Anchor document

{
  "@context": {
    "@language": "en-us",
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "CIP108": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0108/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP108:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP108:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri"
          }
        },
        "summary": "CIP108:summary",
        "rationaleStatement": "CIP108:rationaleStatement",
        "precedentDiscussion": "CIP108:precedentDiscussion",
        "counterargumentDiscussion": "CIP108:counterargumentDiscussion",
        "conclusion": "CIP108:conclusion"
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name"
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [
    {
      "name": "hix_coffeepool"
    }
  ],
  "body": {
    "summary": "PFMS: Bringing Government Scale Adoption to Cardano by Trivolve Tech  -- >>  NO",
    "rationaleStatement": "I am voting NO on this Treasury Withdrawal of 9,600,000 ADA for the Police Force Management System (PFMS) by Trivolve Tech. My assessment does not turn on whether the project is technically sound, but on whether its budget, purpose and expected effect are appropriate for Cardano Treasury spending. The proposal meets the formal requirements of Article II §7, but those requirements determine whether a withdrawal may be submitted, not whether it should be approved.\r\nOn purpose: bringing Cardano into a real-world public system such as a state criminal justice process would be a significant adoption case. However, the benefit to ADA holders as a whole is negligible when measured against the transaction fees this system would generate, and funding a solution to a specific government’s problem from the shared Treasury lacks fairness toward the wider holder base. Outside of infrastructure improvement, what Cardano should provide to external institutions is its technology, not its money. On budget: the Treasury bears the full development cost, while the state government contributes nothing to development and Trivolve Tech receives ongoing maintenance fees from the state under a separate agreement. The Treasury absorbs the up-front cost while the recurring revenue goes to the vendor. A project of genuine value to the state should be funded by the state that benefits from it. On effect: the projected 1.5 million transactions per year would generate roughly 300,000 ADA in fees by my estimate, of which only a small fraction reaches the Treasury. The remaining return depends on optional paid verification revenue that only materialises if the state continues active use. The expected return to the Treasury is far out of balance with a 9,600,000 ADA withdrawal. On verifiability: the agreements underpinning the state’s commitment are confidential and have been viewed only by the administrator. DReps are asked to approve a withdrawal whose core premises — continued state adoption and the state’s payment of transaction fees — they cannot independently verify.\r\nFor these reasons, I vote NO. I would view this initiative more favourably if the development cost were borne by the beneficiary government, with Cardano providing the technology and ecosystem support rather than Treasury funding.\r\n[Japanese version follows]\r\nTrivolve Techによる警察向け証拠管理システム（PFMS）への9,600,000 ADAのTreasury Withdrawalに対し、反対票を投じます。判断の基準は、プロジェクトの技術的な妥当性ではなく、その予算・目的・効果がトレジャリーの使途として適切かどうかです。本提案は憲法Article II §7の形式要件を満たしていますが、それは提出の条件であって、承認すべき根拠ではありません。\r\n目的について：州の刑事司法という実社会のシステムにカルダノが組み込まれることは、事例として大きな意味があります。しかしホルダー全体が受ける利益は、このシステムが生むトランザクション手数料の規模から見てほぼないと言えるレベルであり、特定の政府の課題解決を共有のトレジャリーで賄うことは、ホルダー全体に対する公平性に欠けます。インフラ改善以外の目的において、カルダノが外部機関に提供すべきは技術であって、お金ではありません。予算について：開発費は全額トレジャリーが負担する一方、州政府は開発費を一切負担せず、Trivolve Techは別契約で州政府から継続的に保守費を受け取ります。初期費用はトレジャリーが肩代わりし、継続収益はベンダーに入る構造です。州にとって本当に価値があるのであれば、その恩恵を受ける州が開発費を負担すべきです。効果について：年間150万件と予測されるトランザクションの手数料は私の試算で年約30万ADAであり、そのうちトレジャリーに入るのはごく一部です。残るリターンは任意の有料検証サービスの収益に依存し、州が積極的に使い続けた場合にしか発生しません。960万ADAの引き出しに対し、トレジャリーへのリターンはあまりにも釣り合いません。検証可能性について：州の関与を裏付ける契約は非公開で、管理者のみが閲覧しています。DRepは、州による継続利用や手数料負担という本提案の前提を自ら確認できないまま、承認を求められています。\r\n以上の理由から、反対票を投じます。開発費を受益者である州政府が負担し、カルダノはトレジャリー資金ではなく技術とエコシステムの支援を提供する形であれば、前向きに評価できます。",
    "references": [
      {
        "@type": "Other",
        "label": "DRep Voting Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem",
        "uri": "https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/"
      }
    ]
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}