Eternl: Path to Sustainability - v2
## Preamble The previous proposal, “Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027),” received NO votes from CC members due to a lack of clarity regarding audits. This new proposal is essentially the same as the previous one and adds that clarification. _Previous Governance action:_ gov_action1ngpqafax5rvp8lcgey4asvqtycrh4e56fwp8cn2r9trx2ysryhtsqdm3w3z https://adastat.net/governances/9a020ea7a6a0d813ff08c92bd8300b26077ae69a4b827c4d432ac665120325d700 _Key differences:_ - Added clarification on Audit funds spending and oversight metrics, as requested in the CC vote rationales. - Updated Ada to USD conversion rates - Changed FAQ answer: Eternl DRep will abstain on this proposal _Clarification on FTEs:_ Our price per FTE is $70,000 (compared to other proposals exceeding $200,000 per FTE). A reasonable lower bound rate. Our 6 FTEs are distributed across 10 people contributing to Eternl in various capacities, most of them part-time. ## Abstract Eternl is a non-custodial Cardano light wallet for the web, browser extension, Android, and iOS. Users rely on Eternl for payments, staking, governance, and DApp interaction. This proposal enables 12 months of operations, maintenance, and improvements. It includes frontend and backend maintenance and development, backend infrastructure, user support, and day-to-day operations. The goal is to keep Eternl secure, compatible, stable, and available as Cardano keeps evolving. This costs around $420,000 per year.
Reasoning
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
2,350,000 ADA (~$420,000 at $0.1787) for twelve months of Eternl operations: frontend and backend maintenance, infrastructure, support, and audits. This is the v2. The previous version drew Constitutional Committee no-votes over audit clarity, and this resubmission adds exactly that clarification, plus the detail that Eternl's own Drep abstains on it.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
The wallet has to matter and the price has to be honest. Both check out. Eternl carries roughly 100,000 browser extension installs plus 30,000 mobile, and by its own numbers handles 10-18% of mainnet transactions. The pricing is the part I want other proposers to study: $70,000 per FTE where other proposals in this ecosystem have exceeded $200,000 per FTE. Six FTEs spread across ten mostly-part-time contributors. That's a team billing like builders, not like consultants.
What specifically concerns me
Sustainability theater is common. Everybody promises revenue someday. Eternl put a number on it: a Pro plan at $8/month, where about 5,500 subscribers fully replaces the $420k annual cost, with basic Eternl staying free. A bridge grant with a measurable exit off the treasury, plus a team that answered CC feedback directly instead of relitigating it, plus their own Drep abstaining on their own money. That's how this process is supposed to work.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
It was enacted. Report the Pro conversion numbers honestly as they come. If 4.2% of installs really converts, this is the last treasury ask Eternl ever needs, and I want that story told loudly as the template. If it doesn't convert, say that too, and we recalibrate with real data.