The Flawed Top-Down Adoption Strategy of Cardano and the Case for a Bottom-Up Approach

Governance General Governance Conversation
1

The Flawed Top-Down Adoption Strategy of Cardano and the Case for a Bottom-Up Approach

A primary critique of the current Cardano ecosystem strategy is its heavy reliance on a top-down adoption model. This approach directs the majority of its resources and narrative towards securing partnerships with governments and large enterprises, operating under the assumption that their endorsement will trickle down to mass user adoption.

The Failure of the Top-Down Model

This strategy has, to date, yielded limited results in terms of genuine user adoption.

  • Examples of Top-Down Focus: Significant efforts have been channeled into projects like digital identity for national systems, supply chain tracking for large corporations, and educational credentials with government bodies. While valuable, these initiatives are inherently slow-moving and operate in the background, invisible to the average user.
  • Lack of User Adoption Data: When measured against the growth metrics of other successful technologies (and excluding crypto-trading as a metric), Cardano’s organic user base for everyday social, economic, and governance applications remains nascent. Compared to the explosive growth of early internet protocols or modern Web2 platforms, the network effect from these enterprise and government pilots has been negligible.

The Historical Precedent for Bottom-Up Growth

The rational alternative is a bottom-up, user-first approach. The history of the internet itself provides a powerful blueprint for this model.

  • Web 1.0: The World Wide Web exploded in adoption not because businesses or governments drove it. It was individuals, seeking to escape curated information silos, who drove its growth by creating websites, participating in Usenet groups, and using email. They created the network effect first.
  • Web 2.0: Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google became profitable giants only after they had onboarded hundreds of millions of users by providing free, compelling services. Businesses and advertisers followed the users to these platforms; they did not create them.

There is no logical reason to believe that Web3 adoption will follow a path opposite to its predecessors. The core value proposition of blockchain is to act as an enabling technology for individual sovereignty in social, economic, and governance contexts. A strategy that prioritizes the very institutions this technology is designed to circumspect is inherently contradictory.

The Incentive Misalignment

This contradiction creates a critical misalignment of incentives:

  • If a technology is intended to empower individuals and reduce the influence of centralized entities, governments and large businesses have a natural disincentive to adopt it in a meaningful way that cedes their control.
  • Without a pre-existing network effect and a vibrant user base, these entities have little incentive to invest heavily. The value for them is in accessing an engaged community, which does not yet exist on Cardano in a significant capacity.

This is the fundamental reason the top-down approach has failed and will continue to fail.

A Conflict of Interest and a Breach of Fiduciary Duty?

Unfortunately, the Cardano ecosystem continues to treat the bottom-up approach as a token gesture. The root cause appears to be a systemic conflict of interest.

  • Private Entities: Companies like IOG and Emurgo are under no formal obligation to invest their own resources in grassroots, user-facing applications. Their leadership may not directly benefit from such a strategic pivot.
  • Treasury-Funded Entities: More critically, organizations like the Cardano Foundation and projects funded by Catalyst, which are sustained by the Cardano treasury (i.e., by ADA holders), seem to be in a potential breach of their fiduciary duty. Their mandate should be to act in the best interest of the ecosystem and, by extension, the value of ADA. By persistently underinvesting in the bottom-up strategies that have historically driven mass adoption and network effects, they are failing to pursue the most logical path to increase Cardano’s usage and value. This represents a fundamental misallocation of community resources.
  • English > General Discussions
3 Likes
2

Thanks for sharing this analysis. Broadly in agreement with your views. A few thoughts in addition.

IOG have been a solid delivery engine albeit a little slow at some critical points (availability of Smart contract capabilities and associated tooling), and the CF seem to be capable for European regulatory conversations (little evidence in APAC or US). Emurgo are missing in action and worse have actively invested in competitor ecosystems in preference to Cardano.

I am puzzled why they are not all being held to account more actively by our dReps. It feels like there should be an audit within the next 12 months on all founding entities to determine remaining ADA or other assets, review the management and execution capabilities, and determine whether to keep them. For example I have looked for information on Emurgo and cannot find anything that would tell me what they have achieved and spent.

This outcome can be placed to a vote by dReps and SPO’s and if it is determined they have been negligent, or are egregiously failing against their mandates, then the chain can be forked to remove founding ADA, placing the asset control with Intersect so they can determine next steps. Otherwise their mandates should have clear and accountable targets which relate to ecosystem growth such as MAU, Market Cap, Monthly Tbps etc so they can be held accountable.

3

I appreciate this perspective. I’ve participated in Project Catalyst voting and believed the results offered a good representation of projects important to a range of ada holders. My votes for funding have focused more on utility and benefit to the ecosystem, but not necessarily with a thought toward what would increase the value of ada. After spending time in crypto, I don’t always see correlation between a coin’s usage and its value.