Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2027
149 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ 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.
- No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ 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.
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ 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. - Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
I support the revised proposal for implementing faster finality through Peras. Go team!
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Thank you for considering community feedback. I am voting YES to the amended proposal.
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Peras will be a substantial improvement in Cardano’s finality, enabling faster settlement for bridges, partner chains, exchanges, and composable DeFi.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ Rationale
Voting yes again.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ Rationale
Open source core protocol and infrastructure technology - AtlasHub is supporting this proposal.
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ 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.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ 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.
- No 952.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.5K ₳ No rationale
- No 881.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ 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.
- Yes 793K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 785.2K ₳ 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.
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 746.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 654.5K ₳ 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.