Andreas Pletscher

@drini_kasmot Thank you for your feedback. Please just be aware that the scope we are talking about is the already voted for projects up to F14. This is about securing the present administration and not the future of Catalyst.

As much as I scoff at CF’s ability to do anything significant for the ecosystem, this I agree. Catalyst needs central oversight. Catalyst funded good stuff, but incompetent and bad actors were able to game this system and value extracted a significant amount. From towels to unnecessary “marketing” or content coverage, it was too all over the place, and basically showed the community self-governance when it comes to this is just archaic. CF overseeing it at least gives direction as to what they want funded. If accountability rests on an organization with some enforcement capability, then it’s better than nothing. So yeah, DReps please agree. Let’s not waste more $ADA than we already have. Remove the grifters from the space.

@coc_space @BeatriceAnihiri how can I help? that would be the first bee with feathers...new type :-)

@BeatriceAnihiri I think we could also ask @AndreasPletsch1

@StakeWithPride don't panic, it will be communicated soon

This will be allegedly completed by the end of March. source: overheard on Cardano over Coffee on Monday. $ADA

@JaromirTesar Thank you for the reality check and putting this into a post. Fully agree that this needs to be addressed.

The vast majority of ADA holders are not interested in governance. They will not look for a suitable DRep candidate to represent them or redelegate to small ones. The numbers speak for themselves. Cardano governance has a structural problem that needs to be addressed technically and economically. Let’s check the numbers: Cardano has 1,353,362 who have delegated ₳21.72B to pools. This is a solid number mainly due to economic incentives. Staking is a profitable financial operation. One would expect that all stakers would find their DRep or become a DRep. The reality is that only 19% (254,980) of stakers have delegated to a DRep. A total of ₳14.56B (67%). Does that sound like a lot to you? Maybe, but only from a stake perspective. The problem is that of these 19%, most ADA holders chose to abstain. That’s 173,011 holders (67%). Only 81,969 of stakers delegated to an active DRep. That’s only 6%. Many holders delegated to Wallet DRep, specifically 18,776 to Yoroi and 9,197 to Eternl. Together, that’s 27,973, or 34.1% of active delegators. If we naively assume that holders delegate to Wallet DRep out of convenience (which may not be 100% true), then only 53,966 holders actively sought DRep. That’s only about 4%. From that, we can subtract 6,679 holders who chose No Confidence. I see that as a gesture of resistance to governance. Yoroi has direct ties to EMURGO. Does it make sense for ADA holders, who are obsessed with decentralization, to consciously delegate to DRep, which strengthens the power of EMURGO? This is unlikely. It can be stated that after more than 1 year since the introduction of governance, less than 4% of stakers have responsibly delegated to DRep. At the same time, 67% of the stakers' coins are delegated. NOTE: Part of ADA is unstaked. Someone could delegate to DRep without being a staker. We want to: ▪️Reduce DRep deposit from ₳500 to ₳5, so that it is cheaper to become a DRep. ▪️Initiate the transfer of stake from top DReps to smaller DReps. Both are doomed to failure if we do not make fundamental changes to the governance design. Why? The lower the stake of DReps, the less willingness to engage in governance. Voting density of DReps at 1-100 positions. Overview of inactive DReps and (lowest stake): ▪️1-100: 6 (₳5.21M) ▪️100-200: 22 (₳1.1M) ▪️200-300: 35 (₳336K) ▪️ 300-400: 53 (₳125K) ▪️ 400-500: 57 (₳40K) Voting density of DReps at 400-500 positions. Among the top 1-500 DReps, we have about 329 active DReps who vote relatively often. Some governance actions have low participation. Less than 100 DReps vote. On average, it is about 200 to 250. For example, only 217 DReps voted for the ₳70M proposal. It was 483 DReps for the addition of a new constitution member. Active participation in governance is only about 20-30%. Can more DReps fix it? Increasing the number of DReps does not make sense if they are not willing to actively engage and vote. They may feel frustrated that their low stake has no chance to influence the outcome. EMURGO and Yoroi have reached the ₳1B of voting power. That is 20,000 times more voting power than the DRep in position 500, with a voting power of ₳50K. Initiating a transfer of stake from the top DReps to smaller DReps makes more sense, but it is necessary to realize that the target audience is currently only about 50,000 stakers. They chose the DRep consciously and responsibly. Is it fair to convince them to migrate to another small DRep in the name of decentralization if we are unable to address the problem with large DReps technologically or economically? Will the stake of "institutional" DReps, FE DReps, and Wallet DReps be reduced? Maybe not necessarily. It is also possible to target holders who abstain or havenot delegate thier stake so far. This can be difficult, since they have explicitly shown their disinterest. It is time to start talking about introducing a saturation mechanism for DReps and linking staking with governance. Stakers should receive maximum rewards only if their DRep actively votes. Or should we change the incentive model from the ground up? Stakers only wake up when they can gain or lose something. That is, unfortunately, the reality. We need to address it. Do you think we should put together a group of DReps who would deal with this topic and propose changes? Would you be willing to join?

@CSWAP_Destroy Jon, if you are building long term infrastructure for Cardano then your proposal should definitely be part of the Treasury budget, same as many others. There are many re-occuring services that need to be covered in the same way.

Direct treasury withdrawals are a fundamentally different mechanism. They involve capital lockups and ecosystem wide governance campaigning, which introduces political overhead and execution uncertainty. That dynamic can be challenging for teams building long-term infrastructure where predictability matters. We’re not opposed to governance. We’re advocating for funding structures that are durable and operationally aligned.

I'm not one for drama, but I'm pretty angry that catalyst was cancelled. We did a lot of upfront work to benefit Cardano. Fund 15 was announced and funded by the treasury. Sure, we wouldn't vote for a lot of things the community does...but hey if it give teams like CSWAP funding to build public goods like bitcoin staking and solana dao partnerships, then its not all bad. 🤷‍♂️ Now they cancelled it during the deepest bear we've seen over 4 years, and instead of figuring out how to get the coordinated investment to ecosystem builders....they are putting it back in the treasury? This feels unethical and lacks of empathy. Cardano hasn't achieved PMF. This isn't on the shoulders of any individual builder. This is collective underperformance. Many of us have given up more lucrative roles to build for the benefit of Cardano and ADA holders. This is beyond disappointing. We see no reason why founding entities should get all of their earmarked funds, while ecosystem builders....you know the ones that are responsible for any of the on-chain activity, get treated like we're disposable trash. Until I see some urgency to make this right, I will remain incredibly pissed off.

@CSWAP_Destroy understood. the point I wanted to make is the while we wait for the "future" of Catalyst there is other ways to get funding too.

@AndreasPletsch1 Moreover, DReps carry reputational risk. That often creates a natural bias toward capital preservation, especially in uncertain markets. While that caution is understandable, it can also make it difficult to fund initiatives that require business-focused capital allocation.

@planetmaaz I couldn't agree more. recent votes have shown a significant lack of understanding and transparency in voting rationale.

I’ve yet to see a DRep justify their NCL No vote with: “this is how much I think Cardano would need on a yearly basis to achieve Cardano 2030” Let alone seek feedback on this if they don’t know). It’s mostly been “NCL is high bc markets low”. DRep education about adoption, a must.

@invalid_eutxo @Cardano_CF @InputOutputHK comms comming

So it seems many are saying there is an issue with Cardano for about an hour now? No word or acknowledgment from @Cardano_CF or @InputOutputHK yet?

@AdvocateAda @Cardano_CF @AdvocateAda I need a few days to collect the feedback. it is 23 points but many are done. will put an update on the forum post and let you know when done.

@AndreasPletsch1 @Cardano_CF Respectfully, many of us have asked. Simplest one : can someone address each point on the roadmap I posted and what was done or what hindered success?

In 2021 the @Cardano_CF provided the community with this roadmap Next year we should have 1 billion users and a nation states on-boarded As me again why the community should hold them accountable. In any public business shareholders would be calling for Fred’s head by now

@rvcas don't spread false information...you have attended none of these events.

Kinda funny that the midnight summit had more people than the cardano summit

@AdvocateAda @Cardano_CF That was before my time. Starting 2023 we issued activity reports which map against that.

@AdvocateAda @Cardano_CF got you, thank you for pointing. let me get back to you on how best to address this. imo some of the elements have been addressed in later sessions but lets wrap it.

@emurgo_io @snek Great move, thank you for pushing ahead.

✅ We voted YES on the Treasury Withdrawal for the ₳5,000,000 loan aimed at expanding Cardano’s global listings. Following our earlier approval of the Budget Info Action, EMURGO supports this withdrawal as the loan model encourages fiscal discipline. Additionally, @snek has a proven track record with T1 listings, and the advisory role of @phillip_pon provides stronger oversight. We trust the Snek team to provide clear reporting and steady progress updates, and we encourage continued transparency throughout the deployment. 🗳️ Transaction: cardanoscan.io/transaction/11…

@chronoracle pls DM me with you email and you will get an answer.

I went to the CF about using the Cardano logo for my watch project. 14 months ago. They said to get a website going and they would review again. After making a few prototypes and launching a basic site. I reached out again in Sept. They explained they would mail over a licensing agreement. I understand Summit was coming up and these things can take time. I sent them a few follow up emails since then and feel like im simply being ghosted with no reply. What is supposed to be a global decentralization inclusive brand. I dont mind they came out with a watch. Just showed the concept is worth pursuing. But to watch them launch a Cardano watch in the middle of ghosting us isn't right. We want solutions for marketing and branding but can't even step on to the same playing field with our own ideas? Everyone should easily be able to use the logo and fund the treasury in some way with proceeds. Its still founding entities first and the people second or third or never apparently.

@BitcoinLoki @CryptoGnojek @Cardano_CF a healthy combination might be the recipe for success

@CryptoGnojek @AndreasPletsch1 @Cardano_CF Death by Inaction. Burdened by decentralization, no governing entities are capable of achieving what a centralized ponzinstitution can do with swift autonomy.

Now this is pure comedy.

@CryptoGnojek @BitcoinLoki @Cardano_CF IO, MF, Emurgo, CF and Intersect are working together on multiple alternatives to push rails, bridges and liquidity.

@AndreasPletsch1 @BitcoinLoki @Cardano_CF Seems that isn’t going to happen. So what’s the alternative?

@BitcoinLoki @CryptoGnojek @Cardano_CF we can barely manage the 20m in circulation for USDA and USDM... we all need to work together (which is what we do), listen to Phil from Emurgo at his speech at the summit in Berlin. that is what we do now.

@CryptoGnojek @AndreasPletsch1 @Cardano_CF Exactly @AndreasPletsch1, who do you (personally) & CF (formally) believe are responsible for paying the fees associated with on-boarding the two most important non-Bitcoin assets in all of crypto: USDC and USDT

@CryptoGnojek @BitcoinLoki @Cardano_CF We have said this multiple times. CF, Emurgo or IO would pay the onboarding anytime. Circle expects 1b of USDC to go into circulation (not like Algorand) otherwise they are not interested.

@AndreasPletsch1 @BitcoinLoki @Cardano_CF So your position is that who is responsible for stabecoin liquidity? What’s CF’s take on it, because Charles is pointing the finger at CF