Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund
152 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 592.3M ₳ Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes YES on the treasury withdrawal titled “Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund.” This decision is supported by the proposal’s potential to accelerate builder activity and ecosystem development, while allowing the community to assess progress before any future funding requests are considered.
Rationale
• Balanced approach to treasury deployment
While treasury funds should be used carefully, excessive caution can also slow ecosystem progress. Yoroi believes it is important to explore new mechanisms that can expand real demand for Cardano, while maintaining oversight and governance safeguards.• Experienced venture partners
The initiative will be managed by Draper Dragon, part of the Draper venture network with experience supporting technology and blockchain startups. While this does not remove investment risk, it provides some basis for assessing the model through an initial phase.• Investment model rather than a one-way grant
Unlike traditional ecosystem grants, the Orion Fund is structured as a venture-style investment vehicle where capital is expected to generate returns and flow back to the Treasury. This introduces a different mechanism for supporting ecosystem growth while aiming to strengthen long-term treasury sustainability.• Initial phase with governance oversight
This proposal approves only the first funding stage, while any future withdrawals would require separate governance approval. This approach allows the community to review early outcomes and determine whether the model delivers meaningful ecosystem results before further treasury capital is considered.Conclusion
Yoroi as a DRep supports the approval of this treasury withdrawal. The proposal introduces a new approach to ecosystem development that combines investment with potential capital return to the treasury. Although the outcome will ultimately depend on execution, Yoroi considers it worthwhile to allow the initiative to proceed and evaluate its results through the governance process. - Yes 428.5M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on [Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund].
This was not an easy decision, but the discontinuation of Catalyst became the final push. It may be time to try a different approach from Catalyst.
After multiple meetings, here is my understanding of the three key concerns I had:
① Track Record Based on our meetings, I am satisfied that their investment track record is solid. For further details, please reach out to Draper directly.
② Justification for Growth Capital $11.5M / Startup Acceleration & Talent Pipeline $6M In a standard VC structure, LPs do not bear these costs — in some cases, portfolio companies do. However, the Cardano ecosystem is currently very small, with limited investment targets available. For Draper to simultaneously deliver returns to the Treasury and improve certain Cardano ecosystem KPIs, it appears the Treasury needs to cover these "ecosystem development costs." While this departs from standard practice, I believe there is a reasonable rationale given the current state of Cardano — particularly the scale of its ecosystem.
③ Is Draper simply offloading risk onto the Treasury? A direct GP commit is not possible due to legal constraints under this structure, but a co-investment arrangement has been indicated as an alternative. Additionally, based on several figures I reviewed, if investments perform poorly, Draper would sustain a financial loss at the company level. While they do not bear identical risk to the Treasury, I am satisfied that Draper's economic interests are genuinely tied to the success of this program — going beyond mere reputational risk.
There are a number of other discussion points, but Draper's metadata contains detailed explanations, so I will omit them here for brevity.[Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund] にYESを投票します。
非常に悩みましたが、Catalystの中止が最後の後押しになりました。Catalystとは別のアプローチを試す時期かもしれません。
複数回のミーティングを経て、私が主に懸念していた3つの事項についての私の理解をまとめます。① 過去の投資実績について 彼らと何度かミーティングをした結果、実績は良好と判断しています。詳細については直接Draperにお問い合わせください。
② Growth Capital $11.5M / Startup Acceleration & Talent Pipeline $6M の正当性について 通常のVCスキームでは、LPがこれらのコストを負担することはありません。具体的にはLPではなく、投資先の企業が負担するケースがあるようです。しかし、Cardanoエコシステムは現時点で非常に小さく、投資対象の選択肢が限られています。Draperがトレジャリーへの利益還元とCardanoエコシステムのいくつかのKPI数値の改善を同時に実現するためには、この「エコシステム育成コスト」をトレジャリーが負担する必要があるようです。通常の慣行とは異なりますが、Cardanoの現状、特にそのエコシステムの規模の現状を踏まえると一定の合理性があると理解しています。
③ Draperはリスクをトレジャリーに押し付けているのではないか？ 直接のGP commitは本スキームの法的制約上不可能ですが、並行投資という形でのコミットが示唆されています。また、投資が不振に終わった場合、Draperは私がいくつかの数値を確認したところ、少なくとも会社としては損をします。トレジャリーと全く同じリスク構造ではありませんが、単なる評判リスクに留まらず、Draperの経済的利害はこのプログラムの成否と連動していると確認できたと考えています。
その他にもさまざまな論点などがありますが、Draperのメタデータ内に詳細な説明があり、長くなるため割愛します。
- Yes 328.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 297.4M ₳ Rationale
Summary
EMURGO, as a DRep, votes YES on the treasury withdrawal titled “Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund,” with the rationale outlined below.Rationale
This proposal introduces a tranche-based ecosystem fund intended to support Cardano-native and Cardano-integrated companies while creating a pathway for value to return to the Treasury over time. EMURGO recognizes that this structure is more complex than a typical treasury withdrawal, but also notes the potential for a professionally managed ecosystem fund to support builder growth, ecosystem infrastructure, and broader commercial activity on Cardano.At the same time, this vote only approves the first tranche, while any future withdrawals would require separate governance approval. This staged approach allows the community to evaluate deployment discipline, reporting transparency, and ecosystem impact before additional capital is committed.
EMURGO also notes Draper Dragon’s established venture investment experience and broader Draper network track record in supporting technology startups and blockchain ecosystems. While investment outcomes are inherently uncertain, this experience provides some confidence in the team’s ability to source and support ecosystem projects.On balance, EMURGO believes approving the first tranche is a reasonable way to test this model while preserving future governance oversight. EMURGO therefore votes YES.
- Yes 240.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 221.8M ₳ Rationale
TL;DR: EDC votes YES on gov_action13qr78nhrhetywapvx2wpm63y9uxpc2dc45zsu9gkncasxqhuhltqqqfu32x;
Draper is an established entity. The proposal is fair in the sense that it favors the Cardano treasury over its own profit. We need to give outside entities a chance, highlight their successes, and in this way invite more companies from outside our bubble to join the Cardano ecosystem.
- Abstain 174.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 160.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 135.1M ₳ Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES on the Treasury Withdrawal “Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund.”
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Our support for this Treasury Withdrawal is driven by the following key factors:
Strategic Ecosystem Growth & The Post-Grant Gap: This proposal addresses the "post-grant capital gap." While mechanisms like Project Catalyst exist to cater to early experimentation, Cardano needs a structured pathway for equity-based growth capital. Partnering with a Tier-1 VC like Draper Dragon provides immediate access to capabilities that would otherwise take a decade of institutional development to build internally: UTXO-specific technical expertise, deep exchange-integration networks (Coinbase, Binance, etc.), and a global developer pipeline to achieve their stated goal of 7x monthly active developer growth.
Downside Protection (The 80/20 Waterfall): This is one of the few proposals that actively seeks to grow the Treasury. The economic alignment is strongly in favor of the community: 90% of the funds are deployed into the ecosystem, while approximately 10% covers operational expenses (dependent on total fund size) - which includes a discounted 1.3% management fee. Crucially, the General Partner (Draper Dragon) receives no profit share until Treasury contributions are recouped.
Tranche-Based Accountability: We agree with the rationale that the tranche-based architecture serves as the primary mechanism for setting milestones. Requesting $15M (50M ADA) now rather than the full $75M upfront is responsible governance. It establishes Tranche One as a significant yet minimum viable commitment to prove the model, establish transparency frameworks, and deliver observable ecosystem impact before future tranches are released by DReps. The DReps retain a veto at every capital release point.
Cost Efficiency: A ~1.3% management fee on Tranche 1 is competitive and well below the traditional 2% venture capital industry standard, ensuring that the majority of funds ($13.65M) are directed straight to ecosystem growth (Direct Investments, the venture studio, and Draper accelerators).
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest & Involvement: To maintain transparency as a DRep, we need to disclose our involvement in the structuring of this proposal. We worked closely with the Draper Dragon team to orchestrate the setup of Arouet Holdings (the Cayman Islands Foundation Company acting as the LP of the Fund, the legal counterparty capable of making the contribution to the Fund from the Treasury withdrawal) and serve as the constitutional administrator. Despite our operational involvement, we are voting YES because we firmly believe this proposal provides a sustainable and innovative model to stimulate ecosystem growth and deliver returns to the Treasury.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. The Orion Fund is a testament to Cardano's maturity, and it sends a signal to the wider blockchain ecosystem that the fundamentals of a decentralized blockchain and governance model can seamlessly interface with top-tier institutional venture capital to create sustainable growth.
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 on the proposal: Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund
Cardano needs experts for efficient treasury spending, increased on-chain activity, and to become more attractive to VC investors. This proposal has the potential to achieve all that. It is not an absolute NO, but feedback for improving the proposal.
My rationale:
What to improve in the proposal:
The Cardano Vision document makes a fundamental pivot. From “we build technology” to “we must deliver measurable results”.
A proposal of this scale should explicitly commit to the KPIs defined in the Vision 2030. In its current form, the proposal defines its KPIs in a vague and qualitative manner, without clear numerical targets, baselines, or success thresholds, which makes objective evaluation and accountability difficult. Furthermore, if we expect smaller projects requesting significantly lower funding to adhere to clearly defined KPIs and measurable outcomes, it is essential that proposals of this scale set the standard by doing so themselves.
Future tranches should be explicitly conditioned on clearly defined and measurable milestones, aligned with both financial performance and ecosystem impact. These milestones should include specific targets, transparent reporting requirements, and independently verifiable data, allowing the community to objectively assess progress. The conditions under which additional capital is released should be defined up front.
The role of the Cardano Foundation (CF) within this structure should be more clearly defined, as its current description as an "administrator" lacks sufficient detail regarding its responsibilities, authority, and limitations. In particular, the relationship between the CF and Arouet Holdings should be explicitly clarified to avoid ambiguity around control, decision-making, and accountability.
To strengthen governance and transparency, it would be beneficial to introduce a clearer separation of roles and to consider incorporating a DRep committee as an additional oversight layer. Such a committee could provide community-aligned review and accountability, potentially in a role analogous to CF. This would improve checks and balances while maintaining proper legal and governance boundaries.
The proposal presents ambitious return targets, such as a 3x gross multiple and 25%+ IRR, which are meaningful on a strategic level. However, for an allocation of this magnitude, it would be appropriate to support these targets with clear evidence of past performance. In particular, the proposal would benefit from including historical fund results, track record data, and relevant benchmarks demonstrating the manager's ability to achieve comparable outcomes. Without such context, it remains difficult to assess the credibility of the stated targets.
It would be reasonable to expect a clear and consolidated presentation of the fund's economic structure, including management fees, performance fees, and the overall distribution waterfall. While some elements may be mentioned, they are not presented in a sufficiently transparent and structured way to allow for proper evaluation. This makes it difficult to assess how much capital will be deployed into the ecosystem versus consumed by operational costs, and what portion of returns would ultimately accrue to the treasury.
The proposal lacks clearly defined downside protection mechanisms for the treasury in the event of underperformance. In particular, it is not specified whether management fees are adjusted in case of poor performance, whether any form of clawback or capital preservation mechanism exists, or whether there are conditions under which the fund can be paused or discontinued.
The proposal would benefit from independent oversight or audit mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability. In addition to third-party or professional oversight, it may be valuable to consider the inclusion of a DRep committee as part of the governance structure. This would help strengthen the connection between on-chain governance and the off-chain investment structure.
While the use of a venture capital partner can bring potential benefits such as access to deal flow, investment expertise, and external networks, the proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate why this approach is superior to alternative capital allocation mechanisms.
It remains unclear what unique value Draper Dragon provides that could not be developed within the Cardano ecosystem itself, whether through improved grant systems, internal investment structures, or community-led allocation processes.
I recognize that a VC partner may be able to execute certain activities faster and more efficiently than DReps operating through on-chain governance. However, this raises a broader strategic question of whether the goal should be to outsource these functions, or rather to improve and mature our own governance capabilities over time.
Before committing to this approach, it would be prudent to more clearly define how much capital should be allocated through external managers such as Draper Dragon versus how much should remain under direct on-chain governance. Without clearly explaining why this approach is better and what concrete value Draper Dragon brings, the proposal asks the community to trust external parties without providing sufficient evidence that this is the most effective way to allocate treasury funds.
In conclusion, I view this proposal as directionally promising and aligned with Cardano’s long-term ambition to grow its ecosystem and improve capital efficiency. However, given the scale of the requested allocation, the current level of detail, clarity, and accountability is not yet sufficient to justify approval.
My vote should be understood as a request for refinement rather than rejection. I would be open to supporting a revised version of this proposal that addresses the points outlined above, particularly in the areas of KPI definition, governance structure, transparency of fund economics, and evidence of track record and added value. With these improvements, this initiative could become a strong and valuable component of Cardano’s treasury strategy.
- Yes 92.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8M ₳ Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES on Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund (Tranche One).
SIPO supports this proposal as a strategic investment to accelerate Cardano's ecosystem competitiveness. While SIPO acknowledges the structural concerns raised by the community, the fundamental thesis — that Cardano requires professional venture capital to compete at the institutional level — outweighs these concerns at the Tranche One stage. SIPO's YES is conditional on strict accountability for subsequent tranches.
Why SIPO votes YES
Cardano needs institutional-grade ecosystem competitiveness — now
Cardano's technical architecture (eUTXO, Ouroboros, on-chain governance) is among the most sophisticated in the industry. Yet this technical excellence has not translated into proportional ecosystem growth. Cardano's DeFi TVL (~$300-550M) lags far behind Ethereum ($50B+), Solana ($7-10B), and even newer L2s. The gap is not technical — it is commercial. Cardano lacks the institutional connections, exchange integrations, and venture ecosystem that drive real-world adoption. What Cardano needs is the kind of professional VC infrastructure that built Coinbase, Binance, and the institutional crypto ecosystem. Draper Dragon's network provides direct access to Tier 1 exchanges, institutional investors, and the Silicon Valley venture ecosystem.Cardano must attract Coinbase-level players and crypto banking infrastructure
The next phase of blockchain adoption will be defined by enterprises operating at the intersection of traditional finance and crypto — institutional-grade exchanges, crypto banks, regulated custodians, and compliant DeFi platforms. Cardano's compliance-first architecture positions it uniquely for this segment. The Orion Fund's investment thesis — targeting RWA, institutional DeFi, payments, stablecoins, and compliance-ready dApps — aligns with the need to build Cardano's competitive infrastructure in the US and Asian markets. The Draper network's existing relationships with exchanges (Coinbase, Binance, OKX, ByBit) provide a realistic pathway.AI economy and DeFi convergence is the next frontier
The convergence of AI and DeFi is emerging as one of the most significant trends in blockchain. AI-driven trading systems, autonomous economic agents, and machine-to-machine transactions require DeFi infrastructure that is deterministic, auditable, and composable — exactly what Cardano's eUTXO model provides. The Orion Fund's venture studio model and direct investment strategy can help seed projects that bridge AI and DeFi — autonomous trading protocols, AI-powered risk management, tokenized AI compute markets, and compliant algorithmic market-making.Equity investment model is superior to grants for ecosystem sustainability
The grant model has structural limitations: no capital return, limited post-funding accountability, no compounding value. The Orion Fund's equity-based model returns capital and profits to the Treasury (80% of net profits after full capital return), establishing Treasury-as-investor rather than Treasury-as-donor.Tranche structure provides governance control
This vote approves only Tranche One (50M ADA / ~$15M). The full $75M requires two additional governance actions, each subject to DRep approval. If Tranche One underperforms, DReps retain full authority to deny subsequent tranches.Draper network's institutional credibility is genuine
Across the extended Draper network: 400+ companies backed, 50+ unicorns, early investments including Coinbase, Ledger, Gemini. Draper University: 3,500+ startups, $1B+ raised, 103 countries.
Structural concerns SIPO acknowledges
- GP skin in the game is minimal: 94% Treasury / 6% eLP. SIPO expects alignment through operational commitment, co-investment transparency, and measurable ecosystem delivery.
- Co-investment clause requires transparency: Full public disclosure of all co-investment activities expected. The absence of a formal LP Advisory Committee (LPAC) is a governance gap that should be addressed before Tranche Two.
- Competitive selection process was absent: The community deserves to know why alternative fund managers were not considered.
- ADA price risk: At current prices (~$0.245), 50M ADA is approximately $12.25M — 18% below the assumed $0.30.
- Arouet Holdings governance must mature: Community Director appointment should begin immediately upon fund activation.
Conditions for Tranche Two evaluation
SIPO's YES on Tranche One is explicitly not a commitment to Tranche Two. Future support depends on:
- Demonstrated deployment discipline with verifiable on-chain impact
- Transparent quarterly reporting on portfolio and ecosystem KPIs
- Full disclosure of co-investment activities
- LPAC establishment before Tranche Two
- Community Director appointed and operational before Tranche Two
- Measurable ecosystem impact in institutional DeFi, RWA, and AI-DeFi convergence
The cost of inaction — watching Cardano's technical superiority remain commercially underexploited while competitors build institutional ecosystems — is a greater risk than the structural concerns with Tranche One. This is sized as a minimum viable commitment with full governance control over future tranches.
For these reasons, SIPO DRep votes YES on Tranche One.
SIPODRepとして、本提案「Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund」のTranche Oneに賛成（YES）を投じます。
SIPOは本提案を、Cardanoエコシステムの競争力を加速するための戦略的投資として支持します。コミュニティから提起された構造的懸念は認識していますが、根本的な命題 — Cardanoが機関レベルで競争するにはプロフェッショナルなベンチャーキャピタルが必要である — はTranche Oneの段階ではこれらの懸念を上回ると判断します。
SIPOがYESと判断する理由
Cardanoには今、機関グレードのエコシステム競争力が必要
Cardanoの技術的アーキテクチャは業界最高水準ですが、この技術的卓越性はエコシステム成長に繋がっていません。DeFi TVL（約$300-550M）はEthereum（$50B+）やSolana（$7-10B）に大きく後れを取っています。このギャップは技術ではなく商業面の問題です。Cardanoには実世界のアダプションを推進する機関的接続、取引所統合、ベンチャーエコシステムが不足しています。Coinbase、Binance、機関暗号エコシステムを構築したようなプロフェッショナルVCインフラが必要です。Coinbaseレベルのプレイヤーとクリプトバンキングインフラの誘致
ブロックチェーン採用の次フェーズは、伝統金融と暗号の交点で活動する企業が定義します。機関グレードの取引所、クリプトバンク、規制対応カストディアン、コンプライアントDeFiプラットフォーム。Orion Fundの投資テーゼ — RWA、機関DeFi、ペイメント、ステーブルコイン — は米国とアジア市場での競争インフラ構築と合致しています。Draperネットワークの取引所関係（Coinbase、Binance、OKX、ByBit）は現実的な道筋を提供します。AI経済とDeFiの融合が次のフロンティア
AI駆動トレーディングシステム、自律経済エージェント、マシン間取引には決定論的で監査可能かつコンポーザブルなDeFiインフラが必要です — CardanoのeUTXOモデルが提供するものです。Orion Fundのベンチャースタジオと直接投資は、AIとDeFiを橋渡しするプロジェクト — 自律トレーディング、AI駆動リスク管理、トークン化AIコンピュートマーケット — を育成できます。株式投資モデルはGrantより持続的
Grantモデル（資本リターンなし・限定的説明責任）に対し、Orion Fundは完全資本返済後のNet Profitの80%をTreasuryに返還。Treasury-as-investorの前例を確立します。トランシェ構造がガバナンスコントロールを提供
本投票はTranche One（50M ADA）のみ。$75M全体には将来2つの追加ガバナンスアクション（DRep承認必要）が必要です。Draperネットワークの機関的信頼性
400+社投資、50+ユニコーン、Coinbase・Ledger・Geminiへの初期投資。103カ国3,500+スタートアップ、$1B+資金調達実績。
SIPOが認識する構造的懸念
- GPスキンインザゲーム最小限：94% Treasury / 6% eLP。運用コミットメントと成果での実証を期待。
- 共同投資条項の透明性：全共同投資の完全開示を期待。LPAC不在はTranche Two前に対処すべき。
- 競争的選定プロセス不在：代替候補不検討の理由の透明な文書化を期待。
- ADA価格リスク：現在約$0.245で50M ADAは約$12.25M（想定比-18%）。
- Arouet Holdingsガバナンス：Community Directorをファンド活性化後直ちに任命すべき。
Tranche Two評価条件
Tranche OneへのYESはTranche Twoへのコミットメントではありません。将来の支持条件：展開規律の実証、四半期報告の透明性、共同投資開示、LPAC設置、Community Director任命、機関DeFi・RWA・AI-DeFi融合でのインパクト。
不作為のコスト — Cardanoの技術的優位性が商業的に活用されないまま競合がエコシステムを構築する — はTranche Oneの構造的懸念より大きなリスクです。
以上の理由により、SIPO DRepとしてTranche Oneに賛成（YES）を投じます。
残り最後の1本：Approve Cardano Foundation as New Managing Entity of Project... です。提案内容を貼り付けてください。 - No 89.3M ₳ Rationale
As far as VCs go, I do actually like Draper. However, this feels like another abdication of the power of the purse by the dReps. We put up $75M USD over 6-8 years and Draper finds another $5M USD? Then we pay $1 million (per year ?) in "management fees"? Is that the long term vision? What kinds of projects will they choose to fund with our money? Three more DEXs and two more prediction markets per year that they think will make us look more like other ecosystems? Is this just so we can say we're in the VC supported crowd? I'd rather put the money toward RealFi. I understand why Draper would like this. I am not persuaded this makes sense on our end.
- Yes 89.2M ₳ Rationale
I support this proposal.
Regarding the use of the treasury, I do not think it is desirable to become so cautious that progress stalls, while at the same time I also do not think it is appropriate to rapidly expand spending without sufficient validation. In that sense, I give a certain level of credit both to the proposing party and to the content of this proposal.The proposer, Draper Dragon, belongs to the well-known Draper-affiliated VC network within the industry. In addition to its investment track record in the Web3 space, it has already been involved in entrepreneur development through Draper University and has existing points of contact with Cardano, so this is not a completely unfamiliar counterparty. Given that background, while this does not amount to full trust, I believe there is reasonable justification for entrusting them with the initial tranche and evaluating their execution capability and transparency based on results.
In particular, I believe the investment areas presented in the proposal are important initiatives for advancing Cardano’s real-world adoption and practical implementation, and for establishing its position as an ecosystem. I also view positively the fact that this proposal is not a one-way grant like Catalyst has historically provided, but rather a growth investment premised on repayment, and that it is structured as a phased proposal limited to the initial tranche. On the premise of careful oversight, and with Catalyst currently suspended, I generally support this as a proposal to expand real demand for Cardano through a completely different approach.
- Yes 77.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 76.1M ₳ Rationale
While I don't believe this is perfect, I think that we need an ecosystem funding mechanism that is KPI driven, and non-experimental. We have invested far too much into experimental funding mechanisms for far too long.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
While I don't believe this is perfect, I think that we need an ecosystem funding mechanism that is KPI driven, and non-experimental. We have invested far too much into experimental funding mechanisms for far too long. Experimental funding mechanisms have their place in the ecosystem, but not as the primary vehicle for capital allocation in the ecosystem. The primary funding mechanism should be tried and true, something that is known to work in practice historically and has been replicated across many ecosystems. This proposal, I believe may be capable of acting as that traditional funding mechanism for the ecosystem. \n\nI am treating this as a probationary approval and will observe the outcome of this first funding distribution, the KPIs achieved, the impact of the funded projects, the outcomes of funding in terms of tangible output from funded projects and so on.
- Yes 75.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 74.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 71.3M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES. Credit to Samiz for professionally addressing my capital flight concerns. Investments will stay focused on Cardano and accrue value to our Treasury. This lets us invest now, act for growth, bring in outside expertise and back our ecosystem. I am excited to see this progress!
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES on Tranche One of the Draper Dragon Orion Fund (50M ADA). From a structural standpoint, this proposal demonstrates a highly sophisticated approach to risk mitigation. By employing a capped tranche deployment model and a strict distribution waterfall, mandating that the Treasury is fully repaid its deployed capital before any General Partner profit participation occurs, it establishes a robust financial safeguard for the ecosystem.
My primary reservation entering this governance action pertained to the risk of capital flight, specifically the possibility that entities funded by the Treasury might leverage our capital to build out their infrastructure, only to subsequently migrate their operations and revenue to competing blockchains. After engaging directly with Samiz, these concerns have been fully resolved. I want to explicitly commend him for addressing my inquiries with exceptional detail and professionalism. This transparency provided the necessary assurance that a structured process and clear operational focus are in place to ensure these investments remain decisively dedicated to Cardano, and that the long term value generated will properly accrue back to the Cardano Treasury.
Ultimately, this initiative empowers us to invest now and act decisively for growth. It injects critical capital into our ecosystem while simultaneously importing highly valuable institutional venture expertise. Furthermore, it affords us the opportunity to cultivate tangible success stories that amplify a vital market signal, proving that Cardano is a premier destination for development and that we possess the conviction to actively back our builders. This is a strategically sound, calculated step required to aggressively scale our TVL and institutional adoption, and I am excited to see this progress unfold.
Let's grow Cardano.
- Yes 70.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 68M ₳ Rationale
I understand the overall direction of this proposal and agree that strengthening capital allocation and investment capabilities within the Cardano ecosystem is an important objective.
However, I have concerns regarding the structural alignment between the Treasury and the external fund manager. While the Treasury provides the capital, a significant portion of decision-making authority is delegated to the General Partner. I believe it is necessary to carefully assess whether this structure is sufficiently aligned with Cardano’s interests from a risk–return perspective.
In addition, the proposal combines multiple distinct activities — including direct investments, venture studio initiatives, accelerator programs, and broader ecosystem support — within a single fund structure. These activities have different objectives and risk profiles, making it difficult to evaluate performance, measure outcomes, and ensure accountability.
Furthermore, there remains uncertainty regarding both the definition of eligible investments and the realism of the projected returns. In particular, the scope of ecosystem alignment appears broad, and the expected return levels should be carefully assessed given the constraints involved.
Although the proposal adopts a tranche-based approach, the approval of the initial tranche may effectively establish the broader structure and direction of the fund. For this reason, I do not consider it to be purely experimental in nature.
Taking these factors into account, while the proposal addresses an important area, I believe that there are still significant uncertainties regarding its structure and evaluability, and therefore I do not support it at this time.
本提案の方向性については理解しており、Cardanoエコシステムにおける資本供給や投資機能の強化が重要なテーマであることには同意します。
一方で、本提案の構造については、トレジャリーと外部運用者との関係性において、リスクとリターンのバランスに課題があると考えています。資金はトレジャリーから拠出される一方で、投資判断および運用の主導権は外部のGeneral Partnerに委ねられており、この構造がCardanoにとって十分に有利であるかについては慎重な検討が必要だと感じています。
また、本提案では複数の異なる目的を持つ活動（直接投資、アクセラレーション、ベンチャースタジオ、エコシステム支援など）が単一のファンドに統合されており、それぞれの成果や投資対効果を明確に評価することが難しい構造になっています。この点は、透明性および説明責任の観点から懸念があります。
さらに、投資対象の定義やリターン想定についても不確実性が残ると考えています。特に、エコシステムとの関係性の定義が広く解釈され得る点や、想定されているリターン水準が実際の制約条件下でどの程度現実的であるかについては、慎重に見極める必要があります。
加えて、本提案は段階的な資金投入を前提としていますが、初回トランシェの承認が結果として構造全体の方向性を既成事実化する側面もあり、単なる試験的な導入として評価するには影響が大きいと考えています。
以上を踏まえ、本提案は重要な問題意識を含んでいる一方で、現時点では構造面および評価可能性に関する不確実性が残るため、支持は見送るべきであると判断しました。
- Yes 62.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.8M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 49.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Abstain on the 'Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund' treasury withdrawal, not because of the proposal itself, but due to concerns about the overall voting process.
At the moment, there is an approved total budget (350M), yet funding requests are being submitted independently as separate governance actions. This creates a fragmented and unclear landscape: it's difficult to understand the total number of proposals, the combined requested amount, or how close we are to exceeding the available budget.
Without this broader context, it becomes challenging to properly prioritize proposals, assess trade-offs, or compare similar initiatives. If the total requested funds exceed the budget, there is no clear framework for how decisions should be made across competing proposals.
For these reasons, I believe the current process lacks the structure needed for effective decision-making, and I am abstaining on that basis rather than on the merits of this specific proposal.
- No 49.7M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No on the treasury withdrawal proposal "Draper Dragon Orion Fund - Tranche One." The fundamental problem with this proposal is the lack of transparency after approval. Individual investment decisions are left to the GP's sole discretion, and portfolio information including deal terms, valuations, and ongoing transactions is designated as confidential and withheld from public view. No independent auditor is named in the proposal. The only information available to the community after the fact is what appears on a KPI dashboard. Delegating allocation authority over treasury funds to a single organization while effectively stripping the community of any means to verify the decision-making process is unacceptable from an accountability standpoint. Furthermore, this vote is not simply a decision on 50M ADA. Once the fund is operational, contractual relationships, portfolio investments, and Arouet Holdings administration become established facts, and the political and structural cost of rejecting Tranche 2 and 3 rises accordingly. Approving this proposal is equivalent to opening a path to 175M ADA without transparency in place. The path dependency this creates should not be dismissed lightly. The fact that Draper Dragon has chosen treasury funds rather than its own capital as the funding source also warrants attention. The target for external LP capital is a minimum of $5M against a total fund size of $75M from the treasury. This is a signal that private investors do not anticipate sufficiently high returns from this opportunity. I am opposed to transferring risk that should be borne by private investors onto all ADA holders.
For these reasons, I am voting No. [Japanese version follows] 私は、トレジャリー出金提案「Draper Dragon Orion Fund - Tranche One」に対し、反対票を投じます。本提案の根本的な問題は、承認後の透明性欠如にあります。個別の投資判断はGPのsole discretionに委ねられ、ポートフォリオ情報（deal terms、バリュエーション、進行中の取引）は機密として非公開とされています。独立した監査法人の名称も明記されていません。コミュニティが事後的に確認できるのは、KPIダッシュボード上の結果のみです。トレジャリー資金の配分権を一組織に委ねながら、その判断プロセスを検証する手段をコミュニティから実質的に剥奪する設計は、説明責任の観点から受け入れられません。加えて、今回の投票は50M ADAのみの判断ではありません。一度ファンドが動き始めると、契約関係・ポートフォリオ企業への投資・Arouet Holdingsの運営が既成事実となり、Tranche 2・3の否決コストが構造的に上昇します。今回の承認は、透明性が確保されないまま175M ADAへの経路を開く判断に等しく、この経路依存の問題を軽視すべきではありません。また、Draper Dragonが自己資金ではなくトレジャリーを出資源として選択している事実も注視すべきです。外部LPからの調達目標が$75Mに対して最低$5Mにとどまる点は、民間投資家がこの機会に対して高い期待リターンを見込んでいないシグナルと読めます。リスクをADAホルダー全体に転嫁する構造には反対します。以上の理由から、反対票を投じます。
- Yes 48.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 42.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 40M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 38.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 34.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 34.3M ₳ Rationale
Cardano is one of the few major Layer-1 networks that has never achieved $1 billion in TVL, currently sitting below $500 million. This structural gap limits Cardano’s competitiveness. The Orion Fund directly addresses this by deploying capital toward startups that will build applications, increase on-chain activity, and grow TVL toward a target of $3 billion or more.
The fund operates as a professional venture vehicle, not as a grant program. Venture-style returns flowing back to the treasury create a potentially self-sustaining funding model, far more capital-efficient than non-recoverable grants. This aligns with Charles Hoskinson’s publicly stated vision of shifting the treasury from a grant-issuing mechanism to an investment engine.
Draper Dragon provides Cardano access to institutional-grade asset management expertise, global investor networks, and a proven track record in blockchain venture investing. Tim Draper’s involvement brings significant credibility and visibility that can attract external capital, enterprise partnerships, and top-tier founders to the Cardano ecosystem.
The fund is structured across three strategic areas covering the full startup lifecycle: direct investments, growth capital (marketing, exchange listings, liquidity provision, technical mentorship), and educational accelerator programs. The total withdrawal amount is capped at 175 million ada across three tranches, with this first tranche targeting $15 million in value.
The Cardano Foundation has publicly expressed support for this proposal. Voting YES is a vote for strategic ecosystem growth, institutional credibility, and a more sustainable treasury model. - Yes 32.3M ₳ Rationale
Yes. 50M ADA Tranche One of a structured VC fund managed by Draper Dragon. Treasury-first repayment waterfall via Arouet Holdings, tranche-gated (future tranches need separate votes), 175M ADA hard cap. Institutional adoption play with real return mechanics.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Voting Yes. This is the largest single treasury withdrawal I've voted on, so I want to be explicit about why it clears every pillar of the Cardano First framework.
- Adoption: This is the highest-leverage adoption play currently on-chain. Draper Dragon brings institutional VC infrastructure, deal flow, and a founder pipeline (via Draper University) that Cardano has never had. Direct investments into Cardano-native and Cardano-integrated startups, an in-house venture studio, and equity-based accelerator programs attack the post-Catalyst capital gap from the supply side. The stated ambition - growing TVL from $300M to $3B+ across RWA and DeFi - is aggressive but directionally correct. Even partial delivery materially changes Cardano's competitive position.
- Economic Sustainability: The fund structure is designed to return capital to the treasury, not just spend it. Arouet Holdings (memberless Cayman FC) acts as LP with the explicit objective of increasing the treasury. The waterfall is treasury-first: all capital deployed for Ecosystem Support & Investments ($13.65M of Tranche One) must be fully repaid to Arouet before the GP takes any profit share. After repayment, the split is 80/20 (Arouet/GP). Management fee is discounted from the industry-standard 2% to ~1.3%. This is not a grant - it's a structured investment with a repayment obligation.
- Governance Transparency: Tranche-based design is the right approach. This vote approves only $15M (Tranche One). Future tranches ($30M each in years 2 and 4) require separate governance actions - the community evaluates performance before approving more capital. Total ADA withdrawals are hard-capped at 175M ADA over six years. Arouet Holdings will have a Community-elected director. The side letter with Arouet will be published publicly. Monthly reporting cadence. Constitutional compliance documented per Article I, Section 7.
- Decentralization: The Cardano Foundation plays a supporting role (ecosystem/technical know-how, administrator) but does not manage the fund or make investment decisions. The GP is Draper Dragon - an external, independent fund manager. This brings outside institutional capital and credibility into the ecosystem without concentrating power in any existing Cardano entity.
- Scalability: Indirect but real. Portfolio companies building on Cardano will drive on-chain transaction volume, TVL growth, and developer tooling. More builders shipping production apps means more demand for throughput improvements (Leios, Hydra, ZK Rollups) and more real-world validation of the eUTXO model.
Risks I'm accepting with this Yes:
- ADA price risk. The $15M target is based on $0.30/ADA. If ADA drops significantly post-withdrawal, the fund's purchasing power shrinks. The GP can defer capital calls by up to six months, but the risk is real.
- VC return timelines. 6-8 year fund horizon means the treasury won't see returns for years. This is standard for venture but novel for Cardano governance.
- Execution risk. Draper Dragon has a track record in broader crypto VC but not specifically in the Cardano ecosystem. The Cardano Foundation's supporting role and the Community Director on Arouet mitigate this somewhat.
- Precedent risk. Approving a $15M VC fund sets an expectation for the $60M in future tranches. DReps must evaluate each tranche independently and be willing to vote No on Tranches 2-3 if Tranche 1 underperforms.
The treasury is not a savings account - it's a growth engine. This is the first serious attempt to deploy treasury capital as structured investment rather than grants or operational budgets. The protections are adequate (tranche gating, hard caps, treasury-first waterfall, community director, public reporting), and the upside - institutional deal flow, founder pipeline, and a credible path to TVL growth - justifies the risk. Yes.
- Yes 31M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES.
This proposal introduces a new investment approach that complements Catalyst and brings professional capital allocation into the ecosystem. The structure provides a reasonable level of transparency and accountability, and I see potential value in diversifying how Cardano supports builders. At the same time, it will be important for the community to closely monitor investment decisions and the fund’s execution to ensure long‑term trust and alignment with Cardano’s goals. - Yes 28.2M ₳ Rationale
After careful consideration, I've decided to vote YES on this proposal. I was on the fence about it for quite some time. My main concerns are that the Cardano treasury carries virtually all of the capital risk here. I would like to see more outside investment if possible. In addition, I'm not entirely sold on the primary strategy of direct investments in Cardano-native and Cardano-integrated projects. I would like more clarity and transparency on how this will contribute to meeting the KPI goals, because on its surface it just seems like buying tokens to pump the price. However, I think that the decision to pay back the treasury FIRST before the GP makes any profit is the saving grace to this proposal. I think Cardano is at a critical juncture right now where we really need to see real products with solid use cases begin to surface and see adoption. Though I still have some concerns, I believe that the Cardano X Draper Dragon proposal has the potential to be the catalyst that we are looking for.
- Yes 27.9M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 26.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 25.9M ₳ Rationale
Rationale – Vote in Favor of Creating the Orion Fund
The creation of the Orion Fund would allow the Cardano ecosystem to tap into new decision-makers and access new pools of investable capital within the blockchain and digital asset space. By engaging institutional and professional investors through a dedicated investment structure, the ecosystem can broaden its capital base and strengthen its financial infrastructure.
In addition, the fund would help build a stronger case for liquidity partners to join the Cardano ecosystem, thereby improving overall market liquidity and reinforcing Cardano’s positioning within the BTC DeFi landscape.
Finally, the Orion Fund would contribute to raising awareness of the Cardano ecosystem and expand Cardano’s marketing reach, helping attract new developers, users, and strategic partners.
For these reasons, the creation of the Orion Fund represents a strategic step in strengthening Cardano’s ecosystem, liquidity, and capital markets presence.
- Yes 25.2M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund. I should abstain but this is too important. We have an existential gap in ecosystem funding. Catalyst is postponed and may never come back. Builder DOA will not produce the protocol revenue we need or investor-ready initiatives. Through my work with the Intersect Product Committee we have identified a dire need to enable multiple prongs of highly specialized ecosystem funding initiatives (Catalyst tried to do too much for too many). Draper Dragon fund addresses the tip of the spear and will ultimately get us our first Series A startup wins. Dreps who are nitpicking this proposal on the basis of imperfecton deserve to lose every last lovelace of delegation because they have demonstrated they are so damn out of touch with the ecosystem and too detached from the front lines to undersatnd WE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF TIME - signed one of the few (count on one hand) Cardano entrepreneurs with a track record of launching a highly successful product that: 1) played to Cardano's unique strengths, 2) created millions of on-chain transactions and 3) helped keep some of the best community talent in the ecosytem working here. We are going Series A and very much want Draper Dragon in the ecosystem supporting us.
- Yes 22.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 22M ₳ No rationale
- No 22M ₳ Rationale
I am voting an emphatic NO on the Draper Dragon Orion Fund proposal.
While I fully support the strategic transition of the Cardano Treasury towards a professional, ROI-driven Venture Capital model, the financial structure of this specific proposal is fundamentally flawed and presents an unacceptable asymmetric risk to the Cardano ecosystem.
My rejection is based on the glaring absence of "Skin in the Game" from the General Partner (GP).- Zero Risk for the GP, 100% Risk for the Treasury:
Draper Dragon is a highly respected venture firm, and their expertise in hunting and incubating projects would undoubtedly benefit our ecosystem. However, this proposal asks the Cardano Treasury to front 100% of the capital for Tranche One ($15M / 50M ADA) while the GP collects a guaranteed $1M management fee, regardless of performance. If the investments fail, the Treasury absorbs all losses; if they succeed, the GP takes 20% of the upside. This is not a partnership; it is a risk-free wealth transfer to the fund managers. - The Necessity of Co-Investment:
In traditional venture capital, GPs are expected to commit their own capital (typically 1-5%) to align their financial fate with their Limited Partners (LPs). Given that this is an unproven model on Cardano, with no historical precedent of successful VC incubation at this scale within our specific UTXO architecture, the baseline standard must be much higher. I will not support an ecosystem fund where the managing entity does not bring significant external capital to the table—whether that is a 20%, 50%, or matching co-investment structure. - Unproven Execution on Cardano:
While Draper's success in other ecosystems is notable, Cardano is unique. Until a fund manager can demonstrate the ability to successfully navigate our specific technical and community landscape, entrusting them with $15M of community funds with zero downside risk is fiscally irresponsible.
I welcome Draper Dragon to participate in the Cardano ecosystem, but it must be on terms that reflect a true partnership. I urge the proposers to restructure this offering to include a substantial, upfront capital commitment from the GP or external LPs alongside the Treasury's contribution. Until the risk is shared, the Treasury's vault must remain closed.
- Zero Risk for the GP, 100% Risk for the Treasury:
- Yes 21.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES on the Treasury Withdrawal action titled “Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund”. (8807e3cee3be5647742c329c1dea242f0c1c29b8ad050e15169e3b0302fcbfd6#0).
Although seemingly a big ask early on in the 2026 budget and net change limit period this is a very thorough and professionally written proposal and reflects an approach to governance action preparedness that has largely been lacking to date. Which is also why it is becoming increasingly important to consider a proposal such as this. A professional investment entity from outside of the Cardano ecosystem sends a strong signal to the wider space that Cardano is here, is open for business and is worth another look. As outlined previously in my DeFi Liquidity proposal rationales, Cardano has long struggled from a perception problem and I believe that should this proposal be successful, it will begin to finally turn the tide on that perception.
On the flip side of this, internally, there has been a growing perception of Cardano becoming more plutocracy and less meritocracy, with the same teams getting repeated funding, the same developers getting spread too thin across too many projects and with some bulk treasury proposals last year hard to follow the inputs and the outputs. Having an outside entity with investment experience looking at the ecosystem with fresh eyes and bringing more integrity, structure and accountability to funded projects can all help foster a sense that Cardano is a serious place for business.
If this project can be successful, highlighting Cardano as a serious place to build, an ecosystem worth investing in and all the while facilitating returns to the treasury that could help increase its sustainability, it has to be worth a shot. This has become even more important with the recent Catalyst situation and the uncertainty around any future ecosystem funding vehicle to replace it.
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 20.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 19.9M ₳ Rationale
Whilst there are talks to combine this with an index fund for Cardano, I don't believe we need to combine everything. I see great value in bringing a VC on Cardano to boost our ecosystem. With the Cardano Foundation administrating this, I have trust this will benefit our ecosystem.
- No 17.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 17.1M ₳ Rationale
Propuesta sin título
- Abstain 16.7M ₳ Rationale
I want to be clear: I strongly support the idea of a professional, ROI-driven ecosystem fund. Cardano has a real gap between grants and investor-ready companies, and a venture-style vehicle could materially improve proposal selection, negotiation, mentorship, and ultimately the number of scalable businesses built on Cardano.
My abstention is about the starting point. Approving Tranche One in its current shape risks setting a precedent for the entire multi-year initiative (3+ years), locking in misaligned incentives and weak accountability mechanisms that will be hard to correct later.
What I want to see strengthened before I can support a tranche-based VC program of this size:
Stronger alignment (“skin in the game”): clearer, meaningful co-investment commitments and full transparency around any co-invest activity, not just optionality. If co-investment is truly not possible under the proposed legal structure, then the structure should be adjusted so that meaningful alignment becomes possible. At a bare minimum, if the GP is to benefit economically (e.g., 20% of upside after Treasury repayment), the GP should cover the overhead/operational costs so that the full 50M ADA is effectively deployed into ecosystem projects rather than consumed by fund administration.
Hard KPI + milestone gates for future tranches: numeric baselines, targets, and clearly defined conditions under which Tranche Two/Three can be justified or rejected.
Governance and oversight clarity: clearer controls and checks (beyond reporting), and clearer boundaries around the CF administrator role and the SPV governance model.
We hope this initiative proceeds, but with a tighter structure that sets the right precedent from day one. If revised to address the points above, we won't be delaying the initiative and vote YES.