Our last issue (#17) closed under the heading “Allocation settled, now the operator’s share.” Five treasury proposals had resolved, only one passing. In their place came a proposal to lower the minimum fixed fee a stake pool receives from 170 ada to 75 ada — carrying a requirement of 67% of DRep stake plus 51% of SPO stake. This week we checked how far that vote has travelled. Fifteen pools have voted. In the same week, ADA rose 19.3% and reclaimed $0.20. And in the treasury, requests totalling 22.2 million ada expired without gathering enough votes. One of them has “Dijkstra Readiness” in its name. Dijkstra was also what the market was buying.
Executive Summary
- The story was bought: ADA moved from $0.16838 on August 1 to $0.20080 on August 8, +19.3% on the week. BTC rose 3.2% and ETH 2.7% over the same period. The market attributes the move to expectations around Dijkstra, the next development era.
- The budget was not: Across epochs 647 and 648, treasury requests totalling 22,223,875 ada expired — four proposals. One was “Scalus 2026: Maintenance, Dijkstra Readiness, Interoperability & Application Run.”
- Resubmissions came back smaller and still fell short: Two of the expired proposals were resubmissions. Scalus returned at 2.46M ada against an original 8.50M — a 71.0% cut. dOSPO/OMF returned at 4.09M against an original 12.00M — a 65.9% cut. Neither reached the threshold.
- The vote on the operators’ own floor has barely moved: The
minPoolCostproposal stands at 15.59% DRep approval against a 67% threshold, with 81.11% not voted. Fifteen pools have cast a vote — 14 yes, 1 no. The deadline is epoch 653, so time remains.
1. Market Pulse
| Asset | Aug 1 | Aug 8 | WoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| BTC | $62,896.51 | $64,879.76 | +3.2% |
| ETH | $1,863.14 | $1,912.99 | +2.7% |
| ADA | $0.16838 | $0.20080 | +19.3% |
| NIGHT | $0.018183 | $0.019031 | +4.7% |
Last issue we wrote that “ADA alone rose, by a modest 2.6%,” and that it was “not a level at which one can say a direction has emerged.” This week the level changed: +19.3%. BTC and ETH also rose, but both by less than 3%, and ADA’s gain stands well clear of the other majors. The $0.20 mark is also a level that turned back several earlier attempts in 2026.
NIGHT rose 4.7%, its first weekly gain in three weeks. It follows −27% and −10.4% in the two prior weeks, and the absolute level remains far below where it sat before the incident.
Numerically, this was a week of gains. Look at the treasury side, however, and something quite different was happening in the same seven days.
2. The Story Was Bought
The reason offered for ADA clearing $0.20 is expectation around Dijkstra, the next development era. As we noted last issue, Intersect has indicated that Dijkstra will arrive in several phases carrying Nested Transactions, Linear Leios and Peras, with the first two phases targeted at mainnet by the end of 2026. Van Rossem is done; what comes next is now visible; the market bought it. That is the account on offer.
That account is not the kind of thing we can verify. We can confirm the price moved 19.3%. Why it moved is not something anyone can establish with certainty, and we will not claim more here than that the market describes it this way.
What we can confirm is something else: a proposal explicitly framed around readiness for Dijkstra expired in the treasury during the same week.
3. The Budget Was Not — Four Proposals, 22.2M Ada
Epoch 647 began at 21:44:51 UTC on August 2, and epoch 648 at 21:44:51 UTC on August 7. At those two boundaries, the following proposals expired.
| Proposal | Deadline | Requested |
|---|---|---|
| Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2) | Epoch 647 | 12,332,031 ada |
| Global Order Book connect Cardano DeFi to increase transaction | Epoch 647 | 3,333,000 ada |
| Scalus 2026: Maintenance, Dijkstra Readiness, Interoperability & Application Run | Epoch 647 | 2,464,844 ada |
| Net Change Limit: Cardano Treasury (Epochs 613-713) | Epoch 647 | — (info action) |
| Revised Cardano dOSPO and OMF Program Proposal | Epoch 648 | 4,094,000 ada |
| Total requested | 22,223,875 ada |
What actually left the treasury this week was 1,785,333 ada. The Daedalus maintenance proposal — which we wrote last issue would be “ratified in epoch 646, with funds moving in epoch 647” — was enacted in epoch 647 exactly as expected. Across epochs 647 and 648, it is the only enactment.
Requested and expired: 22.2 million ada. Actually disbursed: 1.79 million. That ratio is the shape of the treasury this week.
Last issue we characterised the difference between what passes and what fails as: those that secured framework-level agreement first get through, while support gathered proposal-by-proposal does not reach 67%. All four of this week’s expirations were individually submitted proposals. The same pattern has repeated.
Bifrost, which we also mentioned last issue, was a proposal oriented toward bringing Bitcoin onto Cardano. A proposal built around bridge-like functionality failed to gather votes during a period in which bridge incidents have been prominent — but whether that is causal, we cannot say. Voting records do not show where support stopped.
4. The Resubmissions Came Back Smaller, and Still Fell Short
In last issue’s “What to watch next week,” we wrote: “Resubmission of the four that failed — will expired proposals return with changed terms?”
Part of the answer sits among this week’s expirations. Not the four we were tracking, however: a different, earlier cohort had already come back around.
| Series | First attempt | Original request | Resubmission | Resubmitted request | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scalus | Expired epoch 637 | 8,503,000 ada | Scalus 2026 | 2,464,844 ada | −71.0% |
| dOSPO / OMF | Expired epoch 637 | 12,000,000 ada | Revised version | 4,094,000 ada | −65.9% |
Both returned at roughly a third of their original size. Both expired again.
We consider this a heavy result. If the hypothesis were that they failed because the amounts were too large, cutting 70% should have been enough. It was not. So the reason for failure was, at minimum, not only the amount.
The other possibility is that the votes simply are not arriving. A 67% threshold cannot be cleared by having more supporters than opponents, because DReps who do not vote do not count toward ratification. Reducing the amount may reduce opposition, but it does nothing to reduce silence.
Last issue we wrote that “failing to pass and being voted down are different things.” Looking at these two, the distinction takes on a practical edge. If a proposal is voted down, changing its contents offers a path forward. If it expired for want of votes, what needs changing may not be the contents but the process of gathering support.
Separately, Net Change Limit: Cardano Treasury (Epochs 613-713) is an info action and carries no funding request. It expired in the same epoch 647. It concerned the limit on how much the treasury may net-decrease over a defined period — and the action setting that limit was itself unable to gather votes.
5. Fifteen Pools Voted on Their Own Floor
This is the point that matters most to SPOs this week.
On August 3, Intersect published a further explanation of the minPoolCost proposal introduced last issue — the one lowering the minimum fixed fee from 170 ada to 75 ada while raising Plutus memory limits.
The numbers Intersect put forward
What is new in Intersect’s explanation is the evidence for why the reduction is being proposed.
The fixed fee is deducted from a pool’s block rewards before anything is distributed to delegators. In Intersect’s phrasing, “Every stake pool gets paid a flat fee (currently 170 ADA) out of its block rewards before anything is split with delegators.” The smaller a pool’s total rewards, the larger the share that flat fee consumes.
According to Intersect, pools operating at the scale of a single block per epoch currently impose a delegator-side penalty of roughly 52.8%. Left unaddressed, that figure is projected to reach 100% by February 2028. One hundred percent means nothing remains for delegators at all.
What this implies is that the minPoolCost debate is no longer a simple opposition between protecting small pools and preserving delegator yield. Left alone, the reason to delegate to a small pool disappears entirely. The side being protected stops being chosen as a consequence of that protection. A time dimension has entered the question.
Last issue we described this as “a design in which someone loses whichever way you go.” We stand by that, but Intersect’s figures require one addition: the option of doing nothing also has an expiry date.
The changes (recap)
minPoolCost: 170,000,000 Lovelace (170 ada) → 75,000,000 Lovelace (75 ada), a reduction of about 55.9%maxTxExecutionUnits[memory]: 16,500,000 → 17,500,000 units (about +6.1%)maxBlockExecutionUnits[memory]: 72,000,000 → 77,500,000 units (about +7.6%)
The latter two complete a cumulative 25% increase delivered across two stages. On ratification requirements, Intersect states: “As this action includes parameters within the Network group, ratification requires support from both DReps and stake pool operators.”
Where the vote stands
Figures retrieved at 11:26 JST on August 8, 2026.
- DRep approval (ratification basis, 67% threshold): 15.59% (41 votes)
- Voted against: 0.08% (3 votes)
- Not voted: 81.11%
- Constitutional Committee: 1 yes, 0 no, 6 not voted
And on the SPO side: counting the votes cast on this action gives 14 yes and 1 no — fifteen in total.
That fifteen is a count of pools that have voted. It is not a measure of progress against the ratification requirement of 51% of active SPO voting stake, which is stake-weighted (see the transparency note below). Even so, fifteen is a figure worth recording.
Cardano has thousands of stake pools. Not all of them hold a vote here. But the fact that fifteen pools have so far cast a vote on the proposal that sets the floor under their own fixed fee is, in itself, the state of things this week.
The deadline is epoch 653, so several weeks remain. We will repeat what we wrote last issue. On this proposal, SPOs must do more than hold an opinion: if you do not vote, you are not counted.
6. Amending the Constitution Became Something You Can Actually Touch
Last issue we reported that Intersect had released a Constitutional Amendment Portal in alpha. This week, Intersect published the details of how it works. The order matters: nothing new opened — what was already open was explained.
The portal (cap.intersectmbo.org) supports three things.
- Propose an amendment (CAP): point at the relevant passage of the Constitution, choose whether to replace or add, and supply reasoning
- Raise an issue (CIS): no finished wording required. Flag an ambiguity or a gap and open the discussion
- Discuss and follow: proposals are public, with comments and progress tracking
Proposals move through consultation → ready → done. Authentication requires connecting a CIP-30 compatible wallet and choosing a username — no email registration, no password management. Your stake address carries your identity.
The line we take as the crux of Intersect’s explanation is this: “if you felt part of the Constitution should be changed, there has been no obvious first step.”
The Constitutional Committee reviews whether proposals conform to the Constitution. But the procedure for amending the standard of review itself has not, until now, had a concrete entrance. This portal gives that entrance a shape. CIS in particular — the ability to raise a point without finished wording — strikes us as the practical piece. Few people can draft constitutional text; far more people notice that a passage is hard to read, or wonder what happens in a particular case.
7. Midnight Watch — A Process for Proposals, and a Deadline That Passed Quietly
The MIP process was published
On August 4, Midnight published an explanation of its improvement proposal process. It defines two document types.
- MIPs (Midnight Improvement Proposals): “Concrete, technically-precise proposals to change the Midnight ecosystem.”
- MPS (Midnight Problem Statements): “Solution-agnostic descriptions of friction, gaps, or opportunities in the ecosystem.”
Their relationship is stated as: “MPS documents define what needs solving; MIPs propose how.” Proposals advance through Proposed → Review → Accepted → Implemented, with MIP Editors assigning numbers and shepherding progress. Participation is not restricted to developers: “Contributions from anyone are welcome — developers, node operators, application builders, token holders, and users alike.”
Coming from years of watching Cardano’s CIPs, this separation reads as a sound design. Splitting “stating the problem” from “proposing the solution” at the document level lets people who do not yet have an answer enter the discussion. It is the same instinct as CIS in the previous section. In the same week, both Cardano and Midnight provided a place for opinions that are not yet finished.
The deadline passed, and there is no follow-up
The Wanchain deadline we reported last issue — return 90% of the stolen NIGHT by 12:00 UTC on August 6 and keep 10% as a white-hat bounty, with no civil claims pursued — has passed.
What happened next, we have not been able to confirm. Whether any funds were returned, and what Wanchain intends to do now, are both unknown to us. No public follow-up has been located.
Writing that we do not know is not especially satisfying. But a negotiation conducted against a published deadline whose outcome has not been announced is precisely where this stands. Last issue we wrote that “if the terms are visible, at least you know what is being waited for.” This week we are at the next stage: the deadline that was being waited for has passed, and nothing has yet been said.
NIGHT rose 4.7% on the week, its first gain in three weeks. With the outcome of recovery still invisible, that is not a move this factor can explain.
8. Risk Dimensions
| Area | This week | What to check next |
|---|---|---|
| Treasury | Four expirations (22.2M ada requested). Only the 1.79M ada Daedalus enactment disbursed | Whether the pattern of trimmed resubmissions still failing continues |
| Treasury (large) | AlphaGrowth’s 120M ada expires epoch 649. 42.74% yes, 11.01% voted against | More opposition than other current actions. Movement before the deadline |
| Pool economics | minPoolCost at 15.59% DRep approval, 81.11% not voted. Fifteen pools voted |
Whether SPO votes accumulate, and whether stake-weighting reaches 51% |
| Pool economics (time) | Projection that the delegator penalty reaches 100% by February 2028 absent action | Whether the assumptions behind the projection are published and checkable |
| Execution environment | Stage two of the Plutus memory increase is bundled into the same action | Measured impact of higher limits on block propagation |
| Oversight | Constitutional Committee appointment action expires epoch 653 | Whether it lands before terms lapse |
| Constitution | Amendment portal mechanics published (alpha) | Whether real CAPs / CISs appear |
| Boundary (bridges) | Wanchain deadline passed, no follow-up | Whether funds were returned, and Wanchain’s next step |
| Distribution (Midnight) | NIGHT +4.7%, MIP process published | Who files the first MIP or MPS |
| Market vs. process | ADA +19.3% while a Dijkstra-readiness proposal expired | Whether the gap between expectation and funding closes |
9. What to Watch Next Week
- AlphaGrowth’s 120 million ada — expires epoch 649. As of this week, 42.74% in favour and 11.01% voted against. That level of recorded opposition is unusual among recent actions, and it is also the largest single request currently live.
- SPO votes on
minPoolCost— whether the count moves beyond fifteen. Deadline is epoch 653. - Wanchain follow-up — whether anything is announced now that the deadline has passed.
- Where the four expired proposals go — particularly whether Scalus and dOSPO/OMF attempt a third submission, or withdraw.
- The first CAP or CIS — whether real proposals appear in the amendment portal.
Closing
Two things happened in Cardano at the same time this week.
One is that the market bought the next development era. ADA rose 19.3% and reclaimed $0.20. The market describes this as expectation around Dijkstra.
The other is that the treasury did not move. Requests totalling 22.2 million ada expired for want of votes, and 1.79 million ada actually went out. One of the expired proposals has “Dijkstra Readiness” in its name.
These two facts do not contradict each other. Price runs ahead on expectation; the treasury requires 67% agreement. They simply move at different speeds. Still, a state in which what is being anticipated and what is being funded share a name but sit in different places seems worth recording.
And closer to home, the vote that sets the floor under our fixed fee is underway. 81% of DReps have not voted. Fifteen pools have.
We ended last issue with this line: “The next votes to be counted are our own.” The count so far is fifteen.
Sources
- Intersect MBO — Lowering minPoolCost and completing smart contract capacity increases (2026-08-03; parameter values, ratification requirements, the 52.8% and February 2028 projections): https://www.intersectmbo.org/news/lowering-minpoolcost-and-completing-smart-contract-capacity-increases
- Intersect MBO — The Constitutional Amendment Portal: giving Cardano’s Constitution a way to grow (2026-08-07; CAP / CIS mechanics, authentication, lifecycle): https://www.intersectmbo.org/news/the-constitutional-amendment-portal-giving-cardanos-constitution-a-way-to-grow
- Intersect Constitutional Amendment Portal (alpha): https://cap.intersectmbo.org
- Midnight — The Midnight Improvement Proposal Process (2026-08-04): https://midnight.network/blog/improvement-proposal-process
- Midnight Improvement Proposals repository (definitions of MIP / MPS and process stages; primary): https://github.com/midnightntwrk/midnight-improvement-proposals
- CIP-1694 (Network group parameters and the additional SPO voting requirement): https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-1694/README.md
- Governance action list (proposal status, deadlines, requested amounts): https://gov.tools/governance_actions
- On-chain vote tallies: AdaStat (https://adastat.net) as primary, cross-checked against Koios
- Prices: CoinGecko (https://www.coingecko.com/)
Transparency Note
Governance approval percentages use AdaStat as the primary tally, cross-checked against Koios, and only values on which the two agree are published. Retrieval times are stated in the body. Votes move until the deadline, so these are not final figures.
Approval percentages are expressed against the ratification denominator (excluding abstentions, including not-voted). Where we write “against,” we mean recorded no votes only; not-voted is not counted as opposition. Not-voted does not stand on the yes side of the ratification calculation and therefore works against passage in effect, but that is distinct from an expression of opposition.
The figure of “fifteen pools voted (14 yes, 1 no)” on the minPoolCost proposal is a count of pools taken from on-chain voting records. The ratification requirement of “51% of active SPO voting stake” is stake-weighted and is a different measure. We do not publish a stake-weighted SPO approval percentage because we could not confirm it against a second cross-checkable tally. That SPOs are voting parties, and that the requirement is 51%, follow from Intersect’s publication and from CIP-1694.
For the Constitutional Committee appointment action, we do not publish an approval percentage because the denominator differs between sources.
“Name the Protocol Version 12 hard fork ‘von Bergen'” is an info action. As of August 8, DRep approval stood at 31.25% (75 votes) with 0% (0 votes) recorded against. Info actions are not the kind of action that ratifies, so this percentage should not be read as a likelihood of passage.
Prices are CoinGecko daily snapshots (UTC basis) comparing August 1 and August 8. Our previous issue used a different snapshot moment for August 1, so those figures differ slightly (issue #17: ADA $0.168048 / NIGHT $0.018148; this issue: ADA $0.16838 / NIGHT $0.018183). This issue uses values retrieved at a single point in time for both dates.
The attribution of ADA’s rise to expectations around Dijkstra reflects explanations offered across multiple news outlets; it is not a causal relationship we have verified. The price itself is verified, but the reasoning should be read as a market view. For the same reason, figures reported only in secondary sources — such as whale accumulation volumes or changes to exchange collateral terms — are not included in the body.
Regarding the Wanchain deadline (12:00 UTC, August 6), we have been unable to confirm any follow-up, including whether funds were returned. We have avoided speculating about the outcome.
We could not confirm publication of this week’s Intersect Weekly Update (the equivalent of #123), so it is not cited. This issue’s Intersect-related material derives from the two published articles listed above.
※ This article is for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any crypto asset.