Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect
Discussed in the Governance Review for epochs 656 to 659.
129 DReps voted · 67 with a rationale · 2 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Voting concentration
5 of 129 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 13.9%, top 5 combined 50.4% of 3.3B ₳ voted.
The 23 largest voters together held as much voting power as the 67.0% threshold required in yes votes.
- No477.4M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on "Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect".
1.The core deliverable duplicates work the treasury has already funded. The IO Developer Experience Initiative (₳3,601,926, enacted in May) promises "an OpenZeppelin-style collection of ready-to-use smart contracts" and "at least 5 ready-to-audit smart contracts" (Vesting, Programmable Tokens, DEX, Swap, Lending) as Q3 2026 deliverables. On September 8, the main author of that library (a PM at IOG) publicly asked why the treasury should pay for the same thing again.
2.As of September 14, I have found no answer from the proposers, either in the proposal text or on their official channels. The proposal mentions collaboration with Input Output and feedback on existing tooling, but does not address the overlap with the library already under development.
3.I do not doubt OpenZeppelin's capability. I will reconsider a resubmission that clearly divides roles with the existing library, or one re-scoped as auditing, extending and co-maintaining it.
「Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect」にNOを投票します。
1.中核の成果物が、国庫がすでに資金提供した案件と重複しています。5月に執行済みのIO Developer Experience Initiative（₳3,601,926）は「OpenZeppelin流のすぐ使えるスマートコントラクト集」と「監査に出せる状態のスマートコントラクト5本以上」（Vesting・プログラマブルトークン・DEX・Swap・Lending）を2026年Q3の成果として約束しています。9月8日、そのライブラリの主著者（IOGのPM）自身が「なぜ同じものに再び支払うのか」と公に問うています。
2.9月14日時点で、提案本文にも公式チャネルにも、提案者側からの回答は確認できていません。提案はInput Outputとの協力や既存ツールへのフィードバックには触れていますが、すでに開発中のライブラリとの重複には答えていません。
3.OpenZeppelinの力量を疑うものではありません。既存ライブラリとの役割分担を明示した再提案、あるいは既存ライブラリの監査・拡張・共同保守として範囲を組み直した再提案であれば、改めて検討します。 - Abstain404.6M ₳Rationale
Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect. Yoroi recognises the importance of responsible governance during periods of ecosystem uncertainty.
- Ecosystem Situation: The trust our delegators place in Yoroi requires that we act only when we can do so with full confidence. In light of the current situation, Yoroi is choosing to withhold its vote on this proposal and will reassess our position once conditions allow for a considered decision.
- Abstain300.7M ₳Rationale
EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect, with rationale outlined below.
Given the ongoing situation in the ecosystem, responsible governance requires us to act with full clarity and confidence. Until the current situation reaches resolution, EMURGO prefers to withhold judgment rather than vote without the certainty our mandate demands. We will revisit this proposal once the situation is resolved.
- No289.8M ₳No rationale
- No210.5M ₳No rationale
- No141.6M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes NO. This proposal requests 11,787,063 ada for a program that duplicates active ecosystem work, neither naming nor building upon it. OpenZeppelin has a role in Cardano's developer support, under a coherent strategy and at a price matched to a reduced scope.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We value the OpenZeppelin team and welcome their engagement with Cardano. Our objection is to this proposal's scope, structure, and price.
What the ecosystem needs from OpenZeppelin is security credibility, standardization practice, and distribution. This proposal spends most of its budget on engineering where Cardano solutions already exist.
Our vote is based on the following factors:
- It does not build on what the ecosystem already funds. In May 2026 DReps approved 3,601,926 ada for Input Output's Developer Experience Initiative, which commits to "an OpenZeppelin-like library of ready-to-use smart contracts" shipping at least five ready-to-audit contracts by the end of Q4 2026. That work is under way in input-output-hk/contracts-library. MeshJS and TrustLevel ship an open-source Aiken contract library, and Anastasia Labs maintains aiken-design-patterns. None are named here. The proposal's own motivation notes that code is "scattered across Cardano Foundation repositories, Intersect resources, and individual project codebases." Consolidating that should cost less than writing a library from scratch, not more.
- CIP-113 work is already published and funded. The Cardano Foundation maintains the CIP-113 programmable-tokens repositories, with reference implementations, a completed security audit and re-audit, and a KYC substandard covering credential registries. The Tokenized Money Market Fund is the one Reference Implementation addressing a genuine institutional gap. Its credential verification should build on that work rather than reinvent it.
- Two of the three Reference Implementations are poorly targeted. Liqwid Finance has been live on mainnet since February 2023, issuing a transferable yield-bearing token against supplied ada, and ada delegation is already non-custodial and liquid. Self-repaying loans are a single product line rather than infrastructure others compose on. Several Cardano MCP servers and AI coding-assistant integrations are already published by other teams.
- The security retainer is sized to the wrong scope. Twenty-two researcher-weeks are budgeted against a from-scratch library plus three Reference Implementations. Under a reduced scope, the treasury pays for capacity against code that is not written.
- The counterparty changed after submission. On 17 September 2026, S&P Global announced an agreement to acquire OpenZeppelin. This proposal is dated 13 August 2026 and carries no disclosure of the transaction and no change-of-control provision. We would expect the team to address this change in ownership and explain its implications.
Cardano should fund one comprehensive developer support strategy for 2027, with vendors selected through an RFP or allocated by an expert facilitator, beginning with a discovery phase that translates what the business layer needs into defined work packages. Standardized, audited contracts for institutional use cases would lower business development costs and open a channel into the EVM world. OpenZeppelin could be an excellent partner in that. Funding a second library outside such a strategy is inefficient.
We look forward to engaging on any resubmission and strongly recommend that it account for the factors listed above.
The Cardano Foundation votes NO. We note OpenZeppelin's stated intention to refine and resubmit, and we look forward to that engagement.
---> **_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. - No128M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on “Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect.”
I recognize OpenZeppelin’s strong track record and support the overall objective of creating secure and reusable development infrastructure for Cardano.
However, several matters required to assess value for money remain insufficiently defined, including the division of responsibilities with existing Cardano initiatives, the technical scope, the detailed budget, the delivery structure, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.
Similar work is already underway within the Cardano ecosystem, but the proposal does not clearly explain how existing deliverables will be used or what additional value this engagement will provide. Approving 11,787,063 ADA without that clarity creates a risk of duplicated spending and further fragmentation of Cardano’s development infrastructure.
I support the objective, but the level of uncertainty remains too high relative to the amount requested. I would reconsider a revised proposal with a clearly defined scope, budget, delivery structure, and relationship with existing initiatives.
「Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect」にNOを投票します。
OpenZeppelinの実績と、本提案が目指す方向性は評価しています。安全で再利用可能な開発基盤は、Cardanoの成長にとって重要です。
一方で、既存のCardanoプロジェクトとの役割分担、採用する技術構成、詳細な予算、実行体制、長期的な保守責任など、費用対効果を判断するための重要事項が十分に確定していません。
特に、すでに類似する取り組みが進行している中で、既存成果物をどのように活用し、本提案が具体的に何を追加するのかが明確ではありません。この状態で11,787,063 ADAを承認することは、重複投資や開発基盤の分断につながるリスクがあります。
提案の目的には賛同しますが、要求額に対して不確定要素が大きく、現時点では国庫支出を正当化するだけの明確性が不足していると判断しました。
既存プロジェクトとの役割分担、技術範囲、予算、実行体制が明確になった再提案であれば、改めて検討します。
- No112.8M ₳No rationale
- No94.8M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote NO on the proposal: Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect
Our rationale:
The proposal's direction is correct. A credible library with audited reference implementations could lower the barrier to entry for Cardano developers and improve confidence among institutional integrators.
However, the current proposal does not provide enough evidence that the proposed work is sufficiently differentiated from ongoing Cardano ecosystem initiatives.
There is a significant risk of duplication or fragmentation. The Input Output contracts-library repository already describes an OpenZeppelin-like reusable Cardano contracts library, including on-chain and off-chain components. Its public roadmap includes areas such as governance, upgradeability, CIP-113-related work, vesting, and DeFi compatibility.
The Cardano Foundation is also working on CIP-113 programmable-token infrastructure and regulated-asset reference implementations.
These projects are not identical to the OpenZeppelin proposal, but they demonstrate that important parts of the proposed infrastructure are already being developed elsewhere.
The proposal states that the specific Cardano smart-contract language will be selected during the initial evaluation phase. This means DReps are being asked to approve a large budget before the core technical architecture, language choice, and exact deliverables are finalized.
The choice between Aiken, Plutus-based approaches, and off-chain frameworks directly affects staffing, implementation costs, testing methodology, auditability, and long-term maintenance. A budget cannot be meaningfully assessed when a central technical decision is deferred until after funding.
The proposal does not provide a meaningful cost breakdown. There are no clear details of the number of full-time equivalent contributors, hourly or daily rates, long-term maintenance, etc.
OpenZeppelin has extensive experience with EVM-based smart-contract infrastructure and does have relevant non-EVM UTxO-related experience through its Midnight/Compact work. However, this is not the same as a demonstrated track record of delivering Cardano eUTxO contracts using the Cardano toolchain, including Aiken or Plutus.
At a minimum, a resubmission should include:
A public gap and overlap analysis covering the IOG contracts-library, Cardano Foundation CIP-113 work, CF regulated-asset references, and other relevant ecosystem projects.
A fixed technical scope before funding, including the selected language and frameworks.
A complete budget showing named roles, FTE allocation, rates, etc.
A named Cardano technical team with demonstrated Aiken, Plutus, and eUTxO experience, together with declared availability and responsibility for each deliverable.
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:
drep1y2m0g4r66...skqwqpBuy me a beer:
https://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0 - No93.8M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes NO on the treasury withdrawal "Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect", and invites a coordinated, narrower resubmission.
This is a vote against this version of the request, not against OpenZeppelin or the work. SIPO welcomes OpenZeppelin to Cardano. An audited, standardised contracts library carries a level of trust that EVM developers already extend to OpenZeppelin, and that is not something Cardano can create on its own. The accountability design is sound and follows the structure SIPO has approved before: Intersect administration on the Sundae Labs treasury-contracts framework, an independent Oversight Committee, milestone payments released only against public evidence, and unspent funds returning to the Treasury at contract expiry. SIPO also records OpenZeppelin's statement that its commitment to Cardano does not depend on this vote.
Overlap with work SIPO has already supported. In May 2026 SIPO voted YES on IO's Developer Experience Initiative (about 3.6M ada), whose deliverables include an OpenZeppelin-style ContractsLibrary. SIPO's rationale at the time set an explicit expectation of avoiding parallel reinvention and fragmentation of the builder community. That library is under active public development (input-output-hk/contracts-library, updated in September 2026). This proposal asks for a further 11.8M ada for a library of comparable purpose, but it does not reference that work, publish a gap analysis, or say which library builders should treat as the standard. The sensible order is to evaluate what the funded programme delivers, then fund the gap that remains.
A core technical choice is deferred. The proposal states that the smart contract language will be determined during the initial evaluation phase, after funding is approved. Cost, interoperability with existing libraries, and the risk of splitting the builder base cannot be judged before that choice is made.
Currency terms are incomplete. The delivery budget is USD 1,831,000, converted into the ada request at a fixed reference rate of USD 0.16, and the ada is converted to a USD stablecoin at contract signature. If ada trades above the reference rate at that point, the proceeds exceed the USD budget, and the proposal does not state what happens to that surplus. In addition, 20% of the delivery budget is released at signature, before any technical milestone is accepted.
The scope is bundled and the Cardano adoption bar is low. Three reference implementations, a contracts library, and a security retainer are combined into a single request that DReps cannot approve in part. The only Cardano-side usage criterion in the milestone table is that at least one independent Cardano developer has reviewed the library and provided written feedback (Milestone 3).
SIPO would support a resubmission that: publishes a gap analysis and a division of labour with IO's ContractsLibrary; names the target language; puts the library, security, and standards work first, with the reference implementations following on evidence of use; states that any conversion surplus above the USD budget returns to the Treasury; reduces the upfront payment; and sets adoption criteria measured by independent Cardano projects. OpenZeppelin's entry into Cardano is worth getting right, and SIPO looks forward to the revised proposal. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep は、トレジャリー引き出し提案「Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect」に反対（NO）を投じ、既存の取り組みと調整したうえで範囲を絞った再提出を促します。
これは本提案のこの版に対する反対であり、OpenZeppelin やその仕事に対する反対ではありません。SIPO は OpenZeppelin の Cardano 参入を歓迎します。監査済みで標準化されたコントラクトライブラリは、EVM の開発者がすでに OpenZeppelin に寄せている信頼を伴うものであり、それは Cardano が単独ではつくり出せないものです。アカウンタビリティ設計も健全で、SIPO がこれまで承認してきた構造に沿っています。Sundae Labs の treasury-contracts フレームワーク上での Intersect による管理、独立した Oversight Committee、公開された証跡に基づいてのみ支払われるマイルストーン、そして契約満了時に未使用資金が国庫へ戻る仕組みです。SIPO はまた、OpenZeppelin の Cardano への関与は本投票の結果に左右されないという表明も記録します。
SIPO がすでに支持した取り組みとの重複。SIPO は 2026 年 5 月、IO の Developer Experience Initiative（約 360 万 ADA）に賛成（YES）を投じました。その成果物には OpenZeppelin 型の ContractsLibrary が含まれています。SIPO は当時の投票理由の中で、並行した作り直しと開発者コミュニティの分断を避けることを明確な期待として示しました。そのライブラリは現在も公開の場で開発が続いています（input-output-hk/contracts-library、2026 年 9 月に更新）。本提案は同様の目的を持つライブラリに対してさらに 1,180 万 ADA を求めていますが、その取り組みに言及せず、ギャップ分析も示さず、開発者がどちらのライブラリを標準として扱うべきかも示していません。妥当な順序は、資金供与済みのプログラムが何を納品するかを評価し、そのうえで残るギャップに資金を充てることです。
中核的な技術選択が先送りされている。本提案は、スマートコントラクト言語を資金承認後の初期評価フェーズで決定するとしています。その選択がなされる前には、コスト、既存ライブラリとの相互運用性、開発者層が分断されるリスクを判断できません。
通貨条件が詰め切れていない。実施予算は 1,831,000 米ドルで、1 ADA = 0.16 米ドルの固定参照レートで ADA 建ての要求額に換算され、契約締結時に米ドル建てステーブルコインへ換金されます。その時点で ADA が参照レートを上回っていれば、換金額は米ドル予算を超えますが、本提案はその余剰の扱いを定めていません。加えて、実施予算の 20% は技術マイルストーンが一つも承認される前の契約締結時に支払われます。
範囲が束ねられており、Cardano での採用基準が低い。3 つの参照実装、コントラクトライブラリ、セキュリティ契約が一つの要求にまとめられており、DRep は部分的に承認することができません。マイルストーン表の中で Cardano 側の利用に関する基準は、少なくとも 1 名の独立した Cardano 開発者がライブラリをレビューし書面でフィードバックすること（マイルストーン 3）のみです。
SIPO は次のような再提出であれば支持します。IO の ContractsLibrary とのギャップ分析と役割分担を公開すること。対象言語を明示すること。ライブラリ、セキュリティ、標準化の作業を先行させ、参照実装は利用の実証を踏まえて続けること。米ドル予算を上回る換金余剰は国庫へ戻すと明記すること。前払いを縮小すること。そして独立した Cardano プロジェクトによって測られる採用基準を設けること。OpenZeppelin の Cardano 参入は正しい形で実現させる価値があり、SIPO は修正版の提案を期待しています。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Abstain93.6M ₳No rationale
- No86.5M ₳Rationale
I am unconvinced this is a prudent use of Cardano Treasury funds given the current trajectory of the treasury toward zero within a decade.
- No78.4M ₳Rationale
I appreciate OpenZeppelin's desire to bring their industry-leading expertise to Cardano. However, I am voting NO due to the exceptionally high 11.8 million ADA ask and a lack of clear strategic direction.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I appreciate OpenZeppelin's desire to bring their industry-leading expertise to Cardano. However, I am voting NO due to the exceptionally high 11.8 million ADA ask and a lack of clear strategic direction. There is currently insufficient evidence demonstrating that the ecosystem actually requires or will adopt these specific blueprints to justify the cost. Treasury commitments of this magnitude must be driven by proven demand. I am not convinced the high ask, proportionally represents the value that is proposed to be delivered.
- Yes65.6M ₳No rationale
- No62M ₳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 ADA), 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/\n\n[Japanese version follows]\n\n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 ADA）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/
- No61M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on the Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect proposal.
I recognize OpenZeppelin's capability and its reputation in security. But I don't see this proposal addressing Cardano's real bottlenecks.
First, it is not what Cardano developers need. The 2025 Cardano Developer Survey's main pain points were documentation, transaction-building tooling, and the eUTxO learning curve, with virtually no one citing the lack of a standard contracts library.
Second, it does not remove the barrier for outside developers. The core challenge for EVM developers is the paradigm shift to eUTxO, which a library does not solve. The proposal's only Cardano adoption criterion is feedback from a single independent developer.
With the reserve shrinking, I believe Treasury spending should prioritize projects that directly drive network adoption. I don't think this proposal meets that bar, so I am voting No.
- Abstain52.9M ₳Rationale
Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.
More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703
- Abstain43.5M ₳Rationale
While I agree with the intent, I would like to wait and see the results of the review regarding the reasonableness of the costs and the technical approach.
- No41.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes36.9M ₳No rationale
- No34.8M ₳Rationale
No. The 11,787,063 ADA package commits too much before technical choices and Cardano adoption are validated. Its milestone controls are useful, but a 20% upfront delivery payment and limited external adoption requirements favor a smaller initial scope.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Vote: No
I do not support the 11,787,063 ADA OpenZeppelin Stack withdrawal as proposed. Audited libraries and reference applications could help Cardano developers, but the scale and payment structure of this engagement require stronger evidence of Cardano-specific demand and a narrower initial commitment.
The HOSKY Cardano First framework puts Economic Sustainability and Adoption at the center of this decision.
Pillar analysis
Economic Sustainability (lead pillar)
The proposal allocates 11,443,750 ADA to delivery and 343,313 ADA to administration. It releases 20% of the delivery budget at contract signature, subject only to legal sign-off. At the proposal's reference conversion rate, that is 2,288,750 ADA, or $366,200, before the first technical milestone is accepted.
The remaining payments are gated by delivery evidence, and money remaining at contract expiry returns to the treasury. Those controls have value. They do not recover money already paid for completed outputs that may see limited use. I would prefer an initial engagement that establishes the toolchain, validates demand and delivers a smaller audited library before committing to all three reference applications and the wider tooling package.
Adoption (mixed)
The proposal names concrete applications: liquid staking, self-repaying loans and a tokenized money market fund. It also includes developer education, documentation and workshops. These are credible routes toward adoption.
The acceptance criteria primarily establish that code, testnet demonstrations, tests and documentation exist. The third milestone requires feedback from at least one independent Cardano developer. That is a low external-validation requirement for an engagement of this size. The published milestones do not establish comparable requirements for independent teams integrating the releases or operating applications built with them.
OpenZeppelin's experience deserves consideration. The treasury still needs to assess the likely use of this particular Cardano stack, including whether builders want these interfaces and applications enough to adopt and maintain them.
Governance Transparency (mixed)
Public repositories, published audit findings, milestone evidence and administrator approval make this more accountable than an unrestricted grant. My objection is not an absence of milestones.
The smart-contract language remains to be selected during the initial evaluation, and parts of the component list are preliminary. Those are material decisions for interoperability and developer adoption. A discovery-stage commitment would let the community assess the resulting architecture and demand evidence before funding the full implementation programme.
Decentralization
Open-source releases would allow others to inspect, reuse and extend the work. That is a benefit. To turn it into a durable public resource, I would want a clearer path for independent maintainers and production users beyond the first year. A proposed second-year continuation is not yet evidence of sustainable maintenance by the wider ecosystem.
Risks I'm accepting with this No
1. Delayed security and tooling benefits
Rejecting the package may delay useful audited components and leave developers rebuilding common functionality. I accept that risk in seeking a smaller first commitment with stronger evidence of likely use.
2. A weaker commercial opportunity
A narrower engagement may be less attractive to OpenZeppelin or may cost more in separate stages. The integrated package has coordination benefits, but they do not outweigh the need to validate the scope before committing the full amount.
Decision
The proposal contains useful work and real delivery controls. I would support reconsidering a smaller initial scope with settled technical choices and stronger independent adoption commitments. I do not support this full withdrawal. No.
- No31.1M ₳Rationale
Vote: NO
The proposal’s direction is valuable, and secure, standardized contract libraries and DeFi reference implementations would benefit Cardano. However, given the size of the requested budget, several critical uncertainties remain.
Most importantly, the choice of smart‑contract language and core architectural approach is deferred until Milestone 1, despite these decisions having major implications for staffing, cost, audit methodology, and long‑term maintainability. Approving 11M ADA before these foundational technical choices are finalized introduces significant uncertainty.
Additionally, the proposal does not provide sufficient cost transparency, including team composition, FTE allocation, rates, or effort estimates per component, making it difficult to assess budget appropriateness.
For these reasons, I am voting NO.
- No28.8M ₳Rationale
I appreciate the offer, but we already have a DevEx proposal in the works with IOG and a handful of best practice libraries from Cardano-native builders such as Anastasia Labs. Furthermore, I think the proliferation of AI is going to make this sort of thing increasingly easy and accessible to devs. Almost 12M ADA is way too much for me to be able to support unfortunately.
- Abstain24.4M ₳No rationale
- No24.2M ₳Rationale
Too much overlap with the funded DevX proposal. Coordinate with the existing team and collaborate.
- No23.6M ₳Rationale
We welcome OpenZeppelin’s involvement in Cardano and recognize the value of secure, reusable open-source contracts and developer tooling. However, the current proposal does not sufficiently justify the ₳11,787,063 commitment.
Related infrastructure is already being developed within the ecosystem. Before approving this expenditure, we need a public gap analysis and a concrete division of responsibilities showing which existing components will be reused and what additional capabilities this engagement will deliver.
The smart-contract language remains undecided, and the budget provides insufficient detail on staffing, rates and costs by workstream. The acceptance criteria primarily demonstrate technical delivery, with limited requirements for independent adoption.
We acknowledge the milestone-controlled payments, public evidence and return of unused funds. These safeguards are valuable, but they do not resolve uncertainty about scope, demand and value for money.
We would welcome a narrower proposal with settled technical choices, a granular budget, measurable adoption commitments from Cardano teams, clear conversion-surplus handling and maintenance responsibilities beyond the first year.
We remain open to supporting a coordinated engagement with demonstrable public-good value.
- No22.2M ₳Rationale
I appreciate the initiative of OppenZeppelin, however their prior work has already launched an effort to replicate this on Cardano and I would rather have OpenZeppelin join this effort and collaborate than to work on this on their own, see https://github.com/input-output-hk/contracts-library
Before approving this, I would at least need an analysis of the existing effort and why this does not suffice. - No21.7M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on the Treasury Withdrawal action "Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect" (418df5986f5054...4a9f#0).
At the time I am writing this rationale, there appears to be little to no support for this treasury withdrawal, with DRep approval currently sitting at 3.94%. When this proposal was first submitted there were multiple questions regarding the potential overlap with the already approved and funded "IO: Developer Experience Initiative". With that proposal requesting ₳3,601,926, while this one is requesting ₳11,787,063. Considering the sum requested, I would have expected more community and DRep engagement beyond the first few epochs that this was on-chain. It almost feels like an afterthought.
The 2025 Cardano Developer Survey highlighted the main pain points for developers were documentation, transaction-building tooling, and the eUTxO learning curve. While Open Zeppelin has a renowned track record in the wider crypto industry, questions remain regarding targeted spending of treasury funds to those areas most in need at the moment. I would like to see what impact the IO: Developer Experience Initiative has on the outcomes of the next Developer Survey, to see if it succeeds in addressing these issues, before evaluating the next areas for improvement and how much funding we are willing to commit to closing those gaps as an ecosystem.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- No20.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.4M ₳Rationale
Vote: YES
This is a Treasury Withdrawal, "Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect" (gov_action1gxx...lkl2l8), submitted September 8, 2026 with voting closing October 11, 2026. OpenZeppelin requests ₳11,787,063 (approximately $1.83M at the $0.16/ADA reference rate, including a 3% Intersect administration fee of ₳343,313) to deliver, over 12 months in quarterly milestones, an audited smart contract library tailored to Cardano's eUTXO and Plutus environment, three production-grade reference implementations (liquid staking, self-repaying loans, and a tokenized money market fund), Contracts Wizard and AI-assisted development tooling, and 22 researcher-weeks of security capacity, with developer enablement and co-marketing included at no additional cost. No ADA burning is involved.
What is being bought here is foundational. OpenZeppelin's contracts library is the de facto standard of the EVM world — imported by protocols holding over $110B in TVL and roughly 85% of the top 50 DeFi protocols — and the absence of an equivalent standardized, audited library is a genuine structural gap for Cardano: every team currently re-implements and re-audits primitives like access control, vaults, and timelocks from scratch. The accountability structure matches the strongest this DREP has approved in the 2026 cycle. Funds sit in Intersect's Treasury Reserve and Project-Specific Smart Contracts; every disbursement requires multiple Intersect admins, leadership sign-off, and co-signature from trusted entities drawn from a six-member independent oversight committee (Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, NMKR, Sundial, Eternl); each milestone payment requires a Milestone Acceptance Form with public evidence verified by Intersect Delivery Assurance; funds are tracked on a public dashboard; and unspent funds sweep back to the treasury automatically at contract expiry. The milestones are concrete and quarterly, with the library foundations delivered first. This is also OpenZeppelin's first Cardano treasury request, and the proposal commits to returning with a refined submission rather than abandoning the ecosystem if it fails.
The concerns are real and Dracula DAO names them plainly. Twenty percent of the delivery budget — roughly ₳2.29M — is released at contract signing, before any work is delivered; payment should follow delivery, not precede it. The budget is split into five flat 20% tranches with no itemized cost per deliverable, so DReps cannot evaluate whether a reference implementation is priced at $100K or $500K. The entire delivery portion is converted to stablecoin at signature, which crystallizes the treasury's weakest price near multi-year lows. And this withdrawal lands with the current Net Change Limit roughly 91% consumed, spending scarce headroom. Dracula DAO's published position is that treasury funds should be grants paid on completion of well-defined features, competitively bid — this is a single pre-selected team on a milestone-gated contract, a partial approximation of that model, not the model itself.
Dracula DAO votes YES. The gap between this structure and the grants-on-completion ideal is the same gap Dracula DAO accepted on Scalus and Bifrost, and it is narrower than anything else on the ballot: money moves only against independently verified milestones, undelivered funds return to the treasury by contract, and the deliverable is the kind of audited, reusable, security-first infrastructure that compounds for a decade — precisely the ultra long-term posture this DREP exists to defend. If any team warrants a sole-source engagement for a standardized contracts library, it is the one whose library secures the majority of DeFi on other chains; the credible alternative is not a cheaper bidder, it is the gap persisting. Dracula DAO will judge any follow-on request entirely on delivery: if quarterly milestones slip or acceptance evidence is weak, continuation will be opposed, and the 20% unearned kick-off payment should not reappear in future Intersect-administered proposals.
- No16.1M ₳Rationale
it overlap with the work already funded this year-
- No11.9M ₳No rationale
- No11.6M ₳Rationale
OpenZeppelin plays a prominent role in blockchain, although at the current stage of Cardano, with the amount of funding that has already gone towards Commercially Critical Integrations, infrastructure, research, and more development-related ventures, I must lean on fiscal conservatism for the benefit of ADA holders.
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain10.6M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes ABSTAIN on Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect.
This is a constructive abstention.
RCADA recognises OpenZeppelin as a highly credible organisation in smart-contract security, open-source contract libraries, developer tooling, and ecosystem standards. Cardano would benefit from stronger shared developer building blocks, audited reference patterns, reusable contract components, and clearer paths for external developers and institutions to build safely on Cardano.
RCADA also supports the general direction of improving Cardano’s developer experience. A secure, well-documented, open-source contracts library tailored to Cardano’s eUTXO model could provide real public-good value. Reference implementations, security reviews, documentation, and developer enablement could also help reduce duplicated effort and improve confidence among builders.
However, RCADA is not comfortable voting YES on this proposal as currently structured.
The proposal is large and broad. It combines a Cardano contracts library, three substantial reference implementations, security retainer work, AI-enhanced developer tooling, documentation, co-marketing, standards contributions, and institutional adoption support into one Treasury request of 11,787,063 ADA. While these workstreams may be related, bundling them together makes it difficult for DReps to support the public-good library components without also approving the full scope of product-specific reference implementations and broader enablement work.
RCADA is also concerned that key technical decisions remain open at the point of funding. The proposal states that the specific smart-contract language targeted will be determined during the initial evaluation phase in collaboration with ecosystem stakeholders. For a foundational contracts library, this is a major architectural decision. RCADA would prefer stronger clarity on toolchain, language strategy, interoperability, and how this work avoids fragmentation before approving a large withdrawal.
There is also a non-duplication concern. The proposal’s objectives overlap with areas already being discussed or funded elsewhere in the ecosystem, including developer experience, contract libraries, standards work, CIP-113, and Cardano tooling. RCADA would like to see a clearer gap analysis explaining exactly what is missing, what existing work will be reused, what will not be duplicated, and how OpenZeppelin’s work will integrate with current Cardano-native efforts.
RCADA also has questions around value-for-money and budget structure. The proposal is framed as a USD $1.831M delivery budget calculated at $0.16/ADA, plus a 3% Intersect administration fee. RCADA would prefer clearer handling of any surplus value if ADA is materially above the reference rate at conversion, as well as more granular per-workstream cost detail. The 20% upfront release at contract signature is also significant given that some major technical decisions are still deferred.
RCADA views the Intersect administration structure, milestone-based payments, public acceptance criteria, Sundae Labs treasury-management contracts, and oversight arrangements as meaningful positives. These controls reduce delivery and custody risk, and RCADA appreciates that the proposal includes open-source licensing, public evidence requirements, audits, and milestone verification.
Nevertheless, these safeguards do not fully resolve RCADA’s concerns about scope, sequencing, technical specificity, non-duplication, and Treasury value-for-money. The issue is not whether OpenZeppelin could contribute meaningfully to Cardano. RCADA believes they could. The issue is whether this particular proposal is scoped tightly enough for a confident YES vote.
RCADA would welcome a revised proposal that starts with a narrower and clearer scope, such as an initial Cardano contracts library architecture, gap analysis, toolchain decision, standards alignment plan, and limited pilot implementation. A future version could also separate the core public-good contracts library from product-specific reference implementations, provide more granular budget detail, and clarify ADA/USD conversion surplus handling.
On balance, RCADA abstains because the proposal has a valuable strategic objective and credible proposer, but the current package is too broad and under-specified for full support. RCADA encourages OpenZeppelin and Intersect to continue engaging with the community and return with a more focused proposal that is easier for DReps to evaluate and support. - No9.5M ₳Rationale
Voting NO. I would like to see this resubmitted with a narrow scope.
This proposal has aspects that help address gaps identified in Cardano's ecosystem. A recent ecosystem audit points to specific things addressed here in OpenZeppelin's proposal. However, after review, there is some overlap with past ratified proposals with committed spend. It may be worth OpenZepplin having that discussion the Alpha Growth team on what to resubmit to close up the remaining gaps that IO did not cover in their own already passed proposal.
As is, we would be paying ~$1.8M for a bundle whose first workstream is named the same thing as an already funded IO workstream.
Suggestion - Resubmit a more focused, follow-up proposal to IOs - Pay OpenZeppelin to ship a liquid-staked ADA receipt other apps will take as collateral, a shared vault plug those apps can reuse, one live tokenized money-market product with a named issuer, and an audit of the IO contract library already funded.
Alpha Ecosystem Audit:
https://blue-careful-catshark-349.mypinata.cloud/ipfs/bafybeibw2hkvqy7bjb3j2rvirhexgf42prquwm4ci4qpcjk2zox7n3axpaIO DevEx Proposal:
https://adastat.net/governances/73e171a4c0730b4b59ecae271ab89f12a9d56360b02920e1f95107dbdc1d676200 - No8.2M ₳Rationale
Since the NCL amount is about to be depleted, this is not a priority in my opinion
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
This is an interesting proposal but with the current price tag of almost 12 M Ada, it fails to show that the team has actively sounded existing projects on Cardano and whether they would actually use and help shape the OpenZeppelin stack.
Right now, it seems like a case of building more capabilities, but without a strategic and eagle-eyed view of whether there is a true audience for its usage.
This proposal right now is a bit of a bet with too many uncertain elements. As Cardano treasury is being asked to fund it, I just say no to the public funding.
I'm worried will this become another cathedral we build, but with no one entering. The proposal itself has not dissuaded this fear,
- No6.8M ₳No rationale
- No6.8M ₳No rationale
- No6M ₳Rationale
No to this version, not to OpenZeppelin. We already funded IO's OpenZeppelin-style contracts library (DevX, due Q3 2026). Show a gap analysis and a coordinated scope, choose the language, cut the 20% upfront, and set real adoption criteria. We welcome a revised proposal.
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I would not describe this as an obvious slam dunk because of the scope, but the combination of OpenZeppelin + audited reusable primitives + security + open source + milestone-controlled funding is sufficiently strong to justify the allocation.
If I were allocating the treasury myself, I would actually prefer a somewhat narrower version concentrating the money on Contracts Library + security + standards + developer tooling, with the three reference implementations reduced or made explicitly subordinate to the library.
But I don't think the current bundling is bad enough to reject an otherwise strategically valuable infrastructure investment.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- No5.8M ₳Rationale
From our point of view there is too much fragmented activity in this field (which is undoubtedly relevant). Instead of having differnt initatives all trying to reinvent the wheel and producing additional work and cost, we would like to see coordinated, concerted action in this area - especially since we are talking about open-source solutions here.
- No5.6M ₳No rationale
- No5.1M ₳Rationale
We vote NO on the proposal to withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect. We value OpenZeppelin’s capability and welcome their engagement with the Cardano ecosystem. Our objection is to the proposal’s scope, structure, and price.
First, the core deliverable duplicates work the treasury has already funded. Input Output’s Developer Experience Initiative (3,601,926 ada, approved in May) already commits to building an OpenZeppelin-style smart contract library with at least five ready-to-audit contracts. The Cardano Foundation maintains audited CIP-113 infrastructure, and MeshJS, TrustLevel, and Anastasia Labs also publish open-source libraries. The proposal mentions none of these efforts, and the public question from the author of the IOG library remains unanswered.
Second, the proposal lacks transparency. The programming language has not been chosen, even though it determines staffing, costs, and auditability. The budget gives no headcount, rates, or maintenance costs. Two of the three reference implementations are poorly targeted, and the team has not demonstrated eUTxO experience with Aiken or Plutus.
We recommend a single, unified developer support strategy for 2027, and we will consider a resubmission that includes a public overlap analysis, a fixed scope, a detailed budget, and a named Cardano technical team.
- No4.5M ₳No rationale
- No3.9M ₳Rationale
This could be a valuable infrastructure tool, but taken as a group it is too much for me to swallow. I would have considered any of these individually and the others after one has proven to have traction but as a group, I don't see significant synergy to justify their being bundled. It is too big an ask for not having proved traction and impact in smaller steps.
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
私はOpenZeppelin Stackの戦略的価値と、Cardanoに標準化されたコントラクトライブラリを整備する意義を高く評価しています。しかし、現在の提案では、為替差額と1%換金手数料の負担、余剰資金の返還方法、採用するスマートコントラクト言語、独立した第三者監査、12か月終了後の保守体制が十分に確定していません。
これらは軽微な説明事項ではなく、Treasury資金の保全と成果物の長期的信頼性に関わる重要条件です。私はOpenZeppelinのCardano参入を歓迎し、期待しています。これらの条件を明確にした修正版の再提出を促すため、現行提案にはNOと投票します。
I recognize the strategic value of the OpenZeppelin Stack and the importance of establishing a standardized contracts library for Cardano. However, the current proposal does not clearly define who bears the exchange-rate gains or losses and the 1% conversion fee, how surplus funds will be returned to the Treasury, which smart contract language will be used, how independent third-party audits will be conducted, or how the project will be maintained after the initial 12 months.
These are not minor details. They are important conditions for protecting Treasury funds and ensuring the long-term reliability of the deliverables. I welcome and look forward to OpenZeppelin’s involvement in Cardano. To encourage a revised submission that clearly addresses these issues, I vote NO on the current proposal.