Iagon Insight will accept payments in $ADA, $USDM and native $USDC.
There are, however, important regulatory distinctions between the stablecoins currently available to the Cardano ecosystem.
$USDM has established an EEA issuance structure through NBX, which acts as its European issuer under MiCA. However, NBX issued and Moneta issued $USDM are legally separate obligations backed by separate reserves. Although technically fungible onchain, redemption depends on identifying the issuer of record.
$USDCx is a separate $USDC backed token issued on Cardano through Circle's xReserve infrastructure. It is not native $USDC issued by Circle Europe and does not appear to be covered by Circle's existing MiCA white paper. The main European issue is therefore the absence of a clearly demonstrated authorised EEA issuer and MiCA compliant issuance framework.
$USDCx can be described as a wrapper and therefore potentially a MiFID derivative or futures product.
The bigger opportunity would be establishing $USDCx as a properly issued and regulated stablecoin that European institutions can confidently use. That would effectively bring $USDC liquidity onto Cardano in a form capable of achieving much broader institutional market access. Because of this - we won't be accepting $USDCx
@KristianPederse@LiseSorensen_ Jeg har det fra en UN rapport hvor de fant ut at over 99% av kvinner i Egypt hadde blitt utsatt for seksuelle overgrep.
https://t.co/6FXCe4camU
@gingerrtom Depicting those people as asylum seekers isnt that much better. They are people trying to escape the law of their land to hopefully continue their life of crime somewhere else.
As an asian living in Europe, you are so wrong. Dude just presents himself as nerdy and harmless. A few changes is all it takes to get this guy average + looking. Trust me, the white guys you probably see has gone through plenty of selection filters.
This guy is averag with potential😁
Every dot is a node someone runs.
722+ of them, across 50 countries.
These ten hold 546 — the United States alone accounts for 264, more than the next five combined.
Sixth place is Estonia: 33 nodes from a country of 1.4 million people, ahead of the Netherlands and Australia, which are ten and twenty times its size.
To everyone keeping a node online: thank you.
Iagon Node Software Update - Action required by 12 August
The new Iagon node software is now available for Windows, alongside the updated installation documentation and instructions.
All node operators are required to migrate to the latest version within the next two weeks (Latest by August 12th, 2026 21:45 UTC) . Please update to the latest version available for your operating system:
Windows: version 2.0.9
Linux: version 2.0.9
macOS: version 2.0.5
Cyclone node operators and ALL other node operators running version 2.x.x , do not need to take any action.
After the migration deadline, earlier node versions will no longer be compatible with the network’s current operating requirements and will be unable to participate.
Delegators should also monitor the status of the node they are supporting. Operators will be given an initial period to complete the upgrade, but delegators may need to reassess or move their delegation if their selected node has not migrated within the recommended timeframe.
Benchmark results and node tiers will return to the dashboard no later than Monday.
As previously promised, reputation, tiers and rewards for the period affected by the earlier benchmarking issue will be reviewed and corrected as part of this migration process.
As we collect performance data from the new node versions, the benchmarking and tier algorithms may be refined where necessary. Tier results may therefore vary between epochs during the initial rollout. This is expected and should not be a cause for concern.
Node operators should upgrade as soon as possible rather than waiting until the deadline.
Windows installation guide: https://t.co/LqqLDgujdG
Linux & MacOS installation guide: https://t.co/CEVP6z7xJK
Thank you to all node operators and delegators supporting the continued development and stability of the Iagon network.
I am voting NO on Blockfrost proposal.
This is being presented as a community takeover of critical Cardano infrastructure. In reality, the community is being asked for around 10 million $ADA to fund 18 months of salaries and operations before the basic facts of the proposed acquisition have been properly disclosed.
The community does not know what it is acquiring - The proposal says that Blockfrost's source code, trademarks, domains and associated assets will eventually be transferred to a not-for-profit. It does not clearly disclose:
- the current legal owner of each asset
- the complete asset schedule
- the chain of title for the website, domains, trademarks and code
- whether any assets are owned, controlled or merely licensed
- what rights Five Binaries, IOG or other parties retain
- the value assigned to the assets or the actual acquisition price
There has already been a dispute over who owns https://t.co/QOAeJ1OibV and its IP. Blockfrost's legal terms previously described the site as Five Binaries' proprietary property. Its invoices stated "https://t.co/QOAeJ1OibV by Five Binaries OÜ" and used Five Binaries' VAT number.
When ownership representations change after scrutiny, the answer is not to wave the proposal through. The answer is to require independent legal verification of the chain of title.
What did IOG acquire in late 2024?
The proposal states that Blockfrost was founded by Five Binaries and "joined IOG" in 2024. It does not explain what that means commercially.
The community should be told:
- what IOG acquired
- whether it bought shares, IP, domains, commercial rights or some combination
- how much it paid
- who received that payment
- what valuation was used and what exactly is now being transferred using treasury funding
These are routine acquisition due diligence questions. The treasury should not fund a second transaction without disclosure of the first one.
This is mainly an operating subsidy - The proposal requests approximately 10 million $ADA, but there is no separately identified purchase price for the IP, website, trademarks or domains
Approximately 75% is allocated to staffing, approximately 25% is allocated to operations & infrastructure and a small amount is allocated to legal and accounting work.
The community is therefore not being offered a clearly priced asset acquisition. It is being asked to pay for the continued operation of Blockfrost while ownership is transferred later to an entity that has not yet been finalized. Calling this a community takeover does not change the economics. It is an operating grant tied to a future transfer promise.
The staffing budget is excessive and not fully outlined.
The staffing request is $1,478,266 for six people over 18 months - four developers, one project manager and one community manager. That equals an average loaded cost of approximately:
$82,126 per month for the team
$13,688 per person per month
more than $164,000 per person annually (Does a community manager earn 164k annually?)
Those are extremely high blended costs for a mostly European team containing both technical and non-technical positions. Yet the proposal does not disclose -cost by role, seniority, employee versus contractor status, related-party payments or the identity of the organization receiving the staffing funds.
"Privacy" is not a credible excuse for withholding role based costs. Nobody is asking for personal payslips. Public treasury funding requires transparent FTE assumptions and compensation. The proposal also places DevOps personnel inside the infrastructure allocation, creating further uncertainty over how many people are actually being funded and whether labour is being obscured inside multiple budget categories.
The expenditure will not end after 18 months The proposal annualizes to approximately $985,000 in staffing and overhead, $240,000 in infrastructure and operations, roughly $1.2 million in recurring yearly expenditure, before insurance, compliance, commercial support, sales, legal costs or expansion.
There is no demonstrated sustainability model.
Commercial tiers, vendor fees and treasury repayments are merely ideas that a future board may consider. The proposal admits that long-term sustainability will be decided after the community has already funded the transition. That means the treasury is being asked to commit first and discover the business model later.
The predictable result is another funding request when the 18 months expire.
Cardano governance cannot operate an enterprise API business
The proposal claims Blockfrost will become community owned and decentralized. But Cardano governance cannot itself
- sign an enterprise SLA
- employ staff
- invoice customers
- accept contractual liability
- provide indemnities
- hold commercial insurance
- enter data centre and hosting contracts
- manage tax and data protection obligations
- or be sued when the service fails.
A centralized legal entity will still own the assets, control the domain, employ or contract the team and sign commercial agreements. The proposal recognizes this by requiring a separate not-for-profit entity and an off-chain legal structure involving Intersect and Cardano Development Holdings.
Therefore, this is not "fully decentralized." At most, it is centralized legal and commercial control combined with community board elections. Those are not the same thing.
Enterprise customers require a legally accountable counterparty and detailed contractual protections covering uptime, response times, incident escalation, service credits, security, liability, indemnification and termination.
The public service is only promised at 99% monthly uptime, which permits more than seven hours of downtime per month. Calling that an SLA does not make it enterprise grade, particularly when no contractual remedies are specified.
The acquiring entity does not yet exist in final form
The proposal does not even determine whether the assets will move into a new entity or existing one. The final governance structure, legal jurisdiction, constitutional documents and permanent board are still to be decided.
No competent acquisition committee would approve such a transaction. This proposal is missing the most basic information required for a takeover:
Verified ownership, chain of title, prior transaction details, historical revenue, current paid customer data, an independent valuation, a stated purchase price, role based FTE costs, assignable enterprise contracts, a finalized acquiring entity, and a credible long term operating plan.
When employees of @IOGroup post slander and insults at other #Cardano projects, I wonder what is the point of it all?
@ILikeCardano seems to love throwing shade at @IagonOfficial while his own @SummonPlatform project went under after milking Intersect Grants for $300,000+