An Open Letter to the Cardano Community from IOHK and Emurgo

A valid question

Maybe (hopefully) the Foundation can re-position itself and align with the decentralized vision of the community and by doing so move forward to use those Ada to strengthen the community ecosystem, the Ada seem to be legally tied to the Foundation so it really depends on the path that the Foundation goes down, I do not think IOHK or Emurgo have any type of veto power legally as they are 3 separate entities , the recent development’s do show that the CF is not a required pillar for the community and the funds they are in control of are not required now for future community growth, volunteers have worked alongside the CF on the growth of the community for over a year and have seen little if any financial support, and now IOHK and Emurgo have committed to work on the community ecosystem and as I follow as many social channels as I can I see that the same volunteers are still committed to the community first and will continue to be involved in its growth even with the short comings of the Parsons lead CF.
These decentralized pathways have always depended on a strong community since Satoshi started bitcoin and even if a company such as the CF falters it is the responsibility of the community to push forward to realize the dream that they are a part of.


Well, to be honest I had a lot of respect for Mr. Parsons before the facts were out. He has long experience in the financial sector. Based on a few of his public appearances he seemed like an articulate and a knowledgeable person.

Nepotism is the last thing I expected from him. Perhaps his long expereince in financial industry exposed him to so much of it that it’s not an issue anymore. Although the thousands of regulations in the industry are designed to discourage that (i know that from the regular training we receive), perhaps in practice among the powerful nepotism is common practice, idk.

I used to wonder whether the Cardano Foundation is on a shoe-string budget beside the ADA allocation and therefore is waiting for increase in purchasing power of ADA before swinging into visible action. However, it turns out that it has funds beside the ADA allocation; sadly, there’s no transparency on how much that is and how it is being spent.

In the short term it appears that all resources allocated to the Cardano Foundation will become inaccessible to the community. In the long run, I hope the control is transferred to a DAO and future decisions are then made by consensus of stakeholders.


Charles seemed to have a defeated attitude in the video. I got the feeling that Parsons basically cannot be held accountable and has effectively hijacked the foundation, being the sole person that can exercise power, decide on how the funds are spent etc. I must be mistaken? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

And this thing with IOHK, Emurgo and we the community waiting on him to resign – what’s that all about? If something is amiss, if there is a sense of him having misappropriated funds then let there be a proper investigation – hell, initiate legal action. You don’t wait on the corrupt, you remove them as soon as you get word of their transgressions.


If there would be legal proceedings going on in the background employees would probably be instructed to hold there tongues and not to provide answers regarding the community’s concerns…

You don’t wait on the corrupt, you remove them as soon as you get word of their transgressions.

Hard thing to do when the chairman has total control. Basically, he would have to vote for himself to resign, an unfortunate side effect of having a 2 member board, with one founder.

1 Like

I dont think its defeated, it’s when you see your trustworthy partner changed and turned against you. It’s frustrating, it’s giving up. But o well, I guess this kind thing does happen everyday in business, from owning a small coffee shop to a public corporation.

No matter how good we can design a system, you always see the human nature.


I like that we’re moving for change. I personally like the idea of having the functions of a foundation separate to the for profit organisations. my preference would be for the financial structure of the organisation to be one that encourages delivery on the intention.

if this cant be achieved, then we will have to wait until the treasury model and voting for that are in place to re-establish it effectively.


I agree it seems a little, or maybe A group of people coming together from different cultures to capture an opportunity of a lifetime - to make a blockchain protocol, and be benevolent rulers. They raised the bitmoney, wrote some code, and suddenly their blockchain was valuing with a money supply bigger than some countries. All in a few months. On the information superhighway. But people were plotting…

This ancient history re-spin has the 21C twist - here comes decentralization. Autocracy will have no authority once that button is pushed.

1 Like

In the meantime, as far as I understand, getting a hold of the huge amount of ADA that CF was allocated in the beginning remains problematic.

1 Like

Yes. Let’s see if Peasons replies to the community and responds to their concerns openly.

Like the ghost of a faillen king, the stirring of the Ethereum fork ETH/ETC rumbles while Hoskinson walks the embattlements, reflecting and questioning. And this tale has a Swiss prince, with power and charm. What will happen on the board remains to be seen.


Glad to see action being taken. Sadly until we hear from Parsons and the state of there funds and ADA is known, it represents a large, ever present risk to the ecosystem.


In addition to a sizeable chunk of ADA being held by CF, I’m also concerned about potential problems with the use of the Cardano name, trademark, etc., which I believe are legally owned by CF. Despite the fact that IOHK / EMURGO are at the heart of our ecosystem at the moment, the name “Cardano” is what we are known by in the crypto space. ADA, not so much. For a very long time, Charles has been often erroneously referred to as the CEO of Cardano. If matters are not resolved with CF, what will happen to the Cardano name and trademark?


Good question… I expect the community to continue with the Cardano brand, this will be interesting for sure though.


In the open letter IOHK and Emurgo claim

Material misrepresentations and wrongful statements by the Foundation’s council including a claim that it owned the trademark in Cardano. The council has even tried to assume the power to decide who speaks for the protocol, what should be deployed on the protocol and how the press should represent relationships between Emurgo, IOHK, the Foundation and third party projects.


1 Like

Rename campaign + hard fork?

I think it’s too early for a “hard fork”

Yes, but arguing that the Cardano brand does not belong to the Cardano Foundation would be costly and a fool’s game.

I agree with @Daniel ; it’s too early for a hard fork.

Unfortunately, a name change is more likely. Perhaps sooner than later, as IOHK and Emurgo ramp up their marketing campaign.

Nah… the project will go on with or without CF involvement, with or without CF funds. The good news is CF had never rili did anything, so you wont feel much difference, and the good news again is IOHK/Emurgo gonna start doing something. If you already survived from day 1 till now, the worst days are over, a better tomorrow is coming. We will see more community projects and more community involvement and more marketing as everyone begging for.

I see CH’s announcement as the ending of a unfortunate event, not the beginning. You have no idea how many people in this community are willing to do some contribution to the Cardano ecosystem. They had asked many and many times from CF, from partnerships to meetup resources. No response was given and everything was held back.

I’m really glad that we can dump this burden and move forward, we no longer need to wait for a response will never be given.

The CF fund is a lot, but compared to the future money from people willing to invest into Cardano ecosystem is just a little. We still got a long way to go, if someone wants to stop moving together, just let it be.

Also from the community people I’ve been talked to, I would say over 90% people are so rational and positive on this change this time (maybe they were so disappointed at CF already). They all see this split-up a good thing, and you can see that this didnt affect our price at all.

So stay strong, we the community and the project will be better!!!


Of course this whole situation is unfortunate but let people and the doomers n gloomers talk, let them have a field day on this for no matter what the outcome is regarding what the project is going to be called etc, it’s going to be a huge success. And for this reason, I’m happy for the whole crypto space to be talking about it as the project and community will be a hell of a lot stronger once we’re through the other side.

The most important thing at this point is for the community to stick together and support IOHK and Emurgo going forward.

The other silver lining is that the project can now consolidate and work on the tasks that CF should’ve taken care of.


Absolutely, handled right, situations like this that seem like a big negative can be spun right around to create positives


There is nothing wrong with the protocol, so there is no need for any fork.

This is what i learned reading about swiss foundations so far (please note that i’m not an expert in this domain)

Swiss foundation’s worldwide activities,
provided they are in the public interest and
altruistic, meaning that they do not serve
the interest of the founder. To be considered
as being for the public benefit, the class of
beneficiaries of the foundation shall not be
too restrictive.

The foundation actually carries out its
public-interest purpose. It is not suffIcient
to provide for a public-interest purpose and
keep the foundation dormant.

• The foundation shall not have an economic
purpose. Trading activities are allowed
as long as they remain secondary to the
charitable activities and further the
foundation’s purpose.

• Board members shall not, in general, be
remunerated for their work, but can be
reimbursed for their effective expenses.
They may be remunerated only for
mandates exceeding standard tasks
of a board member.

• Employees may not act as board members.

In case of dissolution, the foundation’s
assets shall be distributed to a tax-exempt
organisation pursuing similar public-benefit purposes.

The assets cannot return to the founder for their own profit.