{"@context":{"CIP100":"https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#","hashAlgorithm":"CIP100:hashAlgorithm","body":{"@id":"CIP100:body","@context":{"comment":"CIP100:comment"}}},"hashAlgorithm":"blake2b-256","body":{"comment":"I am voting NO on “Alchemy by Sundial x Charms Cardano-Native Bitcoin Treasury Protocol.” The proposal identifies a real strategic gap: Cardano currently lacks a credible BTCfi infrastructure layer, and Bitcoin-backed liquidity and structured exposure are increasingly consolidating on other ecosystems. The proposed architecture is also thoughtful on paper, with reserve mechanics, public reporting, integration goals, staged deployment, and explicit attempts to separate development spend from treasury-supported launch liquidity.\n\nHowever, this request is too large, too structurally complex, and too dependent on an external upstream stack for me to support in its current form. Alchemy depends materially on the Charms / BitcoinOS interoperability layer, which appears promising but is still comparatively early and outside Cardano’s direct control, so a slowdown or failure there would materially affect the feasibility and maintainability of the proposed roadmap.\n\nI am also not convinced this is best treated as a standard treasury-withdrawal public good. FIRE and ICE function much more like treasury-seeded, Bitcoin-backed structured exposure products than simple neutral infrastructure, and part of the request is effectively a launch-liquidity position expected to produce returns for the treasury. In my view, proposals of this kind belong under a clearer active treasury framework with defined portfolio rules, dependency standards, and long-term operating-cost transparency, including who maintains and funds the reporting/dashboard layer after launch. For those reasons, I am voting NO."}}