Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027
149 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 592.3M ₳ Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes YES on "Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027" as a well-scoped and timely investment in the protocol infrastructure that Cardano's next phase of growth depends on.Rationale
• Peras mainnet deployment is overdue.
Peras has been in development and the research is sound, but it remains undeployed on mainnet. Reducing finality from roughly 12 minutes to around 2 minutes is not a marginal improvement; it is a prerequisite for the kind of DApp experiences that compete with other L1s. This proposal funds the production cryptography, KillSwitch mechanism, and hard fork readiness work needed to get it there.
• Keeping node operation economically viable.
At the throughput levels Leios targets, full-history storage requirements will become economically prohibitive for many SPOs. History Expiry is the structural fix for that problem, and funding it now, ahead of Leios activation, is the right sequencing. Delaying it means the problem arrives faster than the solution.
• Tweag's track record warrants confidence.
The team has been contributing to Cardano's consensus and ledger layers since 2018, with prior treasury funding delivered against open-source, publicly tracked milestones. The conformance testing framework being extended here for both Peras and Leios further demonstrates a long-term investment in ecosystem correctness, not just point deliverables.Conclusion
Yoroi supports this proposal as a necessary and well-governed continuation of core infrastructure work that the ecosystem has already committed to. The scope is coherent, the team is credible, and the timing is right. Yoroi votes YES. - Yes 428.5M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES on "Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027."
Peras + Leios are necessary pieces for Cardano to compete with other L1s. Given Cardano's current transaction volume, the benefits of Peras may be more immediately tangible than those of the currently more popular Leios: Peras shortens finality from roughly 12 minutes to about 2 minutes under certain conditions, so it delivers value whether transaction volume is high or low. Tweag's track record can be verified through its activity in repositories such as cardano-ledger (346 commits — the #2 contributor, after iohk.io's 985), cardano-node, and ouroboros-consensus.
Furthermore, in response to community feedback, the scope has been narrowed to the necessary minimum compared with the previous proposal.ーーー
私は「Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027」にYESを投票します。
Peras＋Leiosは他のL1との競争において必要なピースです。現在のCardanoのTxの利用量を考慮すると、現味人気のあるLeiosよりも、Perasはそのスケーラビリティ向上の効果を実感しやすいかもしれません。これはファイナリティを12分から2分へ一定の条件下で早めるものですから、Tx量が高くても低くても、効果があります。cardano-ledger（346 commits = #2 contributor (985 iohk.io に次ぐ)）、cardano-node、ouroboros-consensus githubレポジトリなどでのTweagの活動を確認することがチームの実績を確認できます。
さらに、コミュニティのフィードバックを受けて、前回の提案書からスコープは必要最小限に絞り込まれました。
- Yes 328.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 297.4M ₳ Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes YES on the treasury withdrawal titled "Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027", with rationale outlined below.Rationale
Tweag has been embedded in Cardano's core infrastructure since 2018, leading consensus and ledger work and contributing directly to the design of Peras. This proposal is not an introduction of a new team to a new problem. It is the continuation of a body of work that the ecosystem has already invested in, focused on bringing that work across the finish line and into production.The three workstreams are well-chosen and genuinely interdependent. Peras mainnet deployment addresses a finality gap that matters to every DApp and user on the network. History Expiry addresses a storage cost trajectory that, left unresolved, will become a meaningful threat to SPO decentralisation as Leios throughput scales. Conformance testing provides the correctness scaffolding that both Peras and Leios depend on for safe deployment. Treating any of these as separable would increase delivery risk across all three.
Tweag's prior treasury engagement, including a track record of open deliverables and milestone-based accountability, gives EMURGO confidence that the governance structure around this proposal is sound. The 18.2 million ADA request reflects the real cost of senior protocol engineering at this level of complexity, and EMURGO is satisfied it is a proportionate ask for the scope of work proposed. For these reasons, EMURGO votes YES.
- Yes 240.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 221.8M ₳ Rationale
Yes to Peras in this new slimmed-down proposal.
- Yes 160.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 135.1M ₳ Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES and recognizes the strategic value of Peras. The proposer addressed much of our previous feedback by halving the timeline, unbundling the scope, and detailing the budget. While concerns relating to prior funding remain, we believe the risk is mitigated.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The Cardano Foundation previously voted NO on Tweag’s 2026-2028 multi-year request due to concerns around improper bundling, a two-year timeline, and insufficient financial transparency. We commend the Tweag team for engaging with community feedback and returning with an improved resubmission.
Our decision to support this revised proposal is driven by the following factors:
- Constructive Rescoping and Unbundling: The proposal resolves our primary structural concerns by halving the funding timeline to a 12-month period and reducing the requested budget. By unbundling the portfolio to focus exclusively on Peras, the submission removes tooling and ongoing maintenance workstreams, allowing this critical core infrastructure to be evaluated on its standalone strategic merit.
- Financial Transparency and Granularity: The requested budget is now segmented at the work-package and milestone level. This provides visibility into the financial architecture that was absent in the previous submission, enabling a more objective assessment of the allocation.
- Strategic Value of Peras: We recognize faster, predictable finality as essential public-good infrastructure for Cardano's ongoing adoption. Peras carries significant institutional implications and serves as foundational architecture for Layer 2 scaling, decentralized applications, and enhanced network throughput. We view the delivery of Peras to mainnet as a strategic priority that justifies the requested treasury support.
While our decision is to support this governance action, material concerns remain regarding the administration of prior funding and the execution of the current scope. We expect the proposer to address the following unresolved gaps during the execution period:
- Prior-Funding Closeout: There is still no independently auditable closeout of the 11,070,322.68 ada distributed in 2025, nor a clean separation of which costs in this current request complete prior obligations versus new work. We expect a published, auditable 2025 closeout and a clear accounting of how prior funding was managed.
- FX Risk Management: The budget assumes an exchange rate of $0.25 USD/ADA. While we accept that this appropriately shifts FX downside risk onto the proposer, it makes a future funding shortfall foreseeable.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. Peras development holds strategic value, and Tweag has made substantial improvements to the proposal’s scope, length, and granularity. However, we will evaluate the team's follow-through on our unresolved concerns in any future funding assessments. We expect these accountability expectations and deliverables to be resolved prior to any subsequent treasury requests.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - Yes 93.3M ₳ Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote YES for the proposal: Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026-2027.
My rationale:
My previous vote on the earlier version of this proposal was NO. The major reason was that Tweag was asking for a two-year budget, which I considered unfair to other submitters asking for funding. This issue has now been resolved.
I consider all three work packages important.
Peras is important for faster finality and a better user experience. History Expiry is important for long-term node sustainability and SPO costs, especially if Cardano throughput increases in the future. Conformance Testing is important because protocol upgrades such as Peras and Leios must be delivered safely, with strong testing and validation infrastructure.
My main concern remains the milestone structure. The proposal says that milestones, acceptance criteria, payment amounts, and delivery dates will be defined later in the legal contract between Tweag and Intersect. This means DReps are being asked to approve the treasury withdrawal before reviewing the full milestone-level detail.
In my view, this should be fixed in future proposals. DReps should be able to review milestones before voting, especially for large infrastructure budgets.
I accept this structure in this case mainly because Tweag has a strong track record in Cardano core infrastructure. However, this requires trust that Intersect will ensure the contract is well defined, with clear deliverables, acceptance criteria, reporting requirements, and refund conditions.
One broader concern is that core Cardano infrastructure funding is now distributed across multiple entities. Some work packages that were historically delivered within, or closely connected to, IO are now being funded through separate proposals from other specialist teams such as Tweag.
This may be a reasonable delivery model, especially when the teams have the right expertise, but it also makes it harder for DReps to understand the total annual cost of Cardano core infrastructure.
For that reason, I believe future infrastructure planning should provide a clearer combined view of expected funding needs across IO, Tweag, and other core contributors. This should ideally be available before DReps approve the 2027 Net Change Limit (NCL), so the community can assess treasury capacity with a full picture rather than evaluating each proposal in isolation.
For the next funding cycle, it would be helpful if both IO and Tweag communicated their expected future budget needs early.
I would appreciate it if Intersect could coordinate this process and help provide DReps with a clearer overview of the expected infrastructure funding pipeline before the NCL is approved.
I support this resubmitted proposal and vote YES.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp - Yes 92.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8M ₳ Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026-2027.
Governance Action ID: gov_action1zljrlljt9cxlz7ra2nep43nxg0r54wcnrgexyuhuam9ah0ws607qq2vcg4x
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): 17e43ffe4b2e0df1787d54f21ac66643c74abb131a326272fceecbdbbdd0d3fc#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-10This is a resubmission, and SIPO's vote should be read against its own record. On the original ₳39,787,316 proposal (2026-2028), SIPO abstained for two stated reasons: scale — the single largest live direct withdrawal, at roughly 28% of the estimated remaining Net Change Limit — and role clarity, the unresolved funding-responsibility split for a parallel direct treasury draw while Input Output leads and funds core-protocol development. SIPO wrote then that its position was not fixed and that it remained open to supporting a revised funding structure. This resubmission is that revised structure, and SIPO honours its stated openness.
What changed is substantial. The request is reduced by 54% to ₳18,263,496 (USD $4.57M), the period shortened to 2026-2027, and the scope cut from seventeen work packages across nine areas to the three on the critical path: Peras v1 mainnet delivery (production cryptography, KillSwitch, hard-fork readiness, and maintenance), History Expiry (partial-history nodes that keep SPO storage economics viable as Leios raises throughput), and Conformance Testing (the CTC framework extended to cover both Peras and Leios). The footprint falls from roughly 28% of SIPO's estimated remaining Net Change Limit to roughly 13%, and the request is no longer the largest live withdrawal. On role clarity, the resubmission adds structure the original lacked: mandatory code review by Input Output Global, as primary maintainers of the target Cardano repositories, gates every technical deliverable for architectural consistency, and No Witness Labs is engaged as an independent third-party assessor. The narrowed scope — the team that has built Peras finishing Peras and delivering it to mainnet — removes most of the role ambiguity that concerned SIPO, and the conformance work explicitly complements the IO-led Leios initiative SIPO supported in May.
The substance was never in question. SIPO wrote in its abstention that Peras (finality from ~12 minutes to ~2 minutes) and History Expiry (full-node economics and the preservation of decentralization) are foundational to Cardano's path to 2030 scaling, and that Tweag has been a core contributor to the node's diffusion layer and the Ouroboros implementation since 2018. As a stake pool operator, SIPO is itself a direct stakeholder in History Expiry's storage economics. Prior treasury and ecosystem investment in Peras delivers no value until it reaches mainnet; this proposal is the completion of that path. Treasury protection meets the standard SIPO has endorsed throughout this cycle: the recipient is a script credential under the Intersect-administered Treasury Reserve Smart Contract framework, with milestone-based fixed-price contracting, third-party assurance, and milestone-gated disbursement controls.
One concern from the abstention remains open, and SIPO names it rather than waving it through: the ecosystem-level funding-responsibility model for core-protocol work — IO coordination and sub-funding versus direct treasury draws — is still unsettled, and the headline reduction reflects descoping to the critical path more than a lower run-rate. SIPO also notes the portfolio context, with other sizable withdrawals live in the same window. SIPO therefore votes Yes with the following expectations: (1) that the funding-responsibility model for core-protocol engineering be clarified at the ecosystem level — between IO, Intersect, and independent delivery teams — before follow-on asks of this kind; (2) that milestone acceptance, No Witness Labs assessments, and the outcomes of IOG code review be publicly reported as delivery progresses; (3) that Peras v1 mainnet deployment be treated as the headline acceptance outcome of the engagement, with hard-fork readiness evidence; and (4) that delivery remains scope-contained, with any additional work brought as separate governance actions rather than scope growth. Rewarding a proposer who responded concretely to community feedback — with a 54% reduction, a critical-path scope, and an explicit IOG review gate — is how a credible governance feedback loop is built. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、本提案「Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026-2027」に期待事項付きで賛成（YES）を投じます。
Governance Action ID: gov_action1zljrlljt9cxlz7ra2nep43nxg0r54wcnrgexyuhuam9ah0ws607qq2vcg4x
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): 17e43ffe4b2e0df1787d54f21ac66643c74abb131a326272fceecbdbbdd0d3fc#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-10本提案は再提出であり、SIPO の投票は SIPO 自身の記録と照らして読まれるべきものです。元の ₳39,787,316 提案（2026-2028）に対し、SIPO は 2 つの理由で棄権しました。規模 — 推定残り Net Change Limit の約 28% を占める単独最大の直接引き出しであったこと — と、役割の明確性 — Input Output がコアプロトコル開発を主導・資金提供する中での並行直接引き出しにおける資金責任分担が未解決であったこと、です。SIPO は当時、立場は固定的ではなく、改訂された資金構造が示されれば支持に開かれていると書きました。本再提出はまさにその改訂された構造であり、SIPO は自らの言葉に誠実に応えます。
変化は実質的です。要求額は 54% 削減されて ₳18,263,496（USD $4.57M）となり、期間は 2026-2027 に短縮、スコープは 9 領域 17 ワークパッケージからクリティカルパス上の 3 つに絞り込まれました。Peras v1 のメインネット展開（本番暗号・KillSwitch・ハードフォーク readiness・保守）、History Expiry（Leios がスループットを引き上げる中で SPO のストレージ経済性を維持する部分履歴ノード）、Conformance Testing（Peras と Leios の両方をカバーする CTC フレームワーク拡張）です。フットプリントは推定残り NCL の約 28% から約 13% に下がり、もはや単独最大の引き出しではありません。役割の明確性については、原案になかった構造が加わりました。対象 Cardano リポジトリの primary maintainer である Input Output Global による必須コードレビューがすべての技術納品物をアーキテクチャ整合性の観点でゲートし、No Witness Labs が独立第三者検証者として起用されます。「Peras を作ってきたチームが Peras を完成させ、メインネットに届ける」という純化されたスコープは、SIPO が懸念した役割の曖昧さの大半を取り除き、conformance 作業は SIPO が 5 月に支持した IO 主導の Leios イニシアチブを明示的に補完します。
中身の価値は最初から問われていませんでした。SIPO は棄権の際に、Peras（finality 約12分→約2分）と History Expiry（フルノードの経済性＝分散性の維持）は Cardano の 2030 スケーリングへの道の基盤であり、Tweag は 2018 年以来 node の diffusion 層と Ouroboros 実装の中核貢献者であると書いています。ステークプールオペレーターである SIPO 自身が、History Expiry のストレージ経済性の直接の当事者です。Peras への先行投資は、メインネットに到達して初めて価値を生みます — 本提案はその完了の道筋です。トレジャリー保護は SIPO が今期支持してきた基準を満たします。引き出し先は Intersect 管理の Treasury Reserve Smart Contract フレームワーク下の script credential であり、マイルストーン型固定価格契約・第三者検収・マイルストーン条件付き disbursement 管理を伴います。
棄権時の懸念のうち 1 つは未解決のまま残っており、SIPO はそれを曖昧にせず明記します。コアプロトコル作業の資金責任モデル — IO による調整・sub-fund か、Treasury 直接引き出しか — はエコシステムレベルでは依然確定しておらず、総額の削減は単価の引き下げというよりクリティカルパスへのスコープ縮小によるものです。また、同時期に他の大型引き出しが並走するポートフォリオ状況にも留意します。したがって SIPO は、以下の期待事項とともに賛成します：(1) コアプロトコルエンジニアリングの資金責任モデル（IO・Intersect・独立デリバリーチームの間の分担）を、この種の後続要求の前にエコシステムレベルで整理すること、(2) マイルストーン検収・No Witness Labs の評価・IOG コードレビューの結果を、デリバリーの進行に応じて公開報告すること、(3) Peras v1 のメインネット展開を本契約の筆頭受入成果として扱い、ハードフォーク readiness の証跡を示すこと、(4) スコープを封じ込め、追加作業はスコープ拡大ではなく別の governance action として提起すること。コミュニティのフィードバックに具体的に応答した提案者 — 54% の削減、クリティカルパスへの絞り込み、IOG レビューゲートの明示 — に報いることが、信頼できるガバナンスのフィードバックループを築く道です。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes 76.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 74.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 71.3M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES. My initial feedback on their earlier proposal was to focus on Peras, and I value them taking that on board. Faster finality is another exciting milestone for our blockchain. Being able to vote on this independently is super beneficial.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am formally registering a YES vote on Tweag's treasury withdrawal request.
When evaluating their earlier proposals, my initial feedback was that they should narrow their focus specifically toward Peras. I deeply value the team taking this community feedback on board and structuring this proposal to prioritize the mainnet deployment of Peras v1. Faster finality is another exciting milestone for our blockchain, and delivering this production-grade cryptography and hard fork readiness is super beneficial to Cardano.
Being able to vote on this independently is also super beneficial. I have to credit the DReps who pushed for this, and most importantly, the proposers who listened to the community. My only feedback would be to please provide regular demonstrations, updates, and exciting progress. As a community, we would love to see it and share it too, as it is highly beneficial to the entire ecosystem. For me, this is an easy yes, even in an extremely challenging market.
- Yes 70.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 68M ₳ Rationale
I support this proposal as it focuses on critical core infrastructure needed for Cardano’s long-term growth.
The delivery of Peras, History Expiry, and Conformance Testing will strengthen network scalability, resilience, decentralization, and overall competitiveness. In particular, faster finality and sustainable node operation are important foundations for future adoption and ecosystem expansion.
While the requested budget is significant, the deliverables are open source and subject to milestone-based oversight and accountability.
I believe this is a valuable investment in Cardano’s future and therefore vote Yes.
本提案は、Cardanoの中長期的な成長に不可欠なコアインフラ整備を目的としており、支持します。
Perasによるファイナリティ短縮、History ExpiryによるSPO負担軽減、そしてConformance Testingによる品質向上は、ネットワークの競争力・拡張性・分散性の強化に直接貢献すると考えます。
予算規模は大きいものの、成果物はオープンソースで公開され、監査およびマイルストーンベースの支払い体制も整備されています。
Cardanoの将来にとって重要な基盤投資であると判断し、Yesとします。
- Yes 62.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.8M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting Yes on the Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027 proposal.
This proposal genuinely took on board the feedback raised against the previous version. It was cut from two years to one, from 17 work packages to 3, and the amount was reduced by more than half, from ₳39.8M to ₳18.26M. The fact that a multi-year single approval has been narrowed to a one-year scope, allowing performance-based reassessment, is also a positive.
The work itself is clearly core protocol-layer infrastructure. Peras is L1 infrastructure that cuts finality from roughly 12 minutes to 2, and Tweag is a proven team that has led the consensus and ledger teams since 2018. The post-delivery controls are also sufficient: mandatory code review by IOG, independent validation by No Witness Labs, milestone-based fixed-price contracts, and the return of any undisbursed funds.
That said, I want to clearly flag the lack of transparency in the cost calculation. The proposal only presents an hourly rate ($176/h) and a conversion rate ($0.25); it does not disclose the number of engineers involved or the allocation of hours across each work package. If the total is rate multiplied by hours, then without any basis for those hours, it's difficult for DReps to independently verify whether ₳18.26M is appropriate.
This matters especially now, at a point where AI has significantly changed engineering productivity. Precisely because the same work may no longer require as much manpower and time as it did in the past, the cost basis should be disclosed more transparently, and there should be a case made to convince the community that the scale is justified.
I am therefore voting Yes on the strength of the work's importance and its reduced scope, but I would like to see the personnel composition and the breakdown of estimated hours disclosed at the milestone stage going forward, with the reasonableness of the cost properly demonstrated.
- No 50.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 49.8M ₳ Rationale
The proposal is now focused on a one-year scope and does a much better job of prioritizing the key objectives for that period, so I'm happy to support it.
- No 49.7M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. This year's Net Change Limit (NCL) has been set well above the level I consider sustainable. Under my published voting framework, an appropriate NCL is roughly 15% of the previous year's staking rewards (on the order of ₳82M), whereas the NCL currently in force is several times that amount. Because the treasury is already authorized to disburse far beyond my personal NCL threshold, I am voting No on all treasury withdrawal proposals until aggregate withdrawals are brought back within a sustainable limit — regardless of the individual merits of any single proposal. This vote reflects a position on total treasury spend, not a judgment on the value of your specific project. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/ [Japanese version follows] 本提案に反対票を投じます。今年のNet Change Limit（NCL）は、私が持続可能と考える水準を大幅に上回って設定されています。公開済みの投票フレームワークでは、適正なNCLは前年のステーキング報酬の約15%（₳82M程度）ですが、現行のNCLはその数倍に達しています。トレジャリーは既に私のpersonal NCL（個人として許容する上限）を大きく超える出金が認められている状態にあるため、出金総額が持続可能な範囲に戻るまで、個別提案の良し悪しに関わらず、すべてのトレジャリー出金提案に反対票を投じます。本投票はトレジャリー支出全体に対する立場の表明であり、貴提案の価値そのものを否定するものではありません。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- No 42.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 40M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 38.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 34.4M ₳ Rationale
Ouroboros Genesisなどの心臓部を開発してきた信頼のあるチームが、コミュニティの声を反映して本当に必要な機能を入れている。金銭的にも安全な支払い体制で臨んでいるのは好感できる。必要な提案だと思います。
- Abstain 32.3M ₳ Rationale
Abstain. 18.26M ADA for Tweag to deliver Peras mainnet finality, History Expiry, and conformance testing. The engineering is real and the 2026-2027 reshape improved on the 2026-2028 version HOSKY voted No on, but a large non-separable grant with no repayment keeps it short of an affirmative Yes.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Vote: Abstain
18,263,496 ADA for Tweag to bring Peras to mainnet, ship History Expiry, and extend conformance testing. The engineering is real, core, and needed: Peras finality and History Expiry are genuine protocol priorities, and Tweag has the track record to deliver them. This is a reshaped successor to the 39.8M ADA 2026-2028 Tweag withdrawal that HOSKY voted No on, now a shorter horizon and a smaller number, which removes the multi-year-structure objection that drove that No. It does not, on balance, clear the bar for an affirmative Yes. Under the Cardano First framework the engaged pillars pull in opposite directions, and the honest landing is Abstain.
Pillar Analysis
Scalability (lead pillar, supportive)
This is the side that pulls toward Yes. Peras moving from undeployed to production on mainnet is a real finality improvement, and History Expiry directly protects node economics as Leios raises throughput, keeping full-history requirements from becoming prohibitive for SPOs. Conformance testing is the correctness scaffolding that de-risks both. As pure protocol engineering, the work is well-scoped and squarely on Cardano's critical path. If the vote turned only on technical merit, it would be a Yes.
Economic Sustainability (contested, the reason this is not a Yes)
This is the side that holds the vote back. 18.26M ADA is a large grant with no repayment, and the proposal is explicitly structured as a single non-separable pipeline, so DReps cannot fund the highest-value package (Peras mainnet) without also funding the rest. The reshape from the 2026-2028 version improved the horizon and the headline number, but the core concern that drove the prior No, committing a large multi-package treasury sum in one indivisible block, is reduced rather than resolved. The valuation basis ($176/hour, 0.25 ADA/USD) is reasonable, but the size plus the all-or-nothing packaging is enough to keep me from an affirmative endorsement.
Decentralization (mixed)
History Expiry cuts toward decentralization by lowering the storage cost of running a full node, which is a real and welcome SPO-health benefit. Cutting the other way, the delivery model concentrates around the incumbent: IOG is the primary maintainer of the target repositories and the mandatory code reviewer, so a large treasury grant to a second vendor still routes architectural control back through IOG. That tension is part of why the framework reads as inconclusive rather than clearly positive.
Governance Transparency (adequate)
The administration is the standard Intersect milestone-based fixed-price pattern with No Witness Labs as independent assessor, open-source deliverables, and public milestone tracking. This is not where the reservation sits. The structure is accountable; the disagreement is about the size and indivisibility of what is being funded, not about how it is administered.
Risks I'm Accepting With This Abstain
Not blocking needed core engineering
An Abstain does not stand in the way of Peras mainnet delivery or History Expiry, both of which I regard as genuinely needed. I am comfortable that if the wider community supports the ask, this vote does not obstruct it, while still declining to put HOSKY's affirmative weight behind the grant structure.
Not endorsing the single-pipeline grant
By abstaining rather than voting Yes, I am declining to endorse an 18.26M ADA non-separable grant as the right way to fund this work. The risk I accept is that a future ask of the same shape reads this Abstain as acceptance; it is not. A modular structure that let DReps fund Peras mainnet on its own merits would move this toward a Yes.
Bottom Line
The engineering is core and needed, and the reshape fixed enough of the prior version to take a No off the table, but a large indivisible grant with no repayment is not something I will affirmatively endorse. Not blocking it, not backing it. Abstain.
- Yes 31.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 31M ₳ Rationale
This proposal delivers essential L1 infrastructure, including Peras finality, History Expiry, and conformance testing. These are critical for Cardano’s security, performance, and long‑term sustainability. Deliverables are measurable, open‑source, and governed through strong oversight. I support this proposal.
- Yes 30.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 29.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 28.2M ₳ Rationale
I appreciate the reduced cost and scope from the previous proposal. Based on this, I will be voting YES.
- Yes 27.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 26.1M ₳ Rationale
Please review my original rationale from the previous proposal that did not go thru for context as to why I am voting for this one. I am pleased that it was resubmitted and also took into account why it did not go thru based on the NO rationales. Either way the core dependency from this proposal rests with another IO proposal that went thru, it is a piece that dovetails with theirs and will be very useful once we go thru the hardfork.
- Yes 22M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 21.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal action titled “Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027” (17e43ffe4b2e0df1787d54f21ac66643c74abb131a326272fceecbdbbdd0d3fc#0).
This is a revised proposal from an earlier submission (af15a6627176f13be28100d7aa96a40f103f63c98e553869e38ab135ff4292cd#0) which reduces scope to focus on; Peras v1, History Expiry and Conformance Testing. As the only funding option on the table to get Peras over the line, I am voting YES on this proposal. It is an update that has been long discussed and it is time to finally see it reach Mainnet.
- Yes 21.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 20.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 19.9M ₳ Rationale
Both Peras for faster finality and History Expire to manage the growing ledger size as SPOs are essential for the ecosystem. This is an easy YES vote with full confidence in the team.
- Yes 17.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 17.1M ₳ Rationale
Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027
- Abstain 16.7M ₳ Rationale
We recognize Tweag’s long-standing contribution to Cardano and appreciate that the revised proposal has significantly narrowed the scope compared with the original version. The workstreams around Peras, conformance testing, and History Expiry are strategically relevant and could become important for Cardano’s long-term protocol roadmap.
However, we are not convinced that this withdrawal is critical right now at the requested scale.
Our main concern is that some of the key measurable outcomes are still not concrete enough. For History Expiry, the expected storage reduction for standard relay and block-producing nodes is still part of the investigation. For Peras, the expected improvement in settlement time is still based mainly on research and simulations, with stronger real-world benchmarks expected only after the 2025 work is further completed.
We also understand the argument that Peras may be important for Midnight and future partner chains. If formally confirmed, that would be a strong reason to increase the urgency of this work. However, we have not seen any written confirmation clearly stating that Peras is a hard requirement for the Midnight bidirectional bridge, nor a clear timeline showing why this specific withdrawal must be approved now.
This is not a vote against Tweag or against Peras. It is a signal that we need stronger evidence on timing, urgency, expected outcomes, and dependency validation before confidently supporting an 18M–20M ADA withdrawal under current market conditions and competing treasury priorities.
We are abstaining because the work is relevant, but the case for funding it now at this scale is not yet fully persuasive to us. We would be open to reconsidering once the 2025 work provides clearer benchmarks, History Expiry impact is quantified, and the Midnight / partner-chain dependency is formally validated.
- Yes 16.4M ₳ Rationale
Vote: YES
This proposal requests ₳18,263,496 (~$4.57M USD) for Tweag by Modus Create to deliver three infrastructure work packages in 2026–2027: Peras v1 mainnet deployment (reducing finality from ~12 minutes to ~2 minutes), History Expiry (enabling partial-history nodes for sustainable SPO economics as throughput scales), and Conformance Testing for Peras and Leios protocols. Intersect administers the proposal; disbursement is managed via Treasury Reserve Smart Contracts with multi-signature authorization, overseen by a five-member committee including Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, Xerberus, and NMKR.
Vampyre Fund votes YES.
This proposal sits at the core of what Vampyre Fund exists to support: foundational long-term protocol infrastructure. Peras faster finality is a prerequisite for Cardano to compete as a serious DeFi and settlement layer. History Expiry addresses a structural economic problem for stake pool operators that will worsen as throughput increases under Leios. These are not features that produce marketing impressions or short-term token price movement — they are the infrastructure on which the next decade of Cardano activity depends.
The accountability structure is meaningfully stronger than most treasury proposals Vampyre Fund has reviewed. Treasury Reserve Smart Contracts with multi-signature authorization provide on-chain disbursement controls. Intersect's role as administrator adds a credible third-party layer. The five-member oversight committee represents genuine diversity of ecosystem stakeholders. Tweag by Modus Create brings deep Haskell and Cardano protocol credentials.
We note two concerns without letting them override the vote. First, there is no competitive bidding for this work — Tweag is pre-selected. Vampyre Fund continues to believe the long-term health of the ecosystem requires open, competitive team selection for funded work. We would prefer a future model where Intersect issues open RFPs and the community selects among competing proposals. Second, ₳18.26M is a material withdrawal at a time when ADA price is depressed; the real-cost burden on the treasury is elevated relative to what this work would cost if funded at a higher ADA price. Both concerns are structural and apply across the 2026 budget process broadly. They are not unique to Tweag, and they do not outweigh the merits of funding infrastructure that Cardano genuinely needs.
- Yes 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 13.3M ₳ Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027.
This is a cautious YES.
RCADA previously abstained on Tweag’s broader infrastructure proposal because it was too large, too broad, and too difficult to evaluate as a single all-or-nothing package. That earlier proposal bundled many work packages across multiple infrastructure areas, and RCADA wanted greater focus, clearer reviewability, better risk partitioning, and a more staged approach.
This revised proposal is materially different. It is narrower, smaller, and more focused on three critical work packages: Peras v1, History Expiry, and Conformance Testing for Peras and Leios. The proposal requests ₳18,263,496 to support core infrastructure delivery across 2026–2027, with the primary focus on bringing Peras toward mainnet readiness, reducing future SPO storage pressure through History Expiry, and strengthening correctness testing for major protocol upgrades.
RCADA supports the direction because this is foundational public-good infrastructure. Peras, History Expiry, and conformance testing are not narrow commercial products. They are core protocol and network-resilience work that can improve Cardano’s long-term scalability, finality, correctness, and operational sustainability.
The Peras work is especially important because faster finality can improve the user and application experience. The proposal describes Peras as targeting approximately 2-minute finality, compared with roughly 12 minutes today. Moving this work toward production-grade mainnet readiness, including real cryptography, operational tooling, KillSwitch functionality, hard-fork readiness, support, and maintenance, is a reasonable use of Treasury funding if delivered with strong accountability.
RCADA also sees History Expiry as important for decentralisation and SPO sustainability. As Cardano moves toward higher throughput through future upgrades such as Leios, storage growth can become a real burden for stake pool operators. The proposal notes that higher throughput could significantly increase SPO disk usage and that partial-history nodes can help reduce long-term storage costs. For RCADA, this is directly relevant because infrastructure improvements should not make participation harder for smaller or independent operators.
The conformance testing work also strengthens the proposal. Major protocol upgrades require careful validation. Extending the CTC framework for Peras and Leios, including correctness scaffolding, adversarial testing, mutation testing, and audit infrastructure, helps reduce the risk of deploying complex changes to mainnet.
RCADA also recognises Tweag’s long history in Cardano core infrastructure. The proposal states that Tweag has been engaged with Cardano since January 2018, including work leading consensus and ledger teams, implementing Ouroboros Genesis, and contributing to Peras design. That track record gives this proposal more credibility than a greenfield infrastructure request.
The governance and accountability framework is also materially stronger than many Treasury proposals. The proposal includes Intersect administration, a written legal contract with Cardano Development Holdings, milestone-based fixed-price contracts where scope is well defined, public transaction metadata, third-party assurance, mandatory IOG code review, independent validation by No Witness Labs, Intersect delivery assurance, smart-contract-based budget management, external oversight, auto-abstain delegation, no SPO delegation, public demos at least every two months, refund of undisbursed funds, and proportional return of unused funds in the event of partial delivery or scope reduction.
However, RCADA’s support is not unconditional.
The ask remains large. ₳18,263,496 is a significant Treasury withdrawal, and core infrastructure work should be held to a high standard of public reporting, milestone clarity, and delivery evidence. RCADA expects transparent updates showing progress against Peras readiness, History Expiry implementation, conformance testing milestones, review outcomes, risks, and any funds returned.
RCADA also notes that some benefits depend on later governance, hard-fork readiness, and ecosystem activation. The proposal addresses this by committing to “ready-for-activation” deliverables such as merged code, reproducible releases, runbooks, benchmarks, and governance-action packages. That is a reasonable distinction, but the community should still track whether this work ultimately translates into mainnet value.
The proposal is still bundled, though much less so than the previous version. RCADA would generally prefer maximum voting granularity, but in this case the three work packages are more tightly connected and focused on critical protocol delivery, correctness validation, and SPO sustainability. This makes the bundling more acceptable than in the prior broader proposal.
RCADA also notes Tweag’s prior Treasury allocation of ₳11,070,322.68. Continued support should be tied to clear evidence that prior and current Treasury-funded work is advancing toward public mainnet benefit.
For these reasons, RCADA votes YES. This proposal is closer to the narrower, staged, critical-path infrastructure funding model that RCADA asked for previously. RCADA supports funding core open-source Cardano infrastructure while expecting strong milestone reporting, public demos, independent review, transparent delivery evidence, and responsible return of unused funds.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- Yes 12.2M ₳ Rationale
Our assessment finds that this proposal addresses critical protocol-level infrastructure needs that are directly aligned with Cardano's long-term scalability, sustainability, and technical resilience objectives. The proposed work packages represent foundational improvements that we believe can generate ecosystem-wide benefits beyond any single stakeholder group.
From a value-for-money perspective, while the funding request is substantial, the proposal targets highly specialized protocol engineering work that is difficult to source and replicate. The expected outcomes, particularly improvements to transaction finality, node storage efficiency, and protocol validation infrastructure, provide long-term public goods that strengthen the Cardano ecosystem as a whole.
We also place significant weight on the demonstrated capability and track record of the Tweag team. Tweag has established itself as a trusted contributor to Cardano's core infrastructure and has consistently delivered complex technical work in areas such as protocol engineering, formal methods, testing frameworks, and consensus-related research. This execution history provides us with much confidence in the team's ability to deliver the proposed milestones.
Finally, the proposal incorporates milestone-based delivery, third-party assurance, and public reporting mechanisms which provides a reasonable level of accountability for treasury expenditure of this magnitude.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 9.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ 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.