Withdraw 1,310,960 ada for Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026
Discussed in the Governance Review for epochs 642 to 646.
158 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 2 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, together voting with 0 ₳ of voting power.
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.5M ₳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 - Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Withdraw 1,310,960 ada for Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026.
RCADA supports this proposal because hardware-wallet compatibility is a security-critical access layer for Cardano. Users rely on hardware wallets for secure signing, staking, governance participation, DeFi, payments, and everyday self-custody. If Ledger or Trezor support falls behind Cardano protocol changes, firmware updates, or wallet and dApp integration needs, users and builders can face avoidable disruption.
This proposal is clearly focused on continuity rather than speculative new development. It funds 12 months of maintenance for Cardano hardware-wallet support, including Ledger and Trezor compatibility updates, supporting interoperability libraries,
cardano-hw-cli, developer support for ecosystem integrators, release support, and vendor-required audit or assurance work where needed.RCADA views this as important public-good infrastructure. Hardware-wallet support benefits the wider ecosystem, including users, wallets, dApps, builders, and institutions that depend on secure self-custody flows. Maintaining this layer proactively is preferable to waiting until compatibility breaks and then reacting after users lose access or integrations fail.
The governance and administration structure is also positive. This withdrawal passed the required Intersect Budget Process support threshold and will use the 2026 Treasury management smart contract framework, including oversight, milestone-based disbursement controls, and public dashboard visibility.
The requested amount of 1,310,960 ADA is larger than some maintenance proposals, so RCADA expects clear reporting and evidence of value delivered. This should include visible compatibility work, release updates, audit or vendor-assurance evidence where applicable, issue resolution, integrator support, and transparent capped time-and-materials reporting.
On balance, this proposal supports security, interoperability, developer experience, and user confidence in Cardano’s self-custody infrastructure. It is clearly scoped, process-approved, and focused on maintaining a proven access layer that many users and builders depend on.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here:
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/ - Yes7.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting YES for the Hardware wallet maintenance proposal
This is a pretty important continuity proposal for ADA holders who use hardware wallets. Cardano is continuously undergoing a series of upgrades through softforks and hardforks. The wallets need to remain compatible with the newest versions of Cardano.
- Yes6.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳Rationale
Although this treasury withdrawal action is only a partial excerpt of the original proposal from the Intersect budget process and remains underdefined here, I consider this to be important work.
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳Rationale
I do not have the technical expertise to properly evaluate the specific amount of ADA requested for hardware wallet maintenance. However, since security is a critical priority for our ecosystem, I will trust the judgment of my fellow DReps who participated in the Ekklisia voting process and brought this proposal forward.
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Withdraw 1,310,960 ADA for Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026" (gov_action1k02...hyg4hw), pois entendemos que a manutenção contínua da compatibilidade com Ledger e Trezor é fundamental para preservar a segurança dos usuários, garantir o acesso aos seus ativos e evitar falhas decorrentes da evolução do protocolo Cardano, das carteiras e dos próprios dispositivos. O valor solicitado, de ₳1.310.960, nos parece proporcional ao escopo de trabalho previsto para 12 meses e apresenta uma boa relação custo-benefício ao reduzir riscos que poderiam impactar usuários, desenvolvedores, carteiras e aplicações descentralizadas em todo o ecossistema. Também avaliamos de forma positiva os mecanismos de governança, controle e transparência previstos na proposta, incluindo desembolsos condicionados ao cumprimento de marcos, prestação de contas por meio de relatórios de horas e custos, supervisão independente, autorizações com múltiplas assinaturas e acompanhamento público da execução por contratos inteligentes e dashboard on-chain. Esses mecanismos tornam a execução das atividades mais verificável e reforçam a confiança de que os recursos da Tesouraria serão utilizados de forma responsável e alinhada aos interesses da comunidade.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Withdraw 1,310,960 ADA for Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026" (gov_action1k02...hyg4hw), because we believe that maintaining ongoing compatibility with Ledger and Trezor is essential to preserving user security, ensuring continued access to funds, and preventing integration issues as the Cardano protocol, wallet software, and hardware devices continue to evolve. The requested ₳1,310,960 appears proportionate to the proposed 12-month scope of work and offers strong value by reducing risks that could otherwise affect users, developers, wallets, and decentralized applications across the ecosystem. We also view the proposal’s governance, oversight, and transparency mechanisms positively. These include milestone-based disbursements, detailed reporting of hours worked and associated costs, independent oversight, multisignature authorization, and public monitoring through smart contracts and an on-chain dashboard. Together, these measures make execution more transparent and verifiable, reinforcing confidence that Treasury funds will be managed responsibly and in the best interests of the Cardano community. - Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
I see this as a administrative vote which is to process a withdrawal that DRep's have previously approved. I do not believe in throwing monkey-wrenches into approved and planned for processes, and thus I vote yes so as not to obstruct progress and momentum, and to not undermine previous decisions.
- Yes4.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに賛成します。 Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026は、Cardano利用者がLedgerやTrezorを通じて安全に署名し、staking、dApp利用、governance参加を継続するための重要な公共インフラ保守です。Cardano protocol、hardware wallet firmware、wallet app、dApp integrationが変化する中で、互換性が失われれば、ユーザーや開発者は安全なアクセス経路を失います。 本提案は新規wallet製品の開発ではなく、既存のsecurity-critical access layerを維持するものであり、Cardano全体の安全性、相互運用性、開発者体験、利用継続性に資します。また、Intersect管理、Smart Contract Disbursement、milestone-based controls、oversight、dashboard透明性を備える点も公共資金管理として評価します。
I support this Treasury Withdrawal.
Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026 is important public infrastructure that allows Cardano users to continue signing safely through Ledger and Trezor for staking, dApp usage, and governance participation. As the Cardano protocol, hardware wallet firmware, wallet apps, and dApp integrations continue to evolve, loss of compatibility would mean that users and developers could lose a secure access path.
This proposal is not about building a new wallet product. It maintains an existing security-critical access layer and contributes to Cardano’s overall security, interoperability, developer experience, and continuity of use. I also value its public fund management design, including Intersect administration, Smart Contract Disbursement, milestone-based controls, oversight, and dashboard transparency.
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳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.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the Hardware Wallet Maintenance proposal.
Hardware wallets are critical security infrastructure for Cardano. They support safe custody, staking, governance participation, transaction signing, and DRep voting for many users who choose not to expose private keys to hot wallets.
This proposal is a focused maintenance request rather than a speculative growth proposal. It supports continued Ledger and Trezor compatibility, Cardano hardware-wallet tooling, integration support, vendor coordination, audits, protocol upgrade readiness, and ongoing maintenance required to keep this part of the ecosystem reliable.
In the current NCL environment, I believe DReps need to be highly selective. My priority is to support proposals that maintain essential public goods, security-critical infrastructure, self-custody, and developer/user access to Cardano.
Hardware wallet support clearly fits that category.
The requested amount is material, but proportionate given the importance of the work. If this infrastructure is not maintained properly, the downside risk is significant: degraded wallet compatibility, weaker self-custody UX, reduced governance participation, and increased friction for users who rely on cold-storage signing.
For those reasons, I consider this a responsible and necessary use of treasury funds.
I vote YES.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Important to maintain Cardano’s hardware wallet integrations.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this version of Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026. I agree that hardware-wallet support is important security infrastructure for Cardano users, but I do not think this proposal sufficiently justifies another recurring treasury payment to support work that should become sustainable across hardware-wallet vendors, integrators, and the commercial ecosystem that benefits from it. I am especially concerned by the Cardano Foundation’s points about unclear cost justification, prior delivery delays or incomplete milestones, and the need to explain whether this is routine maintenance or a larger rewrite. Public funding should not become a default operating subsidy for a for-profit maintenance relationship without stronger transparency, milestones, delivery evidence, and vendor responsibility. I would reconsider a revised proposal with clearer costs, accountability, and a credible path toward sustainability.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Keeping hardware wallets well-maintained is important for Cardano’s security and for building user trust, especially as Ledger and Trezor continue to develop. Even more so after the recent SecondFi hack.
However, ₳1.3M looks more like a recurring expense than a smart investment. The proposal falls short on showing any signs of innovation or efficiency improvements. Are we just paying for basic upkeep, or are we really advancing hardware wallet integration and making them more resilient? Given Cardano’s unique UTxO model and Layer 2 goals, we need hardware wallet solutions that are not just well-maintained but are also future-proof and compatible with newer tech beyond the old vendors.
Maintenance is important, but I'm not known for writing a blank check without enough strategic thought or innovation.
- Yes982.8K ₳No rationale