And people wonder why no one takes Cardano seriously, but theres a paid cabal that has it out for ADA im sure. "But Charles isnt the CEO, it dosnt have one". Dosnt matter if half the people here sound just as delusional as him.

1,000 reviews!!! Find us another 4.9 ⭐️ rated healthcare payment method. joincrowdhealth.com

Disgraceful. Dave was my dRep back when I still had ADA. He's a real one. Charles is a cancer to the ecosystem. Left a bad taste in my mouth and I know im not the only one. I open X and always get reminded why people arent coming back.

Before anyone says, “but it’s cheap! That’s why Cardano doesn’t generate those high amount of fees!” The revenue is poor because very few companies are choosing it. Name 3 companies that have chosen Cardano and I’ll show you 3 companies that haven’t done much transactions. I don’t make the rules.

USDCx was pitched as a savior for Cardano's stablecoin landscape but it feels like it was launched and then never spoken about again. It has no volume, no growth, and terrible liquidity. What's the plan?

He made an extravagant museum of himself in that place. The article talks about it in detail. Completely explains everything you need to know about him, lollll. Give him all the money it’ll be prudently managed I promise. 😂💀

Definitely seems like something someone would say if they had cardanos best interest at heart.. If you cared about governance, you’d listen and re submit. You literally made $SNEK re submit multiple times and agree to pay back $ADA received from treasury. Very immature.

Give us the money, we will not resubmit the proposal. Give us the money, or it's destined to fail. Give us the money, or you're responsible for the collapse of our ecosystem. Rationally, there is a middle ground, but instead it's come down to an ultimatum, which only leaves you with one real option and that's to suspect foul play. Look at the current state of the ecosystem, the promises and the promises fulfilled. He's failing to recognize that "you people" might not be as intellectual as him, but that sure as hell doesn't mean "you people" are stupid. If they can blackmail you into submission once, they can do it twice. Let Leios and everything else wait, they can resubmit if they want. Don't let them get away with it.

With 67 million ADA voting power, I have decided to vote NO on the treasury withdrawal: IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative On behalf of my loyal delegates. Rationale With 67 million ADA voting power, I have decided to vote NO on the treasury withdrawal: IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative On behalf of my loyal delegates. I am officially changing my vote from YES to NO on the IO and Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative, representing 66.94 million ADA on behalf of my loyal delegates. Initially, I intended to support this proposal to secure our operational foundation. However, upon deeper reflection, my faith in the current leadership to successfully execute a mandate of this magnitude has severely diminished. I cannot in good conscience deploy my delegates' voting power to endorse this request under its current conditions. Professionalism is the bedrock of decentralised governance, and I am profoundly disappointed by the recent public conduct displayed by leadership. The Cardano brand represents a mature, enterprise grade ecosystem. When individuals approach the public Treasury for tens of millions of dollars, their behaviour must absolutely reflect that maturity. The recent conduct falls drastically short, causing undeniable brand damage and directly undermining my confidence in their ability to lead and execute effectively. Furthermore, governance of a finite Treasury requires absolute financial accountability. Approving an opaque budget of over sixty two million ADA is fiscally irresponsible without a granular, line item breakdown. The community can no longer be expected to write blank cheques while being denied basic financial transparency, this ask is significant. We must hold our infrastructure stewards to the highest possible standards. Technical capability does not excuse financial opacity, nor does it excuse unprofessional conduct that damages our ecosystem's reputation. Until these fundamental standards are met, my vote remains a firm NO, I appreciate the hard work done by all of the team at IOG, and would welcome a proposal with further transparency on specific spend. Transaction cexplorer.io/tx/9f7be7736f51…

Charles, when every critic becomes a villain, the pattern is not everyone else. The pattern is you. You just listed Optim, Iagon, Cardano Whale, Dave, Rick, Adam and others like this is an "inventory." It is not an inventory. It is a list of people in this ecosystem who have questioned you, disagreed with you, did something you didn't like, challenged IOG, challenged a narrative or refused to act like Cardano governance exists only to ratify what you want. And instead of reflecting on why so many serious people keep ending up on the other side of your megaphone, you reach for the same playbook every time - Dismiss the substance. - Attack the person. - Recast yourself as the victim. - Then tell everyone else to "grow up." So let's take the Iagon part of your "inventory," since you brought us into it. You say Iagon "started bullying and harassing" Midnight ambassadors. That is a convenient story, but it is not what happened. I as a dRep asked a governance question, NOT Iagon. A dRep asked whether people with roles connected to Midnight or IOG linked interests, who also held meaningful dRep voting power, should abstain on IOG related treasury proposals. That is governance. That is literally what dReps are supposed to do - ask hard questions, examine conflicts, protect treasury neutrality and represent the $ADA holders who delegated voting power to them. If a person is participating in governance with delegated $ADA while also holding a role connected to a project or organization affected by that vote, asking about conflicts is not an attack. It is accountability. And let's be very clear - ambassadors are not above scrutiny. dReps are not above scrutiny. Iagon is not above scrutiny. IOG is not above scrutiny. Midnight is not above scrutiny. You are not above scrutiny. This is supposed to be decentralized governance, not a court where certain people get protected status because they are useful to Charles Hoskinson. The moment a person participates in public governance with public voting power, the public is allowed to ask public questions. You did not answer the conflict question. You reframed it as "bullying" - ironically this is exactly what you have been doing in this ecosystem. Then you escalated it into an attack on Iagon, my leadership and the holders. You used your platform to tell the market you had "no more time" for the project unless leadership changed. You warned that Iagon could fail and destroy value for token holders. You called into question the ethics and integrity my leadership. You accused us of acting out of spite rather than engaging with the actual governance concern. And then, after the damage was done, you turned around and said people are "playing the victim." That is not leadership. That is deflection. You cannot threaten a Cardano native project, watch real holders suffer, then accuse the people objecting to the threat of being childish. You cannot say you care about token holders while dismissing "your token holders" when those holders happen to be in a project that challenged you. There are no "Iagon holders" over there and "Cardano holders" over here. $IAG holders are $ADA holders. They are stake pool operators. They are voters. They are dReps. They are builders. They are community members. They are families. They are the same ecosystem you claim to defend. When you attack a Cardano project, you are not attacking some foreign body. You are attacking people inside Cardano. That is the part you keep avoiding. You talk about ambassadors being bullied. Fine. I will say this clearly - I do not condone harassment of any ambassador, volunteer, dRep, builder, SPO or community member. Anyone who crosses into personal abuse should stop. But do not use "protecting ambassadors" as a shield to make governance questions untouchable. Do not use volunteers as human armor around treasury proposals. Do not say "decentralized governance" when the rule is really - vote,but do not question my side - ask question but not about my people - participate but only if you accept the consequences of my platform turning on you. That is not governance. That is intimidation. And since we are talking about red lines, where were those red lines when Iagon was being called a scam? Where were those red lines when IOG aligned voices and consultants were smearing Iagon publicly? Where were those red lines when defamatory claims, racial slurs and personal attacks were being thrown at builders who have spent years building on Cardano? Where was the concern for "bullying" then? The standard cannot be: When your side attacks, it is criticism. When others ask questions, it is harassment. When you escalate, it is leadership. When people respond, they are victims. When you use a 1M follower account, it is accountability. When a dRep asks about conflicts, it is a mob. That double standard is exactly why people are speaking up. You say people "lash out, get hit hard and then play the victim." No. People ask legitimate questions. You hit hard. Then you call their injuries proof that they were wrong to ask. That is the pattern. A dRep raises a conflict of interest concern. You call it bullying. A project CEO disagrees with IOG proposals. You call it spite. A community member challenges your narrative. You diagnose them, mock them, block them or write them off. Then, when people notice the pattern, you call them children. Charles, the lack of self-reflection here is breathtaking. At some point, when the same story keeps happening with different people, different projects, different dReps, different critics,and different cycles, maybe the common denominator is not that everyone else is irrational. Maybe the common denominator is that you treat disagreement as disloyalty. Maybe the common denominator is that you confuse criticism with attack. Maybe the common denominator is that you cannot separate Cardano from yourself. That is dangerous in a decentralized ecosystem. Because Cardano does not belong to you. It does not belong to IOG. It does not belong to Iagon. It does not belong to Midnight. It does not belong to any ambassador group, any DRep bloc, any founder, any company or any whale. It belongs to the $ADA holders and the people building, maintaining, securing, voting, delegating, questioning and participating in it. And if those people cannot ask whether conflicts exist without being threatened, mocked, financially harmed or publicly targeted, then governance is not free. You said "grow up kids." Here is the adult version: Answer the question. Should dReps with roles, incentives, payments, affiliations or obligations connected to an organization seeking treasury funds disclose those overlaps and consider abstaining? Yes or no? That was the issue. Not your ego. Not my tone. Not Iagon’s existence. Not whether Midnight ambassadors are good people. Not whether Charles feels attacked. Not whether people should be afraid to ask next time. The question was about conflict, disclosure and treasury integrity. If there is no conflict, explain why. If there is a conflict, disclose it. If abstention is not necessary, make the case. If the Constitution already provides the standard, apply it equally. But do not turn a governance question into a loyalty test. Do not demand apologies for asking what every serious governance system must be willing to ask. Do not pretend you are defending decentralization while using centralized influence to punish dissent. And do not tell people to "grow up" while threatening to burn projects down. The Cardano community should be able to disagree without fear. dReps should be able to vote NO without being branded enemies. Builders should be able to compete without being targeted. Token holders should not become collateral damage in personality conflicts. Ambassadors should be respected, yes. But they should not be used to make legitimate governance scrutiny off limits. So yes, let's take inventory. Who asked a governance question? Who answered with escalation? Who raised a possible conflict? Who turned it into a campaign against a project? Who claims to care about token holders? Who publicly attacked leadership of a project whose holders are also Cardano community members? Who says others play the victim? Who keeps casting himself as the victim whenever accountability arrives? That is the pattern people are seeing. And no amount of "grow up kids" changes it. Iagon will continue building. I will continue voting my conscience as a dRep. I will continue asking questions when treasury neutrality, conflicts of interest and governance integrity are at stake. If I am wrong, answer with facts. If you disagree, make the argument. But threats, mockery, blocks and public intimidation are not arguments. They are the behavior of someone who wants decentralized governance only until it decentralizes power away from him. Cardano deserves better than that.

Being a DRep can be incredibly frustrating at times. Especially if your governance decision is not accepted as a rational choice, but is instead interpreted as an attack on the submitter or the ecosystem. The submitter can be an influential entity, so it can be brave to be rational. The more you want to be responsible, the more difficult it is to make the right decision. Often, you know that the decision may be unpopular, and you will lose voting power. Delegators do not have to read your rationale and can change the delegation based on the vote. DReps have to choose between a populist choice and a better direction for Cardano, at least from their perspective. Often, these are opposite poles. It is also a difficult situation for ADA holders, as they can trust DReps but listen to influential actors. Unfortunately, you may not have time to explain every decision you make because you have dozens of other proposals to process. Time for debate is critically limited. The research proposal from IO is one example. Everyone, including DReps, of course, knows that research is essential for Cardano. But this does not mean that DReps must automatically approve every proposal as submitted on the first try. DReps do not serve IO. DReps represent ADA holders and serve Cardano. IO is a for-profit company with many activities. The Treasury is a Cardano asset. DReps are the ones who decide what Cardano needs and are responsible for what should be funded. This is how we always wanted it! FEs must hand over power to the community. Remember? DReps have the right and even the obligation to reject a proposal if they are convinced that it can be improved for the benefit of the ecosystem. FEs should thank DReps for their rationales, accept feedback, and resubmit their proposals. Others do this routinely. FEs should not be an exception. DReps try to make pragmatic decisions in a limited time. I believe that IO will eventually behave pragmatically regarding their proposals, including research ones. IO needs researchers. They have to decide whether to fire researchers or resubmit proposals. This decision must be made by IO, not by DReps. Of course, a proposal can be approved on the first try. Proposals are an on-chain form of dialogue. A NO vote with a rationale is often just a call for improvement. DReps must expect the submitter to be a pragmatic and mature actor. IO launched Minimal Viable Governance, so they should understand how it works best. They are just consuming their own product. DReps and IO have the same goal. We all want Cardano to succeed. Let's learn to have a constructive dialogue together.

Easy there big guy, the shitcoin you shilled a year ago is down almost 99%.

Sold at 103k bought some back at 63k. Bought SP500 QQQ Gold Silver Palladium and Uranium. The rest has been earning 5% from cds and a smaller bag of STRC earning 12%. Avoided the pain and turmoil and even the FOMO cause were still making money and being patient.

Dude said sell above 100k. Now he is saying buy below 60k. Meanwhile you are down 40 percent from highs and have 0 gains for the past 2 years. At least Ben's cult makes 💰

I use to really believe in Charles. The push back against him and IO is very reassuring. I may return later in the decade. If he keeps getting his way and crying wolf cause everything is a crisis and a existential threat alot of people will lose faith and never come back.

Lmao no not the Japanese pensioners waking up to not vote for you. Oh the travesty of “ decentralization “

River CEO @Leishman built a time-lock encryption oracle as a side project. Upload a file, choose when it should be unlockable, and the system encrypts it with an RSA key that only becomes available at the specified time. Anyone with the encrypted file can decrypt it in their browser once the key is released. It publishes RSA keys for each minute over the next 30 days, then releases the corresponding private key at the top of each new minute. Works in the browser for humans and via curl and openssl for developers and AI agents. Use cases: delayed data access, embargoes, sending messages or files to the future, or anything else that needs a trustless time delay.