dori@dori_coin
I'm voting No on the Strike Finance Liquidity Deployment proposal.
First off, I do recognize what Strike Finance has contributed to Cardano.
But, as much as it pains me to say it, Strike Finance in its current form is hard to even call a Cardano-native product. I'm voting No for two reasons.
1. The proposal says it will "increase on-chain trading activity," but Strike V2's trade execution happens off-chain on the Strike Node, and L1 only handles deposits, withdrawals, and settlement. What the treasury funds create isn't on-chain transactions or fees, but market-making liquidity for an off-chain CLOB.
On top of that, this off-chain processing doesn't even run on Hydra, the scaling solution built on Cardano's eUTXO model. It runs on Strike's own execution layer.
In other words, it isn't even going in the direction of using Cardano's own infrastructure to become a reference point for the ecosystem. So Strike Finance's growth in trading volume doesn't translate into a direct contribution to the Cardano network.
2. The proposal doesn't prove the link between "more Strike traders" and "more users and liquidity for the Cardano ecosystem." Even with a target of 5,000 traders, there's no basis to assume they'll hold ADA, use other Cardano dApps, and stay in the ecosystem.
If anything, the fact that around 50% of the trading volume comes from Ethereum users shows that these people are just using Strike, which is a different thing from actually coming into the Cardano ecosystem.
To sum up, this proposal reads more like the treasury investing liquidity for yield into a protocol that's hard to even call Cardano-native.
I believe treasury funds should be used in a direction that genuinely brings users and liquidity to the ecosystem as a whole, and since I don't think this proposal meets that bar, I'm voting No.