There is a clear overlap between Midgard and work that has already received funding, and in my view that needs addressing head on.
Hey
@sharan_konerira, from what I can see so far, the Midgard scope overlaps with prior allocations from both Catalyst and treasury. Catalyst covered 500k ADA, with progress only shown up to January 2026 and sitting at around 60 percent. On top of that, treasury withdrawals from last year total 2.162 million ADA.
Looking at this practically, I am struggling to see output that lines up with that level of funding. I have not come across a working end to end demonstration that shows the system running in anything close to a real environment. The Intersect milestone tracker also shows the work running more than four milestones behind, with only the first milestone having actually drawn funds.
There are also signals from the repo itself. Activity has declined sharply, roughly a two thirds drop from its early 2025 peak, and more than halved compared to the late 2025 window. There are still commits in the last couple of weeks, so it is not inactive, but the development pace is now at its lowest point in the past 16 months.
At this stage I took some time to go through the code in the Midgard repo in detail and compare it against the milestones submitted to Intersect on the previous withdrawals.
From my own assessment, I do not believe the current state is sufficient to justify sign off, which might be why the funds have never been claimed and the Milestone's are still not closed. There is clearly engineering effort in place, but I cannot see any milestone that is complete, integrated end to end, tested, and deployable. The node is still not wired to the real contracts, fraud proof logic is actively being refactored, and there are open issues raised by the team themselves that point to fund locking and payout edge cases. The SDK and offchain components are still sitting in preliminary states, and there is no clear release process, testnet deployment, or CI pipeline that would give confidence in stability.
There are also some basic signals I would expect to see by this stage that are missing. No tagged releases, no public testnet, limited automated testing, and a growing number of open branches, open issues and PRs that have not been closed out (20 at this time). Combined with the continued slowdown in repo activity, it paints a picture of work in progress rather than something nearing completion or even in my opinion ready for us to commit more funds too.
To me, that creates a gap between what has been paid out and what can be verified. Over 2.66 million ADA has already been allocated across Catalyst and treasury withdrawals, and I do not yet see delivery that matches that level of spend.
On a more practical note, I also offered to help by posting updates and keeping the community informed. Phil said he would reach out, but that never happened, which was disappoint. That does affect my confidence in the delivery of this project. Communication is part of delivery, and right now my trust in the progress is increasingly reducing.
I would also welcome a formal statement on the above to clear this up, not just for me but for other DReps and delegates who are asking the same questions.
This is based on what I have observed so far, so if I have missed something, I am open to being corrected or pointed in the right direction.
I find it difficult to support further funding decisions without clarity on what has already been delivered.
I will review the new proposal on its own merits, but this context around prior funding and delivery needs to be clearly understood first.
