Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)
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.[^1] The goal is to keep Eternl secure, compatible, stable, and available as Cardano keeps evolving. This costs around $420,000 per year.
Position history — changed votes are never hidden
NO · epoch 631 · 2026-05-17 · tx 39f701bce4a8c38b…
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
Eternl: Path to Sustainability 2026-2027. This entry records a NO that I later replaced with a YES on the revised proposal.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
Eternl carries a large share of Cardano's daily transactions, so its continuity is infrastructure whatever its business model. The question was never whether Eternl matters. It was whether the ask was accountable.
What specifically concerns me
My first vote was no, alongside Constitutional Committee no-votes over audit clarity. The team came back with the clarification the CC asked for, updated their conversion assumptions, and had their own Drep abstain on their own funding. I moved to yes. Nothing about my standard changed, they simply met it. This is the pattern I want every proposer in this ecosystem to internalise: answer the objection directly instead of relitigating it, and the votes follow.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
The revised version was enacted. My ask stands: report Pro plan conversion honestly. A wallet that funds itself off treasury dependence is the template every other maintenance recipient should be copying, and if it works I will point at it every chance I get.
Reasoning
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
Eternl asked for 1,684,050 ADA toward sustainability of the Cardano light wallet, an earlier version of the proposal that later returned with audit clarifications and was enacted.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
A wallet carrying 10 to 18 percent of mainnet transactions is infrastructure, whatever its business model says. If Eternl breaks, a large share of the ecosystem's daily activity breaks with it.
What specifically concerns me
This version drew Constitutional Committee no-votes over audit clarity, and the CC was right to press. My yes was on the substance: Eternl prices its team at a fraction of what other proposals in this ecosystem charge per FTE, and it published an actual path off treasury dependence rather than an open-ended ask.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
It was dropped and returned as a clarified v2 that passed, which is exactly how this process should work. Answer the objection, resubmit, get funded. My ask stands from the v2 vote: report Pro plan conversion honestly, because a wallet that funds itself is the template every other maintenance proposal should be copying.