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 592.3M ₳ Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes YES on "Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research". Yoroi previously voted ABSTAIN due to concerns that the proposal's bundled structure limited the ability to assess and prioritise individual research streams within a single funding decision. Following further review, we concluded that the strategic importance of the overall research program and IOR's demonstrated delivery record outweigh those governance concerns, leading us to update our vote to YES.
Rationale
• Strategic importance of the research agenda
The proposal addresses several areas that are important to Cardano's future development, including scalability, post-quantum security, interoperability, governance, identity, and developer experience. While not every workstream carries the same level of urgency, together they represent a coordinated investment in Cardano's long-term technical foundations.
• Benefits outweigh structural concerns
Our original abstention reflected a preference for greater visibility into how individual research priorities could be evaluated within a proposal of this scale. While we continue to believe that additional granularity would improve future treasury decision-making, we no longer consider the bundled structure sufficient reason to withhold support. Given IOR's proven delivery record and the strategic value of maintaining Cardano's research pipeline, we believe supporting the proposal is the better outcome for the ecosystem.
Conclusion
Yoroi supports this proposal because the value of sustaining Cardano's long-term research capabilities outweighs our concerns regarding the proposal's structure. - Yes 428.5M ₳ Rationale
I'm changing my vote on "Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research" to YES.
I had been requesting that this proposal be split. However, with the price decline, this proposal—originally premised on $7.9M—is now worth $5.4M. That is a 31% reduction in USD terms, and there is no buffer left in it.
Realistically speaking, even if the proposal were split and resubmitted now, it would quite likely come back at a higher amount.
I don't like changing my position on a proposal at the last minute, but realistically, under these price conditions, demanding a split is likely no longer logically justifiable.
In addition, many of my delegators have expressed a desire to place trust in IOG.
Going forward, I will try to avoid changing my votes at the last minute as much as possible, but there will be cases like this where I respond flexibly to price movements. I don't believe this significantly contradicts the logic behind my original request for a split—rather, in the current market conditions, the rationale for demanding a split itself has diminished, and doing so could even be counterproductive.
「Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research」をYESに変更します。
私はこの提案書の分割を希望していましたが、価格が下落し、7.9 M$を前提とした当提案書は5.4M $になりました。これはドルベースでは31%減少した金額で、ここにはバッファーはありません。
現実的に言えば、仮に今から分割して提出を仮にしたとして、より高い金額になる可能性は高いでしょう。
直前に提案書を変更するのは好きではありませんが、現実的に言えば、この価格の状況下では、分割を要求するのはあまり論理的には合理的ではない可能性が高いです。
また、私の委任者の多くからIOGを信頼することを希望する声もありました。
今後、できるだけ投票を直前で変えないように心がけようと思いますが、このように価格変動の状況に応じて柔軟に対応する場合があります。私が分割を願っていたロジックから大きな矛盾はないと思います。分割を要求すること自体の意味がこの市況下では減少し、逆効果になる可能性があります。
- Yes 297.4M ₳ Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes YES on the treasury withdrawal titled "Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research", with rationale outlined below.
Rationale
EMURGO previously voted Abstain due to reservations regarding the scale and bundled structure of the proposal. While we continue to believe that greater granularity would improve community evaluation of treasury-funded initiatives, further review has led us to conclude that these concerns are outweighed by the strategic value of the proposed research program and IOR's demonstrated delivery record.
IOR has consistently delivered meaningful research outputs that have contributed to Cardano's technical development. The proposal addresses several areas of strategic importance, including scalability, post-quantum readiness, interoperability, governance, and developer tooling. Although the breadth of the proposal makes it challenging to assess individual workstreams in isolation, many of these areas are interconnected and form part of a broader long-term research agenda.
EMURGO therefore believes that the value of maintaining Cardano's research pipeline justifies support for this proposal and has updated its vote from Abstain to Yes. - Yes 240.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 221.8M ₳ Rationale
Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:
❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO ResearchCombined:
✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USDAll proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.
We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.
But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.
- Yes 174.4M ₳ Rationale
Generally supportive, but here is my ranking of priority from the items listed:
- Consensus improvements
- Data availability
- Post-quantum (VRF/KES)
- EasySM (maybe, little detail on what this actual is)
- Mithril
Here are the ones I'm less sure of given the current capabilities/priorities of Cardano:
- compliance use cases
- Identity / selective disclosure of identity
- SPO incentives
- HSM-enabled node CPS and prototype integration for secure KES/VRF key management
- Hydra
Here are things I don't really feel are research problems
- minUTXO / atomic swap prototype
- agent chain specification
- Babel fees (there are different constructions possible (esp. with ZK), but we should build a v1 before going too far on research on this
Unsure
- Cavefish protocol: it's a very interesting primitive. I feel for any powerful enough privacy-preserving ZK system, you can achieve a similar result with recursive SNARKs. Therefore, this proposal is useful when you don't have / don't want ZK compute on the L1 (just use plain signatures). I do think there is some possibilities for this to be powerful (esp. around the fact that the onchain cost is low given you don't need an onchain verifier circuit). I'd be interested in seeing the CPS - especially on how this might relate to babel fees which has a bit of conceptual overlap
- ZK verification toolkit (unclear why should be done other than just precompiles). There are ways general "recursive systems" could help, but it's a bit vague which Cardano initiative this would be targeted to (Starstream, Midnight, bridging, identity, something else?). Fundamental theoretical research is fine (many open problems), but just not enough specification provided for me to really judge this one
- Abstain 135.1M ₳ Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN on this proposal. We deeply value peer-reviewed research as an enduring strength of Cardano, but the heavily bundled scope, the overlap with other funded work, and the absence of a clearly stated program duration prevent our support at this time.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The Cardano Foundation recognizes Input Output Research, its academic consortium, and Professor Aggelos Kiayias's team as a serious scientific contributor whose work has materially advanced the network. Foundational, peer-reviewed research remains one of Cardano's distinctive value propositions, and we have no wish to see that momentum stall. Our ABSTAIN is not a rejection of funding research; it is a signal that this specific request, in its current form, is not one we can endorse or oppose with confidence. Our decision is driven by the following factors:
- Heavily Bundled Scope: The proposal combines seven work packages and 36 FTEs into a single omnibus request of 32,916,000 ada. The proposers themselves identify six distinct clusters, which suggests the work could be presented as separable units. Consistent with our stated reservations about bundled treasury requests, we believe DReps should be able to assess and fund these workstreams individually. Where unbundling is impractical, a clear justification for keeping items combined should be provided.
- Overlap with Other Funded Work: Several streams appear to overlap with initiatives already underway or separately funded elsewhere in the ecosystem, for example, consensus research around Leios and Peras, and incentive design that intersects with existing community working groups. The proposal does not make clear how this funding avoids duplication, and we would expect explicit coordination with the teams already delivering in these areas.
- Disproportionate Treatment of High-Value Research: We view the post-quantum security workstream as among the most strategically important and least replaceable elements of this program, given its dependence on specialized cryptographic expertise and academic partnerships. Yet it represents a comparatively small share of the budget. We would welcome a structure that prioritizes this work more prominently.
- Absence of a Stated Duration: The proposal outlines reporting checkpoints and four equal funding tranches but does not clearly state the overall program duration against which the budget should be assessed. This omission makes the request harder to evaluate and warrants clarification.
- Budget and Community Alignment: At approximately $219.5k per FTE, the cost basis warrants scrutiny, and we believe the operation could be streamlined. We also encourage IOR to engage the ecosystem's builders more consistently throughout the year, ensuring that research is shaped by Cardano's practical needs rather than pursued in isolation.
We commend the transparency of this submission, which discloses per-project FTEs, deliverables, and named researchers. For transparency on our side, we note that the Cardano Foundation is a member of the 2025 Treasury Reserve Smart Contract Oversight Committee that this withdrawal would initially use; that role concerns administrative verification, not governance discretion, and is distinct from our vote as a DRep.
The Cardano Foundation votes ABSTAIN on this proposal. Our abstention reflects the value we place on research balanced against the structural concerns above, and it should not be read as opposition to funding Cardano's scientific work. We encourage IOR to unbundle the proposal along its own six clusters where sensible, clarify overlaps and program duration, and elevate the post-quantum effort, and we look forward to reviewing a revised, more focused submission.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - No 93.3M ₳ Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote NO for the proposal: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure – IO Research
My rationale:
Cardano was built on scientific rigor, formal methods, and long-term research. That remains one of its greatest strengths and one of the reasons Cardano has survived while many other ecosystems prioritized speed over quality.
I strongly believe this research culture must be preserved. IO remains one of the most important technology organizations in the blockchain industry, and Cardano benefits from having world-class researchers working on difficult problems such as scalability, cryptography, and protocol design.
However, survival alone is not enough. Cardano is no longer in the top 10 by market capitalization, and the ecosystem continues to face challenges in adoption, liquidity, and user growth. That should force us to think more carefully about capital allocation. We must continue funding critical research, but we also need to recognize that part of the treasury must be directed toward adoption, growth, and ecosystem expansion if Cardano wants to become competitive again.
Respecting Cardano’s research culture does not mean approving every research budget request without strong prioritization, especially in the context of the current Intersect budget cycle, where 69 proposals are competing for limited treasury resources.
The biggest issue with this proposal is that it bundles too many independent research agendas into a single treasury withdrawal.
This proposal includes research across post-quantum cryptography, Leios optimization, sharding, zero-knowledge infrastructure, bridge security, atomic swaps, governance incentives, proof-of-personhood, decentralized identity, light clients, Babel fee markets, Proof-of-Useful-Work, and many other areas.
Some of these research areas are highly valuable and should likely be prioritized this year. I believe post-quantum research, Leios-related research, and potentially sharding research are strategically important for Cardano’s long-term competitiveness.
However, other areas feel less urgent and could be postponed to future budget cycles, including bridge research, atomic swaps, light client architecture, next-generation fee market design, and several others.
Bundling all of these topics together creates a governance problem. DReps may strongly support some research areas while disagreeing with others, yet they are forced into a single yes-or-no decision. This reduces treasury precision and makes proper prioritization far more difficult.
Some research areas also appear weakly connected to Cardano’s immediate needs.
For example, Proof-of-Useful-Work feels highly experimental and currently has unclear implementation pathways for Cardano. It may eventually become useful, but it does not feel urgent relative to more immediate scaling, adoption, and ecosystem priorities.
Similarly, Zero-Knowledge research is clearly valuable for Cardano, but it may also directly benefit Midnight. I would prefer clearer cost allocation where Midnight contributes to research that may materially support its own long-term business model. I would be far more comfortable if ZK-related research costs were shared rather than fully funded by the Cardano treasury.
The governance section is another concern.
IO previously received funding through the Beyond Minimum Viable Governance initiative. Before approving another round of governance research, I would like clearer visibility into what was achieved, what was implemented, and what measurable improvements resulted from that funding.
The concentration of voting power is already a real issue today. We need practical solutions in the near term, not only additional long-term governance research. If more research is required, there should also be a clear roadmap for temporary improvements while longer-term solutions are being developed.
There are already several independent governance improvement initiatives emerging across the community. Many DReps are actively discussing concentration risks, participation incentives, delegation models, budget reforms, and operational improvements. IO should actively collaborate with these community members and incorporate their real-world governance experience rather than conducting research in isolation. Governance cannot be improved through academic modelling alone. A single annual questionnaire or limited consultation is not sufficient input for designing governance systems that affect the entire ecosystem. More direct collaboration with active DReps and governance participants is necessary.
Treasury prioritization is also a major factor in my decision.
Teams are currently requesting approximately ₳700M in total funding. This proposal alone asks for nearly 10% of the Net Change Limit.
I already supported IO’s maintenance proposal for ₳62,134,630 because maintaining the core network is essential.
At this point, I am no longer comfortable approving another large bundled proposal that combines multiple research agendas under a single budget request.
The ecosystem urgently needs funding for adoption, growth, and independent teams building on Cardano. Treasury resources should not become overly concentrated within a single organization.
The Net Change Limit is set at ₳350M. I struggle to approve nearly ₳200M to IO across multiple proposals without significantly stronger prioritization. That may help ensure IO’s stability, but the broader ecosystem could suffer from underinvestment.
DReps need to make difficult choices and focus on what Cardano absolutely needs over the next year.
For these reasons, I voted NO. I would prefer to see this proposal unbundled and resubmitted as separate research proposals. If Midnight materially benefits from some of this research, the Midnight Treasury should also participate in funding it.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp - Yes 92.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8M ₳ Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES on Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post-Quantum Secure — IO Research.
Governance Action ID: gov_action1ttgs45ulfxs0jwkfrecystc3flduhszmyzk8wnd7yw5za77tsg9qq4afmus
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): 5ad10ad39f49a0f93ac91e70482f114fdbcbc05b20ac774dbe23a82efbcb820a#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-01Cardano Vision 2026 (CV26) is IO Research's end-to-end research-to-deployment programme for Cardano's 2030 objectives, building on CV25, which delivered approximately 20% above target. It funds a nine-partner R&D consortium — including the Universities of Edinburgh, Tokyo, Oxford, and Buenos Aires alongside ecosystem contributors such as Eryx — comprising 36 FTEs under the scientific leadership of Aggelos Kiayias. The programme is organised into seven work packages and delivers 42 outputs across the innovation pipeline: 38 papers and technical reports, 8 Cardano Problem Statements, 12 prototypes, and 5 Cardano Improvement Proposals. Its three cross-cutting themes — human-centred design (developer experience, SPO incentive alignment, minUTXO), scalability (Leios/Peras integration, L2 execution, and ZK-enabled scaling), and post-quantum security — are precisely the foundational capabilities SIPO prioritises for the maturation of Cardano's core infrastructure and its connection to next-generation cryptography.
SIPO has consistently supported well-governed core infrastructure: Amaru and Dingo under SIPO's node-diversity doctrine, the browser / light node (Gerolamo), the IO-led core-protocol round, Blockfrost, and Pogun. In May 2026 SIPO supported the IO-led implementation initiatives — consensus (Leios), L2 scalability, developer experience, Plutus, and the Cardano upgrades / Babel fee work. CV26 is the upstream research engine that feeds those very initiatives: foundational science and Cardano Improvement Proposals flow downstream into mainnet implementation. Funding the implementation while withholding the research that underpins it would be inconsistent with that posture. This is public-goods research that cannot reasonably be self-funded, and a university-led consortium is uniquely positioned to deliver it.
Disbursement is de-risked to the same standard SIPO has previously endorsed. Funds are administered on-chain through the audited SundaeLabs treasury smart-contract framework (audited by TxPipe and MLabs) — a Treasury Reserve Smart Contract with project-specific contracts managed by Intersect — and released in four equal 25% tranches subject to milestone acceptance attested to Intersect or a third-party assurer. An independent five-member Oversight Committee (Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, Xerberus, and NMKR) verifies key administrative actions, and any funds not disbursed are returned to the Treasury proportionally on partial delivery or scope reduction. On-chain verification confirms the withdrawal recipient is a script credential rather than a single key, placing CV26 in the same on-chain-enforced escrow class as the IO, Tweag, and Gerolamo work SIPO has supported. This structure directly addresses the indirect-KPI risk inherent in research funding: the ₳32,916,000 is a milestone-gated ceiling with proportional clawback to the Treasury, not an unconditional payment.
SIPO recently abstained on the Tweag core-infrastructure withdrawal for two reasons: its scale relative to the Net Change Limit, and an unsettled funding-responsibility split for a parallel direct draw alongside IO's core-protocol leadership. The second reason does not apply here — CV26 is IO Research's own clearly-scoped research mandate, with no role-allocation ambiguity. On scale, SIPO recognises that CV26 is the second-largest live treasury withdrawal and that, together with Tweag, it represents roughly half of SIPO's estimated remaining Net Change Limit, with IO's cumulative 2026 footprint the largest of any single entity; SIPO will continue to monitor the combined NCL footprint across the 2026 portfolio. On balance, the milestone-gated escrow with proportional refund keeps the headline figure a disciplined ceiling, and the strategic value of a research-to-deployment pipeline for security, scaling, and post-quantum readiness justifies support. SIPO therefore votes YES, with the following expectations: (1) a clear delineation between CV26's Leios/Peras research and Tweag's Peras mainnet implementation to avoid duplicated funding; (2) clarity on whether CV26's post-quantum and ZK research subsumes or complements the related Intersect-side cryptography proposals; (3) delivery of the committed quarterly updates, bi-annual Intersect reporting, and a year-end financial breakdown; and (4) proportional return to the Treasury of funds for any undelivered or reduced scope. SIPO's support is not unconditional approval of every line item but an endorsement of well-governed, milestone-gated core research. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRepとして、本提案「Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post-Quantum Secure — IO Research」に賛成（YES）を投じます。
Governance Action ID: gov_action1ttgs45ulfxs0jwkfrecystc3flduhszmyzk8wnd7yw5za77tsg9qq4afmus
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): 5ad10ad39f49a0f93ac91e70482f114fdbcbc05b20ac774dbe23a82efbcb820a#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-01Cardano Vision 2026（CV26）は、IO Research による Cardano の 2030 年目標に向けた研究→実装の一貫パイプラインであり、目標を約 20% 上回って実行された CV25 の継続です。エディンバラ・東京・オックスフォード・ブエノスアイレスの各大学に Eryx などのエコシステム貢献者を加えた 9 機関の R&D コンソーシアム（Aggelos Kiayias の科学的統括の下、計 36 FTE）が担います。7 つのワークパッケージで構成され、イノベーションパイプライン全体で 42 の成果物（38 本の論文・技術レポート、8 件の Cardano Problem Statement、12 件のプロトタイプ、5 件の Cardano Improvement Proposal）を提供します。3 つの横断テーマ — human-centred design（開発者体験・SPO インセンティブ整合・minUTXO）、スケーラビリティ（Leios/Peras 統合・L2 実行・ZK スケーリング）、ポスト量子セキュリティ — は、Cardano のコア基盤の成熟と次世代暗号への接続のために SIPO が優先する基盤的能力そのものです。
SIPO は、適切にガバナンスされたコア基盤に一貫して賛成してきました：node 多様性ドクトリンの下での Amaru・Dingo、ブラウザ／軽量ノード（Gerolamo）、IO 主導のコアプロトコルラウンド、Blockfrost、Pogun です。2026 年 5 月には、IO 主導の実装イニシアチブ — コンセンサス（Leios）・L2 スケーラビリティ・開発者体験・Plutus・Cardano upgrades / Babel fee — を支持しました。CV26 はそれらのイニシアチブに供給される上流の研究エンジンであり、基礎科学と Cardano Improvement Proposal が下流のメインネット実装へと流れていきます。実装を資金化しながら、その土台となる研究を支えないことは、この姿勢と整合しません。これは自己資金で賄うことが現実的でない公共財としての研究であり、大学主導のコンソーシアムはそれを担うのに適した主体です。
資金配分は、SIPO が従来承認してきたのと同一の標準で de-risk されています。資金は、監査済みの SundaeLabs トレジャリスマートコントラクトフレームワーク（TxPipe・MLabs による監査済み）— Intersect が管理する Treasury Reserve Smart Contract とプロジェクト固有のコントラクト — を通じてオンチェーンで管理され、Intersect または第三者検収者へのマイルストーン検収を条件に、25% ずつ 4 トランシェで解放されます。5 社からなる独立した Oversight Committee（Sundae Labs・Cardano Foundation・Dquadrant・Xerberus・NMKR）が主要な管理アクションを検証し、未配分の資金は部分履行・スコープ縮小時に比例して Treasury へ返還されます。オンチェーン検証により、引き出し先が単一鍵ではなく script credential であることを確認しており、CV26 は SIPO が支持してきた IO・Tweag・Gerolamo と同じオンチェーン強制の escrow クラスに属します。この構造は、研究資金に内在する KPI の間接性のリスクに直接対応します：₳32,916,000 は Treasury への比例返還を伴うマイルストーン解放の上限であって、無条件の支払いではありません。
SIPO は先に、Tweag のコア基盤引き出しに対して 2 つの理由から棄権しました：Net Change Limit に対する規模と、IO がコアプロトコルを leading and funding する中での並行直接引き出しの資金責任分担が未確定であることです。後者は本件には当てはまりません — CV26 は IO Research 自身の明確にスコープされた研究マンデートであり、役割分担の曖昧さはありません。規模については、CV26 が現行ライブで 2 番目に大きいトレジャリー引き出しであり、Tweag と合わせると SIPO の推定残り Net Change Limit の約半分を占め、IO の 2026 年累計フットプリントが単一エンティティとして最大であることを SIPO は認識しています。SIPO は 2026 年ポートフォリオ全体の NCL フットプリントを引き続き注視します。総合的には、比例返還を伴うマイルストーン解放の escrow が表面額を規律ある上限に保ち、セキュリティ・スケーリング・ポスト量子耐性に資する研究→実装パイプラインの戦略的価値が支持を正当化します。したがって SIPO は、以下の期待事項とともに賛成を投じます：(1) 二重資金を避けるための、CV26 の Leios/Peras 研究と Tweag の Peras メインネット実装の明確な切り分け、(2) CV26 のポスト量子・ZK 研究が関連する Intersect 側の暗号提案を包含するのか補完するのかの明確化、(3) コミットされた四半期更新・半期 Intersect 報告・年末の財務内訳の提供、(4) 未履行・縮小スコープ分の Treasury への比例返還。SIPO の支持は全項目の無条件承認ではなく、適切にガバナンスされたマイルストーン解放型のコア研究への支持です。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes 89.3M ₳ Rationale
This is easy. Does Cardano want post-quantum security? Does Cardano want the University of Edinburgh, Tokyo Tech, Oxford, the University of Buenos Aires, et al. involved in building that post-quantum future for Cardano? Yes, please!
- Yes 89.2M ₳ Rationale
We must never stop conducting research by IO Research. Technology evolves daily, and sufficient research is necessary to address scalability challenges and threats from quantum computers.
- Abstain 77.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 76.1M ₳ Rationale
We need to stay at the forefront of innovation.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
yes
- Yes 74.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 71.3M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES. I value Cardano's research-led engineering approach, which heavily drives my and my delegators' interest in this blockchain. I am proud to support the continuation of this vital work. I would like to see ways of working pivot toward a modernized engineering approach.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am formally registering a YES vote on the Cardano Vision 2026 treasury withdrawal request.
I have always deeply valued the research-led engineering approach that defines Cardano. It is a foundational characteristic that personally interested me in this blockchain, and I am confident it did the same for many of my delegators. I am highly supportive of this scientific foundation and believe it is an avenue we must continue to fund, provided the blockchain's financial cost permits. I deliberately chose to wait to vote on this proposal until I could thoroughly evaluate its scope and make an informed decision in an extremely challenging market.
Going forward, however, I would like to see the programmatic direction pivot slightly into a more streamlined, coordinated effort. We need a tighter pipeline where foundational research rapidly drives functional proof of concepts, allowing the ecosystem to evaluate whether a theory is genuinely feasible from an operational perspective. This approach will allow us to iterate faster and explore the practical realities of what is being researched. In a governance-led funding model, we cannot afford to deliver pure research and then wait years for its practical engineering execution, as this impacts our ability to compete.
Given the fierce competition in the broader layer-1 landscape, I would love to see the ways of working improved and adapted to a more modernized, agile engineering approach. This would not only allow the community to see tangible value from our research investments sooner, but it would also improve the final technical outputs by accounting for real-life operational scenarios that formal mathematical models might overlook. Furthermore, I believe a great improvement for future iterations would be giving the community a voice or a structured set of options to help dictate the directional focus of the research. I have also provided this feedback prior to this vote, and I believe it was well received.
Ultimately, I want to credit all of the incredible academic and technical contributions made to Cardano's research over the years. This scientific rigor is what sets us apart, and I am excited to support its continuation through this proposal.
- Yes 70.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 68M ₳ Rationale
After deep consideration, I have decided to change my position from ABSTAIN to YES on this proposal.
My previous concerns regarding the size and structure of this proposal have not completely disappeared. I still believe Cardano governance must continue improving how large Treasury proposals are structured, prioritized, and evaluated.
However, after carefully reviewing the proposal itself and thinking deeply about what is truly at stake here, I have come to believe that this proposal is about something much larger than a research budget.
This proposal is about whether Cardano intends to preserve one of the few things that truly makes it different.
Research is not simply an academic exercise within Cardano.
Research is one of Cardano’s core competitive advantages.
Cardano was not built purely through short-term market cycles, hype, or rapid experimentation. Its foundations — Ouroboros, formal methods, protocol security, scalability architecture, cryptographic research, and long-term resilience — were built through more than a decade of peer-reviewed science, mathematics, engineering discipline, and research culture.
This is one of the main reasons Cardano has historically differentiated itself from many other blockchain ecosystems.
As stated throughout the proposal itself, research strengthens security and trust, creates innovation that is difficult to replicate, and builds the foundations that allow future innovation to happen faster.
In other words, research is not separate from growth.
Research is part of the reason Cardano can continue growing in the long term.
I also believe many people underestimate what Cardano’s research ecosystem actually is.
This is not simply a case of a company hiring researchers.
This is a global research network involving institutions such as the University of Edinburgh, Oxford, Tokyo Institute of Science, UC Berkeley, the University of Sydney, and many others, alongside one of the strongest blockchain research organizations in the world under the leadership of Professor Aggelos Kiayias.
More importantly, this ecosystem was not built in a year.
It was built over more than a decade through scientific collaboration, cryptographic research, formal methods, engineering coordination, academic credibility, and long-term accumulation of knowledge and talent.
That kind of foundation is extremely difficult to recreate once lost.
And honestly, I believe this lack of reproducibility is itself part of Cardano’s long-term advantage.
I also understand why Charles Hoskinson expressed such a strong sense of urgency regarding this proposal.
I do not believe he is simply trying to protect a research budget.
I believe he genuinely sees this research ecosystem as one of Cardano’s most valuable strategic assets — something that cannot easily be rebuilt once weakened or destroyed.
Because of that, I understand why he views the possible collapse of this research foundation as a serious long-term risk for Cardano itself.
What concerns me is not short-term price action or temporary development delays.
What concerns me is the possibility of Cardano gradually losing the very thing that has allowed it to stand apart from other chains for so many years.
If Cardano loses its research foundation, scientific culture, and ability to produce deep protocol innovation, then over time it risks becoming just another blockchain competing mainly through narratives, marketing, and short-term momentum.
And personally, I do not believe that is what Cardano was meant to become.
Of course, there will continue to be debates regarding governance, Treasury spending, accountability, and prioritization. Those discussions are important and healthy for the ecosystem.
But after weighing both the concerns and the long-term consequences carefully, I have concluded that preserving Cardano’s research foundation is strategically more important at this stage.
For these reasons, I have decided to vote YES.
深く検討を重ねた結果、今回の提案について、僕はABSTAINからYESへと判断を変更することにしました。
まず前提として、以前感じていた懸念が完全になくなったわけではありません。
今回の提案は依然として規模が大きく、今後のCardanoガバナンスにおいて、Treasury提案の構造や優先順位、評価方法については、さらに成熟していく必要があると考えています。
しかし、その上で今回改めて強く感じたのは、この提案は単なる「研究予算」の話ではないということです。
これは、Cardanoが本当に大切なものを守るのかどうかという話だと思っています。
研究は、Cardanoにおける単なる学術活動ではありません。
研究こそが、Cardanoの競争優位性の一つです。
Cardanoは、短期的な流行や勢いだけで作られてきたチェーンではありません。
Ouroboros、形式手法、暗号研究、スケーラビリティ設計、プロトコルセキュリティ、長期的なアーキテクチャ思想など、Cardanoの土台そのものが、10年以上にわたる査読研究、数学、暗号学、科学的厳密性、そして積み重ねられた研究文化によって形成されてきました。
これは、他チェーンと比較した際のCardanoの重要な差別化要因でもあります。
今回の提案文でも繰り返し語られている通り、研究は、セキュリティと信頼を生み出し、他チェーンが簡単には再現できないイノベーションを生み出し、そして未来の成長を可能にする基盤そのものとして位置付けられています。
つまり、研究はエコシステム成長と切り離された存在ではありません。
研究そのものが、Cardanoの長期的成長を支えるエンジンの一部だと考えています。
そして僕は、多くの人が「Cardanoの研究基盤そのもの」の価値を軽視しているようにも感じています。
これは、単に企業が研究者を集めているというレベルの話ではありません。
今回の提案には、エディンバラ大学、オックスフォード大学、東京科学大学、UCバークレー、シドニー大学など、世界トップクラスの研究機関が関わっています。
さらに、Ouroborosの設計者でもあるAggelos Kiayias氏率いる、世界最高峰クラスのブロックチェーン研究組織が中心となっています。
そして何より重要なのは、この研究基盤は1〜2年で作られたものではないということです。
10年以上にわたり、暗号研究、形式手法、査読文化、研究者ネットワーク、エンジニアリング連携、科学的信頼性を積み重ねながら形成されてきた巨大な研究エコシステムです。
これは、一度失われたら簡単に再構築できるものではありません。
むしろ、この「再現性の低さ」そのものが、Cardanoの長期的な強みなのではないかと感じています。
また、今回Charles Hoskinsonがここまで強い危機感を示した理由についても、僕は一定の理解と共感をしています。
Charlesは単に「研究予算を守りたい」と言っているわけではありません。
彼は、この研究基盤そのものが、Cardano最大級の戦略的価値であり、他チェーンが簡単には再現できない本質的な差別化だと考えているからこそ、ここまで強い発言をしているのだと思います。
だからこそ、「もしここで研究基盤を失えば、後から取り戻すことは現実的ではない」という問題提起をしているのだと、僕は理解しています。
そして僕が今回本当に危機感を感じているのは、短期的な価格や一時的な開発遅延ではありません。
Cardanoが長年かけて築いてきた、「他チェーンと本質的に違う部分」を、少しずつ失っていくことです。
もしCardanoが、研究基盤、科学文化、深いプロトコル研究を失ってしまえば、長期的には、マーケティングや短期的な勢いだけで競争する、他チェーンと変わらない存在になってしまう可能性があります。
そして個人的に、僕はCardanoがそうなるべきチェーンだとは思っていません。
もちろん、ガバナンスやTreasury支出についての議論は、今後も続いていくと思いますし、それ自体は健全なことだと思っています。
しかし、その上で今回、長期的な影響まで含めて慎重に考えた結果、現時点ではCardanoの研究基盤を維持することの方が、より戦略的に重要だと判断しました。
そのため、今回の提案についてはYESで投票することを決定しました。
- Yes 65.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 62.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes on the Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research proposal.
When I previously voted in favor of Enhancing Plutus and High Assurance, I framed Cardano's core differentiator as the structural security advantage of the eUTxO model and declarative validation. This proposal extends that strength to defend against future threats such as quantum computing proactively, while preserving Cardano's research-driven identity.
In an era where AI-driven automated exploits are accelerating, the migration toward quantum-resistant cryptographic primitives is a protocol-layer effort to secure long-term resilience. It is also the research foundation that directly connects to the scaling directions I previously supported, including Leios, Peras, and ZK-based L2.
I also pay attention to the consortium structure of this proposal. IOR is not carrying this out alone. Nine partners are participating together, including leading universities such as Edinburgh, Oxford, and the Institute of Science Tokyo, alongside specialised contributors. This aligns with the direction of reducing single-org dependency on IOG that I emphasized in previous votes, and with the decentralization direction of IO's 2030 Vision. It also expands Cardano's original academic identity into a broader global research network.
The overall direction of this proposal, securing protocol-layer long-term resilience and reducing IOG dependency through a global partner structure, is in my view essential work for Cardano to prove its differentiated value at the next stage. For these reasons, I am voting Yes.
- Yes 51.1M ₳ Rationale
We are at a critical time, and Cardano must continue to separate itself from the rest of crypto through its greatest long-term strength: research and technology.
- Yes 50.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 49.8M ₳ Rationale
I believe all of the research areas outlined in this proposal are needed as soon as possible. It is very unfortunate that we only have one company working on them and no real competition here.
- Yes 49.7M ₳ Rationale
I vote Yes on the governance action "Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research", with the caveats noted below.
This proposal is evaluated as a Treasury Withdrawal under Tier 2c (Academic Research and Foundational Studies) of my voting framework v1.1. Implementation work is clearly designated as out of scope and is fully separated from implementation proposals. The research outputs are structured as knowledge artifacts, with a commitment to deliver 38 papers, 8 CPS, 12 prototypes, and 5 CIPs.
Tier 2c requirements evaluation:- Research Purpose: Met. All workstreams directly relate to Cardano's protocol, ecosystem, and user experience.
- Periodic Budget Cycle: Met. The program operates on an annual cycle with milestone-based tranches, and each cycle requires a new governance action.
- Renewal Requires Demonstrated Value: Met. CV25 produced 24 peer-reviewed papers (exceeding the target by 20%), including formal proofs of Leios and Peras (Crypto '25), the Cavefish light client, Shapley-based reward mechanisms, AGATE/UC-SNARKs, and prototype-ready innovations such as Phalanx, Jolteon, and RSnarks. These represent not merely formal compliance but research that can be reasonably expected to translate into Cardano ecosystem implementation.
- Budget Justification: Partially met. Full-time allocation and per-person cost ($219.5k/year) are provided, and these figures show reasonable alignment with academic industry standards. However, direct comparison with prior cycles is limited, and the 49% execution rate of the prior IOE allocation warrants attention in future evaluations.
- Research-Implementation Separation: Met. As noted above, explicit "Out of scope" demarcations clearly separate research from implementation, with implementation funded through distinct proposals.
Strategic considerations: Basic research is a typical market failure area, and Cardano's research-driven differentiation is difficult to replicate through market funding. The IOR consortium led by Aggelos Kiayias represents a research network built over many years that cannot be reconstituted at will. This investment remains within my annual personal funding cap (current cumulative total is within limits).
Caveats for future iterations: CV27 and beyond should be evaluated with stricter scrutiny on execution rates of prior cycles. Regarding competitive processes for research funding, while recognizing IOR's current first-mover position, the continuation of research funding and the prevention of monopolistic concentration remain issues that require ongoing attention. The discipline of separation between research and implementation must be maintained, and the mixture of applied engineering (ARC) and pure research requires continuous review and evaluation. With these caveats explicitly noted, I vote Yes.
Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/
[Japanese version follows]
私は、ガバナンスアクション「Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research」に対して、留保条件を付したうえでYesを投じます。
本提案は、私の投票フレームワークv1.1におけるTier 2c（学術研究・基礎研究）に該当するTreasury Withdrawalと判断されます。研究成果の実装作業は明確に対象外として区別されており、実装提案とは完全に分離されています。研究成果は知識成果物として構成されており、38の論文、8のCPS、12のプロトタイプ、5のCIPを提出することが宣言されています。
Tier 2c要件の評価としては、 - 研究目的: 該当。すべてのワークストリームがCardanoのプロトコル、エコシステム、ユーザー体験に直接関連します。
- 定期的な予算サイクル: 該当。年次プログラムであり、マイルストーンベースの分割払い、各サイクルごとに新規ガバナンスアクションが必要です。
- 継続には実質的な価値の証明が必要: 該当。CV25は24本の査読済み論文を発表しており（目標を20%上回る）、LeiosとPerasの形式的証明（Crypto '25）、Cavefishライトクライアント、Shapleyベースの報酬メカニズム、AGATE/UC-SNARKs、プロトタイプ準備された革新（Phalanx、Jolteon、RSnarks）などが含まれています。これらは形式的な達成だけでなく、カルダノエコシステムにおける実装が期待される研究であると評価できます。
- 予算の妥当性: 部分的に該当。フルタイム配分と一人当たりコスト（$219.5k/年）が提供されており、学術業界の標準として一定の妥当性があると考えられます。ただし、過去サイクルとの直接的な比較は限定的であり、IOE割り当ての49%という執行率は、今後の評価において注目する必要があるでしょう。
- 研究と実装の分離: 該当。前述のとおり、明示的な「Out of scope」記述により、研究と実装が明確に分離されており、実装は別途の提案で資金提供されることが宣言されています。
戦略的な考察: 基礎研究は典型的な「市場の失敗」領域であり、カルダノにおけるresearch-drivenな差別化は、市場資金での代替は難しいと考えられます。Aggelos Kiayias氏が率いるIORコンソーシアムは、長年かけて構築された研究ネットワークであり、任意に再構成することはできません。本投資は私の年間予算上限内に収まっています（現在の累計は上限内）。
今後に向けた留保条件として: CV27以降は、過去サイクルの執行率に対する、より厳格な精査が必要です。研究資金における競争的プロセスは、IORの現在のファーストムーバー的な位置を認識したうえで、研究の継続や資金の独占防止などは、今後も注視していかなくてはいけない課題と考えています。研究と実装の境界の規律は維持されなければならず、応用工学（ARC）と純粋研究の混在については、継続的な審査・評価が必要です。
これらの留保条件を明記したうえで、Yesを投じます。
参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Yes 42.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 42.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 40M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 38.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 34.4M ₳ Rationale
3,200万ADAという規模は、現在の40円という価格ではトレジャリーへの負担が非常に重いです。IOGは2026年予算を前年比で半減させていますが、それでもなお高額です。すでに確立されているLeiosなどの重要技術に絞り、耐量子セキュリティなどの今すぐでなくても良い研究を削った縮小版を再提示させるべき。しかし、CV26がなければ、Cardanoは数年後に古臭い、拡張性のないチェーンとして淘汰されるリスクを抱える可能性がある為に再検討をしてほしいですね。
- Yes 34.3M ₳ Rationale
Socious votes Yes. Cardano Vision 2026 is a 32,916,000 ADA (about $7.9M) research programme funding the front of Cardano's innovation pipeline: 42 planned outputs across papers, problem statements, prototypes, and CIPs, delivered by a nine-partner consortium of 36 researchers under Aggelos Kiayias.
Research is where Cardano's long-term advantage compounds. The post-quantum workstream is long-horizon insurance almost no other chain funds seriously; the human-centred and scalability tracks feed directly into protocol roadmaps that the engineering proposals later turn into shipped features. Defunding the upstream stage of that pipeline to save against a single budget cycle would be a short-sighted economy.
The proposal also brings the structural elements Socious looks for at this scale: a named principal investigator with a long track record on Cardano, a distributed academic consortium rather than a single dependency, an explicit prior cycle (CV25) to compare against, and Intersect-administered milestone disbursement with unspent balances returned to the Treasury. The reasonable concern about a research line item this large is assessment difficulty, not direction — and on balance Socious believes the right answer is to fund it and tighten the reporting and independent evaluation of CV26 outputs as the work proceeds, rather than to withhold support for the research mission itself.
ソーシャスは賛成票を投じます。Cardano Vision 2026は32,916,000 ADA（約790万ドル）の研究プログラムで、Cardanoのイノベーション・パイプラインの入り口を担います。資金は、論文、課題提起、試作、CIPにわたる42件の成果に充てられ、Aggelos Kiayiasのもと、9つのパートナーからなる連合体の36名の研究者が実施します。
研究はCardanoの長期的な優位性が積み上がる場です。ポスト量子のワークストリームは、他のほとんどのチェーンが本気で資金を投じていない長期的な備えであり、ヒューマンセンタードとスケーラビリティの研究は、後にエンジニアリング提案が実装機能として世に出す土台となります。単一の予算サイクルの節約のためにこの上流を細らせることは、目先しか見ない判断です。
提案の構造面もソーシャスが本規模で求める要件を満たしています。Cardanoでの長い実績を持つ主任研究者が名指しで責任を負い、依存先が一点に集中しない学術連合体の体制をとり、比較対象となる前サイクル（CV25）を明示し、資金はIntersectがマイルストーンに基づき管理して未使用分はトレジャリーへ返還します。これだけの規模の研究費に対する正当な懸念は、評価のしにくさであって方向性ではありません。総じて、研究という使命そのものへの支持を留保するのではなく、まず資金を付け、その上でCV26の成果に対する報告と独立評価をより厳格に求めていくことが、適切な判断だと考えます。
- Yes 31.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 31M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES.
This proposal supports several research areas that are essential for Cardano’s long‑term evolution, including PQ security, ZK, L2 scalability, and governance.
While some components align with existing research roadmaps, I view this as additional resourcing to maintain and accelerate the pace of critical research, which is important for Cardano’s future competitiveness.
I look forward to continued improvements in transparency and progress reporting as the work advances. - Yes 30.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 28.2M ₳ Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal as submitted. I want to be clear that this is not a vote against IO Research or against research in general. I think several parts of this proposal are valuable, especially post-quantum readiness and some of the governance and identity workstreams. Cardano’s research foundation is one of its biggest strengths and I do not want to throw that away or see our expert researchers laid off.
That said, I am not convinced this is the right treasury allocation right now. The ask is very large, and the proposal covers many different workstreams with very different levels of urgency, clarity, and practical connection to implementation. Some of the work seems important, but some of it feels less clearly justified at this stage, especially given the current NCL environment and the number of competing priorities already in front of the treasury.
My biggest concern is the gap between research and deployed implementations. The proposal itself points out that IO Research has produced a very large body of work, but only a minority of that work has made it into Cardano. And of the research we've actually implemented, we've often neglected to follow through, instead letting the blockchain network drift into a very rough state by many different metrics. In my view, that is the central issue. Cardano needs to do a better job turning the research we already have into practical application and execution.
I would be much more comfortable supporting targeted follow-up proposals that make the highest-priority parts of this work easier to evaluate on their own merits and that show a clearer path from research to implementation. I am especially open to future proposals around post-quantum security and other workstreams where the urgency and practical path are clearer.
For these reasons, I am voting NO on this proposal. I appreciate the work and the people involved, but I do not believe this proposal, at this size and in this form, is the best use of treasury funds right now.
- Yes 27.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 27.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 26.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 25.9M ₳ Rationale
The budget requested for this proposal is too large. Cardano does not have unlimited funds to support every initiative at this scale.
Last year, around $10M was allocated to Input Output Global for research. To my knowledge, there have been no visible publications or outcomes directly tied to that funding. While research naturally takes time, it should remain focused on:
What the ecosystem actually needs and wants
What is critical for scaling, improving security, or supporting buildersI also raised last year that some research areas should not be bundled together. The seven proposed areas should be separated into seven individual votes, since they do not all carry the same importance or urgency.
- Yes 25.2M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on supporting the Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research proposal. The research and output scope is broad such that we will receive many outputs from funding this reserarch. Aligning for quantum resistance is critical. \n
I would have prefered IOR engage the community to align strategy, as much research is not exactly relevant near term given the current economic landscape of the Cardano ecosystem. Research initiatives should be driven by specific demand and linked to specific market requirements or/or risk mitigations and timelines of relevant market scope potentcy/applicability. Strategy matters a great deal and I feel like IOR could have done a much better job at engaging the community there. - Abstain 22.7M ₳ Rationale
Research is what makes Cardano unique. I have applied for Blink Labs to be a partner in this, so I am abstaining.
- Yes 22M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 21.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 20.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 19.9M ₳ Rationale
This has been a tough "YES" vote for me, due to the high cost.
Cardano is build upon strong fundamentals of academic research and we shouldn't stop academic research to further the protocol, just because of a bear market.
The broad area of work around the Cardano Vision 2026 scope Human-centred design, Scalability and Post-quantum security remain important and Cardano should keep at the forefront through best-in-class academic rigour. - Yes 17.1M ₳ Rationale
Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research
- No 16.7M ₳ Rationale
We recognize the value of Cardano’s research culture and the importance of topics such as post-quantum security, scalability, ZK, incentives, governance, identity, and human-centred design. However, this proposal, with its accountability structure, is not strong enough for a withdrawal of this size.
The main issue is not whether the research topics are useful. The issue is whether this should be funded as one large treasury withdrawal. The proposal bundles many strategic domains together and overlaps with core roadmap areas and other IO-led workstreams, including scaling, Leios/Peras, L2/ZK, Babel fees, governance, and protocol evolution. These are areas where founding entities were expected to use their long-standing resources to advance the core roadmap, rather than treating the treasury as the default continuation fund.
We would be open to a revised version that separates the highest-priority research streams, reduces bundling, adds stronger price discovery, and ties funding to clearer acceptance evidence and downstream Cardano value. As submitted, we cannot support this withdrawal.