Jeremy Firster

@NaVi_GaT0R Flat out this is crossing the line. Anything internal should be focused on helping the responsible party (Iagon in this case) deliver. If Wurth ever had any issues, I highly doubt their answer would be to “stay in Cardano and reset the relationship with a new unknown vendor.”

How would you respond to this request from catalyst?

I’m looking forward to attending RareEvo for the 4th year in a row. The team always puts on a stellar. this is hands down one of the best annual industry conferences in the U.S. Major kudos to the team for once again raising the bar, and executing in this dynamic market!

Blockchain is converging on Las Vegas. 80+ Speakers. 60+ Exhibitors. 1000's of Attendees. 1 Unforgettable Event. It's all about the numbers. Rare Evo 2026 is 2 WEEKS AWAY!

@a16zcrypto The hard pill to swallow is that TradFi rightfully gets to choose the structure of their blockchains, requirements for integrations, and control on governance frameworks. Web3 and decentralization has never been a one-size-fits-all approach.

@blockjock2017 @TheOCcryptobro @emurgo_io @Cardano_CF Well said, James.

While I typically are in line with you on those things and technically you’re correct, I do see where timing along with probably a nonrefundable payment has been made would create an issue with just returning full amt of funds to treasury. The event itself has to be planned ahead of time just based on my experience and working with others like Dave and the rare evo crew, so returning funds back to treasury would probably cause us to forfeit any deposit we might’ve made. For me personally, this is just making the best of a bad situation and also ensuring that we live up to our end of the bargain and stay true our commitment to the token 2049 event staff.

#Cardano fam, this is a breach of governance protocol. The proposal that was approved was for @emurgo_io to execute. If they are unable to preform the funds should be immediately returned to the treasury. If @Cardano_CF wishes to submit a new proposal that is on them. What is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE is for @IntersectMBO and CF to unilaterally decide the changing of the terms that was not approved by any DRep. Outrageous. $ADA @jasonappleton

@BSCNews @CantonNetwork @YuvalRooz “Real usage” is divided between the private chain activity and public chain records. You can also argue “real usage” by regulated entities selling CC to cover their infrastructure costs. That in itself can be a win for how companies can support ongoing investments into Canton.

Canton's CEO defends a token that won't budge $CC sits near $0.13, even though @CantonNetwork ran a reported $9 trillion in volume last month and took 42% of all tracked blockchain fee revenue in Q1. Co-founder Yuval Rooz (@YuvalRooz) calls the price "painful" but says the thesis holds: over 9% of supply burned since inception, with real usage driving value, not speculation. Critics say the tokenomics are simply built to keep $CC flat.

Treasury proposals need to add a social credit score for the teams doing the work. Cash and the @AnvilDevAgency team is a rare 11/10 for commitment, loyalty, and perseverance. Adoption based proposals are risky, Cardano needs people like this for its best chance at success.

I genuinely believe Cardano NEEDS this. Deep collaboration, innovative tech, transparent on-chain Bitcoin infrastructure + liquidity. Let's change the game! 🔵🤝🟠 Encourage your Drep to vote YES for Alchemy and to build the growth infrastructure Bitcoin needs here on Cardano

@shaggyrax @planetmaaz Yoram has never been given special treatment. If anything he hasn’t received enough. He’s a real one for sure

@planetmaaz Yes it is It should be a concern for yall at the CF cause like Patrick; yoram has long gotten special treatment from yall for funds and resources While yall ignore the rest of the community

Before yall go voting on this cabal supported proposal; remember that the guy that wrote it is also a career grant writer here in Cardano and has written at least 75 other catalyst proposals over the last few years. Get different people, #Cardano; cause these ones aren’t it

@RodrigoPacini Agree. If this would be better then everyone would already be using it, or the Cardano forum. It’s VERY DIFFICULT for authorities to dictate where and how users provide engagement. Discrediting platforms when you don’t like what is received is not a healthy response.

Discord groups have existed in this ecosystem for years. In practice, they have often functioned less like public forums and more like caves: small groups talking among themselves, with decisions and narratives forming in isolation. I think it is delusional to believe that people will simply change their social behavior, stop discussing things on X, and suddenly start organizing meaningful public debate inside specific Discord channels. Cardano has hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, yet somehow basic concepts like network effects still seem to be ignored when convenient. We have already had several attempts to create “proper” channels for discussion. The Cardano Forum has existed for years and is barely used by most of the community. At times, it feels less like a civic space and more like a graveyard of abandoned conversations. Catalyst and Intersect Discord servers have also existed for years. They may be useful for coordination, but if the goal is to create an echo chamber where the same people talk to the same people, then yes, Discord is probably the perfect venue. The issue is not that X is healthy. It obviously is not. The issue is pretending that moving conversations into more controlled spaces automatically creates better discourse, broader legitimacy, or a more representative community. It does not. It mostly creates quieter rooms. And in an ecosystem that claims to care about decentralization, public accountability, and open governance, confusing silence with alignment is a dangerous mistake. The level of disconnection from reality in this ecosystem keeps growing.

@SundialProtocol @CharmsDev Awesome! The name sounds strangely familiar tho

☀️ Sundial is proud to partner with @CharmsDev on our newest initiative: Alchemy - a new Cardano-native Bitcoin Treasury and liquidity system. Alchemy is designed to bring proven Bitcoin-backed structured product demand on-chain, positioning Cardano at the forefront of one of BTCfi’s fastest-growing categories. Alongside this announcement, Sundial and @CharmsDev will soon be releasing a Cardano treasury proposal to help bring this vision to life. We welcome feedback from the community before the proposal goes live. More information coming soon. Link to Article: medium.com/p/e437c964c3b6

Even oil can go to zero, but not for long. The current panic and market capitulation = a great buying opportunity.

@NaVi_GaT0R @jrv97_velazquez The amount of energy, temperament, and dedication you have does not go unnoticed. It is incredibly difficult for an individual to maintain course when at ends with central figures in the same ecosystem. The web3 BAU environment is hard enough, Cardano is lucky to have you. 🫡

Charles, when every critic becomes a villain, the pattern is not everyone else. The pattern is you. You just listed Optim, Iagon, Cardano Whale, Dave, Rick, Adam and others like this is an "inventory." It is not an inventory. It is a list of people in this ecosystem who have questioned you, disagreed with you, did something you didn't like, challenged IOG, challenged a narrative or refused to act like Cardano governance exists only to ratify what you want. And instead of reflecting on why so many serious people keep ending up on the other side of your megaphone, you reach for the same playbook every time - Dismiss the substance. - Attack the person. - Recast yourself as the victim. - Then tell everyone else to "grow up." So let's take the Iagon part of your "inventory," since you brought us into it. You say Iagon "started bullying and harassing" Midnight ambassadors. That is a convenient story, but it is not what happened. I as a dRep asked a governance question, NOT Iagon. A dRep asked whether people with roles connected to Midnight or IOG linked interests, who also held meaningful dRep voting power, should abstain on IOG related treasury proposals. That is governance. That is literally what dReps are supposed to do - ask hard questions, examine conflicts, protect treasury neutrality and represent the $ADA holders who delegated voting power to them. If a person is participating in governance with delegated $ADA while also holding a role connected to a project or organization affected by that vote, asking about conflicts is not an attack. It is accountability. And let's be very clear - ambassadors are not above scrutiny. dReps are not above scrutiny. Iagon is not above scrutiny. IOG is not above scrutiny. Midnight is not above scrutiny. You are not above scrutiny. This is supposed to be decentralized governance, not a court where certain people get protected status because they are useful to Charles Hoskinson. The moment a person participates in public governance with public voting power, the public is allowed to ask public questions. You did not answer the conflict question. You reframed it as "bullying" - ironically this is exactly what you have been doing in this ecosystem. Then you escalated it into an attack on Iagon, my leadership and the holders. You used your platform to tell the market you had "no more time" for the project unless leadership changed. You warned that Iagon could fail and destroy value for token holders. You called into question the ethics and integrity my leadership. You accused us of acting out of spite rather than engaging with the actual governance concern. And then, after the damage was done, you turned around and said people are "playing the victim." That is not leadership. That is deflection. You cannot threaten a Cardano native project, watch real holders suffer, then accuse the people objecting to the threat of being childish. You cannot say you care about token holders while dismissing "your token holders" when those holders happen to be in a project that challenged you. There are no "Iagon holders" over there and "Cardano holders" over here. $IAG holders are $ADA holders. They are stake pool operators. They are voters. They are dReps. They are builders. They are community members. They are families. They are the same ecosystem you claim to defend. When you attack a Cardano project, you are not attacking some foreign body. You are attacking people inside Cardano. That is the part you keep avoiding. You talk about ambassadors being bullied. Fine. I will say this clearly - I do not condone harassment of any ambassador, volunteer, dRep, builder, SPO or community member. Anyone who crosses into personal abuse should stop. But do not use "protecting ambassadors" as a shield to make governance questions untouchable. Do not use volunteers as human armor around treasury proposals. Do not say "decentralized governance" when the rule is really - vote,but do not question my side - ask question but not about my people - participate but only if you accept the consequences of my platform turning on you. That is not governance. That is intimidation. And since we are talking about red lines, where were those red lines when Iagon was being called a scam? Where were those red lines when IOG aligned voices and consultants were smearing Iagon publicly? Where were those red lines when defamatory claims, racial slurs and personal attacks were being thrown at builders who have spent years building on Cardano? Where was the concern for "bullying" then? The standard cannot be: When your side attacks, it is criticism. When others ask questions, it is harassment. When you escalate, it is leadership. When people respond, they are victims. When you use a 1M+ follower account, it is accountability. When a dRep asks about conflicts, it is a mob. That double standard is exactly why people are speaking up. You say people "lash out, get hit hard and then play the victim." No. People ask legitimate questions. You hit hard. Then you call their injuries proof that they were wrong to ask. That is the pattern. A dRep raises a conflict of interest concern. You call it bullying. A project CEO disagrees with IOG proposals. You call it spite. A community member challenges your narrative. You diagnose them, mock them, block them or write them off. Then, when people notice the pattern, you call them children. Charles, the lack of self-reflection here is breathtaking. At some point, when the same story keeps happening with different people, different projects, different dReps, different critics,and different cycles, maybe the common denominator is not that everyone else is irrational. Maybe the common denominator is that you treat disagreement as disloyalty. Maybe the common denominator is that you confuse criticism with attack. Maybe the common denominator is that you cannot separate Cardano from yourself. That is dangerous in a decentralized ecosystem. Because Cardano does not belong to you. It does not belong to IOG. It does not belong to Iagon. It does not belong to Midnight. It does not belong to any ambassador group, any DRep bloc, any founder, any company or any whale. It belongs to the $ADA holders and the people building, maintaining, securing, voting, delegating, questioning and participating in it. And if those people cannot ask whether conflicts exist without being threatened, mocked, financially harmed or publicly targeted, then governance is not free. You said "grow up kids." Here is the adult version: Answer the question. Should dReps with roles, incentives, payments, affiliations or obligations connected to an organization seeking treasury funds disclose those overlaps and consider abstaining? Yes or no? That was the issue. Not your ego. Not my tone. Not Iagon’s existence. Not whether Midnight ambassadors are good people. Not whether Charles feels attacked. Not whether people should be afraid to ask next time. The question was about conflict, disclosure and treasury integrity. If there is no conflict, explain why. If there is a conflict, disclose it. If abstention is not necessary, make the case. If the Constitution already provides the standard, apply it equally. But do not turn a governance question into a loyalty test. Do not demand apologies for asking what every serious governance system must be willing to ask. Do not pretend you are defending decentralization while using centralized influence to punish dissent. And do not tell people to "grow up" while threatening to burn projects down. The Cardano community should be able to disagree without fear. dReps should be able to vote NO without being branded enemies. Builders should be able to compete without being targeted. Token holders should not become collateral damage in personality conflicts. Ambassadors should be respected, yes. But they should not be used to make legitimate governance scrutiny off limits. So yes, let's take inventory. Who asked a governance question? Who answered with escalation? Who raised a possible conflict? Who turned it into a campaign against a project? Who claims to care about token holders? Who publicly attacked leadership of a project whose holders are also Cardano community members? Who says others play the victim? Who keeps casting himself as the victim whenever accountability arrives? That is the pattern people are seeing. And no amount of "grow up kids" changes it. Iagon will continue building. I will continue voting my conscience as a dRep. I will continue asking questions when treasury neutrality, conflicts of interest and governance integrity are at stake. If I am wrong, answer with facts. If you disagree, make the argument. But threats, mockery, blocks and public intimidation are not arguments. They are the behavior of someone who wants decentralized governance only until it decentralizes power away from him. Cardano deserves better than that.

@adamKDean @yutazzz While this is true, the market norm for understanding a healthy blockchain is TVL. Everything else is seen as “nice to have.”

I think sheer tx count or TVL are the wrong metrics. We need to be finding use cases that trigger a large number of regular transactions rather than trying to moonshot everything behind some vanity metric of having a billion dollars of "TVL" but it's largely inert and just sitting there. Use cases like we've seen from @trivolvetech, @Elkconnect_web3, and others that have successfully managed real, government level partnerships (also maybe GOV.EXE by @txpipe_tools in 2026) are the kind of simple, low/no touch integrations that truly can scale. The current metrics of TVL and tx volume are all based around current "DeFi" which is really little more than unregulated gambling ATM and will always have a limited number of retail/expertise users actually interested in participating

When seriously considering whether the contributions of L1 TX and non-narrative TVL (i.e., TVL converted to TX) can be deemed efficient given the amount of funding raised, unfortunately, in most cases, proposals suggesting enterprise or government adoption seem to receive a harsh evaluation at the moment. However, yes, I may be underinformed, and I welcome evidence that proves otherwise.

@dori_coin @ADAFrog_Pool A VC makes 10 investments hoping that 1 will become valuable enough to cover them all. Diversifying from 1-2 funds is smart, especially if it means a greater % of treasury is tied to commercial activities vs pure tech development or funding sth that doesn’t have a clear need.

@ADAFrog_Pool We already have the Orion Fund and Catalyst. I don’t really see why the treasury needs to duplicate that role.

Personally, I don't think commercial, revenue-generating projects need to be asking the Cardano Treasury for funding. The "we'll return a portion of revenue to the Treasury" commitment doesn't fix this either. What it really comes down to is an asymmetric structure where the Treasury carries 100% of the failure risk, but the upside gets shared if things work out. It means Cardano's public resources end up serving as seed capital for private businesses, and that's just not a fair deal. Commercial projects should prove their market fit and business model directly, through experts and the market itself. Relying on the Treasury isn't the right path. We already have the @OrionFund and @Catalyst_onX , and beyond that, there are plenty of external funds and organizations a project can raise capital from. If a business model can't prove itself through those channels, I don't see why the Treasury's limited resources should be invested in it either.

@ESCOweb3 @vechainofficial @Cardano_CF A separate issue is market timing and when strategic directions meet large market demand. (I.e. RWA, which is also supported by both CF and ecosystem participants). Supply chain is definitely a longterm view, but it’s not the only view.

@ESCOweb3 @vechainofficial @Cardano_CF CF has never only supported one vertical, nor in isolation. You can see a growing list of third parties that are deploying enterprise solutions and it’s beyond supply chain.

If @vechainofficial, a traceability focused blockchain pivoted out of track and trace….. Why is @Cardano_CF pivoting into it? Not only is this illogical if you simply accept that a whole chain spent hundreds of millions into this potential part of use case for blockchain and pivoted out of it…. but also considering that if there was a highly profitable market for traceability those entities would go to traceability specific chains first, not a general purpose one such as cardano….. Cardano suffers from “We Know Best syndrome” and continues to ignores business fundamentals such as Market Analysis and Competitive analysis. Idealism will kill Cardano. 🙄

Circle just raised $222m for Arc. Canton's parent company, Digital Asset, is raising $300M right now. a16z just raised $2.2B for their Fund V. Haun raised $1B for their second fund. Kraken's parent company, Payward, is raising at a $20B valuation. Tether in talks to raise at $500B valuation. Rain raised $250M at a $2B valuation. Dozens of smaller raises have been announced as of late. The best founders and deals I've seen lately have been reasonably valued with extremely good business models in their decks. I'm starting to think crypto early-stage investing is back...

One element about AI is how this serves as both a cost-efficient synthetic resource and an engine for “human transformation.” We all need to consider the next 9-18 months and how integral AI tooling provide a huge boost to productivity, output, and skill development.