Mark Petruska

Contracts Library: An OpenZeppelin-style library of standardized, reusable smart contracts with an emphasis on building blocks and DeFi. Launching with at least five production-ready contracts, documented and ready for audit. No need to start from scratch ever again.

If we halt the development of the execution layer then we are essentially throwing in the towel in competing for the DeFi market. No interoperability, module system, interface standards, or event system means no programmable pools (hook service contracts / hook data), no vaults, no programmatic offchain arbitrage bots. Please wake up people.

As a DRep, I decided to vote YES on the proposal: IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus – Performance, Correctness, and Usability My rationale: I support this proposal because it addresses real technical bottlenecks in Cardano's smart contract stack: execution costs, tooling friction, and formal correctness. These are fundamental issues that directly impact developer adoption, DeFi competitiveness, and long-term support for alternative node implementations. The most tangible part of this proposal is reducing Plutus execution costs. CIP-0156 (multiIndexArray) and CIP-0168 (BuiltinValue functions) introduce new built-ins that can reduce script complexity and lower execution costs for many common use cases. This matters because Cardano smart contracts are frequently criticized for high execution costs, transaction constraints, inefficient handling of multi-assets, and unnecessary complexity for common DeFi operations. These inefficiencies directly affect DEXs, lending protocols, stablecoins, and other on-chain applications that need to operate efficiently at scale. Formal correctness and alternative node support may be even more important over the long term. Without implementation-independent specifications, conformance testing, and stronger formal guarantees, alternative clients become significantly riskier to develop and maintain. Cardano cannot realistically pursue node diversity while lacking the tooling and specifications required to support multiple implementations safely. At the same time, Cardano has marketed formal methods as a major differentiator for years. This proposal suggests that some important parts of Plutus formalization still require further maturation. The IO should clearly explain what formal specifications already exist, what gaps remain, and why those gaps were not addressed earlier. This proposal must be considered in a broader context. The blockchain industry has repeatedly demonstrated how expensive weak smart contract tooling and insufficient verification can become. Major exploits across EVM ecosystems have resulted in billions of dollars in losses due to contract vulnerabilities, implementation mistakes, and weak security assumptions. While no system can eliminate risk, Cardano has consistently positioned itself as a platform built on higher assurance standards. Strengthening formal specifications, conformance testing, and smart contract correctness helps preserve that competitive advantage as the ecosystem grows and more value moves on-chain. However, this proposal is not perfect. I continue to see unnecessary fragmentation across IO proposals. Related work is often split across multiple proposals, while vague budget categories such as "Engagement & Ecosystem Support" continue to appear without sufficient breakdown. Future proposals should provide clearer boundaries between maintenance, developer tooling, and protocol upgrades. Despite these concerns, this proposal addresses important infrastructure gaps, improves Cardano's long-term competitiveness, and the requested budget is relatively reasonable compared with other IO requests. For these reasons, I support it. If 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. MANDA Pool ID: pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8 My DRep ID: drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp