Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027
149 DReps voted · 53 with a rationale · 3 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳Rationale
Open source core protocol and infrastructure technology - AtlasHub is supporting this proposal.
- Yes5.5M ₳Rationale
I support the revised proposal for implementing faster finality through Peras. Go team!
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳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.
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027" (gov_action1zlj...2vcg4x), 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_action1zlj...2vcg4x), 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. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Thank you for considering community feedback. I am voting YES to the amended proposal.
- Yes2.7M ₳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.
- Yes2.5M ₳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.
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳Rationale
Voting yes again.
- 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.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Peras will be a substantial improvement in Cardano’s finality, enabling faster settlement for bridges, partner chains, exchanges, and composable DeFi.
- 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.
- Yes1.5M ₳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
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Finality time and node storage costs are critical bottlenecks in Cardano's infrastructure. Peras’ promise of slashing finality by 84% is a game-changer if delivered securely and efficiently.
The budget request of ₳18M though, pegged to a $176/hour senior engineer rate and a conservative ADA/USD ratio, demands scrutiny. While senior talent commands premium rates, the sheer scale here risks inflating operational costs without clear modularity or contingency. The proposal’s insistence on bundling interdependent packages (something I'm NOT a fan of as stated many times) raises delivery risk concentration.
I remain skeptical about whether this approach is the most cost-effective or if alternative, more modular, or competitive bids could achieve similar results with less treasury exposure. Cardano deserves innovation but not at a price that risks treasury depletion without phased, accountable delivery. I'd like to see sharper modularity, competitive benchmarks, and explicit risk mitigation before committing ₳18M+ on a single, intertwined pipeline.
- No969.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳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.
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes926K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes870.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes866.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes829.9K ₳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.
- Yes796.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes792.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain737.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes604.7K ₳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. - Yes591.1K ₳Rationale
Yes. This proposal invests in critical core infrastructure that strengthens Cardano's scalability, resilience and usability, delivering faster transaction finality through Peras while reducing operational costs for SPOs and improving developer tooling. This epresents a strategic investment in Cardano's long-term growth and competitiveness.
- Yes579.1K ₳Rationale
🚨 AS A CARDANO DREP, I AM VOTING YES ON TWEAG’S 18.26 MILLION ADA FUNDING REQUEST
A new governance proposal has been submitted: Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027.
Tweag is requesting 18,263,496 ADA, approximately $4.57 million, for three key areas:
• deployment of Peras v1 on mainnet;
• development of History Expiry;
• testing of Peras and Leios.I am voting YES.
📌 Why I support this proposal
The main reason is simple: this work is genuinely important for the Cardano network.
Peras is designed to reduce transaction finality from approximately 12 minutes to around 2 minutes.
This is not just about improving a headline metric. Faster finality matters for exchanges, applications, payments, DeFi, and institutional users.
History Expiry is intended to reduce the burden on stake pool operators.
As Leios increases throughput, blockchain data growth may accelerate significantly. If every SPO is required to store the full history of the chain, node operation becomes more expensive, which may increase centralization risks.
Conformance Testing is necessary to validate Peras and Leios before full deployment.
The more complex the protocol upgrade, the greater the potential cost of an error. Testing consensus behavior, forks, and node compatibility is therefore essential for Cardano’s security.
📌 How this proposal differs from the previous one
Tweag previously requested approximately 39.79 million ADA for 17 work packages covering the period from 2026 to 2028.
The community did not support that scale.
Tweag has now:
• reduced the requested amount by approximately 54%;
• reduced the scope from 17 work packages to 3;
• removed Peras v2 and several additional tools;
• focused only on work considered necessary for mainnet.This is a reasonable response to community criticism and a clear example of Cardano governance working as intended.
📌 Tweag has a real technical track record
Tweag has been contributing to Cardano’s core infrastructure since 2018.
The team has worked on consensus, the ledger, Ouroboros Genesis, Peras, and other core components.
This is not a company presenting only a polished proposal. Tweag has a documented history of development activity across Cardano’s core repositories.
⚠️ However, important questions remain
Tweag previously received approximately 11.07 million ADA from the Cardano Treasury.
Some of the earlier funded areas overlap with the current proposal:
• Peras;
• History Expiry;
• protocol testing.The new proposal still does not provide a sufficiently clear final reconciliation showing:
• what was fully delivered with the previous funding;
• how much was actually spent;
• which milestones were formally accepted;
• where the previously funded work ends and the new work begins.The average rate of approximately $176 per hour also remains high.
📌 My position as a DRep
I am voting YES because Cardano now needs to complete critical infrastructure rather than delay development again.
Peras, History Expiry, and Leios testing are not marketing initiatives. They are fundamental components of Cardano’s blockchain infrastructure.
However, my support does not mean that the transparency concerns have been resolved.
Any future funding request from Tweag should include a detailed public report covering the previous 11.07 million ADA, milestone results, and actual expenditures.
My vote:
✅ YES
I support the reduced proposal because it is now more focused, more specific, and more valuable to the Cardano network.
I registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem. I remain optimistic about building the world’s largest digital community. 🖤
My DRep ID:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj3...2fg2jrMore details:
https://t.me/PROCENT666/338🚀 LEDGER HARDWARE WALLET | METAMASK COURSE
https://edgarbagdasarian.justclick.ru/order/LEDGERMETAMASK🔥 PRIVATE VIP CHAT — PAID SUBSCRIPTION
https://t.me/MREDGARCROSS_BOT🌐 ALL COURSES AND LINKS
https://mredgarcross.com/📌 Disclaimer: This post is intended solely for informational and analytical purposes. It does not contain calls for unlawful action, protests, or violations of the law. All views expressed are the author’s personal opinion.