If we were allowed to count the liquid non-custodial staked ADA, Cardano would be number 2 in TVL. It's a better system than locking assets, and losing custody.
Joined March 2021
- Tweets6.3K
- Following889
- Followers722
- Likes1.7K
Pinned Tweet
The getting started in #Cardano #ADA guide.
The onboarding cheat sheet: periodically updated when the mood hits me
1. Why cardano?
Like BTC, its UTXO based. Meaning we avoid the issues associated with EVMs global state.
Like BTC its a hard capped asset, max supply. Gold like asset.
Unlike BTC it can do smart contracts natively, Cardano is actually trying to bring defi to BTC. Because they are both UTXO based, its a 'relatively' simple process in the works. Acting like an L2 for BTC.
Its a very secure blockchain, that uses the native asset standard to prevent to same sort of hacks with see on some other chains.
Its very decentralised POS system, with on chain goverance and a treasury that recently came on line that the community controls for future funding.
Midnight is a cardano asset, it will bring auditable private transactions. no need for everyone to see what you bought, it allows for the use of DIDs, medical records on chain. If it should be private, lets keep it private, we dont need the big tec culture of some AI knowing more about you than you know yourself.
2. Wallets
@lace
@eternlwallet
@vesprwallet
Vespr is a great simple wallet, recommend to new users.
Eternl is the most feature rich wallet, but complicated for those new to crypto.
Lace is a good wallet, has some good tools tips for new users
Remember to stake your ADA, its never locked and their is zero risk associated with staking, aka their is no slashing on Cardano. It can moved at any time, its true liquid staking, hence why people dont count it as TVL, even though about 70% of the ADA is staked.
Delegate your voting power to a Drep in the wallet, aka governance.
3. Dex options
@DexHunterIO
@MinswapDEX
Dexhunter is the aggregator and likely to get you the best price. Its easy to use. Best for new users.
While minswap is the most used dex. there is other but they are the big two.
4. Lending, borrowing, synthetics, perps, and yiel
@strikecardano
@Indigo_protocol
@liqwidfinance
@FluidTokens
@butaneprotocol
All good solid options Listed but you cant list everyone of this list would just go on.
strike finance has been doing well on the TVL side recently. Its a perps market.
I would say I'm a fan of indigo for its synthetics.
5. Real Fi products
@WorldMobileTeam
@book_io
@IagonOfficial
@SingularityNET
@palmeconomy
Mix of telecommunications, book publishing, cloud storage, general purpose open AI offerings, RWA's.
6. Tooling
@TapTools
@CardanoCube
@adahandle
@Xerberus_io
Taptools is the essential Cardano version of Coinmarketcap for all our all out tokens to follow price and trade.
ADA handle is a must have. Its a NFT that gives you a readable address. Think of it like buying an email address for your wallet
Have a look at pool.pm post your receive address if for an interesting way to see your wallet
While eutxo.org is a good site to visualise the idea of transactions within transactions. as you see blocks as they fill live
7. NFT marketplaces ( NFT's still a thing all right...my poor poor bags are hurting ok )
@wayupio
@jpgstoreNFT
Jpgstore is presently has most of the marketshare.
But Wayup is the future, generally its UI is just better alongside many features that wont easily be found elsewhere, its also an aggregator so you don't need to look at jpgstore to see its listing anyway, but I'm biased on this one. In @CashAnvil and the @ada_anvil dev team we trust.
Seanavocado retweeted
Vitalik is now trying to convince everyone that lattices are bad because he is bag-holding too much hash-based crypto research can't back out. The case against lattices is the GNFS story, a.k.a. a hunch about "structure," and a multiplier pulled out of thin air. None of it has ever held up in the last few decades.
The factoring analogy is wrong. The number field sieve didn't come from generic cleverness. It came from very specific arithmetic -> smooth numbers, factor bases, relations stitched together by linear algebra into a congruence of squares. If you claim lattices have a GNFS hiding in the closet, you have to name what plays that role. "Structure" names nothing. The sieve was finished by 1993, and RSA sizes have barely moved in the thirty years since, so the lesson of factoring is that the skeletons ran out. Even the formula in the post is wrong. GNFS is exp(O(n^(1/3) (log n)^(2/3))), and if you're going to size parameters by analogy, you could at least get the analogy's complexity right.
Lattices had their sieve era decades ago. LLL in 1982, BKZ, pruned enumeration, sieving at 2^0.415n in 2008 and 2^0.292n in 2016. Every one of those was priced into parameters the moment it appeared. ML-KEM and ML-DSA are sized against exactly these attacks with a cost model that hands the attacker free memory and drops polynomial factors. The post talks as if nobody has ever seriously looked at lattices. Forty years of the best people in the field moved is the constant in the exponent.
The post also skips the one thing lattices have that GGEV and Peikert proved: breaking random LWE or SSIS instances at the right parameters solves approximate shortest-vector problems on every lattice of that dimension. A "skeleton" for plain LWE wouldn't be some clever trick for one family. It's a theorem for one of the most attacked problems in computer science. SHA-256 has no theorem like that. Its security is that nobody has broken it yet, which is exactly the standard the post refuses
to extend to lattices.
If you actually want to worry about structure in lattices, then look at the algebra of rings and ideal lattices. Cramer, Ducas, Peikert, and Regev (2016) and Cramer, Ducas, and Wesolowski (2017) gave quantum attacks on Ideal-SVP in cyclotomic fields. Albrecht, Bai, Ducas, and Kirchretched NTRU. Those results killed real schemes, and none of them touch ML-KEM or ML-DSA, which are module schemes with small moduli. Ducas, Plançon, and Wesolowski showed the quantum ideal attack does worse than plain BKZ at every dimension, applied the structure, measured how far the attacks reach, standardized outside their range, kept FrodoKEM with no ring at all, and added HQC in 2025 so KEMs don't rest on lattices alone. Vitalik is either unaware of this or hash-crypto bagholding is causing citation amnesia.
Then there's the claim that hashes are "intended" to have no structure, as if intent were a security proof. Differential cryptanalysis destroyed both MD5 and SHA-1 by attacking their round functions, with no help from P = NP. Of every family he lists, hashes are the only one whose deployed primitives have actually been broken. And the hash-only roadmap he's defending runs on Poseidon and Poseidon2, low-degree polynomial maps over small prime fields, built specifically to be easy to express algebraically. They are the most algebraically structured hashes anyone has ever put into production. Gröbner-basis and interpolation attacks are an active research area, and the Ethereum Foundation even funded a cryptanalysis bounty on Poseidon because of it. If AI is going to eat structure, Poseidon gets eaten long before Module-LWE.
The proof systems are no better. FRI, STIR, and WHIR at aggressive parameters rest on Reed-Solomon proximity-gap conjectures nobody has proven, and Fiat-Shamir is argued in the random oracle model. That's what "hash-only" actually means in practice. And "we'd pad the round count first" gives the game away, because extra rounds only defend against structure. He's admitting the structure is there.
The theory gets mangled too. Impagliazzo and Rudich is a black-box separation about proof techniques. It is not a theorem that public-key encryption "needs structure," and Merkle's puzzles already give hash-only key agreement with a quadratic gap, which Barak and Mahmoody showed is optimal in that model. "P ≠ NP so hashes are safe" is wrong as well, because P ≠ NP doesn't imply one-way functions exist, let alone that SHA-256 is one. That gap is the entire subject of Impagliazzo's five worlds. And the claim that an object with zero known structures is safer than one with exactly three is a probability claim with no underlying probability model for generic prime-field elliptic curves; the record runs the other way: every subexponential ECDLP attack since 1985 needed a special curve; everyone identified and excluded it, and Shoup's generic-group bound says precisely what a new attack would have to exploit. Nobody has found one in forty years.
"Multiply key sizes by ten" is numerology. Lattice attack cost goes like 2^(c·β). A better constant means you scale dimension by c/c', so a 20 percent improvement costs you about 25 percent more dimension, not 10x. A subexponential break means no multiplier saves you, because 10^n is still subexponential. Neither case gives you ten. Bytes aren't even a security parameter, since raising the modulus at fixed noise can make LWE easier. Parameter selection is a complexity formula set against a security target, and this post contains no formula.
"AI will deliver fifty years of math in two years" isn't a threat model. It names no algorithm or cost, and it can never be falsified, because every year without a break is just "not yet." It also cuts against hashes at least as hard as against lattices, and the post never explains why it shouldn't.
The field already has a working process for extraordinary claims. In 2024, a preprint claimed a quantum polynomial-time algorithm for LWE, and the bug was found in about ten days. Rainbow and SIKE fell on laptops during the NIST process, under the same public scrutiny that let the lattice schemes survive. An AI-found attack follows the same process: check it, run it through the estimators, and reparameterize. Abandoning the most studied post-quantum family before an attack exists is panic.
And the advice is actively dangerous outside of crypto Twitter. He concedes public-key encryption can't be avoided, then tells TLS, Tor, VPN, and messaging operators to get "much more paranoid" about the only post-quantum KEM that is actually deployed. Harvest-now-decrypt-later is happening right now, and hybrid ML-KEM, already shipping in browsers and messengers, is the defense. Spreading doubt about it, or bloating it tenfold until handshakes break, keeps traffic on classical crypto longer, which is the outcome he says he's worried about. "Send encrypted notes offchain through a third party" fixes nothing, because delivering to someone you'venever spoken to still needs public-key encryption, and now you've added a trusted party that sees your metadata and can drop your messages. Lumping ML-DSA and FHE into one bucket shows a weak grasp of both, since they live in completely different parameter regimes with different attacks.
Use hash-based signatures where they fit; the IETF has worked on XMSS for years, and there have been many great advancements. They are an algebraic dead end, however. You can't easily do the things we treasure in the elliptic-curve world.
Security engineering means naming the attack, costing it, and sizing the fix within the context of broader business and technological objectives. Vitalik never does this. He writes these damn posts that convince lots of engineers to abandon incredibly important research, and then we have to stumble back to it after years of false starts: Plasma, Ethereum 2.0, Casper, Accounts, etc etc etc. Now we are going to attack Lattices.
I don't recommend anyone scramble to move their funds to new wallets today. But we should take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously, and minimize our exposure to not just quantum-vulnerable cryptography, but also potentially AI-vulnerable cryptography.
The core new area of risk from this viewpoint is, unfortunately, ML-DSA / FHE / lattices.
(and it's also another reason, along with quantum, why ECDSA might fall even faster than expected, hence the "fresh address" recommendation)
So far most people have been in the mode of thinking "elliptic curves broken, hashes safe, lattices safe". But there is a good chance that the concrete security of lattices will take serious hits from the next two years of AI math.
The basic threat model is: factoring is something that naively takes 2^(n/2) time, but over decades smart people have found and optimized number field sieves, and degraded that to 2^O(n^(1/3)), which is why RSA keys and signatures need to be ~400 bytes (and not 64 bytes). What if there are skeletons in the closet like that, both for elliptic curves and lattices, that we are simply not smart enough to discover - but bots soon will be?
This is a major part of the reason why for the past year ethereum's lean roadmap has been going in the "hash-only" direction: no lattices, no ML-DSA, no Falcon, no lattice-based commitments inside ZK proofs, etc. Signatures in lean ethereum are all hash-based, either WOTS or SPHINCS-.
For signatures and proofs, we already know how to go hash-only. The bigger challenge is for *public-key encryption* - and this goes far beyond blockchains. Secure communication, anonymizing protocols, lots of things need public-key encryption.
And unfortunately there are long-standing mathematical theorems showing why public-key encryption cannot be done with hashes alone. You have to have some kind of trapdoor object that has at least one form of usable "structure" - either group theory (incl. isogenies) or lattices or code-based or potentially in the future even more newfangled and spooky things (local mixing?). But for anything that has structure, you should assume that AI will make at least some progress in breaking that structure. Here, one reasonable inference is that if you want to make something plausibly long-term secure, multiply the key sizes by 10.
To me that's a very plausible world and something not at all extreme to predict. If AI will bring us 50 years of math in 2 years, then that 50 years of math may very plausibly include a "naive factoring -> GNFS" level of improvement to our ability to break lattices. In that world, lattices will still exist, but they will have to be significantly bigger to guarantee the same level of safety.
And at those new larger sizes, hash-based constructions will beat lattice-based constructions on concrete efficiency in every use case where hash-based constructions are possible at all.
Theoretically, of course it's possible that hashes are broken too (eg. P = NP would imply that). But I think P = NP is very unlikely. And intuitively, it's much more likely that a mathematical object has exactly no exploitable structure (like hashes are intended to), than that a mathematical object has exactly ~3 forms of exploitable structure (for elliptic curves: associativity, Schoof, pairings) and not some secret fourth form of structure we have not yet discovered that greatly degrades its security (for elliptic curves, ECDLP and pairing security). Similar for LWE, SVP, RLWE and the zoo of lattice problems.
For this reason, we do not yet see any reason to worry and start padding the byte size of hashes (if we start to worry more, we would pad the round count first before doing anything to the byte size).
Concrete TLDR, my own personal views:
* Hash-based > lattice-based, in those situations where hash-based is possible at all
* For anything lattice-based, be much more paranoid on param sizes. Remember that blockchains are only a small portion of the cryptography story; this point goes far beyond blockchains and applies to eg. access to websites, secure messaging, Tor / VPNs ...
* For privacy protocols, strongly favor NOT putting encrypted notes onchain. Instead, send them offchain through some third-party mechanism.
* If it's not difficult for you, keeping your funds in addresses which have not yet been used to make a transaction is a good idea. If it's easy for you, do it. **But be careful about migrations; I personally have lost more money in botched migrations than I have lost in all hacks combined**.
* For multisig wallets, doing confirmations offchain is better than onchain, because this way the signatures of signer wallets do not get exposed to the public, so if ECDSA falls to AI much faster than expected, at least the multisig "gracefully degrades" to a 1-of-1 where the 1 is whoever was gathering the signatures - a much better place to be than "anyone can take the money"
firefly.social/post/x/210783…
Seanavocado retweeted
Sundae V4 introduces Atomic Swaps.
Multiple pools. One order. One transaction.
Traditionally, routing a swap through multiple pools means executing each hop separately. Every hop introduces another transaction, another opportunity for slippage, and the risk of getting stuck holding a token you never intended to own.
Atomic Swaps eliminate the gap between hops.
You specify what you're swapping and the minimum you're willing to receive. V4's router finds the best path across its pools and executes the entire route in a single Cardano transaction.
Every hop succeeds, or none execute. No partial fills. No stranded intermediate tokens. No exposure between transactions.
You can see this in action on mainnet today. A USDCx → sUSDrf swap routes through two V4 pools, starting with @realfi_co's Linear USDCx/USDrf pool, and settles in a single transaction.
Seanavocado retweeted
The Cardano DeFi Ecosystem Audit is complete.
25 categories. Five scoring dimensions. Two reference ecosystems.
It is the Phase 1 core deliverable of the @Cardano PRIME program, and it sets the baseline for everything that follows.
Here is where Cardano stands.
Seanavocado retweeted
I don't think anyone disputes that, but ultimately, the question is *how* to do it. I personally favor a "soft cap" approach based on rewards, though I halted that initiative due to community opposition. I wouldn't rule out a "hard cap" that enforces delegation limits per DRep ID, but that would likely require a CIP, implementation, and a hard fork. If you are interested in the reward-based soft cap approach, you can refer to a tool I created some time ago. If the community can reach a consensus, the soft cap approach could potentially be implemented as early as this month, and it would simultaneously resolve issues such as the "volunteer labor" concern.
adatool.net/tool
Seanavocado retweeted
And @wayupio + @AnvilDevAgency API are still working flawlessly
🫡
Seanavocado retweeted
onchain governance for any unpaid participant of this creates insane levels of governance fatigue. If our selection of Operating Group is egregious enough to single-handedly derail our proposal, and a different one you suggest would flip your opinion, would be happy to hear your suggestion? But this isn't feedback we're commonly receiving.
How many are 'proportional'? 5. 5 is proportional. A direct conterbalance that can withold funding, has multiple breakers, and is betrothed to Cardano over us is proper oversight. Too many and its slow, or things get more political. There's room for DeFi contributors to voice input, for these members to reach out to the community, and we'll always continue taking feedback publicly. But voice of the commons, having 21 people, leads to constant politicking. We need to get DEEP in real work mode. It's humbling that 5 important, busy people would take time out of their day to oversee this on behalf of Cardano, and in doing so provide us with this opportunity to have more trust from the community to request the funds required to pull this off, in a means that is NOT a 'trust-me-bro'.
Propose other members? I won't specify which Pentad teams have done what, but suffice to say I've met with almost all of them now? Will be all soon? And they're the ones who first reached out to us?
We don't shy away from transparency. That said, business does require not habitually breaking trust of other parties. Sure it could be relevant, but the most relevant part is that my claim, though based only on Ethos unless enumerated, does justify your final concern, that they weren't proposed by the proposals authors directly.
In general, while we welcome any and all criticisms, I would love for the volunteers who were selected and have agreed to do this, for free, for the good of the ecosystem, to NOT be ridiculed in public forums for their altruism unless there's like REALLY good reasons!
Maybe there are? I'm new here? But ya, if you have solid feedback/alternatives, go for it? But also game theory wise, difficult to get us to negotiate against ourselves without clear gains.
Is there one specific concern so egregious that it has you, as a DRep who would LIKE to vote yes, currently as a No?
If you're a firm No then we have nothing to gain from the discussion other than the eyes towards reason and transparency from other readers, which is enough for me. But also then I don't really trust that you want what's best for the ecosystem based on my bias that growth-velocity will lead to ADA price appreciation, and the lackthereof will lead to continued decline.
If you're a firm Yes, then you'll vote for us regardless and trust us, but with oversight and balances, to steward this as professionally as we claim, and as we've always sought to do (with quite a bit of success).
I don't particularly like catering to the swing votes, when the Yes votes are more pragmatically aligned and may also have concerns, which shouldn't be ignored just for them doing what they (and I) believe to be right? But I definitely don't like catering to non-swing opposition.
Seanavocado retweeted
Discord, Governance, and Community Management xitter.cf/i/broadcasts/1AxRnnXBp…
Seanavocado retweeted
Posting this here for anyone else looking into our Ticketing Proposal.
Please take a second to read through it if you are on the fence. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------
Thank Yuta, I really appreciate your careful investigation into the surrounding market, and the failures and successes.
"the value accrues to the ticketing company, not the chain, and the chain layer gets quietly removed once it stops improving something concrete."
1st and foremost - the value accrues to both in our proposal, the ticketing company, and the chain. Every transaction processed will be a Cardano mainnet transaction.
-Ticket Sold (minted NFT, creates rev for treasury via native fees and TVL)
-Ticket Transfer (Cardano mainnet TX)
-Ticket Sale (Cardano mainnet TX)
-Ticket Update (Cardano mainnet TX)
-Ticket Used (Cardano mainnet TX)
Additionally, the treasury will retain 5% of all platform fees, in addition to the regularly created TXs.
"what does the Cardano layer concretely improve for Sellout that Web2 can't?"
First, I'd like to think that having a native asset, rather than a smart contract reference, is a huge structural advantage. As these are basically RWAs to some extent, the native asset structure makes the most sense when handling NFTs. This also leaves room for the Tickets to evolve into collectibles and engagement tooling for artists, venues, and event organizers.
Secondly, anti-scalping and anti-counterfeiting. Since they are NFTs, they include immutable metadata which can be used for tracking the history of the ticket and creating an unduplicatable asset.
Third, and not mentioned in our proposal, is the idea of the company becoming a SPO. Through the stored value in each NFT, we will accrue a small of ADA that when multiplied across 100s of thousands of tickets could be used to subsidize a pool, ultimately leading to the platform subsidizing costs for event organizers and consumers. This is a Cardano only mechanism that the Sellout CEO was completely sold on.
Finally, re-sale control. Although not done on the ledger level, having control over royalties is paramount for event organizers. This can only be done with fully digitalized ticketing, and best done with NFTs, in our professional opinion.
Now, moving on to the points raised on ADAtool:
"Token-first funding (2017–18 ICO class) Raised from token buyers rather than customers; requiring fans/organizers to use a token added friction; the 2018 downturn ended runways."
There has not been, nor will there ever be, a token sale.
We agree that tokens only add additional friction in ticketing.
"Wallet friction at the venue door Consumer flows requiring wallets/gas at entry did not displace QR codes; entry must work offline for all attendees."
This is actually a great point that no one has brought up yet, and one that we solved in Phase 1 of our project. We did not change Sellout's current process, nor will we. All ticket check-ins are batched separately from the rest of ticketing actions. This allows us to capture all the data from the event before submitting it to chain. This includes offline mode, as well as literal sign ins done with pen and paper.
"Distribution over technology Incumbents hold venue contracts and primary inventory; startups had working technology and no inventory. Ticketmaster acquired Upgraded (2018); no public blockchain ticketing product followed."
This could be addressed in a multitude of different ways. My personal opinion here is that they basically paid to remove their true competition. They know the value blockchain ticketing will have and don't want it to disrupt their monopoly.
"Anti-scalping vs rights-holder economics Resale revenue is a feature for rights holders; scalping-resistance products faced buyers whose economics they opposed."
The MP provides an outlet for a user to securely transfer, buy, sell or trade a ticket they had already purchased for an upcoming show.
This is not a new idea - AXS and Ticketmaster both have 3p marketplaces that offer no consumer protections against price or fraud.
"NFT-market correlation (2021–22 class) Projects funded and framed as NFT plays contracted with the NFT market itself."
This is not a NFT project. This is an infrastructure play. The first iteration of NFTs (2021-22 class) were used sparingly in applications and more for collectability. We do not debate this. Our proposal represents an evolution in NFT capabilities.
"The surviving configuration and its two documented outcomes Operating survivors hide the chain and sell B2B into existing distribution (GET white-label, UEFA×TIXnGO, True Tickets×Shubert, Sympla×Polygon). Two outcomes recur in this group: economic value accrues to the ticketing company rather than the chain (GET: 5M tickets, token −98.9%), and the blockchain layer is de-emphasized or removed over time (True Tickets' marketing, Ticketmaster's shelving)."
The main goal of the platform is that people do not know that it operates on blockchain. That's not to say blockchain is shameful. People have proven they do not care what the technology is as long as it's easy to use and works when it's supposed to.
Additionally, it directly benefits the blockchain. This product will produce TX fees, and our proposal itself is structured as a loan, with a permanent 5% revenue share to the treasury. I am not sure if you are aware of this portion of the proposal or not.
I know this is a lot to digest but i wrote it all by hand so I hope you will take the time to actually understand what I am saying here. AI will not do this justice, I treated this as if it was a live interview. I answered this the second I saw it and did not run it through anything. I am passionate and committed this is the correct progression for this product. If Cardano doesn't take us up on it. We will take it somewhere that will. This product belongs on blockchain.
Seanavocado retweeted
NFTs are more than dead if we all be honest for a moment. Now imagine how many transactions we will get if this guy starts to sell tickets on cardano 👀
I’m pro enterprise adoption and I’m pro this proposal.
But even if you don’t like all the stuff above do it for Cash and tell your Drep to vote YES on Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform
cardanoscan.io/govAction/gov…
Top 10 (#8) for TXs through all Cardano DApps and Top Non-Dex DApp on Cardano.
26k Transactions in June alone.
We aren't stopping at @wayupio in-fact we have just begun.
The support is real.
The numbers don't lie.
The foundation is built.
The upgrades are being done.
The future is bright.
Now it's time to grow.
Thank you for choosing Wayup!
Source: tempo.vote/dapp-ranking
Seanavocado retweeted
To all DReps and the Cardano Community -
With help from the SelloutIO CEO Henry, we created a tool around our treasury proposal to model potential payback scenarios.
fixticketing.com/modeling/
These models take into consideration ADA price, ADA price appreciation YoY, Tickets Sold (Web2), YoY Ticket Sale Growth, On-Chain Actions per ticket, Treasury Fee per TX, Revenue Share Modeling, and USD value vs ADA returned to treasury.
The goal of this tool is to show how quickly we can pay back our treasury withdrawal. This tool also shows the potential upside for Cardano, Sellout, and Anvil.
Using Henry's baseline assumptions for growth, we will be able to pay back the entire sum of the withdrawal in less than 5 years, on conservative metrics. We can hit our estimated revenue contributions with a modest 20% YoY growth, although we expect a 40% growth rate.
This makes us extremely confident in our ability to not only payback the treasury withdrawal amount, but continue to provide sustained value for the Cardano Treasury.
We hope it answers any questions or concerns DReps have with our revenue share model. Thank you for considering our proposal.
Seanavocado retweeted
I hated catalyst. I LOATHE decentralized governance. He had too much faith in people. Cardano needs to be run by adults, visionaries and business leaders. Needs 1 vision. Make it happen before it's too late.
Seanavocado retweeted
I understand that it may seem like a huge sum for some, me included, but in the grand scheme of things it's 1.14% of the budget this year.
Given the strength of the proposal, i do not feel like the ask is unbalanced or unfair, and extremely well outlined. This proposal is different from the rest. It's set up different. It puts Cardano in the backseat and let's a product drive growth. It will create real transactions immediately and we are committed to paying back the withdrawal and bringing money into the treasury instead of just taking it out.
Comparing it to the rest of Cardano -
We tried to focus on transparency, our FTE rates are outlined, and every dollar is accounted for. It's structured as a loan with a long term revenue share to the treasury. This is basically an easier way of giving the treasury direct equity in the project (haven't seen this in any other proposal). It's a true investment with the ability to payback the treasury upon success. There is also a huge void in our spending for enterprise and commercial adoption. We have utterly failed in this category. Now, we have spent almost a year curating this relationship, and convincing them why Cardano is the best place for them to build. The only other enterprise proposal that passed was for 10m ADA, which would bring the total spend to 3.3% of the budget on commercial/enterprise adoption if ours passed as well. We spend too much on infrastructure and the chain, not enough on getting users. I understand the past attempts and Catalyst have not been reliable but that should not mean cutting off funding for this category. It will be detrimental to Cardano to keep cutting off funding like this.
Comparing it to the greater space -
Companies that are finding PMF with blockchain are undergoing some huge raises right now. I saw a list yesterday of investments ranging from $4,000,000 to $300,000,000. $1m is not that large when compared to the greater space/markets, that's just the reality these days. We need a homerun on Cardano. It doesn't have to be flashy, it can be boring, but it does have to produce revenue, and that's exactly what we will do. Traditional finance routes aren't available for Cardano projects, that's why a loan style proposal works.
"Why did it not work out on other chains?"
This is honestly a great question that no one has asked me yet. My answer is very simple - network, and understanding of the web2 product/customer.
I still very much think that tickets as NFTs has a huge market upside. No one is using tickets for collectibles, yet everyone will have touched a ticket at some point.
Part of the reason it hasn't worked in the past is bad UI/UX. Our product is already implemented in it's Phase 1 form, utilizing custodial wallets and treasury wallets to hide Cardano completely. It's a true trojan horse effort here...we have the opportunity to get Cardano into some elite circles. The Sellout CEO is highly connected and has the right backing in his corner. We can utilize their network to put this in front of the right people once we have proven out the model. Which brings me to my last and final point that we already have the customer. This was likely a big piece previous endeavors were lacking. It's not easy to get a foot in that space, that's why we are starting with an existing customer base and venues who already use their technology.
Hope I answered everything! Happy to answer additional questions or follow-ups. We are putting it all on the line here!
We need to reset goverance, SPO style Drep limits. emurgo and yoroi cabal have no right or moral high ground to hold the power they have, they got their voting power via a shady vote harvesting strat and then lost everyones money, as they cant be bothered to pay for an audit
Seanavocado retweeted
Good Day to the Cardano Community!
This is a PSA that ANVIL pool is running bone dry!
Unfortunately, at 448,773 ADA we are rarely producing blocks these days. We have over 1000 delegators but the ADA in our pool is just simply not enough to consistently produce blocks.
Any and all support would be greatly appreciated. This pool directly supports Anvil and our operations. It also helps to secure Cardano.
We reallllly do not want to close down our stake pool, but seeing all the other over saturated, retired, or MPO still have massive delegations is making it hard to justify continued operations.
Please consider supporting us by delegating to our pool!!! Thank you all!
Seanavocado retweeted
I know I have been very vocal about supporting our treasury withdrawal but today I'd like to ask my followers to shift their focus to the 5am.earth proposal.
This proposal is rock solid. The founders have followed the right path and have a real enterprise deal in front of us.
The team did things the right way. They went to Catalyst to prove their idea. Now that the idea is proven (Creating 5 figure monthly transactions), they are ready to take the next step in the process. Naturally, that is a treasury withdrawal. Some will disagree, but this is the vision most of us followed.
I also have a lot of respect for the team. They boast some of my favorite people who have spent years earning not just my trust but the trust of the community.
If you get a second, push your DRep to vote YES on the 5am.earth proposal. They need our support.
@YoramBenzvi @DanielTetsuyama Goodluck with the final push!
Seanavocado retweeted
TapTools has officially paused operations.
They served over 1M users and became one of the most important platforms in the Cardano ecosystem.
We've been building FetchSwap for over two years and have accelerated development recently to help provide the data and tools the Cardano community needs.
Here's a walkthrough of everything we've built 👇
🌐 cardano.fetchswap.io
Seanavocado retweeted
AI is very good at covering ground fast. Early on everything moves quickly and progress feels real. Then you get close to done and the curve just flattens out.
That last stretch is where the real problem shows up. AI can't evaluate when something is truly finished.
That's why it's important to have someone in the loop who can catch problems early and steer things before they go sideways.
In this video we walk through why that gap exists and what it takes to get across it.
Seanavocado retweeted
It’s official. @DraperDragon $80m @OrionFund is open for business. And Draper University is leading the programs that help find and uplift the earliest builders.
The fund is built to turn Cardano's technical leadership into global, venture-scaled growth.
We are searching for the founders who will drive the next $3b in TVL.
> tier 1 first VC check (up to $90k)
> elite programming
> investor networking
> free housing in Silicon Valley
> leverage the massive Draper ecosystem in web3
Applications for our first cohort are now open. Link below 👇.
@Cardano_CF @Cardano