Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027
149 DReps voted · 52 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
私はこの提案に賛成します。私は以前、Tweagによるより大規模な提案について、複数の異なる取り組みが単一の財務引き出し提案に含まれており、それぞれを個別に評価して判断することが困難であるとの理由から棄権しました。一方で、Perasによるファイナリティ改善、History Expiry、Conformance Testingといったコアインフラへの取り組みそのものについては、一貫してその技術的価値を評価してきました。本提案は、前回提案と比較して対象範囲と予算が縮小され、優先度の高いコアインフラ整備に焦点を絞った内容となっています。特にPerasによるファイナリティ改善は、Cardanoの利用体験や開発者体験の向上にとって重要であり、エコシステム全体の競争力強化につながると考えます。また、SPOのストレージ負担軽減を目的とするHistory Expiryや、プロトコル変更の品質と安全性を支えるConformance Testingも、Cardanoの持続可能な成長に必要な基盤技術であると評価します。依然として一定規模の予算を伴う提案ではありますが、前回提案で懸念していた広範なスコープや複雑性は大きく軽減されており、Cardanoの中長期的な発展に必要なコアインフラ投資として合理的であると判断します。以上の理由から、本提案に賛成します。\n\nI'm voting Yes on this proposal. I previously abstained from a larger proposal by Tweag because it combined multiple distinct initiatives into a single treasury withdrawal proposal, making it difficult to evaluate and form a judgment on each component individually. However, I have consistently recognized the technical value of core infrastructure efforts such as Peras for faster finality, History Expiry, and Conformance Testing. Compared to the previous proposal, this proposal has a reduced scope and budget and is more focused on higher-priority core infrastructure. In particular, improving finality through Peras is important for enhancing Cardano's user experience and developer experience, and I believe it will strengthen the competitiveness of the ecosystem as a whole. I also view History Expiry, which aims to reduce storage costs for SPOs, and Conformance Testing, which supports the quality and security of protocol changes, as important foundational technologies for Cardano's sustainable growth. While this proposal still represents a significant funding request, the broad scope and complexity that concerned me in the previous proposal have been substantially reduced. I therefore consider this proposal a reasonable investment in the core infrastructure required for Cardano's long-term development and support it.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
I voted NO on the original proposal. Voting YES on the new submitted proposal as I think TWEAG correctly understood the desire of the wider DRep body.
Tweag has resubmitted the proposal with a much narrower scope. It now focuses on the core work many DReps asked for: getting Peras v1 to mainnet, supported by History Expiry and conformance testing.
I noticed that the original (rejected) 2026-2028 proposal had a work package for Peras v1 ready-to-mainnet that was worth ₳4,954,688.00. The new, slimmer 2026-2027 proposal for the Peras v1 ready for the mainnet and support work package is at ₳10,586,720
A Tweag team member [ https://x.com/qnikst/status/2062302581053882688?s=20 ] has responded to my question on X to clarify that the new Peras v1 ready for the mainnet proposal segment now includes: not only making Peras v1 MVP mainnet ready, but also tech support and SPO support, and development of the dropped tasks until Apr 2027. The addition of Tech support and SPO support is reasonable as consensus upgrade needs live operational support.
This also explains why the new Peras v1 budget includes the 10-week post-release maintenance milestone.
Overall, voting early - - for fast finality of this proposal and so that Peras can be delivered sooner.
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes.
I originally opposed the earlier version of this proposal due to its scale, cost, and breadth. The revised proposal addresses many of those concerns.
The budget has been reduced substantially, from roughly 39M ADA to approximately 18M ADA, and the scope has been narrowed to focus on a smaller set of deliverables that are easier to justify on their own merits. Peras V1, History Expiry, and testing/conformance work all contribute to Cardano's continued evolution while avoiding a much larger and more speculative funding request.
While I remain mindful of treasury spending and prioritization, I believe the proposers made a good-faith effort to respond to community feedback by reducing both cost and ambition. This revised proposal represents a more reasonable balance between advancing important work and exercising fiscal restraint.
- No5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
I support the revised proposal for implementing faster finality through Peras. Go team!
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027" (gov_action1zljrlljt9cxlz7ra2nep43nxg0r54wcnrgexyuhuam9ah0ws607qq2vcg4x), pois compreendemos que a evolução da infraestrutura central da Cardano depende da entrega segura, auditável e tecnicamente robusta de componentes fundamentais como Peras, History Expiry e os testes de conformidade para Peras e Leios. Avaliamos que a proposta apresenta uma abordagem coerente ao tratar esses pacotes de trabalho como partes interdependentes de uma mesma linha de entrega, reduzindo riscos técnicos e fortalecendo a preparação da rede para maior velocidade de finalização, melhor escalabilidade, maior resiliência e custos operacionais mais sustentáveis para os SPOs. Também apoiamos a proposta por sua estrutura de governança, transparência e prestação de contas, incluindo entregas open-source, acompanhamento público, auditoria por terceiros, administração pela Intersect e desembolsos baseados em marcos. Entendemos que esses mecanismos ajudam a proteger o uso dos recursos do Tesouro e oferecem melhores condições para que investimentos anteriores em infraestrutura cheguem efetivamente à mainnet e gerem valor concreto para o ecossistema Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027" (gov_action1zljrlljt9cxlz7ra2nep43nxg0r54wcnrgexyuhuam9ah0ws607qq2vcg4x), because we understand that the evolution of Cardano’s core infrastructure depends on the secure, auditable, and technically robust delivery of fundamental components such as Peras, History Expiry, and conformance testing for Peras and Leios. We believe the proposal presents a coherent approach by treating these work packages as interdependent parts of the same delivery track, reducing technical risks and strengthening the network’s preparation for faster finality, improved scalability, greater resilience, and more sustainable operational costs for SPOs. We also support the proposal because of its governance, transparency, and accountability structure, including open-source deliverables, public tracking, third-party auditing, administration by Intersect, and milestone-based disbursements. We believe these mechanisms help protect the use of Treasury resources and provide better conditions for previous infrastructure investments to effectively reach mainnet and generate concrete value for the Cardano ecosystem. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳Rationale
Thank you for considering community feedback. I am voting YES to the amended proposal.
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に条件付きで賛成します。
前回案はスコープと費用規模が大きく慎重な判断が必要でしたが、今回の再提案ではPeras v1、History Expiry、Conformance Testingの3点に絞られ、Cardanoの確定性改善、SPO負担軽減、複数ノード実装時代の安全性に直結する内容になっています。
ただし、₳18.26Mは大きな支出です。技術的な詳細は専門チームとSPOコミュニティの検証を尊重しつつ、マイルストーンごとの成果物、支払額、第三者保証、未使用資金返還の公開を求めます。これらの継続的監視を前提に、私はYESを投じます。
I vote YES with conditions.
The previous proposal was broad in scope and large in budget, so it required careful scrutiny. In this revised version, the scope has been narrowed to three core work packages: Peras v1, History Expiry, and Conformance Testing. These directly support faster finality, reduced SPO burden, and safer multi-node implementation for Cardano.
However, ₳18.26M is still a significant treasury withdrawal. While I respect the technical validation by expert teams and the SPO community, I expect clear public reporting on milestone deliverables, payment amounts, third-party assurance, and the return of unused funds.
With these transparency and oversight expectations, I vote YES.
- 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.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
Open source core protocol and infrastructure technology - AtlasHub is supporting this proposal.
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this proposal because I believe it represents a materially improved and more focused version of the previous Tweag treasury request. The scope has been narrowed significantly, the requested amount has been reduced, and the remaining work packages are directly relevant to Cardano’s core infrastructure, scalability, decentralisation, and long-term protocol resilience.
Peras, conformance testing, and History Expiry are not speculative ecosystem extras; they are important pieces of foundational infrastructure. Faster practical finality, stronger multi-implementation confidence, and reduced long-term node storage burden all support Cardano’s ability to scale while preserving decentralisation and operational robustness.
My support is based on the expectation that this proposal is delivered with strong milestone-based oversight, transparent reporting, independent assurance, and appropriate handling of any unused funds. Treasury funding should not be treated as a blank cheque, especially for large technical infrastructure work. However, when the scope is clear, constitutionally aligned, and strategically important to the network, I believe the treasury should support high-quality core development.
For those reasons, I am voting YES.
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Peras will be a substantial improvement in Cardano’s finality, enabling faster settlement for bridges, partner chains, exchanges, and composable DeFi.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
Voting yes again.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
I voted NO on the original proposal mainly because of the two-year budget. Now that the proposal has been changed to a one-year budget, and because I believe Cardano will benefit from the further development of Peras, I am voting YES.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳Rationale
This is the critical path to Peras on mainnet. Faster finality (~2 min vs ~12 min today) is not a nice-to-have — it is a prerequisite for Cardano to be competitive as a settlement layer for high-value applications.
Tweag has been on the Cardano consensus team since January 2018. They built Ouroboros Genesis. They co-designed Peras. There is no team better positioned to carry this across the finish line.
The three work packages are correctly structured as a single pipeline: Peras v1 cannot go to mainnet without the conformance testing scaffolding that validates it under adversarial conditions. Leios cannot scale sustainably without History Expiry protecting SPO economics. Separating them would increase delivery risk, not reduce it.
History Expiry deserves specific mention: at 100–1000 TPS under Leios, full-history storage requirements would grow ~1GB/hour. Without this work, running a node becomes economically prohibitive for smaller SPOs, directly threatening decentralization. This is infrastructure that protects the network's security model, not just its performance.
Track record: ₳11M previously allocated, delivery documented. $176/hour for senior Cardano infrastructure engineers at a conservative 0.25 ADA/USD conversion is a defensible rate for this class of work.
This is exactly the kind of treasury spend the treasury exists for.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because fast finality is a critical infrastructure upgrade that Cardano needs in order to remain competitive and usable at scale.
Reducing finality from roughly 12 minutes to around 2 minutes would materially improve the user experience for payments, DeFi, bridges, exchanges, and other applications that depend on faster settlement guarantees. In our view, this is not a nice-to-have feature, but an important foundation for broader ecosystem adoption.
We also support the fact that this proposal focuses on core infrastructure rather than speculative application-layer work. Peras, History Expiry, and conformance testing all contribute to making Cardano faster, more resilient, and more scalable. While the requested amount is substantial, we believe that getting fast finality mainnet-ready is a strategic priority for the ecosystem.
- NoRevoted954K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes923.6K ₳No rationale
- No881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Core network operations cannot be treated as discretionary; they form the bedrock upon which all decentralized applications, enterprise use cases, and localized ecosystem expansions rely.
While the 18.26M ADA request is substantial, the risks associated with underfunding core maintenance—including technical vulnerability, lack of prompt bug resolution, and losing specialized engineering talent to competing ecosystems—far outweigh the financial cost. Tweag has demonstrated deep, proven expertise in managing functional areas of Cardano’s core software stack. Therefore, authorizing this budget is necessary to sustain the foundational integrity of the blockchain.
- Yes798.4K ₳Rationale
This proposal funds fundamental protocol infrastructure with ecosystem-wide benefits, is being executed by a highly credible team with a long Cardano track record, and directly contributes to scalability, decentralization, and user experience. The expected return to the network substantially exceeds the treasury cost.
- Yes794.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes759K ₳No rationale
- Abstain747.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
Resubmission, ₳18,263,496 / $4,565,874 at $0.25, 3 Reduction: 53% smaller, and the work package count dropped from 17 to 3. Peras v1 (cryptography, KillSwitch, mainnet readiness, support), History Expiry (partial-history nodes to cut SPO storage costs), Conformance Testing (both Peras and Leios).
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I'm switching to a yes because the structural problem that drove my no vote has been resolved, not just resized. My original concern wasn't about Tweag's competence on Cardano's core infrastructure, it's that 17 work packages submitted as a single pipeline prevented the kind of granular evaluation this treasury process exists to provide. That concern doesn't disappear by default just because a team resubmits; it disappears when the resubmission actually addresses it. Here, three work packages remain, and they're interdependent for a coherent reason rather than bundled for convenience: conformance testing is the correctness scaffolding that has to exist before Peras can be trusted on mainnet, and History Expiry exists specifically to absorb the storage cost consequences that Peras and Leios throughput increases create for SPOs. That's a single technical program with three components, not seventeen unrelated asks wearing one cover sheet.
Peras going to mainnet is the production-readiness step that makes Cardano's prior research investment in faster finality actually matter, dropping from roughly twelve minutes to roughly two minutes is the kind of improvement that changes what's buildable on Cardano, and it's complementary to, not duplicative of, the Leios research work I already voted to fund. History Expiry is the decentralization safeguard that has to exist alongside that throughput growth, because full-history storage requirements becoming economically prohibitive for smaller SPOs is exactly the kind of centralizing pressure that erodes the network from the bottom up rather than the top down.
Tweag's track record carries real weight here. This is a team that's been embedded in Cardano's consensus and ledger work since January 2018, built Ouroboros Genesis, and contributed directly to Peras's own design, they are not making a case for capability, they're continuing work they've already proven they can do. At ₳18,263,496, less than half the prior ask, with an explicit $176-per-hour engineering rate disclosed and a dual-review acceptance structure running through both IOG and an independent third-party assessor, this is a tighter, more accountable, and more honestly scoped proposal than what I voted no on. The prior no was a request for better structure, not a rejection of the work. Tweag has delivered a better structure.