{"@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":"As a DRep, I decided to vote NO on the proposal: AURORA: Open infrastructure for bringing real credit markets to Cardano.\n\nMy rationale:\n\nThe proposal identifies a potentially useful infrastructure concept, but it does not demonstrate that there is a market ready to use it. The proposed software can be built, but we must demand more than that.\n\nFirst, the product may be technically complete but economically dead. A discovery engine cannot create loan supply, credible originators, or capital providers. The central challenge is not building an indexer, metadata schema, or API. It is bringing real credit opportunities and capital to the market. The proposal does not provide sufficient evidence that this demand exists.\n\nSecond, there are no adoption or mainnet KPIs. Delivery is measured through specifications, testnet functionality, open-source code, documentation, and a technical demonstration. These are useful outputs, but they do not demonstrate that the infrastructure has been integrated, used, or validated by real market participants.\n\nThird, there is a serious risk of creating a \"standard without an ecosystem.\" A shared standard becomes valuable only when multiple independent lending implementations, originators, applications, and capital providers actually adopt it. No concrete integration commitments or credible adoption pathway are presented. Without them, AURORA risks becoming a well-documented reference implementation rather than a shared Cardano market infrastructure.\n\nFourth, the milestones pay for technical artifacts rather than demonstrated utility. Significant funds can be released after publication of specifications and testnet components, while there is still no requirement for a mainnet integration, a real credit opportunity, a committed capital provider, or measurable usage.\n\nFor comparison, the Catalyst process has set a very high bar for funding. Teams requesting up to 200,000 ADA are expected to demonstrate quality of the team, adoption potential, technical feasibility, marketing and go-to-market thinking, realistic milestones, and value for money. This proposal requests 940,000 ADA, yet it does not provide comparable evidence in the areas that matter most for its success.\n\nAs a DRep, I want funding rules to become stricter and to be applied consistently. I am not saying on-chain governance must copy the Catalyst standard exactly. However, I would like on-chain governance to move in the same direction: stronger evidence, clearer accountability, and a higher burden of proof for large Treasury withdrawals.\n\nIf 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.\n\nMANDA Pool ID:\npool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8\n\nMy DRep ID:\ndrep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp\n\nBuy me a beer:\nhttps://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0"}}