Cardano’s on-chain governance system, launched in 2025, was designed to empower ADA holders with control over the network’s $470 million treasury. However, eighteen months later, the system has produced unexpected results: the community is openly rejecting funding proposals from founder Charles Hoskinson. A public dispute has escalated between Hoskinson, the Cardano Foundation, Emurgo, and the DRep voter base. Three major governance battles in 2026 have shaped treasury spending, protocol development, and the network’s identity as a ‘science coin.’ This article delves into these conflicts that few outlets have covered in depth.
The first fight arose in November 2025 when Cardano’s founding entities—Input Output, Emurgo, the Cardano Foundation, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect—proposed withdrawing 70 million ADA from the treasury for 2026 integrations. The proposal faced community backlash, with critics arguing that Genesis ADA allocations should cover these costs. Hoskinson defended the use of treasury funds, stating that Genesis ADA was private earnings from early-stage risks. The dispute highlighted a growing tension over who controls the treasury.
The second battle occurred in April 2026 when Emurgo requested 14.07 million ADA for the Cardano Summit 2026. DReps rejected the proposal due to budget concerns and ADA’s price decline. Hoskinson publicly criticized the focus on events, suggesting the funds be used for permanent offices instead. Emurgo revised the request to 7.8 million ADA, but the Foundation abstained, signaling a shift in power. This marked the first time DReps overruled founding entities on major spending.
The third and most consequential conflict involves Input Output Global’s ‘Cardano Vision 2026’ research proposal for 32.9 million ADA to fund Leios scaling and quantum-resistant cryptography. As of late May 2026, over 86% of DRep votes were against it. Hoskinson warned that rejection could lead to layoffs and undermine Cardano’s research-driven identity. However, DReps like YUTA argued the proposal should be split, and Japanese DReps raised concerns about using treasury for work that should be funded by Genesis ADA.
These three fights share a common theme: the governance system is functioning as intended, giving real power to DReps, who are now rejecting proposals from founders. This is not a failure but a test of decentralization. ADA’s price downturn has made the community fiscally conservative, and the Foundation’s expansion of DRep delegations has created independent voters. Hoskinson’s direct communication style has added friction, though he has acknowledged some responsibility. The Foundation has remained neutral, focusing on governance infrastructure rather than taking sides.
For ADA holders, the civil war has material consequences: treasury spending is now harder to approve, which reduces sell pressure but slows execution. If the research proposal fails, Cardano may lose its scientific edge against competitors like Ethereum and Solana. The outcome will determine whether the network thrives with reduced founder influence or struggles with internal discord. The deeper question is whether a blockchain can truly decentralize when its founder disagrees with the community’s decisions. The votes are in, and the DReps are deciding—Hoskinson’s influence is waning.
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute financial advice. Governance dynamics evolve rapidly; always conduct your own research.