Rationale highlights

Why some of the largest DReps voted for and against, in their own words.

• Yoroi W₳llet

  Yes584.2M ₳

  Summary Yoroi votes YES on the governance action to fund Midgard – Optimistic Rollups by Anastasia Labs. Rationale: Cardano-native architecture: Midgard uniquely utilizes the eUTxO model for fraud-proof simplicity and permissionless rollups, something not...

  Summary
  Yoroi votes YES on the governance action to fund Midgard – Optimistic Rollups by Anastasia Labs.

  Rationale:

  Cardano-native architecture: Midgard uniquely utilizes the eUTxO model for fraud-proof simplicity and permissionless rollups, something not possible on account-based chains.

  Scalable L2 with no token: It enables on-chain scaling without a new token, preserving ADA as the base economic layer and driving L1 fee growth.

  Developer-driven & aligned: The team’s open-source contributions and modular framework approach could support wide adoption by other Cardano dApps and infra players.

  Execution risk acknowledged: Given the ambitious scope, we encourage regular progress updates to foster transparency and trust.

  Yoroi supports Midgard as a visionary scaling effort that advances Cardano’s unique strengths, and we look forward to seeing it evolve into a foundational layer for future decentralized applications on the network.

• YUTA

  Yes435.8M ₳

  I will vote as necessary to help Cardano grow into a platform that supports the economic identities of billions of people. This proposal charges a fair price to achieve what is needed to achieve that. There are no significant matters that affect the...

  I will vote as necessary to help Cardano grow into a platform that supports the economic identities of billions of people. This proposal charges a fair price to achieve what is needed to achieve that.

  There are no significant matters that affect the neutrality of my decision-making.

  Detailed rationale and the improvements I would like to see made to the proposal are attached in the following spreadsheet "TW vote #01" or PDF.

  Specifically with regards to bundled proposals, next time I would request that one of the following be implemented:

  1. Bundled proposals should be subject to a temperature check vote for each item.
  2. I would like bundled proposals to be verified or created by entities, consortia, or individuals selected by the DRep.

  Spreadsheet:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M8JAuAntJOa7Z6j3GfC2hWFl4kbZLkzEel_cN4-kymw/edit?usp=sharing

  PDF:
  ipfs://bafkreianp5xhbo3ojlxqjjah4kyimr6u62uwnxd2t3lwwu3qmpn4jf4n5a

  私はCardanoが数十億人の経済アイデンティティを支えるプラットフォームへ成長していくために必要な投票を行います。この提案書は、それを達成するために必要な事項を実現するための正当なコストを請求しています。

  私の意思決定の中立性に影響を与える重大な事項はありません。

  根拠の詳細と、提案書について私が改善して欲しい点は、次のスプレッドシートの「TW vote #01」またはPDFに添付されています。

  特に、バンドル型提案書に関しては、次回は、次のいずれかが実施されることをリクエストします。

  1. バンドル型提案書は、内訳別の温度チェックの投票を行うこと。
2. バンドル型提案書は、DRepにより選出されるエンティティやコンソーシアムや個人により、検証または作成されるようにして欲しいと思います。

  Spreadsheet:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M8JAuAntJOa7Z6j3GfC2hWFl4kbZLkzEel_cN4-kymw/edit?usp=sharing

  PDF:
  ipfs://bafkreianp5xhbo3ojlxqjjah4kyimr6u62uwnxd2t3lwwu3qmpn4jf4n5a

• Cardano Cypherpunks

  No798.4K ₳

  There is no ROI calculation or justification for WHY this is needed.
  This seems to be a cool technical project without a business justification.
  I dont consider this a part of core tooling or protocol development.

• Agora | Cardano (by Rodrigo Pacini)

  No261K ₳

  🗳 Governance Action Review Proposal: Withdraw ₳2,162,096 for Midgard – Optimistic Rollups Vendor: Anastasia Labs (administered by Intersect) Governance Action ID: gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlqqfgyy3v Submitted: 18 July 2025...

  🗳 Governance Action Review

  Proposal: Withdraw ₳2,162,096 for Midgard – Optimistic Rollups
  Vendor: Anastasia Labs (administered by Intersect)
  Governance Action ID: gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlqqfgyy3v
  Submitted: 18 July 2025
  Expires: 17 August 2025
  Type: Treasury Withdrawal
  Budget Requested: ₳2,162,096

  ---

  🧭 Evaluation Methodology and Rationale

  Due to the volume and complexity of the 39 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions submitted this cycle, a full deep-dive into each proposal's technical and budgetary scope was infeasible within the voting window.

  Instead of abstaining, I used a hybrid methodology: AI-assisted parsing to accelerate comprehension, combined with structured human review and judgment. A standardized checklist guided evaluations across proposals, ensuring consistency, accountability, and context-aware assessment.

  All votes are based on human review. AI outputs served only as a tool to support efficient comparison.

  ---

  📋 Evaluation Checklist

  Each proposal is evaluated across seven standardized dimensions using a three-point scale:
  ✅ Yes — fully meets the criterion
  🟡 Partial — partially meets the criterion
  ❌ No — does not meet the criterion

  ---

  1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality

  Rating: ✅ Yes

  Rationale:
  While Midgard is one of several ongoing scalability efforts within Cardano (e.g. Hydra, Milkomeda, Zeko, Paima), it is unique in targeting permissionless optimistic rollups natively designed for the EUTxO model. Unlike Milkomeda, which leverages sidechains with separate consensus, or Hydra, which prioritizes ephemeral off-chain scalability, Midgard aims to offer on-chain, fraud-proof, sequencerless rollups with full censorship resistance.

  Given the critical need for scaling solutions ahead of broader Cardano adoption, this proposal addresses a systemic bottleneck. Its architectural alignment with Cardano’s ledger model — and focus on composability, economic alignment, and native ADA usage — reinforce its ecosystem relevance.

  Despite overlap in thematic focus with other L2 solutions, the proposal introduces differentiated properties. As a result, it qualifies as a strategically important effort rather than a redundant one.

  ---

  2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail

  Rating: 🟡 Partial

  Rationale:
  The proposal adopts a simplified budgeting model based entirely on FTE allocations (Full-Time Equivalents). Each workstream is assigned a flat FTE count (usually 1–2 FTEs) over a 12-month period. This abstraction provides a clear sense of human effort but masks variability in role-based compensation (e.g., juniors vs. seniors), and it’s unclear whether infrastructure, cloud hosting, or other overheads are embedded in the FTE cost or omitted entirely.

  There are no explicit line items for auditing, documentation, or third-party services, nor any mention of post-launch maintenance or integration. While this may reflect a deliberate scoping choice, the absence of breakdowns weakens accountability and traceability.

  Although infrastructure (e.g., testnets, Docker deployment) is referenced in the milestone plans, it is not costed separately. Auditing — a critical cost for a security-sensitive L2 protocol — is entirely omitted.

  The simplification of budget via uniform FTE abstraction, coupled with absence of these critical elements, reduces clarity.

  Conclusion: The budget is structured and consistent, but too coarse-grained for a ₳2.16M ask. Rated Partial.

  ---

  3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers

  Rating: ❌ No

  Rationale:
  The proposal makes strong qualitative claims (e.g. "first general-purpose permissionless rollup on Cardano"), but provides no quantitative metrics or KPIs. There are no specific adoption targets, performance benchmarks, usage goals, or integration milestones.

  While the alignment with ADA-denominated fees and L1 interaction implies economic value, these remain vague projections. There is no way to assess whether the goals — economic or technical — will be achieved, and no mechanisms for accountability.

  Any proposal requesting >₳2M should provide measurable indicators of success, and this one does not.

  Conclusion: Absence of quantifiable KPIs is a critical transparency and impact weakness. Rated No.

  ---

  4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables

  Rating: 🟡 Partial

  Rationale:
  The proposal mentions that milestones will be defined and administered via a legal contract between Intersect and the vendor, with third-party assurance. However, no milestones are explicitly listed within the Governance Action or attached PDF, and no detailed deliverables or acceptance criteria are disclosed at this time.

  Although some implementation areas are described (e.g., permissionless fraud proofs, L2 execution environment), there is no itemized delivery schedule, timeline, or work package granularity. There is also no mention of auditing, security reviews, or documentation, despite the protocol’s complexity.

  The proposal hints at “mainnet readiness by end of year,” but this vague target is not broken down into accountable phases.

  Conclusion: The lack of visible, verifiable deliverables limits community visibility and oversight. Rated Partial.

  ---

  5️⃣ Internal Consistency

  Rating: ✅ Yes

  Rationale:
  The budget amount (₳2,162,096) matches the value signaled in the Info Action and appears consistent across metadata, justification, and legal process descriptions.

  Conclusion: Internally consistent. Rated Yes.

  ---

  6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record

  Rating: ❌ No

  Rationale:
  Anastasia Labs is a technically competent team with a strong presence in the Cardano open-source ecosystem. They have delivered 5 completed proposals under Project Catalyst, and their contributions to tools like Lucid and developer SDKs are widely recognized.

  However, significant concerns persist regarding delivery bandwidth and transparency:

  The team currently has 8 active Catalyst-funded proposals, and a majority appear to be delayed based on milestone progress and delivery timelines.

  Among them is the most relevant: the Midgard proposal funded with ₳500,000, under which only the first milestone has been delivered, four months behind schedule. The remaining milestones — including smart contracts, validator logic, node infrastructure, and mainnet deployment — are still pending.

  Critically, the current Governance Action fails to disclose or explain this ongoing Midgard development funded via Catalyst. The new treasury request of ₳2.16M includes deliverables that substantially overlap with those already approved and funded. These include fraud-proof mechanisms, state management, inbox/outbox contracts, infrastructure deployment, and API services.

  Although ₳500,000 was approved via Catalyst, it is being paid incrementally based on milestone delivery. The full amount has not been disbursed.

  Conclusion: Given the overlapping scope, incomplete delivery of prior funding, and lack of disclosure or coordination, this criterion is rated No. A full public clarification is needed before additional funding can be responsibly approved.

  ---

  7️⃣ Conflict of Interest

  Rating: ✅ No Conflict

  Rationale:
  No significant or material conflict of interest exists. This evaluation is provided independently, without financial involvement, partnership, or prior engagement with the proposal team.

  ---

  🗳 Final Recommendation

  Vote: ❌ NO

  Rationale:
  While the Midgard proposal addresses an urgent and structurally important need — permissionless scalability on Cardano — the execution context is problematic. The lack of disclosure about existing Catalyst funding, vague budgeting structure, absence of quantitative KPIs, and opaque milestone planning weaken both the credibility and accountability of this Governance Action.

  Midgard may well deserve future funding, but not until the current funded proposal is delivered and transparent clarification is made regarding scope overlaps and resource allocation.