Anchor document

{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "comment": "CIP100:comment"
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set"
    }
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256",
  "body": {
    "comment": "RCADA votes ABSTAIN on Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect.\nThis is a constructive abstention.\nRCADA recognises OpenZeppelin as a highly credible organisation in smart-contract security, open-source contract libraries, developer tooling, and ecosystem standards. Cardano would benefit from stronger shared developer building blocks, audited reference patterns, reusable contract components, and clearer paths for external developers and institutions to build safely on Cardano.\nRCADA also supports the general direction of improving Cardano’s developer experience. A secure, well-documented, open-source contracts library tailored to Cardano’s eUTXO model could provide real public-good value. Reference implementations, security reviews, documentation, and developer enablement could also help reduce duplicated effort and improve confidence among builders.\nHowever, RCADA is not comfortable voting YES on this proposal as currently structured.\nThe proposal is large and broad. It combines a Cardano contracts library, three substantial reference implementations, security retainer work, AI-enhanced developer tooling, documentation, co-marketing, standards contributions, and institutional adoption support into one Treasury request of 11,787,063 ADA. While these workstreams may be related, bundling them together makes it difficult for DReps to support the public-good library components without also approving the full scope of product-specific reference implementations and broader enablement work. \nRCADA is also concerned that key technical decisions remain open at the point of funding. The proposal states that the specific smart-contract language targeted will be determined during the initial evaluation phase in collaboration with ecosystem stakeholders. For a foundational contracts library, this is a major architectural decision. RCADA would prefer stronger clarity on toolchain, language strategy, interoperability, and how this work avoids fragmentation before approving a large withdrawal.\nThere is also a non-duplication concern. The proposal’s objectives overlap with areas already being discussed or funded elsewhere in the ecosystem, including developer experience, contract libraries, standards work, CIP-113, and Cardano tooling. RCADA would like to see a clearer gap analysis explaining exactly what is missing, what existing work will be reused, what will not be duplicated, and how OpenZeppelin’s work will integrate with current Cardano-native efforts.\nRCADA also has questions around value-for-money and budget structure. The proposal is framed as a USD $1.831M delivery budget calculated at $0.16/ADA, plus a 3% Intersect administration fee. RCADA would prefer clearer handling of any surplus value if ADA is materially above the reference rate at conversion, as well as more granular per-workstream cost detail. The 20% upfront release at contract signature is also significant given that some major technical decisions are still deferred.\nRCADA views the Intersect administration structure, milestone-based payments, public acceptance criteria, Sundae Labs treasury-management contracts, and oversight arrangements as meaningful positives. These controls reduce delivery and custody risk, and RCADA appreciates that the proposal includes open-source licensing, public evidence requirements, audits, and milestone verification.\nNevertheless, these safeguards do not fully resolve RCADA’s concerns about scope, sequencing, technical specificity, non-duplication, and Treasury value-for-money. The issue is not whether OpenZeppelin could contribute meaningfully to Cardano. RCADA believes they could. The issue is whether this particular proposal is scoped tightly enough for a confident YES vote.\nRCADA would welcome a revised proposal that starts with a narrower and clearer scope, such as an initial Cardano contracts library architecture, gap analysis, toolchain decision, standards alignment plan, and limited pilot implementation. A future version could also separate the core public-good contracts library from product-specific reference implementations, provide more granular budget detail, and clarify ADA/USD conversion surplus handling.\nOn balance, RCADA abstains because the proposal has a valuable strategic objective and credible proposer, but the current package is too broad and under-specified for full support. RCADA encourages OpenZeppelin and Intersect to continue engaging with the community and return with a more focused proposal that is easier for DReps to evaluate and support."
  },
  "authors": []
}