Anchor document

{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "authors": {
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@context": {
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature",
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:witness"
        }
      },
      "@id": "CIP100:authors"
    },
    "body": {
      "@context": {
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates"
        },
        "references": {
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@context": {
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest"
              },
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash"
            },
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:references"
        }
      },
      "@id": "CIP100:body"
    },
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256",
  "body": {
    "comment": "RCADA votes ABSTAIN on Revised Cardano dOSPO and OMF Program Proposal.\n\nThis is a constructive abstention.\n\nRCADA previously abstained on the earlier dOSPO and OMF proposal while noting that a smaller pilot would be easier to support. This revised version is meaningfully smaller and more focused, which RCADA recognises positively, but the key governance concerns around administrator concentration, advisory-only councils, and the not-yet-operational independent entity remain unresolved.\n\nRCADA supports the underlying goal of improving open-source sustainability in the Cardano ecosystem. Cardano depends on many open-source tools, libraries, SDKs, indexers, governance tools, infrastructure components, and maintainers. A more systematic approach to identifying critical dependencies, reducing bus-factor risk, supporting maintainers, building contributor pipelines, and funding targeted maintenance work could provide meaningful public-good value.\n\nRCADA also recognises that this revised proposal is an improvement over the earlier larger version. The request is now limited to 4,094,000 ADA over 12 months, with clearer work packages covering operations and governance infrastructure, a maintenance fund, maintainer development, CodeForUs bounties, and ecosystem activation.\n\nRCADA sees value in several proposed components, especially the dependency audit, SBOMs, centrality scoring, bus-factor analysis, coverage-gap reporting, maintenance retainers, targeted bounties, and CHAOSS-aligned public reporting. These could help the ecosystem better understand which open-source components are most critical, most exposed, and most in need of sustained support.\n\nRCADA also recognises Christian Taylor’s relevant open-source experience and prior contributions to Cardano. His previous role at Intersect, work on open-source governance structures, contribution frameworks, and the Paid Open Source Model, as well as his focus on maintainer sustainability and dependency-risk assessment, make him a credible proposer for this topic. Track record matters, and RCADA does not dismiss that expertise.\n\nHowever, relevant expertise does not remove the need for strong institutional controls. RCADA is not comfortable voting YES because the governance structure remains too trust-heavy. At withdrawal, Christian Taylor / Open Source Cowboy Consulting is the sole Article II.7.5 administrator unless replaced by DReps through an on-chain Info Action. The advisory councils are advisory only, have no veto authority, and are formed after approval. The independent dOSPO legal entity is also a future deliverable, not an already-operational control layer at the time of funding.\n\nTreasury governance should avoid creating new allocation layers where too much initial authority depends on one person or one private consultancy before independent governance structures are fully established. This is especially important where the funded program would influence which maintainers, tools, libraries, or open-source projects receive ongoing support.\n\nRCADA also remains cautious about creating a new meta-funding structure instead of funding specific maintainers, tools, libraries, or open-source projects directly. A dedicated open-source sustainability layer may become valuable, but it needs especially strong controls because it would sit between Treasury funding and many downstream recipients. Selection formulas, conflict-of-interest rules, disbursement controls, renewal criteria, suspension criteria, and sunset conditions should be very clear and enforceable.\n\nThe proposal includes helpful safeguards, including quarterly reporting, Mill Law Firm as financial auditor, published advisory feedback before disbursements, DRep ability to replace the administrator or sunset the program, repayment of some undeployed reserves, dependency-based selection, and public health metrics. RCADA views these as meaningful improvements, but not enough to fully resolve the concern that the Treasury is being asked to fund a new allocation institution before its independent governance structure is operational.\n\nRCADA would be more comfortable supporting a future version with the dOSPO entity established before withdrawal, stronger multi-party approval for large allocations, advisory bodies with more than advisory power over material disbursements, clearer conflict-of-interest and selection rules, and more enforceable reserve-return and sunset conditions. A smaller modular proposal focused first on dependency mapping, public dashboards, and a limited maintenance pilot may also be easier to support.\n\nOn balance, RCADA abstains because the proposal addresses a real ecosystem problem and is meaningfully improved, but the current governance structure does not yet provide enough confidence for a YES vote. RCADA encourages continued work on open-source sustainability and would welcome a tighter future proposal with stronger independent controls, clearer disbursement governance, and a more established institutional structure at the point of funding.\n\nRCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: \"https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/.\""
  }
}