William Doyle | dRep

I've made a website to highlight a new SPO and dRep each month. The hope is to make it easy for users looking to delegate away from giant or wallet-suggested dReps to do so. drep-of-the-month.williamdoyle.ca

@ericweinstein But why? And who? This has continued cross administration

We can’t control our airspace over US bases. Our military has no idea what this is. Our intelligence community is clueless. The administration just flooded PCAST with billionaire besties rather than scientists. We don’t consult our own physicists. Come on. I call bullshit.

@WhiteHouse This is weakness. 4 months in brutal prison. These women are going to be tortured. Do not give an inch to these wicked savages

“Very good news! I have just been informed that eight women protestors who were going to be executed tonight in Iran will no longer be killed…” - President Donald J. Trump 🇺🇸

I've voted in favor of the HLabs treasury withdrawal and budget for 2026 github.com/willpiam/drep/…

@JaromirTesar I'd like to find and fund a handful of high quality developers (with a history of contributing to the Cardano ecosystem) and pay them a salary to contribute however they feel is the best use of their time, no constraints. Just directly water the garden.

@william00000010 We need funding vehicles for our builders, better than Catalyst was.

If a proposal were submitted to the Intersect Budget Process as a replacement for Catalyst, what is an adequate budget for funding projects? The goal would be to fund new builders, innovation, community work, and growth.

@WhiteHouse Iran's obviously not ready to negotiate. If they were they wouldn't be pulling this shit. You should be seeking complete and unconditional surrender. Otherwise what's the point?

"To the Iranian leaders, who will soon be in negotiations with my representatives: I would greatly appreciate the release of these women. I am sure that they will respect the fact that you did so. Please do them no harm! Would be a great start to our negotiations!!!" - President Donald J. Trump 🇺🇸

@Padierfind I thought it was kinda silly and voted against it. It felt like it was doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff. Now everyone has to talk about how their proposal aligns with the vision... I'd rather they spent those words directly explaining why their proposal is good.

The Cardano 2030 vision has been accepted by Dreps but somewhat blindly in my opinion. There has not been enough debate about it & there's a lot of things in there that could've been debated in the past but are now ratified as "Cardanos official vision". I doubt many here even know about the verticals that Cardano is focusing on: DeFi, RWA, Supply Chain, Payments. What's your opinion on this? Seriously would love to see a debate about it. For the record: I downvoted this in the past because it excluded AI and I disagree with some of the positioning.

What if you could register your email with a preferred blockchain, address, and coin and then receive funds over email. I could send you Ada on Cardano and you could receive Eth on Ethereum or USDC on Solana And if you haven't registered I could see that, and if I still choose to send money you'd still get the email but would have to register before being able to withdraw it.

@Timcast Inflation is the plan

You can't fund UBI through taxing AI The math does not add up You need greater input than output for the system to function and taxing AI to give UBI generates massive output with insufficient input. The cost of the system will be greater than the revenue dispersed creating a negative feedback loop and economic regression The argument then becomes that UBI will only be supplemental but you still run into the inflation problem again. When given a choice between working 40 hours a week and receiving 10K UBI and 15K wages many people would choose unlimited free time and 10k In order to then hire someone for jobs we cannot automate you have to then increase pay for those jobs thus the cost of the good increases and the 10k supplemental now is largely useless for most goods and services I break the question down like this How many people do you know play guitar? Most say quite a few How many would choose to be a musician professionally if they had the choice? Most say in fact quite a few How many have the talent to actually make it? none if any And that still assumes most people would choose to pursue a passion with some economic benefit The reality is that many people would choose UBI and 40 hours of some creative work that ultimately provides no functional value to society and that generates no revenue. We effectively use tech to subsidize net negative output from people That system is bound to implode The most important thing to understand is that there are core necessities such as housing and healthcare that cannot be meaningfully automated. UBI is a pipe dream that can't even exist in a society with replicators from Star Trek. Land is still owned or leased and money is the means of distribution. If you want to argue for government control of property then youre just arguing for techno-communism

Yes. I really hope Midnight carves a path which makes it very easy for new projects to launch custom partnerchains. I hope IOG can repackage a lot of the work they've done for this purpose. Including the token distribution mechanic and the mechanism allowing Cardano SPOs to produce blocks for new chains. Kinda like a super substrate

@william00000010 Cardano L2s has the potential to be more decentralized than Ethereum. It's a shame we haven't taken advantage of it yet.

Freezing ~$30M worth of ETH via a security council, coordinated with law enforcement, is a powerful tool, but it also highlights how much additional trust and governance are embedded in the system. Surprised? You shouldn't be. Fortunately, there are alternatives. Cardano takes a different approach: prioritizing decentralization, simpler system design, and more deterministic behavior with less reliance on emergency intervention as a safety mechanism. Different tradeoffs. Moments like this should point us in the right direction.

@DaveShapi Against: it's been shown to reduce life quality youtu.be/S5nj3DLvT64

UBI DEBATE Give my your best arguments for or against

@Asmongold happy birthday 🎈🎂🥳

IMO paying dReps is a bad idea. It would certainly increase participation. But we don't want to boost numbers for numbers sake. It's an open system but we shouldn't incentivise voices who wouldn't otherwise care. If you don't care about Cardano I don't want you voting.

@JaromirTesar Hmmm. Usually when people complain about the delegation requirement for withdrawals it's because they feel it is coercive. I now see your concern is instead that the mechanism is not a strong enough incentive.

It depends. Block production of saturated pools is usually stable, and it is not a controversial topic. In the case of DRep, it is completely different. There is no soft-cap and hard-cap. One unpopular decision can mean an outflow of delegators (I have experienced it myself). Governance should be more fluid. We only have 12 DReps whose voting power is higher than 100M ADA (the largest has 700M ADA). Without an incentive to change delegation and motivate new ADA holders to choose smaller DReps, we will get rid of this dominance with difficulty, maybe never. Communication and Wallet UI need to be improved. This should be part of the strategy.

Forcing ADA holders to DRep delegation to withdraw staking rewards was a mistake. People usually set it up once and then forget about it. I would remove this feature and replace it with DRep delegation 2.0. This would be incentivized delegation. An ADA holder could get a slightly higher staking reward under conditions that are favorable to the protocol: ▪️Delegation to an active DRep, not an Abstain or No-confidence DRep. ▪️DRep must vote regularly, ideally with rationales. ▪️Maximum reward can be obtained if DRep is not oversaturated. ▪️Redelegation expiration after 1 year or so. We could introduce a soft-cap for DReps. If DRep exceeded, say, 100M voting power, it would reduce staking rewards. People don't care about governance, but they care about staking rewards. Positive incentives could lead to a lower concentration of voting power. The advantage is that it would not disrupt the existing model, while all ADA holders would be financially motivated to make the delegation again and smarter. DReps would be motivated to vote regularly, including rationales, because they would have a better score. They would be sought after by ADA holders. By combining staking rewards and governance, it would be possible to introduce incentives for DReps. Each ADA holder could automatically give 0.1% of the staking rewards to their DRep every epoch. Incentives for DReps could increase the quality of the decision-making process. Moreover, this would create a stronger bond between the ADA holder and the DRep. By the way, protocol changes would take a long time. If we wanted a temporary solution, it could be done via the DRep Staking Pool.

@masatoalexander @TheRealWeb3Kat @IagonOfficial You can't just throw money at good deeds. The good deeds need to be profitable

peter thiel (😅) points out that it doesn't ever make sense for corporations to engage in philanthropy because by definition, $1 of spending in any effort will not be valued by all shareholders. e.g. company spends $1 on cat shelters, but i hate cats, love dogs, i don't see/get any value from this decision. by definition this will always happen in almost any allocation of capital, so you are destroying shareholder value. the best thing a company can do is maximize shareholder profit and let the shareholders allocate to charities they see fit. similarly, a startup "investing" in other startups makes zero sense. just raise less money and let the buyers choose to buy whatever startup equity/tokens they want.

Nearly 1/3 of funds raised by Tokeo in their token sale in Nov 2024 was invested into @IagonOfficial nodes, which have not paid a return to the project as of yet (13 mins in you can listen). I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, I'll let you know when I finish listening.

@RickMcCracken Note the difference between "should" and "should be required to"

Should Cardano treasury withdrawals have KPI‘s defined that specifically address how the treasury withdrawal directly supports strengthening the price of Ada?

@AThrouvalas 75% is cute. You don't understand how bad it can get. Basic truths you take for granted are being threatened. Assumptions so basic you don't even realize you're making them.

Bitcoin has literally suffered 4 price drawdowns of 75%+ in its history and still managed to become one of the best performing assets ever. Over 4 million long term held BTC changed hands in 2025 and we're still here. Price crashes will not kill bitcoin. It will come out of the quantum "gold rush" stronger, as with all other crashes.

Charles (and many others) assert that Bitcoin needs to hardfork around quantum, or it's doomed. I think this is wrong. A soft fork to introduce a quantum-resistant signature scheme should be enough. Parties holding bitcoin at vulnerable addresses can voluntarily migrate to the new scheme. This is non-controversial and absolutely necessary because it will allow the network to stay safe and functional in the future. A hard fork to completely disable spending of old and lost coins is redundant and probably does more harm than good to those who try it. Why is a hard fork needed? What exactly are we afraid of? Old coins being claimed and sold? This sucks for our short-term bags, sure, but it's not gonna kill Bitcoin. See this chart: Bitcoin has been through many periods when old supply floods back to the market by literal *millions.* Hell, over 800k coins were stolen during the Mt. Gox hack, when Bitcoin was far less mature. We made it through. A price crash is not going to irreparably destroy the bitcoin brand. It's par for the course at this point. I think it's much less likely that BlackRock risks its own reputation and client money trying to change bitcoin with a fork, all because they're afraid of a temporary price drawdown. The confusion and schism of capital that this would create between the old and new networks would be way more damaging. I'm not saying hardforks are evil. But without any coordination mechanism, they're just really hard to practically execute for Bitcoin. Besides: I like bitcoin being stable, and so do its holders. 🟠

You're not getting it. The Bip isn't the issue. You must hardfork. There is no choice. Bitcoin cannot survive the sudden supply spike. I know you think bitcoin will survive this like it survived everything else but you're wrong. This is different. It's not just the initial supply spike. There are many exposed public keys. The initial spike will begin the mother of all shorts. If the shorts don't kill you the second third and fourth spikes will. This is going to damage the crypto industry for decades. You will never earn that trust back. The Bitcoin blockchain will be functionally over. That's what happens if you don't burn the vulnerable coins. If you do burn the coins you might be able to improve the situation. You'll have an ambiguous fork so much worse than 2017. One side of the fork will crash and burn as described above... The other side of the fork will have no claim to being sound money or digital gold. Fucked if you do, fucked harder if you don't. Bitcoin has gone from being the golden child of the crypto industry to being its most significant existential threat.

@william00000010 Chill bro, it's just a BIP 🤣