⩜ 🍓

@Cardano Treasury needs to start funding projects in this area, if they want to be taken seriously by institutions. Volume = Treasury Revenue

THE FASTEST-GROWING SECTOR IN FINANCE NOBODY IS PRICING IN. 🇺🇸 Real-world assets on-chain just crossed $33,990,000,000. The trajectory: 2023: $380,000,000. 2025: $5,000,000,000. March 2026: $19,000,000,000. May 2026: $33,990,000,000. That's an 89x increase in 28 months. US Treasuries lead: $15,490,000,000 on-chain. BlackRock. Franklin Templeton. Ondo. The issuers writing the new financial rails. The next 12-18 months don't price in mediocrity. They price in infrastructure.

2,5 million people across the Nordics own crypto 🇩🇰🇸🇪🇳🇴🇫🇮 - Nordic banks are launching stablecoin and digital asset initiatives. - Governments are implementing blockchain into the public digital infrastructure. Next week, Nordic Blockchain Conference 2026 kicks off.  8th edition of the leading blockchain and web3 event in Northern Europe. ⭐ 2 days ⭐ 2 stages ⭐ 125 speakers ⭐ 15+ side events If the past year has shown anything, it’s this: the Nordic market is maturing and rapidly moving into a phase of mass retail and institutional adoption. 🎟️ Final tickets available: nordicblockchain.com/conference-2026 #NBC2026 - in proud partnership with @Bybit_Official, @BSVAssociation, @dfnsHQ, @trmlabs, @eToro, @twobirds, @Ledger, @xbtogroup, @bitvavocom, @ANUBISCHAIN_, DataExpert, @chainalysis, @FireblocksHQ, @Coinmotion, @AryzeOfficial, @BTCXsweden, @6Monks, @sygnumofficial, d-fine, @Bitwise_Europe, @Visa, @blockpit_io, @veli_io, @tradiasde, @Bitpanda Enterprise, @AllUnityStable, @coinspaid, @tangany, @OVHcloud, @nbxcom, @taurus_hq, @MerkleScience, CryptoSwift, @SAIBASPACE, @Myrmidonstaking, @crm_hq, Pointer.Capital

@adamKDean @jasonappleton I agree this isn't about removing IOG, but about spreading the work to the most cost effective funding request, and to one that constantly delivers.

There's likely to exist a team with 36-40+ senior haskell engineers intimately familiar with the Cardano Haskell stack and all its idiosyncracies. Plus, the goal should NOT be to remove Charles/IO from the ecosystem, but to reduce single party reliance which will entrance overall resilience. It's far easier for 3 teams to absorb the work of one shop that might be closing than it is to fully replicate that shop/team. We need to be resilient in the cases of: people legitimately just don't want to work here anymore, people retire, or we lose an important person (engineer or otherwise) due to sudden illness or tragic accident. Essentially the classic don't put all your eggs in one basket

To vote down treasury proposals without a valid alternative for things we need can be like declining a heart transplant from a smoker without having one from an athlete ready to go. The beauty of Cardano Governance is ANYONE can put together a team and a proposal for funds to put that team to work to compete with any of the proposals submitted. Charles spearheaded this system knowing this was an opportunity for anyone that could do it better, cheaper faster and empowered ALL of us to play that role if we chose. Does the proposal support a team with the experience and track record to compete with IOG or any other group with proposals? How does their budget request align with the goals? Etc. Until such proposals for valuable teams present themselves, I support IOG and Charles. Firing aimlessly in the dark means victims of friendly fire, often out of spite, bruised egos or just personality conflicts. The community of millions of holders and supporters is greater than the ego of any Drep or Whale (not a reference to ADAWhale) and any one of us has the power to effectively compete with IOG or any others requesting treasury funds. We really need to do better. We can either figure out ways to work together to benefit everyone in the ecosystem, or continue chasing klout in the midst of petty grievances on social media while patting ourselves on the back as though we are doing something useful. The bear market wont last forever and now is the time to iron shit out and start taking steps in a better direction.

@nbxcom @c_omvik @nordicblock See you there 🕶️

Stockholm, we're here 🇸🇪✈️ Ready to crush it tomorrow at Nordic Blockchain Conference 2026 🔥 @c_omvik on stage, big conversations ahead 🎤 See you there 👊 #NBC2026 @nordicblock

~307.2k unique addresses hold tokenized stocks, incl. private & public equities, as well as ETFs. Top asset: $TSLAx ~28.3k holders Top issuer: @xStocksFi ~182.0k holders Top chain: @solana ~193.5k holders

Here's a thought... What if another team where to submit a funding request that perfectly replicates that of say IOG? The difference being you have lower FTE costs. This will shift the dynamics to perfect competition, driving down costs as perfect substitutes exist that limit others from charging whatever they wish.

I can see your point of view here, I would counter: how can a new team that maybe wants to take over a small chunk of what IO is currently doing, let's say maintaining db-sync or running the testnets do it if IO submits omnibus actions right before the "community budget" period starts? Presuming the IO budget passes, you'll look at mine and say "well, we already funded IO to do it so we don't need you". This is the problem with well funded incumbents (whether independently wealthy or riding the wave of a previous year budget) and a lack of clear RFPs/Needs within the ecosystem. Let's not kid ourselves, IO/Charles are profiting from every FTE they sell to us as a community, same as any other contractor, so there is never an incentive to willingly give up any portion of work where they have already peed on the fire hydrant. So, how do we get to a level playing field where we can at least consider our options and decide, collectively, which one we want to take a chance on?

Tokenization is like a freight train. It can’t be stopped.

Crypto is here to stay. And we’re proud to be bringing traditional finance onchain with the Benji Technology Platform.

Total RWA market cap reaches $42 billion. Leading sectors: Funds, Commodities, Stocks Leading assets: sUSDS, USYC, XAUT Leading issuers: @SkyMoney, @Securitize, @OndoFinance Leading chains: @ethereum, @BNBCHAIN, @XRPLF

DaveさんのDRep支出表示ツール「DaveGov」に、新たに「DRepトレジャリー支出ランキング」が追加されました☕️👀🔥 これで、DRep支出の多いDRepは誰か？が一目瞭然となります。 コーンさんのCatalystツールと合わせて相関関係を作ってみたいですね… @Hardfork_OT 📝👀

How many of the projects you voted Yes to secure funding completed all their development milestones? How many did you continue to vote Yes again that despite not completing previous requests? As a DRep, do you track this information and consider it when voting on new requests? Accountability applies to all; IOG was an example.

@CardanoTruth @ItsDave_ADA @NicolasC3rny CardanoTruth 🙄 Evangelist governance is awesome 👏🏻 It’s exciting to single out FE we find disagreeable and ignore all the rest. All eyes on IO, but 🙈 CF EMURGO Sorry but it’s kinda cringe 😬 already

This morning I've created a new dashboard on DaveGov, the goal is to showcase Cardanos largest DRep spenders, the DReps that have voted Yes on the most ADA withdrawals so far each year, this is configurable by year, so you can see this data also historically. You can see the leaderboard total YES votes in ADA, and the amount withdrawn from the treasury so far. I won't post the top spenders in the screenshot below, but feel free to have a browse, this is purely for awareness. Voting Yes for most proposals keeps you popular, but doesn't enforce fiscal responsibility or prove that you understand what you are voting for. This page auto-updates. Hope you like it, feedback completely welcome! governance.cardano-visualisation.com/spenders

Whale said it. I’ll say it too, and others that genuinely care about Cardano will continue to say the same thing. We need to be extremely fiscally responsible. As ADA holders, DReps, builders and long term participants in this ecosystem, every treasury withdrawal matters. Especially for those of us with significant exposure to ADA who are not asking for budget allocations ourselves. The treasury is not free capital. Every continued spend carries an opportunity cost to ADA holders and impacts long term sustainability. If Cardano wants to remain competitive and continue holding a position among the leading blockchains, spending needs to stay focused on essentials that create measurable value, strengthen infrastructure, improve adoption, or materially advance the ecosystem. Strong governance is not about approving the most proposals. It is about allocating capital carefully, understanding trade offs, and protecting the long term health of the network. That discipline matters. When is enough, enough?

Whilst it’s important to fund development, I would want to identify constant bias/conflicts of interest. We cannot have monopolies or duopolies and to pull in new developers, the need for data to understand in % terms, are we consistently funding incumbents and not supporting new entities. We want new developers to come, but the data doesn’t tell me are we providing the right environment to support them and propel Cardano forward.

@CardanoTruth @NicolasC3rny I like this idea, great suggestion!

This is why a spending curve is so critical to be submitted with a detailed cost breakdown. It is concerning that an organisation is approving the realisation of significant amounts of money. If ADA doubles in say three months, those requesting ADA has profited at the expense of the Treasury. We should have greater flexibility to make adjustments in either direction.

Congratulations to IO for approving 6 out of 9 proposals! Let's look at the numbers. The approved budget for IO is ₳131,510,093. In dollar terms, at $0.25 per ADA, that's $32.8M. From my perspective, all the important proposals have been approved: ▪️₳27,714,342: IO: Consensus Initiative: ▪️₳13,103,039: IO: Cardano Upgrades ▪️₳3,601,926: IO: DevEx ▪️₳62,134,630: Ensurable Systems ▪️₳13,078,578: High Assurance ▪️₳11,877,575: Enhancing Plutus IO can keep most of the engineers. I heard that IO plans to resubmit the failed proposals. This may not be the final budget. There are still active research (₳32.9M) and Pentad V2 (₳23M) proposals. These have a high chance of approval. In total, it is ~₳56M. According to NCL, it is possible to approve an additional budget totaling ₳150.6M. This is the budget that all active proposals are striving to obtain, whether on-chain or in the Intersect process. These include the Tweag proposal, which will most likely be resubmitted with a 1-year budget. I guess that the team will ask for ₳20M. A liquidity proposal (₳50M) is about to be submitted. Most of the budget will be distributed in on-chain governance. I guess that ₳30M to ₳100M will be distributed in the Intersect process, depending on when the liquidity proposal is submitted and if it is approved. I expect the resubmitted Tweag proposal to be approved. Assuming the liquidity proposal is approved, then in the Intersect process, there can only be approved a budget of about ₳30M to ₳50M. Intersect is asking for ₳25.4M plus additional budget for committees. If DReps support Intersect, there will be almost nothing left for other proposals. Assuming the liquidity proposal is not submitted on time or is not approved, there will be ₳50M more left for others. It is almost certain that Catalyst will not return this year, because there is no budget for it. It would have to be provided by the Cardano Foundation. This is unlikely. This year, small and new builders can only get funding through DAOs: ▪️Innovation & Growth DAO ▪️CB DAO ▪️Tooling DAO, etc I expect there will be efforts to increase NCL. Many DReps are builders, or are close to them. It would have a chance of being approved, but I don't dare to predict the outcome. We have a few exciting weeks ahead of us. Hold on to your hats. It's going to be a ride.

Current Berry Matrix listings: Floor is 2k Cardano Artifacts wayup.io/collection/01c…

Current Berry listings: Floor is 35k Cardano Artifacts wayup.io/collection/b86…