Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect
29 DReps voted · 12 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
Voting concentration
2 of 29 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 49.8%, top 5 combined 80.8% of 895.3M ₳ voted.
- No445.8M ₳No rationale
- No93.3M ₳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 - No88.1M ₳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.
- No55.6M ₳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/
- Abstain40.2M ₳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.
- Yes37M ₳No rationale
- No34.3M ₳No rationale
- No23.6M ₳Rationale
Too much overlap with the funded DevX proposal. Coordinate with the existing team and collaborate.
- No20.3M ₳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. - No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No6.8M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳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.
- No5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- No5M ₳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.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The problem of fragmented contract patterns, a lack of reusable eUTXO components, and poorly documented paths for institutional DeFi is one I fully grasp and support. Because having open-source reference code and security know-how could cut down on redundant work and boost developers’ assurance in this field. So, without a doubt, the strategic direction is relevant.
Looking at the value proposition, though I think it’s substantially weaker than the headline suggests. As far as I know, Cardano already has active contract frameworks. It also has audited application code, ecosystem standards, developer tooling, and on top of that various teams working on interoperability, governance, credentials, and DeFi infrastructure. I’m not an expert here, but even more so, I’d expect a proposal asking for no less than 12M ADA to establish and show beyond a reason of doubt through a rigorous gap analysis what existing repositories cannot provide, how OpenZeppelin’s output will be technically superior, or why all three proposed financial products should be bundled into one treasury-funded engagement… when I and so many other DReps have publicly and on social media for more than a year now opposed the bundling of divergent work packages time and again.
We’re talking about almost 2M USD here, and I for one think, that it’s quite an ask that requires more detailed budget evidence, rate cards, subcontractor assumptions, and independently validated scope. That’s best business practice. I’ve operated under these conditions for more than three decades, and I’m shocked each time how laissez-faire this grant tourism in the Cardano ecosystem is.
I would prefer, and indeed can only approve if I do my DRep job properly, a smaller, independently scoped discovery grant followed by competitive, separately approved workstreams.
- No883.4K ₳No rationale
- No866.5K ₳No rationale
- No621.8K ₳Rationale
I genuinely see the value in strengthening Cardano’s developer infrastructure, and I appreciate the work OpenZeppelin has done in the broader blockchain ecosystem.
However, as a DRep, I have to look beyond the reputation of the organization and ask whether the treasury is getting sufficient value for the amount being requested.
11,787,063 $ADA is a significant amount of treasury funds. My concern is not that the proposed work has no value, but that the request feels very large.
My position is not a rejection of OpenZeppelin or the opportunity itself. It is a call for how we commit treasury funds.
At this stage, I am leaning toward voting No.
As DReps, we have a responsibility to support valuable initiatives while also being careful stewards of the community’s treasury.
- No579.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes573.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes366.7K ₳No rationale
- No356.4K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no for two reasons. First, there's no way for the treasury to earn any of this back. The budget is 100% delivery plus the admin fee. No revenue share, no equity, no repayment. The thing being built, an audited open-source contracts library, is OpenZeppelin's actual product on other chains. We would be paying 1.8M for a copy of a product they already sell, with no slice of the return coming back.
Second, the adoption bar is one developer. Milestone 3's acceptance criterion is word for word "at least 1 independent Cardano developer has reviewed and provided feedback on the library components (written confirmation)." That is the only Cardano-side usage requirement in a $1.8M contract. The 85% market share and $110B TVL numbers are optimism substituting for arithmetic: they describe other chains, not Cardano. - No284.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳No rationale
- No100.9K ₳No rationale
- No6.8K ₳No rationale
- No167 ₳Rationale
Voting NO on Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect.As an elected Cardano Civics Committee member, Unified Cardano Student Club President in Nigeria, and a DRep focused on transparent, sustainable treasury use, I respect the services OpenZeppelin wants to offer. Audited libraries, reference implementations, and developer enablement would be valuable for builders and real-world adoption, including in emerging markets.That said, I cannot support this withdrawal. ₳11.79 million is too high given the current state of the treasury. Cardano’s treasury has been under heavy demand, and I believe it needs time to recover rather than taking on another large spend right now even for good work.I remain open to a leaner, more tightly scoped version later. For now, fiscal discipline comes first.