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 365.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 332K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on Cardano Vision 2026. Cardano = Science. Without our scientific foundation, we are no better than a random meme coin. Dedicating less than 10% of our protocol's annual revenue to critical, existential R&D is a sound and absolutely essential investment in our future.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Science is our fundamental identity. One must look through this prism to understand why funding of this proposal is essential and why voting "YES" is so obvious.
Cardano’s entire Unique Selling Proposition (USP) is built on rigorous, peer-reviewed science. If we strip away that scientific foundation, Cardano becomes less useful than a random shitcoin. Our narrative, our security, and our future rely on the application of groundbreaking technologies, just like the Ouroboros protocol, which would never have existed without this exact type of foundational research.
We cannot risk defunding our research arm and watching our brightest scientists migrate to competing ecosystems. The work packages outlined in this proposal, particularly post-quantum resistance and advanced scalability, are NOT optional "nice-to-haves". They are critical, existential imperatives. We must move forward.
I understand that a ₳32.9M ask might seem big when viewed in isolation. However, as a DRep committed to responsible treasury spending, I look at the macroeconomics: The Cardano protocol generates roughly ₳350M annually through its monetary engine and fees. This means CV26 represents an R&D allocation of less than 10%. In the high-tech sector, it's typical for companies to spend 15% to 30% of their annual revenue on R&D just to stay relevant. By that metric, spending under 10% on research for a protocol that literally defines itself by science is not just rational - it is highly conservative.
Finally, I want to acknowledge that this proposal provides a much higher level of granularity and budget transparency compared to previous IO requests, which I have criticized in the past.
Science is the foundation of our home. Without it, we break apart. I am voting YES to keep Cardano at the forefront of innovation.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 298.6K ₳ Rationale
Voting YES on Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research
May 25th 2026
Summary
This proposal requests a withdrawal of approximately ₳33M, to be managed by Intersect and distributed to IOG and various subcontractors for seven work packages designed to further the research on which Cardano is built.
A Brief Review Of The Work Packages
Name Main focus Trust, Security & Reliability Infrastructure Consensus (Leios/Peras, MEV), post-quantum security, node/key security (HSM/MPC) Scalability & Execution Layer Fee markets & L2 data availability, sharding study, P2P/pub-sub, ZK verification & L2 settlement Developer Platform & User Experience Plutus (verifying compiler, formal methods), light clients (Cavefish), Babel fees & intents Applications, Adoption & Liquidity Bridge security, atomic swaps, agent-based cross-chain coordination Economic Systems & Incentives SPO incentive recalibration, multi-resource consensus / PoUW, utility-weighted throughput metrics Governance, Identity & Social Infrastructure Governance incentives & DAO DSL, proof of personhood, verifiable credentials Delivery, Dissemination & Partnerships Program management, R&D sessions, CIP translation, ecosystem communication (in-kind via IOG) Conclusion
Much of the success of Cardano can be attributed to its scientific approach. And I'm excited to see this proposal continue the research which got us this far. These work packages are very exciting.
I'm particularly excited to see the PQC elements of the first work package. A recent landmark paper from Google [1] urges all vulnerable cryptocurrency communities to join the migration to PQC without delay. I happen to know a little bit [2, 3, 4, 5] about this issue and I'm very happy to see it begin to be addressed. I am however fearful that this may be too little, too late. I hope IOG and the community will show even more emphasis on delivering post-quantum Cardano.
I'm voting in favor of this proposal.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt
@william00000010 on 𝕏
contact@williamdoyle.caReferences
Babbush, R., Zalcman, A., Gidney, C., Broughton, M., Khattar, T., Neven, H., Bergamaschi, T., Drake, J., & Boneh, D. (2026). Securing elliptic curve cryptocurrencies against quantum vulnerabilities: Resource estimates and mitigations. arXiv:2603.28846 [quant-ph].
Dallaire-Demers, P.L., Doyle, W., & Foo, T. (2026). Brace for impact: ECDLP challenges for quantum cryptanalysis. arXiv:2508.14011 [quant-ph].
Dallaire-Demers, P.L., & Doyle, W. (2023). Post-quantum security for Cardano accounts. Catalyst Fund 10 proposal.
Dallaire-Demers, P.L., & Doyle, W. (live). Anchor Vault: A post-quantum smart contract wallet for Ethereum. Chrome Web Store extension.
Doyle, W. (live). EBP: Quantum-secure identity and email. Website.
- No 295.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 281.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 279.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 260K ₳ No rationale
- No 258.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 257K ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on “Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure – IO Research,” while explicitly recognising the concerns raised about bundling, conversion, and milestone structure.
I acknowledge that this proposal aggregates multiple research agendas—post‑quantum cryptography, Leios/Peras analysis, sharding exploration, ZK/L2 infrastructure, bridge and atomic‑swap security, light‑client and decentralized API design, Babel/intent markets, PoUW, governance incentives, and identity—into a single, large envelope. This bundling reduces the precision with which DReps can prioritise: it is not possible to approve, for example, PQ security and consensus analysis while rejecting lower‑priority or more experimental topics such as PoUW in this funding cycle. I also recognise the research‑to‑deployment conversion concern. IO Research reports more than 250 peer‑reviewed papers historically, of which around 20% have been implemented in Cardano, and CV26 itself is still primarily framed around 38 papers/reports, 8 CPSs, 12 prototypes, and 5 CIPs, rather than direct production delivery. Finally, the tranche design—four equal 25% releases keyed to contract execution, an interim report, a Q3 R&D session, and a final report—are process checkpoints rather than tightly output‑bound payment gates per work package, which several DReps have reasonably highlighted as weak for a programme of this size.
Even with those caveats, I judge the proposal’s content and track record to justify a YES this cycle. CV26 squarely targets long‑term differentiators that are difficult to source elsewhere at comparable depth: adversarial analysis and optimisation of Leios/Peras, MEV and mempool safety in an eUTxO setting, post‑quantum primitives and PQ‑secure Ouroboros, node key security via HSMs and MPC, eUTxO‑native data‑availability and fee‑market design, ZK verification infrastructure and zk‑rollups, a formal foundation for Plutus (state machines and verifying compiler), trust‑minimised light‑client and intent architectures (Cavefish and decentralised indexers), Babel/intent market design and minUTxO redesign, bridge and atomic‑swap protocols, multi‑resource consensus/PoUW, and governance/identity primitives including proof‑of‑personhood and ZK credentials. These are structured with explicit TRL targets and clear “out of scope” boundaries for implementation, and they build directly on a CV25 year that exceeded its research and validation targets and handed several concrete artefacts (e.g. Leios CIP, Phalanx, RSnarks, Cavefish) to engineering. The consortium—IO Research plus leading universities such as Edinburgh, Oxford, IST Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Sydney, and Berkeley, along with applied partners like Eryx—is, in my view, uniquely positioned to deliver this category of work for Cardano.
I also consider the governance and custody structure to be appropriate for a Tier‑2c research programme at this scale. Funds are held in Intersect‑administered treasury reserve and project‑specific smart contracts developed by Sundae Labs and audited by TxPipe and MLabs, with multi‑party controls over fund movements, delegation to auto‑abstain, third‑party assurance of milestones, and an obligation to return undisbursed funds at the end of the delivery period. The proposal includes a clear reporting cadence—public R&D sessions, a mid‑year interim report, and a year‑end final report with financial breakdown—which, together with CV25’s published reports, gives the community a reasonable basis to track progress and judge research‑to‑deployment conversion over time.
That said, my support comes with expectations for future cycles. For any follow‑on “Cardano Vision 20xx” programmes, I will look for: (1) tighter bundling or modularisation so that high‑priority research lines (e.g. PQ security, consensus robustness) can be evaluated and funded independently of lower‑priority or more speculative work; (2) stronger evidence that prior cycles’ outputs—CV25 and CV26—are translating into deployed capabilities, CIPs, and measurable network outcomes, not just additional publications; and (3) more granular, output‑based milestone and disbursement structures for large research envelopes, rather than only broad reporting checkpoints. I am voting YES on CV26 because I believe maintaining Cardano’s research foundation and this particular research network is strategically important at this stage, but future renewals should expect a higher bar on prioritisation, conversion, and milestone discipline. - No 245K ₳ Rationale
In my opinion, IO needs to downsize its operations and take on less tasks at a time. The treasury spending expectations are wildly unrealistic. If they proposed one or two development tasks per year, they could put more focus into each task and get them finished in a more timely manner. The treasury cannot afford to be drained so heavily every year by a single organization. IO is competing heavily with itself in the amount of funding proposals they're submitting, so unfortunately this research task has been beat out by other development tasks they've proposed.
- No 238.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 226.7K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 215.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 212.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 208.6K ₳ Rationale
This proposal funds critical forward-looking research across three balanced pillars: human centered design, scalability, and post-quantum security. While I remain cautious on broad treasury spending and believe quantum threats are still 8–15+ years away, proactive work on post-quantum primitives and Ouroboros migration is prudent long-term insurance for a chain built to last decades. The scalability and developer experience components directly tackle real adoption bottlenecks like usability, throughput, and friction that go beyond generic infrastructure. At ~₳33M this is a significant but contained allocation for a full-year program with clear deliverables (papers, prototypes, and CIPs). IO Research has a proven track record on foundational work. This is an exception to my usual fiscal discipline stance because it strengthens Cardano’s core competitiveness and future-proofing.
- Abstain 207.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 203.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 198.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 195.9K ₳ Rationale
Research is the Cardano differentiator. This is an inviolable long term investment needed to maintain our unique selling point.
- Yes 190.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 183.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 182K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 181.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 180.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 160K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 150.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 148K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 142.3K ₳ Rationale
Due to the shortage of funds and the large number of proposals, such broad proposals should be broken down into smaller packages with 12 months of funding.
- Yes 131.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 131.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 120.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 115.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 111.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 100.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 88.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 72.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 59.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 55.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 49.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 49.4K ₳ No rationale
- No 49.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 48.4K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 45.2K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 27.3K ₳ No rationale