The core issue of the Draper proposal ultimately comes down to whether Draper (Draper Dragon / Draper University) can be trusted to execute effectively from a Cardano Treasury perspective.
As far as treasury-funded, first-hand evidence is concerned, the only outcome we can directly verify is the Draper University x Cardano Founder Residency (Silicon Valley), funded with 1,644,000 ADA.
However, based on the reported outcomes of that proposal, the ROI for the Cardano Treasury does not appear to be high.
More precisely, it is difficult to understand what concrete value was delivered, and to what extent that value flowed back to the Treasury or to the Cardanmainnet.
Point 1: Lack of verifiable on-chain outcomes
Most of the reported achievements are presented as qualitative, Web2-oriented results—such as visibility, network building, investor meetings, and “readiness.” Clear causal links to verifiable on-chain outcomes on Cardano mainnet (e.g., transaction growth, TVL increases, sustained usage, or protocol revenue) are not clearly demonstrated.
Point 2: Unclear cost-to-return relationship
The proposal does not define what level of outcomes translates into what level of value returned to the Treasury. As a result, there is insufficient information to objectively assess ROI success or failure.
Point 3: Low repeatability and weak evidence for large-scale capital deployment
The past outcomes appear to rely heavily on in-person execution in Silicon Valley, small cohort sizes, high human involvement, and Draper-specific networks.
While I acknowledge that the current proposal is fundamentally different in nature—positioned as a large-scale, fund-based initiative rather than a one-off education or accelerator program—even with that distinction in mind, the outcomes of the previous Catalyst proposal do not provide sufficiently concrete or repeatable evidence to justify long-term, large-scale Treasury capital deployment.
In addition, while Draper appears likely to be a credible VC, the information currently disclosed is insufficient to conclude that they are an outstanding VC based on quantitative, verifiable performance.
Key information normally required to assess VC capability is missing, including:
Fund-level quantitative performance (DPI, TVPI, IRR)
Fund size, vintage, and distribution status
Evidence that success achieved on other L1 ecosystems is reproducible within Cardano’s environment
Clarity on causal, hands-on contribution beyond merely having invested
Disclosure of failures or loss cases, which is necessary to evaluate downside decision-making and risk management capability
Based on the above, there is currently insufficient information to confidently assess Draper’s execution capability from a Treasury ROI perspective based on this proposal alone.
I hope that more concrete, verifiable performance data—especially data that clearly demonstrates value flowing back to the Cardano Treasury—will be provided going forward.