Losing the Cardano Summit 2026 was bad enough, but think about losing our DNA, our researchers, our academic rigour?
Or not being ready when the quantum attackers are here as early as 2029?
Or reading the news that Cardano researchers now work for Ethereum? Ethereum Foundation just lost some, I am sure they would be happy to pick them up, if we drop the ball.
If you as a DRep don't want this to happen, please do upvote the IO Research proposal, only 5 days to go.
If you believe "ah they will just resubmit cheaper" do listen to yesterdays X space from 14:52 to 34:58, about 20 minutes of your time well spend on the future of Cardano.
I wouldn't be this sure and not risk this.
⚡️Giveaway⚡️
To celebrate @AscendPerps DEX going live on Midnight Mainnet (1st dApp to launch on Midnight), we are giving away 1000 $ASCEND 🔥
⏰48 hrs to participate:
✅Follow @AscendPerps
✅Follow @Sssebi
✅Like&RT
✅Comment " Ascend on Midnight "
$ADA
While most people watch price and look for someone to blame, Cardano is having a debate most chains never even reach.
How to decentralize research.
How to decentralize the roadmap.
How to decentralize governance without breaking the system.
Charles said the quiet part clearly today:
When vision is lost and only the Twitter mob remains,
the project starts eating itself.
Leios. Hydra. Bitcoin DeFi. Post-quantum research. RealFi.
These are not marketing slogans. They are long infrastructure wars retail usually only notices when they become “bullish.”
The irony?
Many people want Cardano’s results, while trying to break the people and research that created them.
If Cardano loses its scientific core, it loses the reason it was different in the first place.
Research is not a phase you complete and move on from — it's a continuous commitment. Pausing it is genuinely dangerous. The compounding nature of foundational work means that what we invest in now will pay off exponentially down the line.
@KTOP_Pool Ethereum and Solana are already moving toward research-driven development. If Cardano steps back now, don't be surprised when they've overtaken us in 5–10 years. That would be a devastating blow to everything we've built.
@KTOP_Pool Abandoning research would be a fatal mistake for Cardano. Leios, Hydra, Midnight — these are the results of years of foundational work. Trade that for short-term hype and you get exactly that: short-term hype.
@JaromirTesar Research and adoption aren't competing priorities. Cardano's current position was built on past research — if we want to stay credible 10 years from now, we invest today.
Research isn't a phase you complete. Pausing it is genuinely dangerous.
I am getting insanely tired of hearing a false narrative that we abandoned scaling in favor of governance. There was continuous effort and work from before even Shelley on scaling (for example https://t.co/jPnHnG8BbG)
It was an enormously challenging problem that we relentlessly attacked from many different angles including L2 innovations, a brand new accounting model- eutxo- zero knowledge ideas, partnerchains, and capstoning with Leios.
Many of these ideas required deep r&d and original publications. This cannot be made faster by throwing more people at it. It's research. In the meantime while the research was being done, we implemented Voltaire because it unlocks the treasury for the entire community to use thereby making Cardano stronger and also scaling will require many parameter changes we cannot unilaterally make.
No one was pulled from scaling research and development. There were dozens of scientists and engineers brainstorming and prototyping for years. A semi-centralized and not secure halfway house could have been implemented that crashed all the time like other blockchains. Or we could do it right like we've always done things with the Cardano ecosystem. We chose the latter.
We now have a full design for Leios, Peras, and a great L2 strategy. They are elegant and future proof. We now have the best scaling strategy in the entire cryptocurrency space. That's what the time bought us.
Implementing Voltaire means that every single one of you has a voice and vote on when and how to turn that on. You also exercised that vote and voice on a desire for a multi-client ecosystem. So it's going to be turned on multiple times by independent teams. That's the point of governance.
Critics somehow argue that we should have just made a mad rush for scalability, robbed everybody of a voice, and somehow we would be ahead today.
What that means in practice is none of you would be dreps, there would no constitution, no constitutional committee, you would have no say when and how we upgrade the network, you would have no say on client diversity, there would be no legitimate members-based organizations, we would have no legitimate- community endorsed- road map, and over a billion Ada would be locked for no one to use.
The very fact that Bitcoin is having an issue trying to figure out whether to steal Satoshi's money for the "greater good" (BIP361) or just simply let someone else steal it (BIP360) is the single greatest endorsement of the value of governance. It's going to literally break their ecosystem into two halves and cause catastrophic economic harm. We will completely sidestep this issue thanks to governance.