Withdraw ₳26,840,000 for Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor...
183 DReps voted · 57 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 8 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, together voting with 153.8K ₳ of voting power.
- Yes102.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes99K ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged90.6K ₳Rationale
🗳 Governance Action Review
Proposal: Withdraw ₳26,840,000 for Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision – Work Program 2025
Vendor: Input Output Research (administered by Intersect)
Governance Action ID: gov_action13tf...hm6e8q
Submitted: 18 July 2025
Expires: 17 August 2025
Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Budget Requested: ₳26,840,000
📋 Evaluation Checklist
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → ✅ Yes
“IOR aims to support research initiatives that deliver value over 3–5 years for the continued growth of the Cardano ecosystem… guided by a Strategic Research Agenda rooted in an Evidence-Based Methodology.”
“Cardano Vision is an ambitious five-year research initiative… [targeting] breakthroughs in critical technologies, including next-generation consensus protocols like Ouroboros Omega, zero-knowledge proofs, quantum-resistant cryptography…”📌 Context:
The proposal covers 20 research streams and 6 validation streams aimed at foundational infrastructure and long-term innovation. These include consensus design, scalability, ZK tech, cryptography, governance, and smart contracts — areas that directly impact Cardano’s roadmap.📌 Strategic Relevance:
While bundling this volume of streams under a single proposal may obscure the strategic weight of each individually, the scope reinforces Cardano’s continued reliance on IOG’s research leadership. The dependency may be undesirable long-term, but its current importance is indisputable.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → ✅ Yes
“The $13.42M total budget proposed is to finance all activities… with a total of 56.1 FTEs… including all costs such as equipment, licenses, sub-contracting, admin, travel, and program management.”
📌 Breakdown by domain:
- Research Dept. → $5.895M across 27.5 FTEs
- Validation Dept. → $7.525M across 28.6 FTEs
“This equates to an average of $239k per FTE (or $1,030 per day based on 232 working days/year).”
📌 The documents provide breakdowns by department, average workstream cost, and per-FTE allocation, as well as qualitative details about required roles (e.g., Chief Scientist, Cryptographer, PM, Engineer, etc.).
📌 While not granular to the line-item level (e.g., specific audit costs), the cost structure is internally consistent, detailed, and well-justified for a research-focused proposal.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → 🟡 Partial
📌 Stated Output Goals:
- “20 high-impact research initiatives annually (SRL2), with 6 validated per year (SRL4/5).”
- “At least 20 peer-reviewed publications and technical artefacts per year.”
📌 Per-stream KPIs (in annex):
- Leios: “5x throughput improvement using 85% of network bandwidth.”
- k-parameter reduction: “10¹¹-fold increase in grinding complexity.”
- SPO Incentives: “Achieve 50–60% stake in community pools.”
📌 Analysis:
While several streams define performance-based technical KPIs, many others rely only on general deliverables. There’s no unified system for post-delivery impact measurement, nor aggregate targets for adoption, citations, or implementation rates.⚠️ For a research program of this size, the lack of KPIs tracking downstream utility, adoption, or network integration is a weakness.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → 🟡 Partial
“Each fundamental research stream runs for ~2 years.”
“Each validation stream receives 6–12 months of effort… frequently spanning two calendar years.”
“All milestones, acceptance criteria and payment terms will be specified in a legal contract with CDH and Intersect.”📌 Stream-level deliverables (listed in annexes) include:
- Formal specifications
- Simulations
- Prototypes
- Technical reports
- CIPs and CPSs
📌 Gaps:
While the annexes outline expected outputs and estimated durations, no start/end dates or milestone deadlines are defined per stream. The delivery framework is expected to be contractually enforced later.📌 Conclusion:
The proposal includes qualitative deliverables and effort estimates, but lacks time-bound milestone planning at submission. For a treasury withdrawal of this magnitude, the absence of explicit timeline commitments weakens transparency and accountability, even if deferred to contract enforcement.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
📌 The requested amount (₳26,840,000) matches metadata and proposal descriptions.
📌 Referenced budget info action and Treasury Reserve Smart Contract details are coherent.
📌 No discrepancies were found between budget anchors, figures, or process descriptions.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → ✅ Yes
“IOR is the leading blockchain academic group… over 200 peer-reviewed, published papers… more than 150 academics… 50 papers core to Cardano's five development phases.”
📌 The proposal provides institutional credibility and historical performance by Input Output Research.
📌 Importantly, named stream leads are disclosed in the annex, enabling independent due diligence. Examples include:
- Bernardo David, Daniel Fritz, Matheus Ferreira, Philipp Kant, Marek Mahut, among others — many with longstanding IOG affiliations and peer-reviewed research output.
🔎 Independent verification confirms that listed leads are qualified researchers with demonstrable domain experience, strengthening the case for credibility.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest → ✅ No conflict
The evaluator declares no personal, financial, or formal ties to the vendor (IOR) or any entities involved in the administration of this Governance Action. No abstention is warranted.
🗳 Voting Recommendation: 🔵 ABSTAIN
Rationale:
Despite the strategic relevance and technical merit of this proposal, the following concerns justify abstention at this time:
- The number and granularity of KPIs are insufficient to properly evaluate research adoption, utility, or downstream integration.
- Milestones and deliverables are not bound to dates, weakening accountability for a large-scale treasury withdrawal.
- The bundling of 26 distinct streams into a single action creates opacity and reinforces dependency on a single vendor.
A revised submission with stronger KPI structures, milestone accountability, and modular proposal design would provide higher confidence for a YES vote in the future.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
🗳 Governance Action Review
Proposal: Withdraw ₳26,840,000 for Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision – Work Program 2025
Vendor: Input Output Research (administered by Intersect)
Governance Action ID: gov_action13tf...hm6e8q
Submitted: 18 July 2025
Expires: 17 August 2025
Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Budget Requested: ₳26,840,000
📋 Evaluation Checklist
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → ✅ Yes
“IOR aims to support research initiatives that deliver value over 3–5 years for the continued growth of the Cardano ecosystem… guided by a Strategic Research Agenda rooted in an Evidence-Based Methodology.”
“Cardano Vision is an ambitious five-year research initiative… [targeting] breakthroughs in critical technologies, including next-generation consensus protocols like Ouroboros Omega, zero-knowledge proofs, quantum-resistant cryptography…”📌 Context:
The proposal covers 20 research streams and 6 validation streams aimed at foundational infrastructure and long-term innovation. These include consensus design, scalability, ZK tech, cryptography, governance, and smart contracts — areas that directly impact Cardano’s roadmap.📌 Strategic Relevance:
While bundling this volume of streams under a single proposal may obscure the strategic weight of each individually, the scope reinforces Cardano’s continued reliance on IOG’s research leadership. The dependency may be undesirable long-term, but its current importance is indisputable.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → ✅ Yes
“The $13.42M total budget proposed is to finance all activities… with a total of 56.1 FTEs… including all costs such as equipment, licenses, sub-contracting, admin, travel, and program management.”
📌 Breakdown by domain:
- Research Dept. → $5.895M across 27.5 FTEs
- Validation Dept. → $7.525M across 28.6 FTEs
“This equates to an average of $239k per FTE (or $1,030 per day based on 232 working days/year).”
📌 The documents provide breakdowns by department, average workstream cost, and per-FTE allocation, as well as qualitative details about required roles (e.g., Chief Scientist, Cryptographer, PM, Engineer, etc.).
📌 While not granular to the line-item level (e.g., specific audit costs), the cost structure is internally consistent, detailed, and well-justified for a research-focused proposal.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → 🟡 Partial
📌 Stated Output Goals:
- “20 high-impact research initiatives annually (SRL2), with 6 validated per year (SRL4/5).”
- “At least 20 peer-reviewed publications and technical artefacts per year.”
📌 Per-stream KPIs (in annex):
- Leios: “5x throughput improvement using 85% of network bandwidth.”
- k-parameter reduction: “10¹¹-fold increase in grinding complexity.”
- SPO Incentives: “Achieve 50–60% stake in community pools.”
📌 Analysis:
While several streams define performance-based technical KPIs, many others rely only on general deliverables. There’s no unified system for post-delivery impact measurement, nor aggregate targets for adoption, citations, or implementation rates.⚠️ For a research program of this size, the lack of KPIs tracking downstream utility, adoption, or network integration is a weakness.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → 🟡 Partial
“Each fundamental research stream runs for ~2 years.”
“Each validation stream receives 6–12 months of effort… frequently spanning two calendar years.”
“All milestones, acceptance criteria and payment terms will be specified in a legal contract with CDH and Intersect.”📌 Stream-level deliverables (listed in annexes) include:
- Formal specifications
- Simulations
- Prototypes
- Technical reports
- CIPs and CPSs
📌 Gaps:
While the annexes outline expected outputs and estimated durations, no start/end dates or milestone deadlines are defined per stream. The delivery framework is expected to be contractually enforced later.📌 Conclusion:
The proposal includes qualitative deliverables and effort estimates, but lacks time-bound milestone planning at submission. For a treasury withdrawal of this magnitude, the absence of explicit timeline commitments weakens transparency and accountability, even if deferred to contract enforcement.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
📌 The requested amount (₳26,840,000) matches metadata and proposal descriptions.
📌 Referenced budget info action and Treasury Reserve Smart Contract details are coherent.
📌 No discrepancies were found between budget anchors, figures, or process descriptions.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → ✅ Yes
“IOR is the leading blockchain academic group… over 200 peer-reviewed, published papers… more than 150 academics… 50 papers core to Cardano's five development phases.”
📌 The proposal provides institutional credibility and historical performance by Input Output Research.
📌 Importantly, named stream leads are disclosed in the annex, enabling independent due diligence. Examples include:
- Bernardo David, Daniel Fritz, Matheus Ferreira, Philipp Kant, Marek Mahut, among others — many with longstanding IOG affiliations and peer-reviewed research output.
🔎 Independent verification confirms that listed leads are qualified researchers with demonstrable domain experience, strengthening the case for credibility.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest → ✅ No conflict
The evaluator declares no personal, financial, or formal ties to the vendor (IOR) or any entities involved in the administration of this Governance Action. No abstention is warranted.
🗳 Voting Recommendation: 🔵 ABSTAIN
Rationale:
Despite the strategic relevance and technical merit of this proposal, the following concerns justify abstention at this time:
- The number and granularity of KPIs are insufficient to properly evaluate research adoption, utility, or downstream integration.
- Milestones and deliverables are not bound to dates, weakening accountability for a large-scale treasury withdrawal.
- The bundling of 26 distinct streams into a single action creates opacity and reinforces dependency on a single vendor.
A revised submission with stronger KPI structures, milestone accountability, and modular proposal design would provide higher confidence for a YES vote in the future.
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
- Yes83.9K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process. - No77.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.9K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted65.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes63.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes56.4K ₳No rationale
- No56.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain51.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes48K ₳No rationale
- Yes45.3K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted40.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes36.4K ₳Rationale
✅ Vote: YES on IOR – Cardano Vision 2025 (₳26.84M)
I support this proposal as it funds 20 research streams + 6 tech validation streams in Cardano’s five-year innovation roadmap. IOR has delivered 200+ peer-reviewed papers and laid the foundation for key protocol upgrades. This program accelerates breakthroughs in areas like Ouroboros Omega, ZK proofs, quantum resistance, and smart contract capabilities.
Why this matters:
• Research fuels long-term decentralization, scalability & security.
• Validated workstreams translate research into real-world Cardano improvements (CIPs, prototypes, specifications).
• Cardano must lead in blockchain science to stay relevant.This is a strategic R&D investment that builds a sustainable future for Cardano. I believe in funding what makes our ecosystem antifragile.
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.7K ₳Rationale
I vote for this proposal
- Yes8.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes675.6 ₳No rationale
- Yes335.9 ₳No rationale
- Abstain52.8 ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted13.5 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No6.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted0 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded