{"@context":{"CIP100":"https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#","hashAlgorithm":"CIP100:hashAlgorithm","body":{"@id":"CIP100:body","@context":{"comment":"CIP100:comment"}}},"hashAlgorithm":"blake2b-256","body":{"comment":"I vote **NO** on this proposal in its current form.\n\nI am strongly supportive of OpenZeppelin establishing a meaningful presence in the Cardano ecosystem. Their reputation in smart-contract security, standardisation and developer tooling is significant, and I believe there is real strategic value in bringing more of that expertise to Cardano.\n\nMy objection is therefore not to OpenZeppelin itself, but to the **scope, coordination and value-for-money of this particular ₳11.8M package**.\n\nThe most significant concern is duplication.\n\nCardano has already funded the Input Output Developer Experience initiative, which includes an actively developed OpenZeppelin-style contracts library. There is clear overlap across reusable contract components, governance tooling, DeFi primitives, CIP-113-related work and developer infrastructure.\n\nBefore allocating another substantial Treasury amount, I believe we need a much clearer workstream-level assessment showing:\n\n- what has already been funded and delivered;\n- what OpenZeppelin would reuse, audit, extend or replace;\n- what genuinely new capabilities this proposal adds;\n- and how the respective teams will coordinate rather than build overlapping infrastructure in parallel.\n\nI am also uncomfortable with the breadth of the current package.\n\nThe core OpenZeppelin proposition — secure reusable contracts, security review, standards, developer tooling and institutional credibility — is compelling.\n\nHowever, this is bundled together with three separate reference applications, including liquid staking, self-repaying loans and a tokenised money-market fund. These should either be independently justified or delivered through staged funding rather than being inseparable from the core infrastructure proposal.\n\nThe acceptance criteria also appear weak relative to the size of the request. For ecosystem-level infrastructure of this scale, requiring feedback from only one independent Cardano developer is not sufficient evidence of adoption or technical validation.\n\nThere are also unresolved technical and commercial questions, including the final smart-contract language/toolchain, the long-term maintenance model and"}}