Proposal to delay open source code for AADA V2 for a period of 12 months after V2 Launch

  • Approve
  • Disapprove
0 voters

Proposal Description
A Proposal to delay open source code for AADA V2 for a period of 12 months after V2 Launch.

Short Summary
Secondary to low level developers that lack creativity & skill to create their own protocol copying AADA finance CODE to create makeshift fly by night protocol with the sole aim of EXTRACTING liquidity from the GENERAL CARDANO community, I propose we leave our code closed for a period of at least 12 months to ward off bad actors trying to profit from the fruits of our labor at the expense of the Cardano ecosystem.

1 - To save guard our value proposition to the Cardano ecosystem as the unique lending protocol we are and maintain our edge in the market by making sure we maintain that head start vital for massive success.

2 - To ward off bad actors and teams motivated by greed and not creativity or the honest intention of creating useful tools for the general Cardano ecosystem.


I’m reposting from telegram, so people can have wider view.

I understand your arguments about open-sourcing the code. Let me list the problems I can if we do so. Also, you already know my values about it.

Problem #1 - The issue with open-sourcing it later is that the protocol might not be safe, but liquidity has already been collected. Consider the MinSwap case, where they likely paid VacuumLabs ~10% of the assets at risk, which was $10M-20M at that time.

Problem #2 - Open-sourcing is safer since people do check the code out of interest in making money or offering help. We had five developers suggest improvements when we open-sourced the V1 code.

Problem #3 - Marketing. If one can see the protocol code at launch, it significantly increases trust in using the app. Why do you think Liqwid hasn’t open-sourced its code?

Problem #4 - Our promise. We promised to open-source the code so users can verify what they use (by peers) and other projects can reuse it. What is the point of lending on Cardano when we are the only DeFi app writing code on Aiken? Protocol development activity on Cardano is minimal, and we need to help in this area.

The most significant disadvantage of open-sourcing is that someone could steal the code and create a better product. However, for newcomers like Cherry Lending, building a better app instantly is nearly impossible. They lack community, liquidity, trust, and Cardano-wide authority.

Moreover, 50% of the code is off-chain and infrastructural, which is equally challenging and requires substantial investments. We will not open-source this part, but we should open-source the smart contracts, as it greatly helped us with V1.

However, DAO should have the last word, and voting makes total sense.


I was just about to post the same here.

I was all for delaing the code, but these are valid arguments for releasing it.

If we want trust, we need to open source it.

When you copy code, you still need inovation.
One bad actor copying multiple projects is no competition for AADA team.


Problems #1 and #2 are the same issue: Smart contract security. So double, triple check your work and have the code audited first. I disagree with relying on self-interested third parties to provide a free security audit for your work.

Problem #3 is, in my view incorrect speculation that the majority or even a significant number of a platform’s users go looking for the code or would even understand how to properly assess or vet it if they did. And “open sourcing your code” is not “marketing.” Marketing is marketing and a laissez faire attitude with regard to not protecting your own intellectual property is not a sufficient replacement.

Problem #4 is self-imposed by some desire to not break a gratuitous promise that probably shouldn’t have been made in the first place. On this one there’s probably a sufficient middle ground that allows you to keep your promise as well as protect the project’s innovation lead. That would be to open source the code after a short delay. Perhaps opening the books after 12 months is too long but certainly “immediately” is too short. Six months feels about right as a compromise.


Thank u so much for your proposal. I like it and understand the reasons behind it, but I am leaned towards the argument Mantas came with. Furthermore if a developer want to copy the code I can guaranty u that he/will get stuck a long the way as this needs to have a great coding skills and 100% commitment. On the other hand opening the code will have input from other very skilled developers and in no time the code will get so advanced and complicated many skilled developers wont be able to read or to follow up the rate it keeps evolving by the help of the community developers.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback. I understand your argument but in case you don’t know RedHat is an open source company and its current valuation is 31.38 B $

1 Like

This is a logical fallacy known as a Faulty or Irrelevant Comparison.

RedHat’s market valuation has absolutely no relevance on whether AADA should open their code books to the entire world for them to be copied and used to directly compete with AADA products.

At very least it should be delayed so that AADA can establish its market before assisting copy/paste competitors to destroy the value the AADA team created.


What about open-sourcing the code, but placing it under a copyright protection? Under the copyright protection, a team who wants to use AADA code must submit a proposal and the DAO has to approve it. Any code used by the team but is not in the approved proposal constitutes violation of the copyright.

This will achieve two things:

  1. It protects AADA intellectual property right.
  2. If copyright is violated, the offending individual or team is unlikely to dox themselves for fear of legal repercussions. Undoxing will likely make their product less competitive.

I feel that Cardano itself needs to install copyright protection for dApps. Maybe governance may tackle this copyright mechanism.


Open source always serves as an actual tryst source. I mean companies can sell the same product, but still one excel over the other