There's no such thing as a "community server". Or, you could already argue that we already have that and just have people join one of the four I previously mentioned. This isn't some noble attempt to be more constructive in the discussion because Charles himself has, in the past, been every bit as destructive and vitriolic as the people he is trying to run away from. You lead by example, not further insulating yourself and labeling every criticism as toxicity. I suppose my argument is "we don't need YET ANOTHER Discord". This isn't some shocking revelation or something we need Charles or Philip to be wasting bandwidth on. We need them to use the existing channels we have (including Twitter) and focus on leading by example.

Discord groups have existed in this ecosystem for years. In practice, they have often functioned less like public forums and more like caves: small groups talking among themselves, with decisions and narratives forming in isolation. I think it is delusional to believe that people will simply change their social behavior, stop discussing things on X, and suddenly start organizing meaningful public debate inside specific Discord channels. Cardano has hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, yet somehow basic concepts like network effects still seem to be ignored when convenient. We have already had several attempts to create “proper” channels for discussion. The Cardano Forum has existed for years and is barely used by most of the community. At times, it feels less like a civic space and more like a graveyard of abandoned conversations. Catalyst and Intersect Discord servers have also existed for years. They may be useful for coordination, but if the goal is to create an echo chamber where the same people talk to the same people, then yes, Discord is probably the perfect venue. The issue is not that X is healthy. It obviously is not. The issue is pretending that moving conversations into more controlled spaces automatically creates better discourse, broader legitimacy, or a more representative community. It does not. It mostly creates quieter rooms. And in an ecosystem that claims to care about decentralization, public accountability, and open governance, confusing silence with alignment is a dangerous mistake. The level of disconnection from reality in this ecosystem keeps growing.

The Mainnet Plutus Cost Model update has been ratified on June 13, 2026 at 21:45 UTC. Enactment: June 18, 2026 at 21:4 UTC REMINDER for DApps and developers to test their setups on Preview/Preprod ahead of Mainnet enactment to ensure that they aren't negatively impacted by any cost model changes. While the newly introduced primitives do not take effect until after the hard fork, existing cost models will be updated at the enactment of the parameter update action on June 18.

Change my Vote to YES ✅ on the "Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit proposal". Thanks to an easy walk though given to me by DRep @HDuyLong3 and Tempo.vote builder extraordinaire Please redelegate away if you disagree. Or support @HDuyLong3 as a DRep!

This is a misdirected analysis that has a padded dataset to support the argument you’re trying to make. If you want to answer your questions, you have to limit your sample to the period and voting data of DReps since they’ve had the power to decide on where treasury withdrawals go. This makes most of the catalyst funds (these themselves aren’t 150m into adoption either) & emurgo claims fall away. It’s been roughly over 2/3 of the NCL going to infra/R&D for the past two years. DReps do have a bias towards infra/R&D and an aversion to adoption. I believe a root cause is complexity bias mixed with social dynamics and a general lack of education & guidance when it comes to adoption topics

Thanks everyone that supported the Daedalus proposal. Unfortunately a competing wallet that adversarially defaulted all their users to delegate to them voted no on our proposal with a large amount of stake making it not pass. @emurgo_io I really hope you rectify this situation.

That 'build it and they will come' approach has been the strategy for years and it hasn’t delivered. We’re still generating tiny protocol fees while treasury spends massively on infrastructure and R&D with almost no users to sustain any of it. If we’re not willing to fund adoption, marketing, or actual user acquisition, how exactly do we pay for all the fancy tech long-term? Hoping capabilities alone create demand hasn’t worked. We need a realistic plan that drives usage, not just more capability funding.

Sure, most startups fail. But what I see over and over again is that we fail to acknowledge that Cardano has few and little known financial incentives for builders to come and stay, plus the lack of users/marketing. Cardano is not attractive unless a new project A) really is into the tech or B) has insider connections for support. If we then think further and treat Cardano like a tech company where acquiring new users vs. retaining existing ones is about 7x more expensive, it might become a bit more clear what we’re also losing when loyal builders leave. They are users of the chain, advocates and potential multipliers. DReps approving a mass of integration proposals but voting no on marketing and growth proposals… it’s not just all on the DReps, but the current system enabling this outcome. This will hurt and the treasury will likely pay for it x-fold next cycle. I salute you Cash. You’ve always been driven and constructive with hope for change.

I put my entire life into Cardano. My time, my expertise, my savings. I’ve literally gone all in, and for over 5 years now. No salary for 3 years, along with my co founder, and every payroll was paid on time. This isn’t meant as a guilt trip just context towards my reality. I forced my cofounders to envelope the ‘entrepreneur mindset’ and make sacrifices to make our vision of Anvil work. I thought we were in good company in Cardano. A bunch of scrappy, smart people who are building the future financial rails of the world. Unfortunately, not everyone was living like starving entrepreneurs and looted our community/treasury while keeping cushy salaries. Now the price is in the teens…and we can’t even get contracts on Cardano to sustain our business, with no indication that change is coming, all community business proposals are not passing atm. I gave up my 30s for this. I had a great career trajectory making solid money. I don’t regret the decision I just wish it went different. Believe it or not, we didn’t make many stupid decisions, we were responsible with salaries, and ran very lean operations. Did we fail? Or did Cardano fail to flourish and create real opportunity? I bought Ada, I believed in the token. I dropped my 401k on it. Held it religiously for 5 years, all to sell at .16 so I don’t lose my house? It’s insane lol was I supposed to sell on everyone’s heads? I thought being a believer was the whole point now I just feel like a sheep. I don’t even have the 100k Ada required anymore to go straight to the treasury. The only thing I can think of that hurt worse were my kidney stones. This is the most defeated I have felt in a long time. And now I’m watching 8 months of hard work and relationship building get thrown away. Can’t get a hold of half the DReps otherwise you come off as annoying. Didn’t do a Japan tour? Good luck! I had to waste 6 days explaining to one of our top DReps why the product needs Cardano. He basically said we didn’t need to use blockchain or cardano. Instead of explaining the value we create I gotta convince our top DReps why a project chose to build on Cardano? 🤯 Im not perfect but I damn sure tried to be! Answered everyone promptly, reached out to DReps, and did our best to listen/apply feedback. I show up everyday. Can someone explain to me why I should keep trying to build here? I’ve legit lost everything but my wife who isn’t getting any happier with me. Today is the first day I work towards getting my life back. IDK exactly what that means but I’m done feeling like this for nothing.

Even though I have 1% of the voting power on Cardano, I am de registering my dRep keys. I will no longer be a dRep. It's a liability that pays you nothing, and all you get is constant stress and harassment. You can't exist without conflict of interest. Peace 🤞

If someone truly believes a multi-million-dollar governance action for example can be properly evaluated in just a few minutes, I'd be curious to see whether they apply the same standard to their own finances. Most people would spend days, weeks, or even months reviewing a $5 million investment if it involved their personal funds. Yet somehow, when the money comes from a collective treasury, a few minutes of review is considered sufficient. The level of diligence applied to treasury spending should not be lower than the level of diligence people would apply to their own money. If anything, it should be higher. Human beings have a remarkable ability to become less careful when the consequences are distributed across everyone else.

Many projects fail in the Intersect budget process. I see two problems: - Significant social and voting power is in the hands of the Pentad. They can favor their proposals over community ones. - There is no alternative funding vehicle. There is no second chance. Only direct TW

If DReps have dedicated at least 2 hours to each proposal in the Intersect budget process and on-chain governance, that's roughly 200 hours in total. That's almost 5 weeks of full-time work. Who said governance only takes an hour a month? By the way, are 2 hours enough?

Thank you to everyone who voted for Innovation & Growth DAO. The proposal was not approved. We plan to continue. We have feedback from DReps that we can incorporate into the next proposal. The ecosystem needs innovation and growth.

Agree. If this would be better then everyone would already be using it, or the Cardano forum. It’s VERY DIFFICULT for authorities to dictate where and how users provide engagement. Discrediting platforms when you don’t like what is received is not a healthy response.

Whelp… We gave it everything we had. Couldn’t get the proposal over the line through Intersect despite an epic amount of support. Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who did in fact vote for us. We saw a wide variety of turn out from different sectors and beliefs. Going to take some time to think about the path forward. It’s a big mix of emotions right now. I don’t think X is a good place for me to vent. Hope everyone has a good weekend

Today marks the end of the bigpey Cardano YouTube channel. It's been a hell of a ride, thanks for the support over the years. 🫡

Why are so many people suddenly surprised that we invested so much in infra, nodes, research, integrations, etc., and almost nothing in ecosystem, marketing, and growth? From my point of view, sometimes DReps focus too much on the details in proposals without seeing the broader context. Do not take me wrong. If the proposal is not nearly perfect, it should be rejected. But sometimes, rejection might have negative consequences. The reason is a poorly functioning allocation process. The current system does not allow for socialization and resubmission. 75% of the budget is gone. In a month or so, the NCL will be exhausted. Those who did not manage to get enough YES votes in the Intersect process can try their luck through Treasury Withdrawal. The challenge for you will probably be to process the feedback, edit the proposal, quickly submit the Treasury Withdrawal, and convince the top 15 DReps to support it. The ideal procedure is different. First, you should process the feedback. Show the revised proposal to DReps and the community. Give them the necessary time to assess it. Maybe edit the proposal again. Only then submit. This can take weeks of work. Sometimes DReps reject proposals without having an alternative plan. They may want changes that the team will not have time to make before the NCL runs out. The current system is completely inefficient. Everyone is racing for the budget. You have to be ahead. There is no space to prepare a strategy, prioritize, and think. Unfortunately, there is not enough time to improve proposals, while this is a crucial feature of the system from a treasury perspective. The Intersect budget process was supposed to address some of the shortcomings. It failed. Only a few DReps provided feedback to the teams in the edit phase of the process. Founding entities, which are among the top DReps, failed to provide feedback before the vote. This indicates that the process was too short to allow DReps to analyse, debate, comment, and decide on a large number of proposals. Perhaps it was enough to multiply the number of proposals by some constant, such as 1 day. Why not even more? Who said we must spend everything in a few months? We are talking about 350M ADA! The future of Cardano depends on the quality of the allocation process. These might be the reasons why we are surprised now. Instead of allocating a part of the budget every quarter, everything is allocated within the first one. Instead of having a given budget per category, we fund the teams that come first. Instead of having a strategy, we allocate based on mood and narrative. It is inconvenient for uncoordinated DReps to vote NO with the argument that the decision requires more context. I tried it once. One team will hate me to death. DReps decide as it is expected of them. I dare say that community builders, marketing, growth, content creators, tooling, explorers, non-profit projects, and others will be left without support this budget cycle. Why? Because they probably won't have time to submit Treasury Withdrawals on time. On-governance should not replace Catalyst, in my view. Some DReps have somehow forgotten that, in addition to founding entities, there is also a community. Next year will be very challenging for many. Those who remain can prepare a better process for next time.

📌 Surfacing Innovation & Growth DAO Feedback and Misconceptions Chapter 6: Accountability, Auditing, and Ecosystem Coordination 🔹 Misconception #5 Who audits the DAO itself, and what happens if a funding round underperforms? Answer 👇🏻 This is a fair question. If the DAO expects funded projects to be accountable, then the DAO itself should also be accountable. The same standards we expect from funded teams should apply to the funding mechanism itself. 🎯 1️⃣ Accountability should not stop at funded projects Funding recipients are not the only actors that should be subject to scrutiny. Funding mechanisms themselves should also be accountable. That includes: 🔹 Funding decisions 🔹 Budget utilization 🔹 Round outcomes 🔹 Governance processes 🔹 KPI performance Accountability should exist at every layer of the system. 2️⃣ Today, Cardano still lacks a mature ecosystem-wide accountability coordination framework This is an important point. At present, most treasury-funded initiatives are ultimately administered through Intersect, which already plays an important role in oversight and accountability. However, Cardano does not yet have a widely adopted ecosystem-wide framework for coordinating accountability standards across multiple funding vehicles. As new mechanisms emerge, including DAOs and specialized funding programs, the need for coordination becomes increasingly important. 3️⃣ Several community initiatives are already exploring this challenge This is not a problem being ignored. Discussions between our team and different stakeholders of the Cardano ecosystem are already taking place around coordination, accountability standards, conflict-of-interest management, reporting frameworks, and impact measurement. Two examples are the DRep DAO and Intersect Ecosystem Funding Working Group initiatives, which have been exploring how different funding mechanisms could coordinate more effectively while maintaining transparency and independence. Multiple meetings, working sessions, and governance discussions have already taken place around these topics. 4️⃣ Innovation & Growth DAO is open to external oversight and coordination We do not believe accountability should be designed in isolation. The DAO is intended to remain open to collaboration with ecosystem-wide coordination efforts, whether through Intersect, DRep DAO, or other governance initiatives that may emerge. The objective is not to create a self-contained funding island. The objective is to become part of a broader ecosystem accountability framework. 5️⃣ Accountability standards should evolve with the ecosystem One reality of decentralized governance is that not every mechanism can be fully designed years in advance. Cardano governance itself continues to evolve. Funding mechanisms continue to evolve. Accountability frameworks continue to evolve. What matters is having the willingness to participate in that evolution, adopt best practices, and continuously improve governance processes over time. 6️⃣ What happens if a funding round underperforms? First, the objective is to reduce the probability of underperformance before funding is ever allocated. The Innovation & Growth DAO intends to align its accountability framework with the broader direction established by Cardano Vision 2030 and the work currently being developed by Intersect's Product Committee @IntersectCPC around ecosystem outcomes, impact measurement, and KPI frameworks. Those frameworks are still evolving, and we expect them to continue evolving over time. As new ecosystem-wide standards emerge, the DAO intends to incorporate them into its funding requirements, evaluation criteria, and accountability processes. The objective is not simply to fund projects. The objective is to fund projects that contribute to measurable ecosystem outcomes. 🎯 That said, innovation always involves uncertainty. Not every project will succeed. Not every experiment will achieve traction. Not every funding round will produce identical results. The important question is what happens when outcomes fall short of expectations. The DAO intends to address this through transparency, reputation, and accountability mechanisms. For example: 🔹 KPI performance should be tracked and documented 🔹 Milestone delivery should be publicly recorded 🔹 Project outcomes should be visible through public dashboards 🔹 Builder track records should become part of a long-term reputation framework The intention is to create an environment where teams that consistently deliver can demonstrate their value over time, while teams that repeatedly fail to meet commitments develop a visible track record that future funding mechanisms can consider. This is particularly important because the DAO is focused on innovation and top-of-funnel funding. Many projects receiving support will be newer initiatives, experimental concepts, or builders who have not yet established a long history within the ecosystem. That naturally creates higher uncertainty. What matters is making outcomes visible. Not hiding them. 🔍 In addition, the DAO is not designed to create perpetual treasury dependency. Projects that consistently underperform would likely face significant limitations on accessing future funding rounds. Likewise, funding should remain tied to milestone delivery and proven impact. If a project fails to meet agreed requirements, future disbursements may be halted, accountability procedures triggered, and any remaining funds returned to the treasury where appropriate. Treasury resources should remain accountable to the ecosystem. Finally, the vision is to create public dashboards and reporting systems that allow not only the Innovation & Growth DAO, but also other funding mechanisms across Cardano, to evaluate historical performance, delivery records, KPI achievement, and builder track records. The goal is not merely to fund innovation. The goal is to continuously improve how the ecosystem identifies, measures, rewards, and scales successful contributors over time. That is the direction we believe Cardano governance should continue moving toward. #Cardano #Governance #DRep