Bella retweeted
Our C4💥proposal explained.
I had a conversation with some dedicated Cardano peeps at a Meetup in London, hosted by @DiscoverCardano today, about the Cardano Content Creators Consortium proposal.
This is a recording & breakdown of the stream and presentation 👇
Bella retweeted
An update on our engagement with @Mastercard.
While Cardano was not included in the initial cohort of 85 launch partners, @emurgo_io has been actively engaging with their APAC team to change that and ensure our ecosystem is represented.
Following a leadership transition at Mastercard APAC —where our primary contact moved to EY — we have successfully connected with his successors. They were excited to speak with us and I am pleased to share we are now in the Qualification Stage for the Global Crypto Partner Program.
With the continued support of the Cardano community, I am confident in a positive outcome.
This important:
Please like and share to show @Mastercard the strength of our ecosystem. Mastercard is a global firm.. we need to show them that our inclusion into their Partner Program will make a difference to them. Surely this is an initiative the entire Cardano ecosystem can support! #cardano86
Let's go!!!
#cardano #mastercard @Cardano_CF @Cardano @IOGroup @midnightfdn
Can we go one day without drama from one of the founding entities?
Just one.
Please?
Introducing our @Catalyst_onX Fund 14 proposal: FusionFi Core
An open-source DeFi toolkit for Cardano with lending, stablecoin & multisig, helping SMEs, communities in Africa/MENA:
✅ Preserve wealth
✅ Access financing
✅ Build secure solutions
More: app.projectcatalyst.io/propo…
2
25
1,761
Today I discovered what crudging means.
How is this app free?
That’s a weird take. And an even weirder word choice.
You all need therapy. Different sides at different times trying to act like they are on a high road.
The community sees all the petty and stupid behavior on all sides. We see the silence, we see the name calling, the voting.
2
1,279
Bella retweeted
Coinbase CEO: Hackers are demanding $20M in #Bitcoin from Coinbase, threatening to leak customer data.
dReps and others within the Cardano governance roles.
Please do not bow to pressure from the entities. This sort of manipulation is not ok. It’s sickening to see our process being corrupted already.
@IOHK_Charles @invalid_eutxo @Jane14457995 @BeatriceAnihiri
condescension and derision.
@benohanlon is this what we can expect from IOG moving forward? Or, is this JJ acting outside of IOGs offical stance.
3
50
2,903
Hmm @TheOCcryptobro blocked me after this post. A quick look on his account shows him tagging JJ now in his posts.
I think it’s safe to assume that Chris has now been bought and paid for.
4
31
2,056
A great and well reasoned thread from Linda.
Why I Voted YES on the 350M ADA Net Change Limit (NCL)
Weighing the key implications of both sides:
By voting NO, we’d risk:
🔹 A 60-day delay in funding
🔹 Stalling innovation
🔹 Missing out on crucial community funding due to IOG’s likely dominance in funding requests and absorbing most of the available NCL
Addressing concerns around a YES vote:
🔹 Treasury depletion:
Most of the funding will come from treasury inflows, which will amount to roughly 250M-300M. Even if the full 350M ADA is spent, at this current burn rate it would still take 15–20 years to fully deplete the treasury.
🔹Sell pressure:
Minimal. Even if the entire 350M were distributed, it wouldn’t be sold all at once. For example, one of IOG’s proposals includes funding Catalyst over three separate funds, spreading out the sell impact.
To put things into perspective:
In the last 24 hours alone, ADA trading volume across CEXs was approximately $600M, or nearly 1 billion ADA. That kind of volume can absorb any moderate sell offs from treasury disbursements without crashing the price.
1. We need to move forward.
Establishing a Net Change Limit is a necessary step to allow treasury withdrawals.
If this proposal doesn’t pass, we’ll be stuck waiting a couple more months, delaying crucial funding at an important time for Cardano.
With a 350M cap and responsible budgeting, this funding can go a long way toward accelerating Cardano’s growth.
Now is not the time to stall. It’s time to invest in our ecosystem.
The fastest way to replenish the treasury is to increase blockchain activity.
More transactions = more fees = more treasury inflow.
2. The NCL is just a cap.
The 350M ADA limit is a maximum, not a spending requirement.
The focus shouldn’t be on the cap itself, the real work is in holding each proposal to a high standard.
3. Making the best possible move with the cards we’ve been dealt.
Lowering the NCL doesn’t automatically ensure fairness, and it doesn’t stop grifters.
Our votes on individual proposals are what safeguard the treasury.
If IOG’s proposals pass - as they likely will, based on current YES rates of 94%, 64%, and 50% - a lower NCL could result in most of the funding going to IOG, leaving little room for community led initiatives.
When a huge portion of innovation in this ecosystem comes from the community.
The NCL is a cap, not a spending requirement. Let’s not stall Cardano’s momentum, which might hurt us more in the longterm.
7
1,681
Bella retweeted
Why lowering the net change limit could backfire:
Cardano’s core entities IOG, Emurgo, CF, and Intersect have submitted proposals totaling ~330M ADA.
Many in the community worry about draining the treasury too fast, thus requesting a lower net change limit of 200M/year. Fair concern.
But here’s a reasonable problem:
IOG alone is requesting 200M ADA. Combine that with:
🔸IOG’s large influence in the ecosystem
🔸The likelihood that many dReps will be aligned with IOG or view IOG’s role as indispensable
🔸The fact that their proposal is likely to pass even under scrutiny
If the cap is set to 200M, and IOG’s proposal passes that’s the full annual budget gone.
A lower net change limit without safeguards gives the biggest players a high likelihood to absorb the entire annual budget leaving nothing for community led proposals ‼️
Project Catalyst is the only other lifeline (if approved). But even then, it’s just 60M ADA/year - half of what was distributed in 2024.
This isn’t about blaming IOG or any other entity, it’s to highlight their power and influence in making decisions.
A better solution would be to set a 350M cap, but with guardrails:
🔹Max % of the budget any one entity can receive
🔹Reserve allocations for community proposals
🔹Emergency funding thresholds
