Withdraw ₳96,817,080 for 2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal
196 DReps voted · 58 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote · 6 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 2 to yes, 1 to abstain, together voting with 17.7M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes189.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes185K ₳No rationale
- Yes175K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.5K ₳Rationale
We would vote yes for Leios and the KES agent alone (four years of manual KES key rotations..), there is so much more here, usual Pro/Con list follows. While we are voting yes here, it should be noted that we feel this large omnibus style funding request could have been broken into several smaller requests and that would have served the community better.
Pros (Reasons to Vote 'Yes')
Fundamental Infrastructure Upgrades: This proposal funds numerous critical, deep-level upgrades to Cardano's core infrastructure. This includes the next-generation consensus algorithm (Ouroboros Leios), a complete node architecture refresh (Acropolis), and major performance enhancements (Ledger-HD, UTXO-HD), which are essential for the long-term scalability, security, and competitiveness of the network.Comprehensive Ecosystem-Wide Benefits: The 18 distinct initiatives benefit every type of user:
SPOs: Reduced operational costs (lower RAM needs), enhanced security (KES Agent).
Developers: Vastly improved smart contract security and tooling (Plutus High Assurance suite), and a more modular node.
End Users: Better scalability, potential for paying fees in other tokens (Babel Fees), and improved L2 solutions (Hydra).
Continued Development by the Founding Team: The work will be performed by Input Output (IO), the engineering company that has led Cardano's development from the beginning. This ensures unparalleled expertise, continuity, and a deep understanding of the protocol's architecture.
Addresses Key Challenges: The proposal directly targets known limitations within the ecosystem, such as scalability constraints, node performance, developer experience, and user adoption friction points.
Strong Governance and Accountability: Like the previous proposal, this one uses the same robust Intersect-administered framework with audited smart contracts, legal agreements, third-party assurers, and an external Oversight Committee to manage the funds, ensuring a high degree of transparency and accountability.
Keeps Cardano Competitive: The development of features like Minotaur (AVS) and the implementation of Ouroboros Leios are designed to keep Cardano at the cutting edge of blockchain research and development, ensuring it remains a competitive platform.
Cons (Reasons to Vote 'No' or Abstain)
Extremely High Cost: At ₳96,817,080, this is an exceptionally large withdrawal from the treasury. Voters must weigh whether funding a single entity, even the founding one, with such a large sum is the best use of community funds.Bundled "All-or-Nothing" Proposal: The proposal bundles 18 distinct, large-scale projects into a single vote. This prevents the community from funding certain initiatives while rejecting others, forcing an all-or-nothing decision on a massive and diverse scope of work.
Centralization of Core Development: While IO's expertise is a pro, funding them with such a large grant perpetuates the centralization of core protocol development. A key goal of the Voltaire era is to diversify the entities building and maintaining Cardano, and this proposal concentrates that power and responsibility heavily within IO.
Massive Execution Risk: The proposal contains multiple highly ambitious and complex engineering efforts. There is a significant risk of delays, scope changes, or under-delivery on one or more of the 18 initiatives, which could have cascading effects on the overall roadmap.
Part of a Larger Budgetary Concern: This single withdrawal represents more than a third of the total ₳275M budget action it belongs to. Voters may have reservations about the sheer scale of this coordinated spending from the treasury in a single budget cycle.
Limited Community Choice: By presenting this as a single, massive proposal from the primary development entity, it may leave little room in the budget for smaller, independent, or competing development teams to get funding for their own innovative ideas for core infrastructure.
- Yes161K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes on all 39 Intersect Governance actions. The community has thoroughly reviewed the many proposals presented in the Intersect Budget Process for the 2025 budget. I was deeply involved in the entire process as an SME for the Budget Committee, and then as the Secretary for the Budget Committee.
The proposals presented represent an incredible amount of development for our ecosystem for the next year. The teams all received at least 50% on Ekklesia polling. The teams will face milestones in order to continue to receive funding. If a team fails to deliver, the process will stop them from enriching themselves without returning value.
If anything, we are spending too little on our community. We need to spend more to further develop our governance and our organized events. This is a liquid democracy. If you believe that all of these proposals deserve a chance to deliver, you can shift your delegation to my DRep ID.
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes149.8K ₳Rationale
This is must have core development that will bring a return on investment for the ecosystem, end users, developers, dApp builders and stake pool operators. Input Output is no doubt the best development arm to be tackling this technological advancements and their proposal serves as a reference for the community on the level of detail that is to be expected for Treasury Withdrawals proposals.
- Yes138.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes102.5K ₳No rationale
- AbstainRevoted90.6K ₳Rationale
🧭 Evaluation Methodology and Rationale
Given the unprecedented volume and technical depth of the 39 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions submitted in this cycle, a comprehensive, proposal-by-proposal audit of budgets, scopes, and implementation frameworks would demand a level of time and resourcing incompatible with the available review window.
Rather than abstaining from participation, I adopted a hybrid evaluation methodology that combines AI-assisted content parsing with structured human analysis. This standardized checklist framework was designed to streamline high-volume assessment while preserving critical reasoning, contextual understanding, and value-based judgment.
All final decisions reflect deliberate human oversight — AI outputs serve to accelerate comprehension and comparison, but no vote is cast without manual review and a principled assessment of relevance, feasibility, and accountability.
📋 Checklist Criteria Explained
Each proposal is evaluated across six standardized dimensions using a three-point scale:
✅ Yes — fully meets the criterion
🟡 Partial — partially meets the criterion
❌ No — does not meet the criterion1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality
Does the proposal address a critical function within Cardano, or is it peripheral or redundant?
This criterion assesses the strategic relevance of the initiative. Proposals should contribute meaningfully to Cardano’s infrastructure, decentralization, usability, or long-term resilience. Initiatives that duplicate existing efforts or lack demonstrable alignment with ecosystem priorities may score lower.2️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers
Does the proposal define measurable success indicators or quantifiable outcomes?
This includes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), numerical targets, milestones with metrics, or other tangible proxies of progress. The absence of quantifiable measures introduces uncertainty around potential impact and limits effective performance tracking.3️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables
Are there clear, time-bound milestones with verifiable deliverables and acceptance criteria?
Effective proposals define not only what will be delivered, but also when and how success will be verified. This enables staged disbursement, delivery monitoring, and community oversight. Lack of milestone clarity may indicate execution risk.4️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record
Is the proposing team clearly identified, with relevant expertise and a verifiable delivery history?
This criterion evaluates the transparency and credibility of the individuals or organizations responsible for delivery. Established contributors with proven ecosystem involvement are preferred. Anonymous or unvetted teams may raise accountability concerns.5️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail
Is the budget transparently structured, with clear categories, amounts, and justification?
A strong proposal includes itemized costs (e.g., per workstream, staff role, tooling), explains the rationale behind budget allocations, and clarifies estimation methods. Lack of detail in budget structure reduces transparency and erodes confidence in treasury stewardship.6️⃣ Internal Consistency
Are the on-chain metadata, proposal content, and budget details aligned?
Consistency across all proposal components — including funding amounts, receiving addresses, project scope, and references — is essential. Misalignment creates confusion, undermines credibility, and may signal governance process weaknesses.7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
Does this proposal present a potential conflict of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the evaluation?
To preserve the integrity of the voting process, any proposal in which I (as evaluator) hold a significant, non-marginal conflict of interest will be automatically met with an ABSTAIN vote. Minor or indirect associations are disclosed where relevant, but only material conflicts — such as direct financial involvement, employment, or formal partnership — trigger abstention. This ensures all evaluations remain transparent, independent, and in service of the broader Cardano community
🧾 Governance Action Evaluation: Input Output Engineering 2025 Core Development Proposal
Proposal Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Amount Requested: ₳96,817,080
Submitted by: Intersect on behalf of Input Output Engineering (IOE)
Linked to Info Action:gov_action1u9x…(₳275M Ecosystem Budget)
Evaluation Date: August 2025
Evaluator: Agora dRep
✅ Critical Evaluation Checklist with Evidence
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → ✅ Yes
📌 Source: Motivation section of the Governance Action and IOE PDF (pp. 3–4, 8–10).
“This proposal addresses several critical challenges and opportunities within the Cardano ecosystem necessary for its continued growth, competitiveness, and decentralization.”
Key Scope Areas:
- Scalability: Leios (L1), Hydra (L2), Mithril (light clients)
- Security: Audit & Assurance, KES Agent, Minotaur (AVS)
- Incentives: Stake Pool Incentive Scheme Revision
- Developer UX: Plutus Core roadmap, testing/verification tools
✅ Confirmation note: It is publicly acknowledged across the ecosystem — including by prominent SPOs, dReps, developers, and governance facilitators — that no other entity currently has the capacity to deliver this scope in full. While decentralization remains a strategic goal, IOE is uniquely positioned at present to implement these foundational infrastructure components.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → 🟡 Partial
📌 Source: IOE PDF, pp. 4–7
- High-level cost per initiative provided (e.g., Hydra: $1.859M; Leios: $7.098M; Maintenance: $14.682M)
- No breakdown by operational category (HR, infrastructure, auditing, etc.)
- No FTE estimates, hourly effort, or partner-specific budget details
⚠️ The largest item ("Maintenance & Support") consumes over $14M without detailed justification.
✅ Clarification: No additional budget breakdowns or financial attachments were found in the metadata, IPFS anchor, or references. This review reflects all available data.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → ❌ No
📌 Source: Full Governance Action and IOE PDF
- No quantifiable targets or KPIs included
- No expected % performance improvements, usage metrics, or adoption goals
- No success criteria for impact evaluation
“Delivers massive L1 throughput increase […] enhances decentralization […] lowers development barriers.” — qualitative only
⚠️ The absence of measurable KPIs weakens transparency and accountability.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → ❌ No
📌 Source: Governance Action “Project Delivery” section; IOE PDF, p. 9
Although each initiative includes bullet-point descriptions, the proposal lacks a formal milestone framework. A proper milestone structure would include:
- Concrete deliverables
- Timelines or phase-based estimates
- Acceptance criteria
- Assignment of responsible actors
❌ All milestones are to be defined post-approval in private legal contracts with Intersect. This removes transparency and disables community validation.
✅ Quote:
“All milestones, acceptance criteria, payment amounts and expected delivery dates will be agreed between the Vendor and Intersect, acting on behalf of the CDH.”✅ Note: Only Leios includes a more detailed outline (18 items), but still without clear timelines or success criteria.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
📌 Verifications:
- ADA ↔ USD conversion (~$48.4M @ $0.50/ADA) aligns
- Proposal correctly linked to ₳275M Info Action
- Smart contract structures and receiving address consistent
✅ No mismatch detected across metadata, text, and budget context.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → ✅ Yes
📌 Source: IOE PDF, pp. 2, 12–14
“The combined experience of these groups spans the entire history of Cardano… Collaborators include MLabs, TxPipe, Vacuumlabs, Serokell, Well-Typed…”
- All teams named and known
- Extensive protocol-layer experience
- Audits by TxPipe and MLabs confirmed in submitted documents
✅ Execution capacity is proven and credible.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
No relevant conflict of interest.
🧠 Strategic Context and Political Rationale
Despite the proposal’s technical merit, there are major structural and governance concerns:
🚨 1. Bundling as a Power Strategy
The proposal merges 20 initiatives into a single unbreakable unit — removing any ability to prioritize, approve partially, or challenge specific components.
💰 2. Budget Centralization and Community Displacement
IOE's combined proposals approach ₳200M. At the time of submission, a ₳200M Net Change Limit was being debated. This risks:
- Crowding out community innovation
- Violating pluralistic funding principles
- Converting public treasury into single-vendor control
🚫 3. Refusal to Modularize or Negotiate
The vendor refused to split scope, reduce ask size, or publish milestone criteria in advance — reinforcing asymmetry in power and eroding accountability.
🗳️ Final Voting Position: ABSTAIN
While I acknowledge the technical necessity of many components within this proposal (especially Leios, Acropolis, Mithril, and Minotaur), I cannot support the submission’s format, strategy, or political implications.
I abstain as a political statement — not due to indecision, but as a deliberate rejection of:
- Centralized budget control
- Monolithic proposal formats
- Opaque governance practices
This abstention signals the need for:
- Modular proposals
- Transparent milestone and KPI frameworks
- Competitive and decentralized treasury access
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
🧭 Evaluation Methodology and Rationale
Given the unprecedented volume and technical depth of the 39 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions submitted in this cycle, a comprehensive, proposal-by-proposal audit of budgets, scopes, and implementation frameworks would demand a level of time and resourcing incompatible with the available review window.
Rather than abstaining from participation, I adopted a hybrid evaluation methodology that combines AI-assisted content parsing with structured human analysis. This standardized checklist framework was designed to streamline high-volume assessment while preserving critical reasoning, contextual understanding, and value-based judgment.
All final decisions reflect deliberate human oversight — AI outputs serve to accelerate comprehension and comparison, but no vote is cast without manual review and a principled assessment of relevance, feasibility, and accountability.
📋 Checklist Criteria Explained
Each proposal is evaluated across six standardized dimensions using a three-point scale:
✅ Yes — fully meets the criterion
🟡 Partial — partially meets the criterion
❌ No — does not meet the criterion1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality
Does the proposal address a critical function within Cardano, or is it peripheral or redundant?
This criterion assesses the strategic relevance of the initiative. Proposals should contribute meaningfully to Cardano’s infrastructure, decentralization, usability, or long-term resilience. Initiatives that duplicate existing efforts or lack demonstrable alignment with ecosystem priorities may score lower.2️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers
Does the proposal define measurable success indicators or quantifiable outcomes?
This includes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), numerical targets, milestones with metrics, or other tangible proxies of progress. The absence of quantifiable measures introduces uncertainty around potential impact and limits effective performance tracking.3️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables
Are there clear, time-bound milestones with verifiable deliverables and acceptance criteria?
Effective proposals define not only what will be delivered, but also when and how success will be verified. This enables staged disbursement, delivery monitoring, and community oversight. Lack of milestone clarity may indicate execution risk.4️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record
Is the proposing team clearly identified, with relevant expertise and a verifiable delivery history?
This criterion evaluates the transparency and credibility of the individuals or organizations responsible for delivery. Established contributors with proven ecosystem involvement are preferred. Anonymous or unvetted teams may raise accountability concerns.5️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail
Is the budget transparently structured, with clear categories, amounts, and justification?
A strong proposal includes itemized costs (e.g., per workstream, staff role, tooling), explains the rationale behind budget allocations, and clarifies estimation methods. Lack of detail in budget structure reduces transparency and erodes confidence in treasury stewardship.6️⃣ Internal Consistency
Are the on-chain metadata, proposal content, and budget details aligned?
Consistency across all proposal components — including funding amounts, receiving addresses, project scope, and references — is essential. Misalignment creates confusion, undermines credibility, and may signal governance process weaknesses.
🧾 Governance Action Evaluation: Input Output Engineering 2025 Core Development Proposal
Proposal Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Amount Requested: ₳96,817,080
Submitted by: Intersect on behalf of Input Output Engineering (IOE)
Linked to Info Action:gov_action1u9x…(₳275M Ecosystem Budget)
Evaluation Date: August 2025
Evaluator: Agora dRep
✅ Critical Evaluation Checklist with Evidence
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → ✅ Yes
📌 Source: Motivation section of the Governance Action and IOE PDF (pp. 3–4, 8–10).
“This proposal addresses several critical challenges and opportunities within the Cardano ecosystem necessary for its continued growth, competitiveness, and decentralization.”
Key Scope Areas:
- Scalability: Leios (L1), Hydra (L2), Mithril (light clients)
- Security: Audit & Assurance, KES Agent, Minotaur (AVS)
- Incentives: Stake Pool Incentive Scheme Revision
- Developer UX: Plutus Core roadmap, testing/verification tools
✅ Confirmation note: It is publicly acknowledged across the ecosystem — including by prominent SPOs, dReps, developers, and governance facilitators — that no other entity currently has the capacity to deliver this scope in full. While decentralization remains a strategic goal, IOE is uniquely positioned at present to implement these foundational infrastructure components.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → 🟡 Partial
📌 Source: IOE PDF, pp. 4–7
- High-level cost per initiative provided (e.g., Hydra: $1.859M; Leios: $7.098M; Maintenance: $14.682M)
- No breakdown by operational category (HR, infrastructure, auditing, etc.)
- No FTE estimates, hourly effort, or partner-specific budget details
⚠️ The largest item ("Maintenance & Support") consumes over $14M without detailed justification.
✅ Clarification: No additional budget breakdowns or financial attachments were found in the metadata, IPFS anchor, or references. This review reflects all available data.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → ❌ No
📌 Source: Full Governance Action and IOE PDF
- No quantifiable targets or KPIs included
- No expected % performance improvements, usage metrics, or adoption goals
- No success criteria for impact evaluation
“Delivers massive L1 throughput increase […] enhances decentralization […] lowers development barriers.” — qualitative only
⚠️ The absence of measurable KPIs weakens transparency and accountability.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → ❌ No
📌 Source: Governance Action “Project Delivery” section; IOE PDF, p. 9
Although each initiative includes bullet-point descriptions, the proposal lacks a formal milestone framework. A proper milestone structure would include:
- Concrete deliverables
- Timelines or phase-based estimates
- Acceptance criteria
- Assignment of responsible actors
❌ All milestones are to be defined post-approval in private legal contracts with Intersect. This removes transparency and disables community validation.
✅ Quote:
“All milestones, acceptance criteria, payment amounts and expected delivery dates will be agreed between the Vendor and Intersect, acting on behalf of the CDH.”✅ Note: Only Leios includes a more detailed outline (18 items), but still without clear timelines or success criteria.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
📌 Verifications:
- ADA ↔ USD conversion (~$48.4M @ $0.50/ADA) aligns
- Proposal correctly linked to ₳275M Info Action
- Smart contract structures and receiving address consistent
✅ No mismatch detected across metadata, text, and budget context.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → ✅ Yes
📌 Source: IOE PDF, pp. 2, 12–14
“The combined experience of these groups spans the entire history of Cardano… Collaborators include MLabs, TxPipe, Vacuumlabs, Serokell, Well-Typed…”
- All teams named and known
- Extensive protocol-layer experience
- Audits by TxPipe and MLabs confirmed in submitted documents
✅ Execution capacity is proven and credible.
🧠 Strategic Context and Political Rationale
Despite the proposal’s technical merit, there are major structural and governance concerns:
🚨 1. Bundling as a Power Strategy
The proposal merges 20 initiatives into a single unbreakable unit — removing any ability to prioritize, approve partially, or challenge specific components.
💰 2. Budget Centralization and Community Displacement
IOE's combined proposals approach ₳200M. At the time of submission, a ₳200M Net Change Limit was being debated. This risks:
- Crowding out community innovation
- Violating pluralistic funding principles
- Converting public treasury into single-vendor control
🚫 3. Refusal to Modularize or Negotiate
The vendor refused to split scope, reduce ask size, or publish milestone criteria in advance — reinforcing asymmetry in power and eroding accountability.
🗳️ Final Voting Position: ABSTAIN
While I acknowledge the technical necessity of many components within this proposal (especially Leios, Acropolis, Mithril, and Minotaur), I cannot support the submission’s format, strategy, or political implications.
I abstain as a political statement — not due to indecision, but as a deliberate rejection of:
- Centralized budget control
- Monolithic proposal formats
- Opaque governance practices
This abstention signals the need for:
- Modular proposals
- Transparent milestone and KPI frameworks
- Competitive and decentralized treasury access
- 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
- Yes69.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.9K ₳Rationale
This proposal will advance Cardano’s ecosystem by addressing scalability, security, and usability challenges. Here are the key benefits in a nutshell: For the ecosystem: It boosts Layer 1 throughput with Ouroboros Leios, enhances Layer 2 scaling via Hydra and Mithril, and introduces new functionalities like Minotaur AVS, making Cardano more competitive and decentralized. For users: You’ll get faster transactions, reduced network congestion, near-instant finality for some apps, and the ability to pay fees with native tokens via Nested Transactions, improving overall experience. For developers: It delivers advanced tools like Plutus High Assurance for secure smart contracts, a modular node architecture (Acropolis) for easier development, and better transaction capabilities, lowering barriers to building complex dApps. For stake pool operators: Expect lower node operational costs through Ledger-HD and LSM, enhanced security with KES Agent, faster node sync with Mithril, and potential new revenue from Minotaur AVS. Overall, it drives Cardano’s growth, performance, and adoption while maintaining security and decentralization. Want me to zoom in on any specific benefit or component?
- Yes65.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes63.1K ₳No rationale
- No56.1K ₳Rationale
I am not against IO, I respect them and commend for what got delivered.
I am also not against what they propose.
But I am very much against how they expect this proposal to be sufficient in detail that justifies the large amount of money it asks for. The alternative budget item from the TSC from the Ekklesia process included all/most of this, even pre-attributing most of the items to IO already. I think it was MUCH more mature, and contained proper checks and balances and included parties across the ecosystem that need to collaborate to bring items to life. Assigning everything to one company is unsustainable for the future of Cardano.This proposal feels like a rubberstamp to what IO is doing.
- Abstain51.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes45.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes40.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes39.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.4K ₳Rationale
✅ Vote: YES
📜 Proposal: 2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development
🧾 Amount: ₳96,817,080
🗳️ Governance Action ID: gov_action1f9d...6ggge9I voted YES on this treasury withdrawal because it directly funds foundational improvements across Cardano’s infrastructure:
• Scalability: Leios, Hydra, Mithril, and Nested Transactions unlock throughput gains, faster sync, and fee flexibility.
• Security & Reliability: KES Agent, Ledger-HD, and audit layers improve SPO operations and long-term network health.
• Developer Experience: Plutus High Assurance tools (Formal Verification, PBT, Static Analyzer) reduce risk and improve smart contract safety.
• Node Architecture Modernization: Acropolis enables a modular, maintainable node structure for future development agility.
• Fairness & Efficiency: Investigation into stake pool incentives and tiered pricing helps balance decentralization with performance.The budget is large, but IOE has a long track record of delivery and technical excellence. This proposal strengthens Cardano’s core across the board — from L1 consensus to L2 channels to tooling — and positions the ecosystem for sustained, decentralized growth.
- Yes28.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.7K ₳Rationale
I vote for this proposal
- Yes7K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes2K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes841.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes688.8 ₳No rationale
- Yes675.6 ₳No rationale
- Yes335.9 ₳No rationale
- Yes280.9 ₳No rationale
- Yes13.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes8.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted0 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes0 ₳No rationale