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.
- Yes605.7K ₳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:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jrMore 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.
- Yes589.7K ₳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.
- No587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes545.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
Critical to get Peras V1 to mainnet and increase the finality time. Enhancing everything about the network from security to scalability
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes431.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - Yes383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- No360.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes313.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes300.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
I voted for the 2-year Tweag withdrawal. Its unfortunate that it did not pass. Happily they have resubmitted and I see no reason not to support it.
- No294.4K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted279.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on “Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027.” This revised proposal directly addresses the concerns I had with the earlier 39.8M ADA, multi‑year, 17‑package version by narrowing the scope to three clearly critical components (Peras v1, History Expiry, and conformance testing), reducing the budget to 18.26M ADA, and constraining funding to a single 2026–2027 cycle. Peras fast finality, sustainable SPO storage via History Expiry, and stronger conformance/testing infrastructure for Peras and Leios are foundational for Cardano’s next growth phase, and Tweag has an established track record delivering this class of core infrastructure.
The custody and governance setup uses audited treasury contracts, auto‑abstain delegation, milestone‑based disbursements, and explicit proportional refund conditions for undisbursed or de‑scoped work. In this narrower and time‑bounded form, I view the proposal as a focused, high‑impact public‑goods investment in Cardano’s core protocol stack, and I am satisfied that it now fits both my treasury‑discipline expectations and the ecosystem’s need to get Peras and related infrastructure safely to mainnet.
- No261K ₳Rationale
Review Methodology Disclaimer [EN]
Due not only to the unusually high volume of Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions and budget proposals submitted in April and May 2026, but also to the lack of meaningful incentives for DReps to perform proposal analysis work, it is not feasible to apply my full standard review framework and reporting template to every proposal.
My standard analysis process usually requires approximately four hours of work per Governance Action. During that process, I research the proposal, review supporting materials, compare different perspectives from DReps and other ecosystem participants, and weigh both positive and negative arguments before reaching a reasonably qualified decision. Even with the use of artificial intelligence to automate parts of the workflow and improve productivity, a responsible evaluation still requires substantial human review, judgment, and contextual understanding.
In addition, this work does not end with the vote itself. It also involves writing and publishing rationales, preparing reports or summaries, communicating the reasoning publicly, and socializing the analysis through public channels and social media. This creates a significant workload, especially when dozens of proposals must be reviewed in a short period.
At present, this work carries no clear financial incentive and only limited reputational incentive, despite requiring substantial time, attention, and accountability. In practice, it is not sustainable to dedicate near full-time effort over several weeks or months to this activity without any form of compensation or institutional support.
Since I have a clear standard for my work and do not want to lower the quality of my judgment, I will reduce the scope of my analysis where necessary rather than rush decisions or produce superficial rationales. This means prioritizing focused due diligence over exhaustive review.
Under these constraints, my methodology during this period will focus on identifying critical strategic, operational, governance, reputational, or execution-related risks that could materially compromise a proposal’s viability, accountability, or successful delivery. In practical terms, this means narrowing my research toward the most critical gaps that may make approval unjustifiable. Where such a serious risk is identified, I may use it as the basis for a rejection vote.
This approach also helps reduce review overload: proposals with clear and material gaps would likely require rework regardless, so voting against them when those gaps are significant can be a responsible way to preserve review capacity while maintaining minimum due diligence.
Examples of such high-priority concerns may include, but are not limited to:
- Serious delivery failures in previous funded proposals;
- Significant unresolved delays in ongoing work;
- Major reputational or accountability issues within the ecosystem;
- Lack of credible execution capacity;
- Structural governance or transparency concerns;
- Severe budgetary or coordination risks.
Where I do not have sufficient time for a deeper evaluation, and no significant red flags or imminent execution risks are identified, I may abstain rather than issue an underdeveloped approval or rejection rationale.
This does not mean that other dimensions of proposal quality are unimportant. It means that, under current constraints, I will prioritize a narrower but still responsible review scope that preserves minimum due diligence, avoids rushed decisions, and keeps the quality of my judgment at an acceptable standard.
Governance Action Report — Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027 [EN]
This is a quick-check vote. I am not taking a position here on the technical merit, strategic relevance, or necessity of the proposed work.
My vote is NO due to insufficient budget granularity.
The proposal requests a large treasury withdrawal but does not provide enough detail to allow an independent assessment of whether the requested amount is proportionate. It references an average rate of USD 176/hour and uses FTE-based costing, but it does not clearly disclose how many people will work on the project, what roles they will perform, how hours are allocated across milestones, what seniority mix is assumed, or how the estimated workload was derived.
For a treasury withdrawal of this scale, this level of budget detail is not sufficient. DReps should not be required to infer the actual staffing model or rely primarily on trust in the proposer and later contracting arrangements. Without a clear breakdown of personnel, responsibilities, hours, and milestone-level costs, the budget cannot be adequately verified before voting.
For this reason, I vote NO.
Nota sobre metodologia e escopo de análise [PT]
Devido não apenas ao volume excepcionalmente alto de Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions e propostas orçamentárias submetidas em abril e maio de 2026, mas também à falta de incentivos significativos para que DReps realizem o trabalho de análise de propostas, não é viável aplicar meu framework completo de revisão e meu template padrão de relatório a todas as propostas.
Meu processo padrão de análise normalmente exige aproximadamente quatro horas de trabalho por Governance Action. Durante esse processo, eu pesquiso a proposta, reviso materiais de suporte, comparo diferentes perspectivas de DReps e de outros participantes do ecossistema, e peso argumentos positivos e negativos antes de chegar a uma decisão razoavelmente qualificada. Mesmo com o uso de inteligência artificial para automatizar partes do fluxo de trabalho e aumentar a produtividade, uma avaliação responsável ainda exige revisão humana substancial, julgamento e entendimento contextual.
Além disso, esse trabalho não termina no voto em si. Ele também envolve escrever e publicar rationales, preparar relatórios ou resumos, comunicar publicamente a justificativa e socializar a análise por meio de canais públicos e mídias sociais. Isso cria uma carga de trabalho significativa, especialmente quando dezenas de propostas precisam ser avaliadas em um curto período.
Atualmente, esse trabalho não possui incentivo financeiro claro e oferece apenas incentivo reputacional limitado, apesar de exigir tempo, atenção e responsabilidade substanciais. Na prática, não é sustentável dedicar um esforço próximo de tempo integral durante várias semanas ou meses a essa atividade sem qualquer forma de compensação ou apoio institucional.
Como tenho um padrão claro para o meu trabalho e não quero reduzir a qualidade do meu julgamento, irei reduzir o escopo da minha análise quando necessário, em vez de tomar decisões apressadas ou produzir justificativas superficiais. Isso significa priorizar uma diligência focada em vez de uma revisão exaustiva.
Sob essas restrições, minha metodologia durante este período se concentrará em identificar riscos críticos estratégicos, operacionais, de governança, reputacionais ou relacionados à execução que possam comprometer materialmente a viabilidade, a accountability ou a entrega bem-sucedida de uma proposta. Na prática, isso significa concentrar minha pesquisa nos gaps mais críticos que possam tornar a aprovação injustificável. Quando um risco sério desse tipo for identificado, poderei usá-lo como base para um voto de rejeição.
Essa abordagem também ajuda a reduzir a sobrecarga de revisão: propostas com gaps claros e materiais provavelmente exigiriam retrabalho de qualquer forma, então votar contra elas quando esses gaps forem significativos pode ser uma forma responsável de preservar capacidade de análise enquanto se mantém uma diligência mínima.
Exemplos dessas preocupações de alta prioridade podem incluir, mas não se limitam a:
- Falhas graves de entrega em propostas anteriormente financiadas;
- Atrasos significativos e não resolvidos em trabalhos em andamento;
- Problemas graves de reputação ou accountability dentro do ecossistema;
- Falta de capacidade crível de execução;
- Preocupações estruturais de governança ou transparência;
- Riscos severos de orçamento ou coordenação.
Quando eu não tiver tempo suficiente para uma avaliação mais profunda, e nenhum alerta significativo ou risco iminente de execução for identificado, poderei me abster em vez de emitir uma justificativa de aprovação ou rejeição pouco desenvolvida.
Isso não significa que outras dimensões da qualidade de uma proposta não sejam importantes. Significa que, sob as restrições atuais, priorizarei um escopo de revisão mais estreito, mas ainda responsável, que preserve uma diligência mínima, evite decisões apressadas e mantenha a qualidade do meu julgamento em um padrão aceitável.
Relatório de Ação de Governança — Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027 [PT]
Voto: NÃO
Este é um voto de quick check. Não será tomada posição, aqui, sobre o mérito técnico, a relevância estratégica ou a necessidade do trabalho proposto.
O voto é NÃO devido à granularidade insuficiente do orçamento.
A proposta solicita uma retirada relevante do Tesouro, mas não fornece detalhes suficientes para permitir uma avaliação independente sobre a proporcionalidade do valor solicitado. A proposta menciona uma taxa média de USD 176 por hora e utiliza uma estimativa baseada em FTE, mas não informa com clareza quantas pessoas trabalharão no projeto, quais funções serão exercidas, como as horas serão distribuídas entre milestones, qual composição de senioridade foi assumida ou como o volume de trabalho estimado foi calculado.
Para uma retirada do Tesouro dessa escala, esse nível de detalhamento orçamentário não é suficiente. DReps não deveriam precisar inferir o modelo real de alocação de equipe nem depender primariamente da confiança no proponente e em arranjos contratuais posteriores. Sem uma decomposição clara de pessoas, responsabilidades, horas e custos por milestone, o orçamento não pode ser adequadamente verificado antes do voto.
Por esse motivo, o voto é NÃO.
- Abstain260.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes245.5K ₳Rationale
This work delivers Peras v1 to mainnet (faster finality, ~2 min vs ~12 min) - the one item with no other funded delivery vehicle in the 2026 cycle - plus History Expiry (SPO storage economics under Leios) and Conformance Testing to de-risk both. The resubmission cuts scope from 17 packages to 3 and budget ~54% (₳18.26M vs ₳39.79M), keeping the load-bearing work and dropping peripheral tooling. Tweag has led Cardano consensus/ledger since 2018, with a disclosed rate card ($176/hr, ₳0.25/ADA) and ₳11.07M prior receipts tracked on-chain. The only tradeoff vs the original proposal is losing Peras v2's Hard Fork Combinator window, which is acceptable since v1 mainnet is the priority and v2 can follow later, hopefully in better market conditions with a stronger Ada value.
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
- Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected.
1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption. - Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
- Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
- Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.
- Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected.
- Yes234.2K ₳No rationale
- No233.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes232.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes228.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes215.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes200.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes171.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes142.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes107.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes72.1K ₳No rationale
- No69.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.4K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- AbstainRevoted45.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes15.5K ₳No rationale
- No15.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain10.8K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes682 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale