will be the work that is done now to ensure it continues to be secure, resilient, and scalable to meet future challenges.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ Rationale
Core infrastructure (post-quantum Ouroboros, consensus security, formal verification), disbursed in milestone-gated tranches with third-party assurance and refund of unspent funds. So, YES.
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
Cardano’s research-first approach is a core reason the ecosystem has achieved its current level of security, decentralization, and technical credibility. This proposal continues that tradition while improving the pathway from research to deployment through a more structured and delivery-focused model.
Importantly, Cardano’s emphasis on formal methods, peer-reviewed research, and high-assurance infrastructure remains one of its key differentiators within the industry. That long-term focus is part of Cardano’s unique value proposition and should not be abandoned for short-term trends.
The workstreams on scalability, interoperability, governance, developer tooling, and post-quantum security are strategically important for Cardano’s future resilience and competitiveness.
I therefore vote YES.
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
Vote: YES on "Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure — IO Research"
Rationale:
Cardano's core competitive advantage is its research-driven approach. Without continued investment in consensus evolution (Leios/Peras), post-quantum cryptography, ZK infrastructure, and formal methods, Cardano loses the one differentiator that justifies its existence alongside faster, cheaper L1s. This is not optional spending — it is what makes Cardano Cardano.
CV25 delivered above targets (20% overperformance), produced 24 peer-reviewed papers, and advanced Leios, Peras, Cavefish, and ZK verification from theory to prototype. The track record supports continued funding.
I am voting Yes because rejecting this proposal would inflict more damage on the ecosystem than approving it with reservations.
However, this Yes vote comes with serious criticism on two fronts:
The proposal should have been split. The community asked for it. Multiple DReps asked for it. A $7.9M monolithic proposal covering 7 work packages forces an all-or-nothing decision that does not serve good governance. DReps who see clear value in post-quantum research but question the ROI of WP7 dissemination activities, for example, are forced to accept both or reject both. This is a structural failure of the proposal, not of the DReps voting No.
Charles Hoskinson's public response has been counterproductive. Threatening not to resubmit, warning of permanent ADA price damage, and criticizing DReps who vote No or Abstain is not how you build consensus in a decentralized governance system. A founder who responds to legitimate scrutiny with emotional pressure undermines the very governance model Cardano claims to champion. The community is not obligated to approve proposals out of fear. IO should listen to the feedback, split future proposals into independently votable components, and let each stand on its own merit.
For 2027, I expect IO Research proposals to be modular, independently votable, and responsive to DRep feedback. The research is essential. The governance approach around it needs to mature.
- Yes 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ Rationale
Research defines Cardano's profile.
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
After careful consideration, spending less than 10% of the available NCL on research doesn't seem all that extraordinary for a research-driven blockchain like Cardano. Therefore, I'm changing my vote from ABSTAIN to YES.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
This "Cardano Vision 2026" is less a bold leap forward than a polished continuation of the same institutional research treadmill we have funded for years. While I strongly believe that research itself must never stop (after all, it's the foundation on which Cardano is built), the ecosystem cannot keep writing blank cheques for papers and prototypes that other chains then commercialise and productise, leaving Cardano to foot the bill without the adoption or revenue that should precede the next round!
The proposal’s three pillars largely recycle themes already advancing through smaller, more accountable channels, all while the treasury plays the role of patient patron rather than disciplined investor. We are essentially asked to fund the architectural drawings indefinitely and hope the tenants eventually arrive, rather than insisting the structure stand on its own commercial merits first. Cardano’s constitution demands treasury resources deliver non-duplicative, ecosystem-strengthening outcomes; this framing risks turning our reserves into an open research subsidy that benefits the broader industry more than our own users and builders.
Enough is enough. Stop subsidising the next wave of papers until the last wave actually builds something users and institutions are willing to pay for!
- Yes 1M ₳ Rationale
We support this proposal because research and academic rigor are a core part of Cardano’s identity and one of its strongest long-term differentiators. Cardano’s value proposition is not only innovation, but building secure, stable and resilient infrastructure through formal research, peer review and evidence-based engineering. As blockchain systems become more complex, continuous investment into research and development remains essential.
We believe continued work around scalability, post-quantum security, formal verification, decentralized identity, interoperability, zero-knowledge systems and governance design is strategically important for Cardano’s long-term security, usability and competitiveness. Maintaining strong academic partnerships and a research-driven culture is, in our view, one of the ecosystem’s biggest strengths.
At the same time, we acknowledge community concerns regarding overlap with previously funded initiatives and the need for clearer implementation pathways and transparency. Nevertheless, we believe sustained investment into high-quality research is essential for Cardano’s future and long-term resilience.
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 874.6K ₳ Rationale
Overview
I am voting YES on the Cardano Vision 2026 proposal submitted by IO Research. As an ADA holder with a long-term perspective on Cardano's viability, I believe this proposal represents the most critical infrastructure investment the ecosystem can make in 2026.
Research Translation is Now Product-Aligned
A fair critique of IOR historically has been that research stays on paper. This proposal directly addresses that by structuring work through a staged Technology Readiness Level (TRL) funnel — from fundamental research through prototypes to implementation-ready CIPs — with a dedicated Applied Research & Creative Engineering (ARC) team bridging the gap. The acknowledgment that only ~20% of 250+ papers have been implemented, and the explicit commitment to improve that conversion rate, demonstrates institutional self-awareness and a credible corrective plan.
Leios and Peras Are the Network's Most Important Near-Term Upgrades
Leios (throughput) and Peras (settlement latency) are expected to reach deployment readiness in 2026. These upgrades are not speculative — they have already progressed to prototype stage with formal proofs published. Without continued IOR support for adversarial modeling, MEV analysis, and protocol optimization, the path to production hardens. A 3× throughput target with improved finality is what unlocks serious DeFi and institutional activity on Cardano. Voting no stalls that.
Post-Quantum Security Cannot Wait
Cardano's current cryptographic primitives — Ed25519 and ECVRF — are vulnerable to quantum attack. While large-scale quantum computers do not yet exist, the migration timeline for a live blockchain is measured in years, not months. The work proposed here — post-quantum VRF design, quantum-secure Ouroboros analysis, and a formal migration roadmap — is foundational. Waiting until the threat is imminent makes migration catastrophically more difficult and expensive. This is long-term thinking that protects every ADA holder.
Node Security Addresses a Real Operational Risk
SPO key management is currently software-based, leaving KES and VRF keys exposed to host compromise and memory inspection. The HSM integration and MPC-based key management work proposed in WP1.3 moves Cardano toward production-grade infrastructure. This directly supports decentralization health by reducing the risk of validator failure and key compromise across the SPO ecosystem.
SPO Incentive Recalibration is Overdue
The original incentive model was designed when SPOs only produced blocks. They are now expected to run Mithril signing and will soon be required to support Leios and Peras — each adding compute, bandwidth, and operational cost with no corresponding reward adjustment. WP5.1 addresses this directly by modeling SPO cost structures and recommending parameter changes. A healthy, economically viable SPO ecosystem is foundational to Cardano's decentralization thesis.
Accountability Structures Are Sound
The milestone-gated funding model — four tranches of 25%, each tied to a specific deliverable and subject to third-party assurance review — is exactly the right structure for a treasury withdrawal of this size. Funds are held in a smart contract administered by Intersect with a five-entity Oversight Committee providing independent checks. Unspent funds are returned proportionally. This is not a blank check.
The Team is Irreplaceable
IOR is the only organization on earth with the combination of Ouroboros authorship, formal methods depth, and Cardano-specific protocol knowledge to deliver this work. The consortium — Edinburgh, Berkeley, Oxford, Tokyo Tech, Buenos Aires, Sydney, ZHAW, and Eryx — represents world-class expertise specifically assembled around Cardano's technical requirements. There is no credible alternative source for this research.
Conclusion
This proposal funds the work that keeps Cardano technically relevant, operationally secure, and economically sustainable through 2026 and beyond. The accountability structures are sound, the team is proven, and the deliverables are directly tied to ecosystem growth metrics. I am voting YES.
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 852.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 818K ₳ Rationale
While losing the scientific pipeline is an undesirable outcome, the precedent of passing a 32.9 Million ADA un-milestoned block withdrawal violates the core tenets of decentralized accountability. Yielding to pressure because an action is framed as an "existential crisis" compromises a DRep's primary mandate: to enforce strict financial oversight over the public treasury.
The ecosystem needs these research outcomes, but it requires them through a restructured framework. Voting "No" signals that IO Research must return with a modular proposal—separating urgent, non-negotiable protocol upgrades (Leios and Post-Quantum fixes) from experimental long-term concepts, complete with enforceable milestone-gated disbursements.
Latin American Ecosystem Impact Statement
From a LatAm perspective, this decision carries heavy weight due to the direct research funding allocated to the University of Buenos Aires. However, protecting the fiscal integrity of the global treasury yields a higher structural return for the regional ecosystem. Ensuring that massive treasury draws are bound to auditable, modular phases protects the liquidity required to fund tangible applications, builder frameworks, and real-world adoption drivers across Latin America. - Yes 804.1K ₳ Rationale
IOG's research track record and the university consortium give reasonable confidence here. The post-quantum and consensus work protect Cardano's uptime and cryptographic resilience and brand. That said, at ₳32.9M this is a significant ask, and the community should hold IOG to strict milestone accountability.
- No 793K ₳ Rationale
In a perfect world this is an easy YES vote. But, in our present market conditions, I don't feel that an omnibus withdrawal funding 38 FTEs is appropriate. I think we need more focus here. Where do we really need to prioritize research? What is the likelihood that such research would work its way into our technology stack with meaningful ROI? Where might we have some overlap with other proposals? Show me a proposal that reflects our market reality and an explicit expectation of ROI for targeted research.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ Rationale
Voting Soft Yes. Technically one of the strongest and most strategically important proposals in the current governance cycle, especially around Leios/Peras, post-quantum security, ZK infrastructure, and light clients. However, the proposal is extremely broad and large in scale, bundling many distinct R&D domains into a single treasury withdrawal, which makes accountability and ROI evaluation difficult at this stage of treasury governance maturity.
- Yes 762.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ Rationale
Yes!
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 654.5K ₳ Rationale
IOG / IO Research want to withdraw ₳32,916,667 — nearly $7.9 million — from the Cardano treasury for the Cardano Vision 2026 program.
Officially, the funds are requested for research, prototypes, and development of:
• Leios and Peras
• ZK and Layer 2
• post-quantum security
• identity and governance
• light clients
• Babel Fees
• bridges and cross-chain infrastructureBut I vote NO ❌
📌 First there must be real results from previous programs — then ask for more money.
They already received funding for Cardano Vision 2025.
Now, while there is still no clear large-scale result for:• regular users
• DeFi
• TVL
• ADA price
• real network growth— they are asking for another massive treasury withdrawal.
📌 This is starting to look less like Cardano development and more like continuous treasury extraction under attractive words like:
research
vision
innovation
roadmap
reports
prototypes₳32,916,667 is a massive amount of money.
Meanwhile, DReps — the people actually reading proposals, analyzing documents, voting, explaining governance to the community, and carrying responsibility toward delegators — cannot even receive basic compensation for their work.
📌 The model now looks strange:
• large organizations request millions of ADA
• research groups receive budgets
• universities and partners get funded
• while DReps keeping governance alive receive almost nothingThis governance model will not work long term.
Cardano should not become a treasury machine for endless reports and research without direct ecosystem results.
🔥 MY VOTE: NO ❌
I registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem. - Optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world. 🖤
My DRep ID:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jrMore info:
https://t.me/PROCENT666/338 - Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
Ask: ₳32,916,667 Duration: 1 year (CV26 program) Team: 36 FTEs, 19.5 IOR (research) + 17.5 ARC (technology validation), across 9-partner consortium. ~$219.5K/FTE/year all-inclusive
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I'm voting yes on IO Research Cardano Vision 2026, and I want to be clear about why this is a different evaluation than the routine "IO has institutional depth, therefore yes" shortcut. The Cardano Vision program is Cardano's long-duration research pipeline, and CV26 is year two of a five-year initiative that CV2025 already demonstrated can deliver at the level claimed. IOR received ₳26.84 million last year, disbursed 100% of it, published 24 peer-reviewed papers against a 20-paper target, and handed Leios to the engineering team with a CIP and prototype. The distance from IOR's Ouroboros Peras and Leios work to the CBU proposals I approved earlier in this session is measurable and short. That's not a coincidence, it's the research pipeline functioning as designed, and it justifies continued investment.
The strategic case for CV26 rests on three things I can't get elsewhere. First, post-quantum security. Ed25519 and ECVRF, the cryptographic primitives Cardano relies on for leader election and block production are known to be quantum-vulnerable. Large-scale quantum computers don't exist today, but the migration pathway to quantum-secure replacements takes years to design, prove, and deploy safely. Varun Maram and this team are among the few researchers anywhere working on post-quantum VRF constructions that could replace ECVRF without breaking Cardano's performance guarantees. Starting this work now is the only responsible timeline. Second, adversarial analysis of Leios and Peras. Both protocols are approaching mainnet readiness, but formal adversarial analysis under degraded conditions, mempool attack scenarios, and MEV vectors in the eUTxO model is prerequisite safety work before activation and not optional academic overhead. The CBU engineering work approved this session depends on this safety scaffolding being done. Third, the Cavefish light client and decentralized query layer. Most Cardano wallets depend on centralized API providers to interact with the blockchain. Cavefish's intent-based protocol and the decentralized indexer design directly attack that centralization risk, this is "governance in wallets" infrastructure, and it aligns exactly with what I've said publicly I want to fund.
At ₳32.9M (~$7.9M at $0.24) for 36 FTEs across a 9-partner consortium and with IOG absorbing the WP7 program management cost entirely in-kind, the all-in rate of $219.5K/FTE is above my standard flag threshold but appropriate for a research organization carrying Edinburgh, Berkeley, Oxford, Buenos Aires, and Sydney as active academic partners. The actual researcher compensation is a subset of that all-in figure; the rest is subcontracts, infrastructure, travel, and dissemination. Four reporting-based milestone tranches provide reasonable disbursement pacing, and unspent funds return to the treasury. One concern worth naming: the "portfolio-based dynamic reallocation" language gives the program flexibility to shift resources between workstreams based on emerging insights, which is intellectually honest for research but reduces milestone specificity. The prior year's delivery record is the answer to that concern and this team has demonstrated it uses that flexibility productively, not as cover for scope drift. - Yes 601.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 589.2K ₳ Rationale
I support this governance action because it represents a disciplined investment in the long-term infrastructure required for Cardano to mature as a decentralised financial system. The proposal prioritises transparent governance, milestone-based accountability, auditable treasury controls, and forward-looking security, while strengthening the operational foundations needed for scalable on-chain coordination. Importantly, it focuses on building durable public infrastructure rather than short-term hype, aligning strongly with Cardano’s long-term vision and credibility.
It also takes us one step closer to Crypto Eating Legacy
- Yes 587.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 534.3K ₳ Rationale
Absolutely Critical to continue the research on Cardano. Future proofing for high security is no option
- Yes 487.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 481.5K ₳ Rationale
- Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 467.4K ₳ Rationale
I support this withdrawal because it feels like a practical investment in Cardano’s future, not just another research proposal. Cardano Vision 2026 is clearly focused on the areas that matter most to the network: stronger security, better scalability, an improved developer experience, greater liquidity, sustainable incentives, and more resilient governance.
What makes this proposal convincing is that it builds on work that has already shown results. In 2025, the program advanced 20 research streams, published 24 peer-reviewed papers, and brought important innovations such as Leios, Peras, Phalanx, Jolteon, and ZK verification closer to implementation. For 2026, the plan goes further by connecting research, engineering, and product work into a clearer delivery pipeline, so the community can see how ideas are expected to move toward real-world use.
From a Treasury perspective, this withdrawal makes sense because it supports infrastructure that benefits the whole ecosystem. It helps protect Cardano’s long-term security, prepares the network for post-quantum risks, supports L1 and L2 scaling, and reduces friction for builders and users. In my view, funding this proposal is a responsible way to strengthen Cardano today while preparing it for wider adoption tomorrow.
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 441.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 426.2K ₳ Rationale
Well, here we have a problem, and it's the following: How can a person who is not a cryptographer or from a related field evaluate this proposal? It becomes very, very complicated for the general public who wants to participate in governance to evaluate this proposal it is extremely high-level and practically forces me to delegate my stake to another DRep, which I am not going to do.
Going back to the proposal and trying to analyze it (thanks for providing the PDF), I feel it is necessary to split this into parts, but making sure that things which are co-dependent go together. Evaluating the proposal with so much condensed information is not easy at all. I do want to highlight that there is very important work here that I would like to see in Cardano, but at the same time I feel that some things are more of a priority than others, and I don't think it's right to approve things that are not necessary at this moment.
I also notice there is a lot of research. I have a discomfort regarding research. It makes me a little uncomfortable to invest in research that, let's say, ends up forgotten or never gets used. I am against spending treasury money on that. It's like throwing things at the wall to see if something sticks, and if not, it just gets discarded. Cardano is not sitting at #1 in market cap to be throwing money away like that. I've been looking into it and I have examples like Ouroboros Chronos and Ouroboros Crypsinous, which in the end never saw the light of day in terms of implementation. I feel that right now, with blockchain falling positions in CMC, we should focus on key aspects that put us in the game in the market — because at this moment we are not on the radar, and blockchains like Solana and Ethereum keep advancing and absorbing the market. Imagine not having an Oracle like Chainlink (luckily we now have Pyth) but already thinking about Post-Quantum Security. This is like a team building an ultra-secure space rocket protected against future asteroids and quantum radiation, spending years on perfect shields. But they still lack a reliable fuel tank or simple GPS to take off today.I'll abstain this time.
- Abstain 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 371.8K ₳ No rationale