Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund
152 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.5M ₳ Rationale
I'm impressed with how Samiz (Draper) has helped bring the Orion Fund proposal to Cardano. This is not an easy initiative - it has real challenges around regulation, compliance, structure and coordination
I'll be honest: I was skeptical at first. But Samiz has been willing to engage directly and answer the tough questions that were raised with clear, confident explanations.
A few key clarifications Samiz has shared that mattered to me:
'Cardano-integrated' - will be tied to measurable KPIs like TVL, on-chain transactions and real usage on Cardano (not just "we support multiple chains"). He states that projects coming to Cardano will have meaningful KPIs that they have to bring, not sure we support Cardano.
Cardano ecosystem dApps will be contacted soon - outreach and pipeline building will be actively pursued. This has not happened yet. My vote is a Yes because of above 2 points and how they were answered by Samiz
Overall: the proposal is solid. It introduces a more institutional-style capital deployment model, aims to generate ROI back to the Treasury and commits to tracking ecosystem outcomes via on-chain/ecosystem metrics (TVL, liquidity, users, transactions..etc)
For those reasons, I'll be voting Yes on this proposal.
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
本提案は、Cardanoエコシステムの成長を目的とした段階的な資金配分の初回トランシェであり、将来のガバナンスアクションによって継続可否を判断できる設計となっている点を評価します。このような構造により、段階的に進めることが可能であると考え、まずは限定的な範囲として本提案を承認することが妥当であると判断し、賛成します。\n\nI vote Yes on this proposal. It represents the first tranche of a phased funding approach aimed at supporting the growth of the Cardano ecosystem. I value that future continuation is subject to subsequent governance actions, allowing for incremental decision-making. Given this structure, I consider it reasonable to approve this proposal as an initial and limited step.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.1M ₳ Rationale
Treasury capital should only fund investment vehicles that are clearly defined, independently validated, and structurally simple enough for the community to evaluate. Valiant effort by the Cardano Foundation to structure an ecosystem investment fund. I am voting NO on this proposal for several reasons. I feel more confident voting YES on proposals that are more risky - if I feel that they are air tight and scoped well. So, language matters too. Specifically, I know what is a Cardano-native company ... but I don't know what is a Cardano-integrated company. The proposal wants to support both Cardano-native and Cardano-integrated companies. The latter is such a loose term that it means very little. A company that mints one Cardano NFT collection, for example? Or will a selected company do a token Cardano NFT mint just to get some funding from the Cardano treasury? I don't know. If I don't know, I would then go for Cardano native companies. Next. The fund aims to return capital to the Treasury and external limited partners. The target is around 3x gross multiple on invested capital and a 25%+ internal rate of return. This goal is benchmarked to institutional crypto VC funds. So, lets be real - those targets are not impossible, but Orion Fund is very ecosystem-constrained, has a very volatile treasury backing, Cardano political risk, and is also expected to fund broader ecosystem support, this stated return looks very unrealistic. The Orion Fund is also only seeking at least $5M of outside LP capital in the broader framing. THis is not the kind of external validation that would make me confident this will behave like a top-tier VC vehicle. The strongest likely outcome is some ecosystem stimulation. The proposal combines several different uses of capital inside one vehicle. Direct startup investments sit alongside venture studio activity, accelerator programs, exchange listings, integrations, post-investment portfolio support, governance, and community tooling . These activities serve different purposes and carry very different risk profiles. When they are bundled together, it becomes difficult to evaluate performance. The part that I find most believable in this proposal is its ambition to build a stronger founder and talent pipeline for Cardano. That is much closer to what Draper/DU are visibly set up to do than, say, turning Cardano into the dominant institutional chain. It is not me who said that - the proposal does claim its goal is "establishing Cardano as the leading institutionally adopted blockchain". Success metrics are also too soft. TVL growth, developer activity, and ecosystem visibility. Treasury-backed capital should prioritize harder outcomes: sustainable protocol revenue, externally led follow-on investment, and audited capital returned to the Treasury. I think this proposal has a low chance of achieving its headline financial and strategic claims at the level implied by the pitch. Approving the first tranche effectively commits the community to the legal structure, governance model, and management approach of the fund. Why? Because sunk cost pressure appears and the structure has been endorsed with this first vote. In that sense, this vote functions as a major underwriting decision rather than a limited pilot. Finally, we have not been given access to the contents of the side letter that the Orion Fund expects to enter into with Arouet Holdings that outlines how capital and returns flow back to the Treasury. Overall, this is a bit of a hodge-podge that may mask what we truly get out of it - as it will be difficult to track the many different uses of capital. Outside investment that is planned is low. If sophisticated outside capital believes the strategy is attractive, then a cleaner structure would require a meaningful first close from third parties before Treasury money is released, or at least a matched-capital threshold. Without that, the outside interest point remains more rhetorical than binding. In short, this umbrella proposal is too much of a mish-mash for me.
- No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting YES on the Draper Dragon Orion Fund proposal (Tranche 1: ₳50M treasury withdrawal).
Treasury Impact and Long-Term Risk/Reward Perspective
This proposal represents one of the largest and most structured treasury withdrawals Cardano has seen, with Tranche 1 at ₳50 million ADA—about 3% of the current treasury balance (approximately 1.65 billion ADA, valued at roughly $429–445 million USD at recent prices around $0.26–$0.27). The multi-year structure caps total treasury exposure at around ₳175 million ADA over 6+ years (with potential extensions), phased across tranches: Tranche 1 at ~$15M / 50M ADA, and subsequent ones targeting ~$30M each (up to ~85M ADA per tranche), requiring separate governance votes and milestone approvals each time.This isn't a one-time hit—it's incremental and with capital repayment to the treasury prioritized before any GP carried interest (20%). In a realistic scenario of treasury growth (ongoing epoch rewards and fees adding 200–300M+ ADA annually in recent cycles, assumptions of NCLs with 300M ADA annual spend), the total impact could represent roughly 5–9% of the total treasury over time. It approaches 10–11% if growth lags even more. Personally, it makes me feel uncomfortable position to be in.
Cardano's position and let’s be frank, community push/mandate(?) as a top-10 crypto asset with one of the largest DAO treasuries makes this phased allocation somewhat tolerable. The real downside risk is I believe is manageable relative to the potential upside: successful investments could drive COMPOUNDING benefits through ecosystem growth (e.g., higher TVL, on-chain activity, protocol revenue). All things that move us towards long-term treasury sustainability—far outweighing the cost of inaction.
The Need for Professional VC Partnership and This Unique Opportunity -
Cardano has historically operated with limited institutional VC involvement compared to peers that have leveraged such partnerships for accelerated scaling, liquidity, and adoption. This proposal introduces professional management from Draper Dragon, a firm with experience in digital assets and blockchain investments, including accelerator programs that have helped ecosystems.The terms aren't flawless—concerns around co-investments (e.g., parallel private funds alongside Orion, as highlighted by some and have merit) raise valid questions on conflicts, disclosure, and alignment. If I’m understanding this complex deal structure correctly, standard VC practices would address these concerns head-on. That said, rejecting the opportunity entirely over imperfect proposals is a risk I’m not sure that is worth it. We know what looking back at regret looks like (see Circle…). Most of the ecosystem has never been exposed to this scale of VC-structured deal —and it’s been stated this has been months of iterations. So, is this “Done is better than perfect”?: the proposal emphasizes net treasury benefit through KPIs (e.g., TVL growth targets, startup scaling, on-chain metrics), even if Draper Dragon realizes their own successes here.
This proposal is a step Cardano hasn't taken before, and there's a real FOMO factor in passing on a professionally managed fund that could be an actual ‘Catalyst’ (see what I did there?) for meaningful growth. As a DRep focused on continuous improvement, I'm voting YES to support this first step.
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
I vote yes on this proposal, and my rationale is straightforward.
Cardano currently lacks a meaningful price-discovery mechanism for funding proposals. Each proposal is submitted as a one-off with pricing defined by the team itself. Without negotiation or comparison among competing options, it is impossible to determine where limited treasury funds should be allocated for the best return.
Having worked closely with venture capital processes, I have seen how rigorous evaluation, comparison, and negotiation drive better investment outcomes. These processes are far more structured than what currently exists in the Cardano ecosystem, where DReps are often asked to evaluate proposals without negotiating terms, KPIs, or delivery milestones.
I have personally known and followed Tim Draper and his team for more than two decades. In my experience he is a visionary, ethical, and deeply experienced investor with a perspective that extends far beyond the Cardano ecosystem. That broader view is valuable when identifying projects with real long-term potential.
Ultimately, DReps will vote to allocate treasury funds. The key question is simple: are better outcomes more likely when proposal selection, training, mentoring, and negotiation are handled by professionals who have reviewed tens of thousands of proposals—or by anonymous DReps without comparable experience?
For me, the answer is clear.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
I appreciate the structure and concept of this proposal, especially since it is presented by the Cardano Foundation in collaboration with Draper University. It is time to launch this initiative. We will monitor their activities and evaluate their efforts through our votes on future treasury withdrawal requests. I understand those who oppose this proposal, but I would like to hear viable alternatives for addressing this critical aspect of our ecosystem.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I believe the Cardano ecosystem does need a fund like this targeted specifically with a VC capital investment strategy mindset. The overall structure of the fund is very fair, provided that it performs well. What I cannot get behind is that there is not enough documented evidence provided in this proposal that Draper Dragon & Draper University can deliver the value they are expecting for the 50 million requested for the treasury withdrawal.
Furthermore, there is no investment capital being allocated by Tim Draper / Draper Dragon / Draper University, this proposal is to be funded from the treasury, paying a $1 Million + administration fee with entirely no risk to the Draper entities.
Providing the fund succeeds, the Draper entities will get 20% of all profits, and the possibility of purchasing into a variety of crypto startup companies at favorable rates to gain ownership. There is huge upside for Draper with all the risk from the Cardano community.
I would rather see a 20% investment allocated by Draper so that they are incentivized to earn that 20% profit + startup ownership potential. I am even okay with paying a standard management fee rate providing Draper actually contributes financially to this deal.
It's close, but more needs to be done to make this happen for a supporting vote from me. Please rework this proposal when the appropriate changes are made.
I would also like to see this proposal submitted as part of the Intersect budget process. This is a better way for the Cardano community to work together and establish a formal budget and spending system that is transparent and accountable.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Go forth and conquer team Dragon
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
私は本提案の戦略的意義を評価し、基本的には支持する立場です。
本提案は、Cardano Treasuryがエコシステム投資ファンドのLP（Limited Partner：資金を提供し、投資成果に応じて利益や損失を受け取る出資者）として参加し、VC（Venture Capital：将来性のある企業に投資し成長を支援する投資主体）機能をエコシステム内部に持つことを目指すものです。また、このファンドはGP（General Partner：投資判断や運用を担うファンド運営主体）によって管理されます。これは、外部資本への過度な依存を避けつつ、ネットワーク自身の資本による持続的成長を模索する重要な試みだと考えます。
さらに、本提案はトランシェ方式（成果や進捗を確認しながら段階的に資金提供する仕組み）を採用しており、今回は第一段階のみが投票対象です。将来の追加トランシェは別個のガバナンス承認を要するため、コミュニティが運用実績や資本配分の妥当性を確認しながら次段階を判断できる点は評価できます。
また、Ecosystem Support & Investmentsに充てられた資本は、GPが利益参加する前にまず返済される設計が示されている点も重要です。
一方で、VC型投資は長期かつ不確実性を伴うため、投資評価KPIの明確化、継続的な情報開示、利益還元の透明性、将来トランシェ審査の厳格な運用が不可欠です。これらが不十分な場合、Treasuryに機会損失や信頼低下のリスクが生じ得ます。
以上より、本提案をCardanoが自己資本による成長モデルを模索する重要な一歩と捉え、透明性と成果評価の強化を前提に支持します。
I recognize the strategic importance of this proposal and generally support it.
This proposal would allow the Cardano Treasury to participate as an LP (Limited Partner: a capital provider that shares in profits or losses) in an ecosystem investment fund, introducing an internal VC (Venture Capital: an investment function that supports the growth of promising companies) role within the Cardano ecosystem. The fund would be managed by a GP (General Partner: the entity responsible for making investment decisions and operating the fund). I see this as an important attempt to pursue sustainable growth using Cardano’s own capital while reducing overreliance on external funding.
The tranche structure (a step-by-step funding model based on progress and results) is also a positive governance feature. This vote only covers the first tranche, and any future tranches would require separate governance approval. This allows the community to review execution, transparency, and capital allocation before committing further Treasury funds.
It is also meaningful that capital allocated to Ecosystem Support & Investments is intended to be repaid before the GP participates in profits.
At the same time, VC-style investing is inherently long-term and uncertain. Clear KPIs, ongoing transparency, fair return mechanisms, and strict review of future tranches will be essential. Without these, there is a risk of opportunity cost or reduced trust in the Treasury.
Overall, I view this proposal as a meaningful step toward exploring a self-sustaining growth model for Cardano, and I support it with the expectation of strong transparency and performance evaluation throughout execution.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
After speaking with the team directly, i am very hopeful that this proposal will increase opportunity on Cardano, which is our number 1 issue as an ecosystem. Utilizing the Draper network, we should be able to infiltrate industries and start to push more real world, high chain utilization usecases. Business Development is a big issue as well on Cardano, this directly addresses that in a multitude of ways. This will better prepare Cardano businesses to break out and be better rounded. We are taking a shot here, but now is the time to do it.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 2M ₳ Rationale
While supporting the strategy of attracting venture capital, we decided to vote NO on the Cardano x Draper Dragon proposal in order to request a more complete plan.
The main reason is that the current KPIs are too subjective, lacking specific target figures and disbursement milestones according to Vision 2030 to ensure accountability. In addition, the governance mechanism is unclear among stakeholders, so I propose the addition of a DRep Council to oversee and create a balance between on-chain and off-chain. Financially, the proposal does not disclose the historical capabilities of the partner, nor the fee structure and capital protection mechanisms for the Treasury in case of risk. Finally, the project needs to demonstrate why outsourcing is more effective than in-house development. We are not completely rejecting it, but we will wait for a more transparent and rigorous restructuring version before giving our confidence. - Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ Rationale
While there are downside risks, no investment is risk free and we need to get the blood pumping.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote NO on this proposal because, while Cardano does need stronger application-layer growth and better founder support, this asks the treasury to commit 50M ADA in the first tranche—about $15M at the proposal’s assumed $0.30/ADA price—into an external venture structure that could later scale to $75M from the treasury and up to 175M ADA** across three tranches. The proposal says the majority of this first tranche would go to direct investments in Cardano-native or Cardano-integrated startups (
$10.75M), with additional spending on growth capital ($1.9M), startup acceleration and talent ($1M), management fees ($1M), and **audit/legal/compliance (~$0.3M), and I am not comfortable using treasury funds this way. I understand the strategic upside of trying to grow TVL, usage, and developer activity, but the proposal still relies too heavily on off-chain execution, broad discretion, and trust in an external manager without sufficiently clear KPIs, tranche milestones, downside protection, or proof that this model is better than more Cardano-native alternatives. The stated return ambitions of roughly 3x gross multiple and 25%+ IRR are meaningful, but for an ask of this size they remain too aspirational and not well enough supported to justify approval. If Cardano wants to fund builder growth more aggressively, I would prefer a smaller, more transparent, and more tightly scoped approach with stronger community oversight and clearer measurable outcomes. - Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
While some aspects of the proposal remain unclear at this stage, I appreciate its overall concept and believe it has strong potential to benefit the Cardano ecosystem. The involvement of the Cardano Foundation adds credibility, and the inclusion of third-party capital alongside treasury funds is something I like too. Based on these considerations, I have decided to vote YES on this proposal.
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
I find the Orion Fund proposal strategically interesting but not sufficiently proven, not sufficiently narrow, and not sufficiently constitutionally de-risked for a $15M / 50M ADA treasury withdrawal.
I say this as somebody who's been working on various venture capital schemes and investment structures. There's too much overlap risk,** too much scope creep, too much reliance on projected outcomes, and not enough hard evidence that this is the most necessary, efficient, and Cardano-aligned use of treasury capital**. I vote No.
We should not approve the first considerable tranche of an even larger multi-stage treasury withdrawal simply because it sounds sophisticated. I can imagine better alternatives: a smaller, Cardano-native, tightly scoped co-investment vehicle; a pilot focused only on direct investments into Cardano-native companies, excluding the venture-studio-plus-accelerator-plus-tooling bundle; a staged program run under far more direct community control; or using existing ecosystem structures and approving only narrowly defined capital-gap interventions where duplication is demonstrably absent. Once I can imagine those alternatives, the burden on this Orion Fund rises sharply.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 881.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ Rationale
Draper has been profoundly supporting Carano's ecosystem at a layer where there was a void. The proposed format of expanding such support aligns all the involved actors interests. We support this initiative.