I agree with @everyonematter's comments

Eternl has built a large user base thanks to its convenience and multi-platform availability. However, since it is a closed-source wallet, funding a private company for its maintenance requires a much higher level of scrutiny regarding security and transparency.

While I do believe Eternl provides great value to the ecosystem, the fact that it's closed source is something that needs to be addressed for treasury funding. I understand that revenue can be unpredictable (and sometimes there may be fewer swaps than necessary to maintain operation), but I believe this could be addressed by making a request for treasury funding during a low perid with a promise to pay it back to the treasury if swap revenue ever increases over some threshold (i.e. if Eternl ever starts making Phantom/Metamask-level money, it should be able to afford paying back the treasury)

Closed source is a no from me.

The proposer is well-known within the community. However, this team has previously requested funds, and since the wallet collects fees, we question why the private company requires additional funding. When will the project become self-sustainable? Additionally, we need to clarify the distinction between public and private entities. Another concern is that Eternl automatically delegates all unassigned voting power (from wallet owners who haven’t manually delegated it) to itself. This practice effectively turns Eternl into a de facto DRep with disproportionate influence. We would like to see a clear plan for short, medium and long term from the team. Brazil / São Paulo on-line workshop. NO

I choose to support Eternl because it’s one of the most widely used wallet solutions on Cardano, offering innovative features like multi-sig support.

The team has consistently demonstrated deep knowledge and technical expertise over the years. The Cardano treasury should empower and support builders like them—and the Eternl team is a prime example of the kind of long-term commitment that deserves backing.

To begin with, this group is struck by the wording used in the proposal, which self-identifies as "community driven." However, the wallet maintains closed-source code rather than being open source.

The justification that keeping the code behind closed doors provides security is a fallacy—this so-called "security through obscurity" places the security of all users in the hands of Etrnl's private team.

Additionally, the proposal clearly implies that a stock of funds is being used to finance ongoing operations, which raises a key question: how long will it take to reach economic sustainability? If breakeven cannot be achieved or does not exist, the proposal should be reoriented toward becoming open source.

Therefore, considering that the community has backed this wallet through Project Catalyst with ADA + 800,000, if the code remains closed, it is strongly recommended that the team explore and present a viable business model. If not, the code should be made open source.

The team acknowledges that the wallet has a large user base, high-quality features, and is widely used by developers. However, it has now reached a point of incompatibility with Cardano’s open-source philosophy and ethos.

Would you be able to explain why this proposal is in the core category as oppose to product? (..or future Catalyst)

What is your plan beyond this funding period to become self sustainable?

Eternl is one of the longest-standing wallets in the Cardano ecosystem, and its continuity is certainly valuable.

However, other wallets do not appear to be currently dependent on the treasury for sustainability. This raises a question about why Eternl alone faces such financial challenges.

The proposal currently lacks details on long-term sustainability efforts — such as monetization plans, community-driven support models, or a roadmap toward self-sufficiency after funding ends.

In order to ensure this funding is not just a temporary lifeline, more clarity on how the team plans to transition toward sustainable operations would greatly strengthen the rationale for support.

I like Eternl, but this should go to Catalyst instead.

Notes from Cardano Budget Proposals Review Workshop: Wada Team

The proposal presents both promising strengths and notable concerns that merit careful consideration. On the positive side, the proposers are established community members with a proven track record, instilling confidence in their ability to deliver. Their project also contributes to maintaining the relevance of the Cardano ecosystem, making it a sensible use of treasury funds aimed at enhancing ecosystem tools.

However, a significant concern arises from the project not being open source, with no plans to become so. This is problematic given that treasury funds are ideally used to support public goods. The closed-source nature prompts the question: if the team does not intend to open source their work, why are they seeking community funding instead of relying on revenue generated from their existing user base or services?

A broader tradeoff also needs to be considered—funding this kind of project might set a precedent that encourages other closed-source initiatives to request treasury support without contributing to the broader open infrastructure of the ecosystem. Several questions and areas for clarification remain. The community would benefit from more detail on how the project aligns with Cardano’s broader roadmap, insight into any previous funding sources used to kickstart the Eternl project, and information on how transparent the team has been with community updates. Additionally, it is unclear whether the project is being developed with a sustainable business model.

Despite these concerns, the proposal does offer potential value by improving access to Cardano’s native tokens and other digital assets. Overall, further transparency and alignment with open-source principles would strengthen the case for funding.

Wallets, especially closed source wallets should not be funded through the treasury. That said, I do greatly appreciate the Eternl wallet.

Thank you for the important work you are doing to support one of the most widely used Cardano wallets. I would like to ask the following question regarding the long-term sustainability of this project:

As a DRep concerned with the financial sustainability of the Cardano ecosystem, I would like to ask:

Is it realistically possible for wallet services like Eternl to build a self-sustaining business model, independent of ongoing Catalyst or Intersect funding?

If so, what monetization strategies or business development efforts—such as premium features, white-label licensing, enterprise partnerships, or delegated treasury management—are being considered to move Eternl toward greater economic autonomy in the future?

I ask this to better understand the balance between public funding and ecosystem service self-sufficiency, which is a key issue as we mature toward decentralized governance and budgeting.

Thank you again for your contribution to the ecosystem.

Well done with Eternl wallet. Very popular product. There are many wallets today and Eternl is among the best. Difficult to allocate funding for one and not the others. Eternl remains closed source as far as I know and this further hinders the likelihood of this proposal passing. As it stands now, I would not vote for funding Eternl business operational costs.

Great wallet, but you need to be self funded.

Eternl Wallet, as good a product as it is, is not a public utility. It's a closed source, private project. The purpose of the treasury is to further the development of the chain itself. Funding private wallets does not fall within that mandate.

@yuta

To answer your questions:

1. No, Eternl has currently no plans to go open-source.

2. Financial plan:

Eternl generates revenue through its MonsterSwap and DApp Browser features. During periods of high transaction volume and decent ADA/EUR price, these services provide sufficient income to sustain operations. However, recent months have seen exceptionally low transaction volumes on Cardano, which has reduced our financial runway. Therefore, we are seeking budget support to maintain consistent operations during these low-activity periods.

3. Fairness:

With its extensive feature set and consistent support for testnets, Eternl is a key tool for developers building on Cardano. Our team is always available to assist them, and we will continue this support regardless of the outcome of this proposal.

We can’t speak to the financial needs or structures of other wallet providers — that’s not our role. Our focus is on transparently communicating our own situation and plans to continue delivering reliable services to the Cardano community.

There's no plan here to become sustainable, this is just an ask to help cover costs of maintenance for a year? I've voted historically in favor of funding initiatives for Eternl, but I would draw the line here for this proposal. It's not about the amount, more so that this is a closed-source project, no real idea what your revenues are so I can't in good faith put treasury funds towards something like this. As good as Eternl wallet is and the benefit it's brought to the community, at the same time the treasury is not a charity. There's no sustainable plan put forth here that doesn't result in Eternl coming back asking for additional funds in 2026, 2027, etc. This presents unfair treatment vs other wallet providers out there and overall we should be paying for all wallet maintenance or no ones at all.

I fully acknowledge that ETERNL is a quality wallet but I still need to hear this.

1. Will it be open source?

2. Do you have a financial plan for the future to become sustainable and independent of Treasury and Catalyst?

3. In terms of fairness with other wallet solutions, do you think all Cardano wallets currently in existence should support 500,000 ada per year? If not, what are some specific reasons why ETERNL should be given special support?

Hey, I need more to go on here.

• Where are the user numbers? How many people actually rely on this wallet day-to-day?
• "Providing services" is pretty vague. What specific improvements are you planning over the next year?
• After 4 years, I'd expect to see some community love. 🤭Can you share some testimonials or support? I get that development costs money, and your budget breakdown seems reasonable for the team size. But before I can vote yes I need to understand what the community gets in return. Could you update this with some concrete usage stats and specific goals for the next funding period? thankbyou. ❤️