{ "@context": { "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#", "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm", "body": { "@id": "CIP100:body", "@context": { "references": { "@id": "CIP100:references", "@container": "@set", "@context": { "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference", "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference", "label": "CIP100:reference-label", "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri", "referenceHash": { "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash", "@context": { "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest", "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm" } } } }, "comment": "CIP100:comment", "externalUpdates": { "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates", "@context": { "title": "CIP100:update-title", "uri": "CIP100:uri" } } } }, "authors": { "@id": "CIP100:authors", "@container": "@set", "@context": { "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name", "witness": { "@id": "CIP100:witness", "@context": { "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm", "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey", "signature": "CIP100:signature" } } } } }, "authors": [], "body": { "comment": "I previously abstained on the IO & Midgard Labs L2 proposal because I liked both Hydra and Midgard, but felt the scope was too broad and that the proposal did not clearly show enough near-term demand to justify the treasury spend. This revised proposal addresses enough of those concerns for me. The ask is lower, the scope is focused directly on Hydra, and the proposal does a better job explaining specific use cases and existing builders that are already using or evaluating Hydra.\n\nI would still like to see clearer coordination with related Hydra ecosystem work such as Gummiworm and Hydrozoa, but I do not think that should prevent support for this narrower proposal. Hydra is one of Cardano’s most unique scaling technologies. For these reasons, I am voting YES." }, "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256" }