Cardano Founder Charles Hoskinson States That 9 Governance Proposals Submitted by His Team May Lead to Project Closures if Not Approved
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson stated that the 9 governance proposals submitted by his team will determine the future direction of the ecosystem. If they are not approved, related projects may be closed, and the ecosystem will shift to new leadership and paths.
He emphasized that decentralization means accepting the outcomes of "partial success and overall failure." Funding and governance votes will directly reflect project value and determine which directions can continue to advance, with the goal of pushing Cardano back to the forefront of mainstream crypto assets.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
This statement reveals a key shift: competition among public chains is moving from "technical route competition" to "governance efficiency competition." When on-chain resource allocation is determined by voting and funding mechanisms, ecosystem development is no longer driven solely by the core team, but becomes a process akin to "on-chain politics."
Hoskinson's emphasis on "failure means closure" indicates that Cardano is attempting to introduce a stronger market-based elimination mechanism. This contrasts with the traditional public chain model that relies on foundation funding to sustain projects, aligning more closely with venture capital logic—resources concentrate in validated directions.
However, this also exposes structural contradictions in decentralized governance: while decentralized decision-making increases fairness, it may reduce execution efficiency. An increase in the number of proposals and slower consensus formation could cause the ecosystem to miss competitive windows during critical periods, which is one reason many public chains struggle with growth in later stages.
On a deeper level, this reflects that public chains are transitioning from a "founder-led phase" to an "institution-led phase." Once governance mechanisms become the core variable, a chain's competitiveness will depend on how it allocates resources, selects directions, and handles failures, rather than just the underlying technology itself.