Withdraw 3,961,538 ada for Bringing Real-World Payments to Cardano with Wirex
154 DReps voted · 57 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain8.6M ₳Rationale
Wirexは現実世界の決済をCardanoへもたらす可能性のある提案であり、その方向性や実績は評価しています。一方で、要求額に対する価値やCardanoコミュニティにもたらされる効果については、現時点では私として十分な確信を持つに至りませんでした。そのため、本提案は棄権します。\n\nWirex has the potential to bring real-world payments to Cardano, and I recognize both the direction of this proposal and the team's track record. However, at this stage, I have not reached a sufficient level of confidence regarding the value relative to the requested budget or the impact on the Cardano community. Therefore, I am abstaining on this proposal.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted7.4M ₳Rationale
Voting NO, updated rationale
Wirex Treasury Withdrawal Score: 51 / 100
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v9 – Intelligent Risk Edition (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13EcIlJguBz-MJv91a3YYtb8O96K8uf9B9AOHsDOxeVE/edit?usp=sharing). The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
I score this proposal low because it asks the Cardano Treasury to fund a commercial payments product without giving Cardano enough enforceable return. Wirex looks capable, and payments are a real gap for Cardano, but the proposal does not clearly lock down the open-source assets, access rights, maintenance duties, revenue share, repayment terms, or clawbacks. In plain terms, the Treasury takes the risk while Wirex keeps most of the upside.
v9 Category Score Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap, market timing 9 / 12 Team quality, traction, adaptive execution 6 / 7 Price versus value 3 / 6 Applicant integrity and past delivery 5 / 8 Public asset, open-source, data rights 6 / 12 Treasury upside, instrument fit, risk sharing 3 / 14 Milestones, verification, anti-gaming 7 / 13 Risk management, margin of safety, obsolescence resilience 5 / 12 Sustainability and exit plan 5 / 8 Opportunity cost and competitive neutrality 4 / 8 Base score 53 / 100 DRep conviction adjustment -2 Final score 51 / 100 Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded
I'm using a personal Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v6 that I have created to reflect some of my thinking in order to be able to better assess commercial and commercial/hybrid proposals - in a way that is aligned with my own general thinking.
This framework may still evolve. I am being assisted with AI in this process, as I want to create a process that I can relatively neutrally apply to the large number of proposals that are requesting funding. If they are borderline, I will look even more closely.
The document is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fXaNY3L8oGWEGJmMubTKn7FnyhXCzOhiophXzFQFC_c/edit?usp=sharingVOTING NO
The public-good part is the reusable Cardano payments infrastructure. The private commercial part is Wirex card/banking/fiat-rail expansion. The proposal does not separate them cleanly.
Wirex says it will release open-source infrastructure. But the proposal still does not define the license, repositories, fork rights, maintenance, data rights, or which parts remain Wirex-controlled. That is a central missing piece.
Cardano should not pay almost 4 million ADA for a commercial payments expansion unless the open-source deliverables are legally precise and the treasury receives a stronger return. The treasury needs public code, public standards, public audit outputs, fork rights, maintenance, hard KPIs, and either co-funding or commercial upside.
Wirex can probably deliver. That does not mean Cardano should carry the cost while Wirex keeps the commercial upside.Category Score Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap 10 / 13 Business quality and traction 5 / 6 Price versus value 4 / 7 Applicant integrity and past delivery 5 / 8 Public asset, open-source, data rights 6 / 12 Treasury upside, instrument fit, risk sharing 4 / 15 Milestones, verification, anti-gaming 8 / 13 Risk management and first-loss protection 6 / 12 Sustainability and exit plan 6 / 9 Opportunity cost and competitive neutrality 2 / 5 Base score 56 / 100 Conviction adjustment -2 Final score 54 / 100 - No7.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20 - Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- No5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
I am generally opposed to using treasury funds to pay private companies to integrate our technology. If these companies genuinely see value in the Cardano ecosystem and it can generate sustainable revenue for them, they should fund the integration themselves.
Allocating 4 million ADA at the current ALT of the cycle for a centralized payment solution involving Wirex, Visa and similar partners feels like a significant step backward rather than forward.
I believe we are starting to lose sight of what Cardano’s original mission really is. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança "Withdraw 3,961,538 ADA for Bringing Real-World Payments to Cardano with Wirex" (gov_action1k02...cw2nc5), pois reconhecemos a importância de ampliar o uso da Cardano em pagamentos do mundo real e de promover integrações com cartões, stablecoins e serviços financeiros capazes de aumentar a adoção da rede. No entanto, entendemos que o valor solicitado, de ₳3.961.538, é elevado e que a proposta não demonstra, com o nível de clareza esperado, que os resultados projetados justificam esse investimento. Embora existam mecanismos positivos de governança e controle — como desembolsos condicionados a marcos, contratos inteligentes, supervisão independente e acompanhamento on-chain — ainda identificamos lacunas na definição de metas objetivas e indicadores suficientemente detalhados para medir adoção, volume transacionado, utilização efetiva da infraestrutura e benefícios concretos para o ecossistema Cardano. Dessa forma, entendemos que a relação entre custo e benefício ainda não está adequadamente demonstrada. Consideramos que uma versão revisada da proposta, com métricas mais robustas, objetivos verificáveis e maior detalhamento dos resultados esperados, permitiria uma avaliação mais favorável do investimento solicitado.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action "Withdraw 3,961,538 ADA for Bringing Real-World Payments to Cardano with Wirex" (gov_action1k02...cw2nc5), because we recognize the importance of expanding Cardano’s use for real-world payments and integrating the network with payment cards, stablecoins, and financial services that can drive broader adoption. However, we believe that the requested ₳3,961,538 is substantial and that the proposal does not provide sufficient evidence that the expected outcomes justify this level of investment. Although the proposal includes positive governance and oversight mechanisms—such as milestone-based disbursements, smart contracts, independent supervision, and on-chain monitoring—we believe it still lacks sufficiently detailed and objective metrics to measure adoption, transaction volume, actual infrastructure usage, and tangible benefits for the Cardano ecosystem. For these reasons, we believe the proposal has not yet demonstrated a sufficiently compelling cost-benefit case. A revised version with stronger measurable objectives, clearer performance indicators, and more detailed expected outcomes would enable a more favorable evaluation of the requested funding. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
I see this as a second vote on something already approved. This process fundamentally increases the risk that good projects won't get through by making them jump two sets of hoops, which significantly raises the likelihood that projects will lose funding even though they were approved. That would be devastating for teams involved and likely will lead to more people getting disillusioned once their project lose funding months after approval.
Irrespective, I see Wirex filling a critical need in Cardano and continue to support it as a good use of treasury funds.
- Abstain3.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
本提案に賛成します。
Wirex提案は、既に存在する「EMURGO × Wirexの商用カード商品」を超えて、Cardano全体で使える決済インフラ、wallet/API、on-chain settlement基盤を整備する可能性を持つ提案です。
Cardanoには、実世界決済、カード利用、stablecoin settlement、wallet/API連携の基盤がまだ十分に整っておらず、本提案はCardanoの実需拡大に直結する可能性があります。Wirexは既に決済・カード領域で実績を持ち、実行能力の面でも一定の信頼性があります。
また、本提案はTreasury資金を一括で渡すのではなく、Intersect管理のSmart Contract Disbursement、milestone-based release、oversight、pause、sweep back、dashboard透明性を用いる設計であり、公共資金管理として評価できます。
ただし、公共的観点から、成果物はWirex専用に閉じるべきではありません。Cardano ecosystem全体で再利用可能なOSS、API、SDK、sandboxとして公開されることを求めます。
今後は、wallet統合数、on-chain settlement数、active users、stablecoin決済量、監査報告、未使用資金返還、Treasury repayment条件の継続的な公開を求めます。
I support this Treasury Withdrawal.
The Wirex proposal has the potential to go beyond the existing “EMURGO × Wirex” commercial card product and build payment infrastructure, wallet/API access, and on-chain settlement rails that can be used across the broader Cardano ecosystem.
Cardano still lacks sufficient infrastructure for real-world payments, card usage, stablecoin settlement, and wallet/API integration. This proposal could directly support real-world adoption. Wirex also has an established track record in payments and card services, which gives the team a reasonable level of execution credibility.
I also value the funding design. Rather than transferring Treasury funds in a single lump sum, this proposal uses Intersect-managed Smart Contract Disbursement, milestone-based release, oversight, pause, sweep back, and dashboard transparency. This is a positive model for public Treasury fund management.
However, from a public-good perspective, the deliverables should not remain closed or limited to Wirex. I expect OSS components, APIs, SDKs, and sandbox environments to be made available for reuse across the Cardano ecosystem.
Going forward, I expect continued disclosure of wallet integrations, on-chain settlement metrics, active users, stablecoin payment volume, audit reports, unused fund returns, and Treasury repayment conditions.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
The description of this treasury withdrawal action is only a partial excerpt of the original proposal from the Intersect budget process. It leaves out elementary contents (e.g., the treasury return clause to name just one example). DReps have to painstakingly piece this information together themselves. And here it becomes completely unacceptable in my view. How much more fragmented is the treasury governace process supposed to become? For me, this simply remains underdefined here.
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the Wirex Real-World Payments proposal.
I support the strategic goal of bringing real-world payments to Cardano. Payments, card infrastructure, fiat connectivity, stablecoin settlement and merchant acceptance are all important if Cardano is to reach broader adoption.
However, I do not believe this proposal is sufficiently clear or sufficiently justified for a treasury withdrawal of 3,961,538 ADA.
My main concern is that the proposal does not clearly define what Cardano receives in exchange for this funding. It uses broad language around payment infrastructure, banking rails, on-chain settlement, stablecoins, wallets, self-custody integration and card issuance, but I do not think the specific Cardano public-good deliverables are defined tightly enough.
For a withdrawal of this size, I would expect clearer detail on what will be open-sourced, what infrastructure will remain available to the wider Cardano ecosystem, what is exclusive or non-exclusive to Cardano, what adoption commitments exist, what success metrics will be reported, and how the Treasury benefits beyond helping fund a commercial payments rollout.
In the current NCL environment, I believe DReps need to be highly selective. My priority is to support critical infrastructure, wallet security, self-custody, developer tooling, open-source public goods and protocol readiness.
Real-world payments are important, but growth and adoption proposals should be assessed inside a clearer NCL framework. This proposal reinforces my view that Cardano should move toward shorter NCL windows and category-level budget buckets, so DReps can agree in advance how much treasury capacity should go toward infrastructure, security, developer tooling, governance, growth, marketing, DeFi or treasury investment, and reserves.
I am not opposed to funding payments infrastructure in principle. I am also not opposed to growth/adoption spending. But for a nearly 4M ADA withdrawal, I believe the public-good output, ecosystem return, open-source scope, adoption targets and long-term Cardano benefit need to be much more clearly specified.
A stronger revised proposal could separate commercial rollout from public-good infrastructure, define exactly what Cardano receives, specify what is open-source, provide measurable adoption targets, and explain the long-term value returned to the Cardano ecosystem and Treasury.
As submitted, I do not believe this proposal is sufficiently precise, accountable or proportionate.
For these reasons, I vote NO.
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
While I want to see Cardano integrate more with traditional finance rails, I’m not convinced this is the right approach.
Cardano needs an embeddable fiat on/off-ramp solution. This would allow wallet and dapp developers to include an easy way for users to go directly from fiat in their bank account to a stablecoin on Cardano (via card / Apple Pay / Google Pay) – similar to what Coinbase Onramp, MoonPay and others offer. Cardano currently has no providers serving this use case.
However, it is not clear the proposal will address this need. Instead it seems to be more about building on Wirex’s existing offerings.
I am not a fan of Wirex, despite having used their product on and off for several years (due to a lack of alternatives in my location). Their app is not particularly user friendly, and their fees are unreasonably high.
For example, they have an inactivity fee (or “service fee” as they call it) if you stop using their app. After 9 months, it will start automatically deducting 0.2%/$5 per month (whichever is higher). After another 9 months, that ramps up to 0.003 BTC equivalent per crypto asset per DAY – or about $200 every single day just to hold a crypto asset on Wirex. I realise that dormant accounts impose a cost, but the inactivity fees charge by Wirex are clearly a profit scheme, not cost recovery.
This is on top of their high fees for trading, withdrawing, and topping up. It is not even possible to swap or redeem their native token without having at least $300 worth of it. From my experience their whole model seems designed to extract as much as possible from users. This is not the type of business I want to see building key infrastructure on Cardano.
For these reasons I am voting no.
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳Rationale
Wirex is not a speculative build. It is an existing, regulated payments business with 7 million users, $20 billion in processed volume, and Visa Principal Member status. The infrastructure being funded — smart contract settlement, account abstraction, stablecoin-connected banking rails, and Visa card issuance linked to on-chain balances — is open-source and reusable by any wallet or fintech building on Cardano. That is the right model: a proven executor delivering shared infrastructure, not a proprietary product capturing ecosystem value.
Real-world payment rails are a legitimate gap in Cardano's stack, and this proposal fills it with a team that has already shipped at scale elsewhere.
However, this proposal is notably thin on milestone detail compared to the standard set by other proposals in this cycle. I am voting Yes on the strength of Wirex's track record and the open-source commitment. If a future proposal from this team — or any team — arrives through the Intersect budget process with this level of detail and no independently structured milestones and acceptance criteria, my vote will be No regardless of the executor's reputation.
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote ABSTAIN on this proposal because I support the goal of bringing real-world payment use cases and reusable payment infrastructure to Cardano, but I am not fully convinced by the funding structure as presented. The strongest part of the proposal is its claim that the work will deliver open-source on-chain settlement, wallet/API infrastructure, account abstraction, and reusable components for other builders, not just a private card product. My concern is that a commercial payments provider may still capture most of the upside unless the public-good scope, non-exclusive reuse, Cardano-specific adoption metrics, maintenance obligations, and any return to the ecosystem are made very concrete and enforceable. I do not want to reject the direction, because payments and real-world utility matter for Cardano adoption. At the same time, I cannot vote YES without stronger assurance that this is truly shared Cardano infrastructure rather than treasury-funded commercial expansion.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
I would vote YES on the Wirex treasury withdrawal proposal as it addresses a critical gap in Cardano's ecosystem by building real-world payment infrastructure that could unlock significant transaction volume and user growth. Wirex brings proven execution capability as a Visa Principal Member with 7M users and $20B+ in processed volume, making them well-positioned to deliver on this ambitious project. The infrastructure will be released as open-source, benefiting the entire ecosystem by providing reusable components for other wallet providers and fintechs to build upon. The proposal properly passed Intersect's 67% support threshold and includes milestone-based disbursement controls with oversight from independent third parties like Sundae Labs and Cardano Foundation. While the ~4M ADA request is substantial, the strategic investment in Cardano's long-term utility and adoption potential justifies the expenditure. This aligns with Cardano's vision of becoming a practical settlement layer for global commerce and could give the network a genuine competitive advantage. The proper governance process, combined with the open-source commitment and proven team track record, makes this a worthwhile investment for the ecosystem's future.
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Wirex wants to bring real-world payments onto the blockchain, but it risks becoming just another isolated solution in a space already packed with new Layer 2 technologies and wallet innovations. The plan relies a lot on Wirex’s current size, but doesn't present solid key performance indicators or metrics to show there's real demand or adoption within the Cardano ecosystem. Without this data, we face a big risk of redundancy. Why invest in a solution that could be overshadowed by faster, more decentralized options built directly on Cardano's unique architecture?
A ₳4M withdrawal needs more than just a connection to strategic goals. What I'm missing is solid proof that this integration will significantly boost Cardano’s economic activity and user base. While Wirex's existing business is impressive, Cardano's true strength is in its foundational protocol innovations, not just bringing in traditional fintech models. To me, this proposal doesn't demonstrate that this project is essential or uniquely capable of providing lasting value compared to competitors or internal initiatives.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes988.7K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because real-world payments are an important missing piece in the Cardano ecosystem. Cardano already has strong foundations in DeFi, infrastructure and governance, but it still needs better rails for everyday spending, merchant acceptance, stablecoin payments and fiat-connected financial activity. A practical payment layer can help turn Cardano from a blockchain people hold and use on-chain into a network that can also support real-world economic activity.
Wirex brings relevant execution experience, an existing user base, card infrastructure and payment-industry access. This makes the proposal more credible than a purely theoretical payment initiative. We also see value in connecting Cardano to self-custody wallets, on-chain settlement and reusable payment infrastructure that other ecosystem participants can build on.
We recognize that there must be clear accountability to ensure the treasury is funding open Cardano infrastructure and not only subsidizing a private commercial product. However, given the strategic importance of real-world payments, the moderate size of the request, and Wirex’s ability to bring Cardano closer to everyday financial use cases, we support this proposal.
- Abstain988.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes964.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes924.2K ₳No rationale
- No881.9K ₳No rationale