Conditional YES — Questions for Clarification I would like to give a conditional YES to the “Cardano Critical Integrations Budget.”
Because this is a very large request, I kindly ask for clarification on the following points.
Given that this governance action places notable time pressure on both DReps and the CC, I would greatly appreciate it if these explanations can be provided before the Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action is submitted. 1. Justification for the 70M ADA amount
Please explain why 70M ADA is the appropriate figure.
Why would 65M ADA be insufficient, and why would 75M ADA be excessive? 2. High-level breakdown of the 70M ADA
Separate from (1), could you provide the most detailed breakdown possible for how the 70M ADA is expected to be allocated? 3. More robust success metrics (KPIs)
The current “live on mainnet” metrics seem insufficient.
Could you include numerical KPIs such as increases in TVL, user numbers, external capital inflows, or transaction volume?
These would help DReps evaluate success or failure more objectively. 4. Specific gaps in existing Cardano infrastructure
For each integration category (Custody/Wallet, Analytics, Bridge, Oracle),
could you specify what is currently missing on Cardano?
For example, regarding wallet infrastructure:
what exactly is lacking today in Lace or Eternl, and what needs to be developed? 5. Vendor lock-in risk
Is there a risk that this budget creates strategic dependency on a specific vendor?
Are there standardization or “exit” clauses to prevent lock-in? 6. Required SLA/security levels
What levels of SLA, availability, and security requirements are being set for Oracle, Bridge, Analytics, Custody, and Wallet integrations? 7. Conditions for stopping or scaling down the program
While unused funds will be returned after 24 months,
could you clarify under what conditions the program can be paused, reduced, or stopped midway?
Who has the authority to trigger such decisions? 8. Precedents on other L1s
Are there successful examples from other L1 ecosystems (e.g., Solana, Ethereum) that used a similar integration-budget model?
If so, what were the success and failure factors? 9. Timing and remaining NCL capacity
This proposal appears close to the end of the current NCL and uses most of its remaining capacity.
Could you clarify:
(a) Why this was kept until now, and
(b) Why it must be executed within this NCL, rather than splitting into phases across the next NCL? 10. Balancing confidentiality and constitutional transparency
While NDA-protected information is understandable, Cardano governance requires transparency.
Can you disclose, at minimum:
(a) Cost ranges per integration category
(b) Number of vendors involved
(c) Expected contract durations
so that DReps can reasonably judge the appropriateness of the plan? 11. Relationship with existing Cardano-native projects
How will this budget interact with existing Cardano-native infra teams (e.g., Charli3)?
 12. Handling of underperformance (“failure rules”)
If, after 24 months, the KPI targets (TVL, Tx volume, capital inflow, etc.) fall significantly short:
(a) How will root-cause analysis be conducted?
(b) How will learnings affect future large-scale infrastructure proposals?
As DReps, we would like clarity not only on success criteria but also on how failure will be addressed.