Michael Smolenski

REMINDER Native #Bitcoin is coming to Cardano via Cardinal. $BTC UTXOs will be wrapped into Cardano assets with a 1:1 peg, unlocking decentralized liquidity for DeFi.

Vote YES to Cardano Upgrades Proposal: bit.ly/42vy6l8 Jump to 34:40 for the key points 👇 x.com/cryptstitution… @IOGroup @Cardano

There's a Cardano Upgrades proposal live right now that changes how transaction fees work. New fee models for builders. Multi-asset Treasury options. A pure native-asset experience for users. Here's why it matters and why you should vote YES

3/ What this means for users: Holders of major non-ADA native assets can use Cardano without ever acquiring ADA. Transaction fees are paid in the asset they already hold — a pure native-asset experience, end-to-end. This is extremely valuable as more coins are bridged to Cardano, removing the abandonment risk and meaningfully increasing adoption and transaction volume. (Under the hood, native assets are still converted to ADA for fees — so $ADA demand isn't reduced!)

2/ What this means for Treasury: $ADA still remains Cardano's native protocol asset, but with this proposal the Treasury gains the option to hold assets in different currencies that are potentially more stable. Projects can budget, plan, and deliver more effectively.

1/ What this means for builders: Wallets and apps can build micro fee business models that make sense. Cheaper products can flow through to users, and the account model opens up new products that drive greater adoption!

Treasury Proposal Vote: @IOGroup Cardano Upgrades You shouldn’t need ADA to use Cardano. This proposal fixes that. Vote: YES 🔷 CIP-159 → enables micro-fees + cheaper DeFi 🔷 Babel Fees → pay fees in ANY asset (USDM, BTC, USDCx, etc.) 🔷 Multi-Asset Treasury → enables stable coin reserves 🔷 Removes onboarding friction completely 🔷 Introduces real treasury financial management This is one of the highest leverage upgrades: 🔶 Better UX 🔶 Better economics 🔶 Better treasury discipline This is how you onboard the next wave of users. Note: Stablecoin Utilization (Mandatory) Assessment: STRONG (Best-in-Class Alignment) Enables: Treasury to hold stable coins Budgeting in stable value Supports: Proper treasury management practices This aligns directly with responsible treasury strategy: Volatility hedging Predictable funding

For anyone who prefers video over text, here's my presentation about IO's Developer Experience proposal at the Buidler Fest! 😄 m.youtube.com/watch?v=HIbnHw…

As a DRep, I have decided to vote YES on the proposal: IO: Cardano Upgrades. My rationale: This is a strategically important proposal. Although it is a bundled proposal, the work streams are naturally connected around economic UX and treasury mechanics. In this case, I consider bundling acceptable. The three core components are meaningful: 1) CIP-159 / Account Address Enhancement: This represents fundamental protocol infrastructure. Enabling micro-fees, reducing batching costs, improving L2 reserve management, and supporting future multi-asset account logic would bring tangible benefits to the ecosystem. 2) Multi-Asset Treasury Design: This is strategically valuable from a governance and financial perspective. A treasury held solely in ADA is exposed to volatility, and enabling support for stablecoins or other native assets could strengthen long-term resilience. The proposal focuses on delivering a CIP, which is an appropriate first step. At the same time, given the sensitivity of this topic, broader alignment with the community and DReps would be beneficial. 3) Babel Fees: This is likely the most adoption-focused component. Requiring users to acquire ADA before interacting with the network introduces real friction. Fee abstraction is a meaningful UX improvement. However, the current deliverable is limited to a single provider. While this may be acceptable as an initial step, it should be clearly understood as a centralized prototype rather than a fully decentralized infrastructure. The proposal states that the architecture will be designed for future extensibility towards a permissionless model. I find the budget section of this proposal insufficiently detailed for a treasury withdrawal of this size. While high-level categories are provided, there is no clear information on the number of engineers involved, salary assumptions, or time allocation across work streams. This level of detail is commonly expected even from smaller treasury proposals, where teams often provide transparent breakdowns to justify their funding. For example, the proposal by Blink Labs for the Dingo node clearly outlines team size, cost per FTE, duration, and contingency assumptions. This allows DReps to properly assess cost efficiency and realism. Governance standards should be applied consistently across all entities, regardless of size or submitter. It is therefore reasonable to expect the same level of transparency and rigor from IO as from smaller teams. Without this level of granularity, it is difficult to fully assess whether the requested funds are justified and responsibly allocated. At the same time, I recognize the broader context in which these proposals are submitted. I am prepared to support selected proposals from IO, even where certain aspects are not fully specified or could be improved. While I strongly encourage higher standards of transparency and more granular budget breakdowns in future submissions, I also acknowledge the importance of ensuring that core contributors to the ecosystem remain operational and capable of delivering critical infrastructure. It is also important to recognize the evolving cost structure of the ecosystem. Cardano is moving towards supporting multiple independent node implementations, which will require recurring funding similar to what has been provided to IO. If we want to preserve the ability to fund other critical areas, such as community builders, DeFi development, governance, liquidity, and marketing, we must remain disciplined and responsible in how Treasury funds are allocated. My view is that a significant portion of the Net Change Limit (around 50% or potentially less over time) should be sufficient to support the development and maintenance of all node implementations in the ecosystem, not just those led by IO. To summarize, all three components of this proposal address real limitations in the current Cardano ecosystem and have the potential to deliver meaningful improvements. CIP-159 strengthens the protocol by enabling more flexible and efficient account mechanics, which can lower costs and improve infrastructure for developers and L2 solutions. Multi-asset treasury design enhances financial resilience and governance by reducing dependence on ADA volatility and enabling more sophisticated funding models. Babel Fees directly improves user experience by removing a key onboarding barrier, allowing users to interact with the network without first acquiring ADA. Together, these features contribute to a more accessible and economically robust ecosystem. While the proposal could benefit from greater transparency in its budget and delivery structure, the overall direction is aligned with Cardano’s long-term growth and competitiveness. If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance. MANDA Pool ID: pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8 My DRep ID: drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp

@M3shMXsh @cryptstitution @IOHK_Charles SPO's will receive the same transactions fees in ADA as today. Actually, with Babel Fees they will mean slightly more ADA will be used. A user sends say BTC for a transcaction fee, a Babel Fee provider converts this to ADA

@cryptstitution @IOHK_Charles @cryptstitution Doesn't that mean cardano won't be needed for gas?How does this affect Cardano price?