Serviceplan Group for Cardano @SPforCardano

@yutazzz thank you for the thorough critique, we've posted a full reply on Hydra. Short version here. The Supply Chain "no on-chain verification" point is the one worth revisiting. The Foundation's own April 2026 data shows live proof: SPAR running ADA payments across 137 stores, Petrobras on immutable training records, Würth with Iagon on tokenised IP. Plus a hard trigger: the EU DPP registry deploys July 2026, the kind of compliance clock that moves enterprise procurement. On scope: an agency doesn't pick its client's strategy, it executes it. The ecosystem set the four verticals in Strategy 2030; we're executing a priority, not inheriting one by accident. And on a Yes only €1.62M is unconditional anyway. The rest is gated on exactly the evidence you're asking for. -Yves

Thanks, the grateful note goes both ways! We've been building on Cardano for a while now, well before this proposal and we'll keep doing that regardless of how the vote lands. A "yes" would make the next step a much sharper one for the whole ecosystem. Appreciate the support! -Yves

Adoption. Adoption. Adoption. We all know Cardano needs more adoption — but what does our plan actually look like? - Building safer, faster, better technology? Essential. - Making life easier for developers? Absolutely. - DeFi, interoperability? No argument there. But technology alone is not a plan. Who are we building for? What unites us while preserving decentralization? How are we adapting to market shifts and emerging opportunities? As @phillip_pon recently put it: "Institutional/enterprise is the future of web3. Retail, historically the leader, is now a follower. Institutional adoption is everyone — the large banks, asset managers, insurers. If we don't have native integrations, they simply will not build on Cardano." I fully agree. Through institutional adoption, we can bring the real benefits of blockchain and decentralisation to the masses. Stablecoins and cross-border payments are the obvious starting point. The next wave will likely come through seamless UX/UI — onboarding people who don't even realise they're using blockchain. My conviction: within 5–10 years, blockchain will be invisible infrastructure that delivers value to every person on the planet, whether they know it or not. Think about the internet. We needed the infrastructure first — connectivity, speed, better hardware. That was the baseline. But then came the applications, and with them, an entirely different mindset: user-first, enterprise-focused, industry-disrupting. Blockchain is at that same inflection point. The Product Committee did a great work in 2025 establishing a vision, mission, and north star KPIs — a strong foundation for direction. Through collaboration with the GMC and Product Committees, we identified two areas where the ecosystem can meaningfully improve: 1. A Vertical Strategy Rather than spreading efforts thin, we need focused investment in areas where Cardano has a genuine strategic advantage — Bitcoin DeFi and government solutions are prime examples. Each vertical should have: - A disruptive solution addressing a massive, real-world problem - Dedicated tech infrastructure and tooling (across multiple Cardano teams) - A clear go-to-market strategy - World-class partners ready to scale - KPIs aligned with the Cardano 2030 roadmap - Multiple dApps delivering solutions across vertical use cases *Both the Orion Fund and Service Plan have independently identified vertical focus as critical to their success. 2. Lead Generation & Enterprise Onboarding A coordinated lead generation layer would allow the ecosystem to: - Proactively reach the most relevant companies - Manage incoming leads more efficiently - Connect prospects with the right Cardano builders - Support enterprises through onboarding (where BD teams invest the most time) - Deploy a dedicated business task force — Pentad-style — to close deals This treasury cycle will likely fund mostly technical proposals. They are all important — but technology alone will not drive adoption. DReps are working incredibly hard under real pressure, and a budget framework (allocating across tech, business, and admin) would have helped guide decisions. We don't have that this time. So to the ecosystem and to our DReps: please give serious attention to business and adoption-focused proposals. Engage with them, ask questions, push back where needed. Non-technical proposals may seem easier to critique (especially for non developers) — but remember, supporting adoption is not a soft goal. It is a strategic necessity. Funding technology alone increases risk; it doesn't reduce it. I am deeply optimistic that Cardano will become a leader in meaningful, large-scale adoption. It depends on us — this extraordinary community, built on an incredible technical foundation. It is time to take it to the next level. Thank you. P.S. Sorry for the long post — I have plenty more to say about it 🙂

@BkAlaskan11722 @OrionFund Totally, thanks for pointing this out @BkAlaskan11722!

@yutazzz one clarification worth surfacing, since it seems to be behind a lot of the No votes: WP4 was never an unconditional ask. It only releases if the WP3 DeFi KPI checkpoint is hit, and stays revisable with the GMC before deployment. So a Yes is €1.62M unconditional, plus €1.36M contingent on both performance and continued community alignment. That's not coming across clearly. You said your vote's open to change with feedback, so worth a fresh look. On the buffer we've also moved from 30% to 20%, anchored to recent spot, with a slippage cap open for discussion. Full breakdown is in this thread x.com/SPforCardano/s… Let us know you thoughts. -Yves

That's a fair point: higher ADA price means more purchasing power for the same amount of ADA allocated. But that doesn`t that logic apply to every proposal, always? There's no natural "now is the right time" moment from a treasury perspective, because the community will always prefer to wait for a higher price. The question is whether the timing makes sense for the work itself and for enterprise pipeline building. We think the answer is yes, for the reasons we outlined. -Yves

The Hydra discussion sharpened our thinking on one point: the ADA conversion rate. We looked at it again, the argument holds up, so we adjusted it. The original 30% buffer at submission put the assumed ADA rate at $0.17 per ADA. It's there to cover ADA price movement between submission and disbursement, so the campaign doesn't end up underfunded if ADA drops in the window. Several DReps (@nimuepool, @SIPO_Tokyo and others in posts) raised a concrete point: even though surplus ADA returns to Treasury, the requested amount still counts against NCL headroom, which puts pressure on what else can get funded in this cycle. So, we are prepared to commit to 20% instead of 30%. That meaningfully reduces the ADA we'd actually need locked, freeing NCL room for other proposals. We're also open to discussing a hard slippage cap. Both would get fixed in writing during the contracting phase. -Yves

@blockjock2017 Thanks for the support!

We would, obviously, disagree. Institutional B2B sales cycles in Institutional and Enterprise environments run 9–12 months from first qualified contact to contracting, even longer in compliance-heavy verticals. So, leads generated in Q3/Q4 2026 won't convert to signed deals until Q2/Q3 2027. That timing aligns with the Cardano roadmap. By the time decision-makers in our funnel reach contracting, Cardano's strongest institutional proof points are in place. Starting later means missing that window. Marketing isn't the thing you once for a couple of weeks and add after the product is done. Its about building a positioning over time, prove it again and again and be present with a clear message in people minds. So the right people are paying attention when it is. -Yves

@virtuoso1333 @Padierfind @virtuoso1333 made a little film as well to explain it in a nutshell -Yves

@alexander_codes Hey @alexander_codes maybe I can jump in here. What do you mean?

Thanks „for the „have my support" line! Three quick responses: Markets: UK/Germany/Switzerland is, according to the data, the best European blend across audience potential (UK 2.3M + Germany 1.5M lead by the Responsible Pragmatists segment), crypto adoption maturity (CH 15.1%, UK 9.8%, DE 8.9%), and operational footprint (s. Appendix pp. 21-23 drive.google.com/file/d/1qHyWFK…). US adds higher CPMs (ca. 2.4x), India needs a different B2B go-to-market. Brazil and Argentina are on the watchlist (s. p. 30 of the proposal drive.google.com/file/d/1Mrq7FN…). Any expansion comes back as a separate Year 2 proposal. We'd rather prove the engine in three markets than spread thin across six. Verticals: Framework is exchangeable, however we have aligned with key stakeholders in the ecosystem before putting out the proposal. That being said: This is not set in stone. Final selection happens with the GMC and relevant stakeholders. RWA, AI and Payments all on the table for V2. 2030 goals: If the strategic framework gets refreshed, our proposal adapts. We're working with what's currently endorsed by the community. -Yves

Next one we feel worth surfacing from Hydra: what a „Yes“ vote actually funds. There's a common reading that a „Yes“ is a blank 20.87M ADA (€2.98M / $3.55M). That’s not correct. WP1 through WP3 (11.03M ADA / €1.62M / $1.87M) covers the strategic foundation plus the DeFi vertical. WP4 (9.23M ADA / €1.36M / $1.57M) only releases if the WP3 KPI checkpoint shows DeFi is generating enterprise demand at scale. If DeFi underperforms, WP4 stays in Treasury and is not disbursed. So the effective envelope on a „Yes“ vote is closer to 11M ADA (€1.62M) than 20M ADA (€2.98M), because 9.23M ADA is contingent on data. Surplus ADA also returns to Treasury. The phased approach a few of you suggested in the comments is already built in. Voting „Yes“ is voting for ca. 11M ADA unconditionally, plus ca. 9.2M ADA conditional on demonstrated DeFi performance. -Yves

Hello Yuta, thanks for the three structured points. Just DM'd you. Posted the full reply here: x.com/SPforCardano/s… Briefly on each: Supply Chain is gated, revisable with the GMC within the four Strategy 2030 verticals. Lead handover: defined collaboratively with the community before funds flow, the receiving stack isn't ours to name unilaterally. Buffer: open to 20% anchored to a more recent spot If anything still doesn't land, happy to dig in. - Yves

Serviceplan Group for Cardano @SPforCardano

a week ago

@yutazzz appreciate the structured feedback. @Padierfind already addressed several of these points well, so let me focus on the structural concessions we're prepared to commit to. Two things worth saying upfront though: the verticals in our proposal aren't picks we made on our

0 0 1 182 0

@yutazzz appreciate the structured feedback. @Padierfind already addressed several of these points well, so let me focus on the structural concessions we're prepared to commit to. Two things worth saying upfront though: the verticals in our proposal aren't picks we made on our own. Throughout the conception phase we ran the proposal past a wide range of Cardano stakeholders to make sure it reflects ecosystem priorities, not just our own reading of the market. Also, they map directly to the four high-value verticals named in Cardano's own 2030 Strategy (Pillar 2, A.1): DeFi, RWA, Supply Chain / Provenance and Payments. The strategic spine comes from the framework the community itself endorsed. On (1) WP4 Supply Chain: the structural commitment beyond Strategy 2030 alignment. WP4 (€1.36M) only releases if the WP3 KPI checkpoint shows V1 DeFi performs. If DeFi underperforms, WP4 stays in Treasury. The vertical itself is also revisable with the GMC before deployment. So a Yes vote is €1.62M unconditional plus €1.36M contingent on both performance AND continued community alignment on V2. On (2) lead handover and CRM: Patrick's right that we own top-of-funnel and the second stage is an open question today. This is a piece we can't define unilaterally. The CRM choice, the named owners on the receiving side (Enterprise Working Group, Ecosystem Team, Business Support) and the reporting cadence all need to be set with the GMC and the relevant ecosystem representatives. What we'd commit to on the proposer side: making the closure of this gap a precondition before any funds flow, with the framework documented in writing during the contracting phase. We'd rather close it properly with the community than name a stack we can't actually own. On (3) buffer: Patrick laid out the original 30%-on-USD logic and the $3,518,917 ceiling. What we're prepared to move on: 20% instead of 30%, anchored to a more recent ADA spot rather than submission date. We're also open to discussing a hard slippage cap during contracting, with the specific level set against realistic ADA market conditions at the time of disbursement. If a different specific buffer or anchor date works better for the current NCL context, we'd rather hear it now and adjust. One piece of context on timing is worth adding: Institutional B2B sales cycles in regulated finance and supply chain typically run 9–12 months from first qualified contact to contracting, even longer in compliance-heavy verticals. So, leads generated in Q3/Q4 2026 won't convert to signed deals until Q2/Q3 2027. That timing aligns with the overall Cardano roadmap. By the time decision makers in our funnel reach contracting, Cardano's strongest institutional proof points are in place. Starting later means missing that alignment. The on-chain governance action route you suggested is a fair fallback. But if these three concrete concessions (gated WP4 with revisable V2, community-defined lead handover, tighter buffer anchored to current spot) close the gap within this vote, we'd rather make the changes now for the above reasons than push to a new cycle. -Yves

YUTA-Cardano/CPA(DMは全て詐欺) @yutazzz

a week ago

I voted for all 69 proposals in the Intersect Budget process. My reasons for voting can be found at the following site: My vote is subject to change and I welcome feedback. adatool.net/b69-share2

30 7 85 14K 5

Now that the vote is in full swing, we want to highlight some discussions that might get lost on Hydra. There's been a lot of discussion on the verticals proposed for Phase 1 (Institutional DeFi and Supply Chain Traceability). Worth being explicit: The framework we built is exchangeable. What we're really asking you to fund is the demand engine and the methodology, not a specific bet on Supply Chain. If the GMC and the relevant stakeholders feel a different V2 makes more sense, say RWA, that's a conversation we're absolutely open to. DeFi as V1 has the clearest enterprise evidence right now, but even there, final selection gets validated at kickoff. -Yves

Quick math on the US (just to recap), since it keeps coming up. We are targeting enterprise usage. The addressable enterprise audience there is about 2.26x what UK, Germany and Switzerland combined cover. CPMs run slightly higher (1.06x) since UK and Switzerland are themselves among the more expensive media markets. The US at the same pilot depth would run roughly 2.4x the current UK+DE+CH budget. Fitting that in would mean either tripling the ask, which the budget cycle won't support, or thinning the three current markets to where none of them work. That's why the US sits on the 2027 (after we have learnings) roadmap, not in 2026. On Wendy's proposal, we can't really speak to it. It isn't our place to evaluate. What we can say is it's a different kind of work to ours. Hers is consumer-facing YouTube marketing for retail and community inbound. Ours is enterprise B2B demand generation for regulated institutions. Different funnel layer, different audience. We wouldn't read them as either/or. -Yves

We did not skip the US because of "no clarity." That's a misreading. We chose UK, Germany and Switzerland for the pilot based on audience potential, crypto adoption maturity, and operational feasibility for an initial push. Than, there is the budget reality as disussed in many threads. Our media team ran the numbers today: a US-only campaign at the same intensity we're proposing for DE+CH+UK would cost roughly 2.5x as much, driven by a larger audience (~9M vs. 4M) and slightly higher CPMs. Not impossible of course but quite a different budget and proposal. Third, the proposal explicitly says additional markets follow once the pilot has proven itself (s. p. 30 and Appendix pp. 21 ff). The US is part of the expansion logic. Not "ignored." @Padierfind's framing earlier in the thread is the right one: focus drives conviction, conviction drives results. Three markets done well outperform six done shallow, especially in B2B where lead funnels run 9 to 12 months. If the community signals US should be in the pilot, that's a budget conversation we're open to, with trade-offs we'd need to discuss -Yves