“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” – George Santayana

Cardano has built a reputation over the years for its peer-review approach, publishing academic papers, slow but steady development and unfortunately, drama. While it is considered to be one of the more research-driven and academically oriented projects in the crypto space, it has not been without its share of criticism and disputes. Its founder, Charles Hoskinson, has also done his share of stoking the fire on several occasions. While the founding entities (IOG, CF and Emurgo) often engage in public discord for the whole world to see.

Founding and Disputes with Ethereum

The origins of Cardano are deeply rooted in one of the most iconic and publicized splits in blockchain history. The internal dispute among the early founders of Ethereum. Charles Hoskinson, one of Ethereum’s original co-founders in 2013, played a pivotal role in its early formation, particularly in structuring the project’s initial fundraising and business strategy. However, ideological and strategic differences quickly surfaced among the founding team. While Vitalik Buterin envisioned Ethereum as a decentralized, open-source project governed by a non-profit foundation, Hoskinson advocated for a more structured, for-profit approach, including the establishment of a formal corporate entity and a defined leadership hierarchy with himself as CEO.

This fundamental clash culminated in a decisive meeting in June 2014, where Vitalik, supported by several other co-founders, rejected the idea of a corporatized Ethereum. Hoskinson was ultimately forced out of the project, leaving on strained terms. While Ethereum went on to form the Ethereum Foundation and pursue its decentralized vision, Charles Hoskinson began plotting a new course. One that would eventually lead to the birth of Cardano.

Launched in 2017 under the development of Input Output Hong Kong (IOHK), Cardano was framed as a blockchain that would correct Ethereum’s perceived architectural and governance flaws. Unlike Ethereum’s “move fast and break things” ethos, Cardano positioned itself as an academically rigorous, peer-reviewed platform, grounded in formal methods and scientific research. This philosophical divergence only deepened the rivalry between the two ecosystems.

Over the years, Charles Hoskinson has frequently drawn comparisons between Cardano and Ethereum, often in ways that stoked friction. He has been openly critical of Ethereum’s development practices, its handling of scalability and gas fees, and its approach to governance. Meanwhile, Ethereum developers and community members have often viewed Cardano as overly academic, slow-moving, and disconnected from real-world usage.

In many ways, the drama surrounding Cardano’s founding set the tone for what was to come: a blockchain born out of disagreement, driven by a contrarian vision, and perpetually at odds with the mainstream crypto narrative. Whether this origin story ultimately serves as a badge of principled independence or a self-imposed isolation remains a question that continues to define the project’s identity.

Delays in Roadmap and Development

Cardano’s commitment to academic rigor and a peer-reviewed development process has been both its most defining feature and one of its most contentious. From the very beginning, Cardano sought to differentiate itself from the rest of the crypto space by grounding its architecture in formal methods and scientific research. Key components of the protocol, including its consensus mechanism, Ouroboros, were published in academic journals and subjected to peer review by cryptography and computer science researchers. This approach was meant to inspire confidence in the network’s long-term resilience and security.

However, the price of this meticulous process has been time. Significant delays in shipping key functionalities became a recurring theme throughout Cardano’s development timeline. While traditional software development often embraces agile methods and rapid iteration, Cardano’s approach has been akin to building a spacecraft. One that must be mathematically validated and stress-tested before launch. In theory, this is admirable. In practice, it has frustrated users, investors, and developers alike who are accustomed to quicker timelines and more immediate results.

One of the most consequential turning points in Cardano’s development journey came in 2018, when the project made the bold decision to rewrite its entire codebase. The shift aimed to create a more modular and maintainable architecture, one that could scale sustainably and support the long-term goals of decentralization, interoperability, and formal verification. This brought with it Cardano Node 1.0 and laid the foundation for staking pools, user delegation, and broader community participation in block production.

Ultimately, Cardano’s slow and steady approach remains a double-edged sword. On one side is a blockchain that has earned a reputation for reliability, scientific credibility, and engineering discipline. On the other is a platform frequently criticized for being too cautious, too isolated, and too slow to adapt to a rapidly evolving ecosystem. Whether this trade-off will pay off in the long run is still an open question, but it continues to shape how Cardano is perceived and positioned within the broader crypto narrative.

Over-Promising and Under-Delivering

The narrative of over-promising and under-delivering has followed Cardano and its founder Charles Hoskinson for much of the project’s life — and not without reason. Like many ambitious tech leaders, Hoskinson has frequently made bold public statements about Cardano’s potential, often invoking grand visions of global impact, technological disruption, and market dominance. However, the gap between these projections and actual on-chain results has led to mounting criticism, both within the crypto community and from outside observers.

Perhaps the most well-known example of this dynamic centers around the launch of the Goguen era in 2021, which introduced smart contract functionality to the Cardano network. Leading up to this milestone, Hoskinson frequently claimed that Cardano was on the verge of hosting “thousands of decentralized applications.”

But when smart contracts finally went live in September 2021, the ecosystem’s growth was underwhelming. Very few dApps launched in the immediate aftermath, and developer activity on the chain remained relatively quiet.

One of the key technical hurdles contributing to this slow start was Cardano’s use of the Extended UTXO (EUTXO) model. While offering greater security and determinism, it introduced complexities for developers, especially when building DeFi applications that required multiple concurrent users interacting with the same smart contract. These concurrency issues caught many teams off guard, and the lack of robust development tooling at the time only compounded the challenge.

To Cardano’s credit, the development environment has improved over time. New tools, infrastructure, and design patterns have emerged to help developers navigate the EUTXO model more effectively. Projects such as Plutus Application Backend (PAB), Aiken, and Marlowe aim to make smart contract development more accessible and performant.

Africa Partnerships Claims

The most important marketing stunt of the 2020–2021 cycle for Cardano was the highly publicized announcement of strategic partnerships with African governments, presented as a bold move to reshape the continent’s digital infrastructure. The biggest of them was the Ethiopian Ministry of Education partnership which was touted as a breakthrough, aiming to onboard over 5 million students and teachers onto the Cardano blockchain via a digital identity solution.

Charles Hoskinson positioned Africa as a fertile ground for blockchain adoption, often stating that the continent could bypass the inefficiencies of legacy systems and move directly into the decentralized future. Through numerous AMAs, interviews, and conference appearances, he painted an ambitious picture of Cardano’s role in Africa.

Despite the media buzz and enthusiastic community support, tangible outcomes have been limited. As of 2025, there remains little independently verifiable data regarding the scale, adoption, or effectiveness of these implementations.

Ultimately, while the intention behind Cardano’s African strategy may have been genuine, the disconnect between vision and execution has cast a long shadow. Supporters argue that building foundational systems in underserved regions takes time and patience, and they continue to view Africa as a long-term play. But critics remain skeptical, pointing to the lack of measurable results and suggesting that the African narrative served more as a compelling story for investors than a grounded, sustainable initiative.

In the end, Cardano’s African ambitions remain a symbol of the project’s broader identity: bold in vision, methodical in execution, and often caught in the tension between aspiration and delivery.

Decentralization Metrics Debate

Decentralization has long been a central tenet of Cardano’s identity. In fact, many of its advocates proudly tout it as the most decentralized blockchain in existence (at least in terms of consensus). This perception stems from the protocol’s unique design and inclusive staking model, which makes it relatively easy and affordable for anyone to run a stake pool or delegate ADA. Unlike other networks such as Solana, which require powerful hardware and significant capital to participate in validation, Cardano’s requirements are modest encouraging a broad and globally distributed set of stake pool operators.

This low barrier to entry has fostered a rich and diverse validator ecosystem, with over a thousand independently operated pools. These pools are not only geographically dispersed but also vary in size, mission, and governance structure. Some are run by nonprofits or mission-driven organizations, while others are maintained by solo operators or technical hobbyists. The diversity of operators and the ease of delegating staking rights without surrendering custody of tokens have been crucial in maintaining a robust level of decentralization in the consensus layer.

However, the conversation around decentralization in crypto has evolved. As the industry grows and increasingly attracts institutional capital, the original cypherpunk ethos (which prioritized censorship resistance, privacy, and decentralization above all) is being overshadowed by a more pragmatic, corporate-focused mindset. For most users today, especially those focused on price action or usability, decentralization is not a top priority. Speed, low fees, and developer tools have become more immediate concerns. As a result, the value Cardano places on decentralization is often underappreciated in mainstream discourse.

To help quantify and compare levels of decentralization across networks, the Edinburgh Decentralisation Index (EDI) was developed by the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh. This ambitious initiative attempts to move beyond surface-level metrics and evaluate decentralization across multiple dimensions, including node distribution, governance structures, and economic concentration. However, because the EDI was funded in part by IOG, its legitimacy has been questioned by some critics.

Despite these concerns, an objective review of the EDI and other independent data paints a nuanced picture. In terms of consensus decentralization, Cardano scores extremely well. No single entity or group of entities exerts dominant control over block production or network validation.

But decentralization is a multi-faceted concept. When analyzing tokenomics, specifically the distribution of ADA, the story becomes more complex and less flattering. A 2024 report from Messari and additional community analyses have shown that a significant portion of ADA is concentrated among early investors and large wallets. In fact, by this metric, Cardano ranks near the bottom among major blockchains. Only Dogecoin, which has its own long history of centralized distribution due to mining quirks and early hoarding, fares worse. This raises valid concerns about wealth concentration and its impact on governance, particularly as Cardano moves into an era of on-chain voting and treasury management through tools like Project Catalyst and Voltaire.

If you want to know more, check out my article Edinburgh Decentralization Index.

Emurgo and Cardano Foundation Governance Disputes

In 2018, tensions between the founding entities became public, particularly between IOG and the Cardano Foundation. Charles Hoskinson openly criticized the Cardano Foundation’s then-chairman, Michael Parsons. Hoskinson accused the Foundation of failing to fulfill its responsibilities, citing a lack of transparency, ineffective leadership, and stagnation in community engagement and ecosystem development. These issues, according to Hoskinson, were hampering the overall progress and public perception of the Cardano project.

The situation escalated to the point where Hoskinson and Ken Kodama, CEO of Emurgo, jointly called for Parsons’ resignation in a public statement. This unusual and highly visible move underscored the seriousness of the conflict and exposed the fragile state of Cardano’s internal governance at the time.

In recent years, tensions between the Cardano Foundation and IOG have resurfaced, particularly concerning the governance and funding of Intersect, the organization established to oversee Cardano’s decentralized governance. 

In early 2025, a significant dispute emerged over Intersect’s proposed budget for the year. The Cardano Foundation advocated for a 30% reduction in the overall budget, with a notable 44% cut specifically targeting IOG’s allocation. Charles Hoskinson publicly criticized the proposed budget reductions, emphasizing the potential risks to Cardano’s technical progress. Highlighting that IOG has been instrumental in advancing Cardano’s infrastructure and that limiting resources could delay key upgrades.

These disputes underscore the challenges inherent in decentralized governance, especially when multiple organizations with differing priorities are involved. As Cardano continues to evolve, the resolution of these conflicts will be crucial in determining the project’s direction and cohesion.

ICO and ADA Vouchers

Between 2015 and 2017, Cardano conducted an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) raising approximately $62 million, distributing approximately 2.59 billion ADA through vouchers, primarily to Japanese investors. These vouchers were redeemable upon the launch of Cardano’s mainnet in 2017. However, not all voucher holders claimed their tokens, leaving around 318 million ADA unredeemed.

In 2020, during the Allegra hard fork, Cardano transitioned to the Shelley era, rendering the redemption of these vouchers technically impossible due to the deprecation of Byron-era addresses. To address this, the unclaimed ADA was returned to the system reserves. Subsequently, in October 2021, approximately 318.2 million ADA were moved from the reserves into six designated stake addresses, serving as escrow wallets for processing claims from original voucher holders.

In May 2025, allegations surfaced accusing Charles Hoskinson of misappropriating the unclaimed ADA during the 2021 Allegra hard fork. Cardano personality Masato Alexander claimed that Hoskinson used a “genesis key” to rewrite the ledger and transfer approximately 318 million ADA, valued at around $619 million, into a treasury fund.

Charles Hoskinson vehemently denied these allegations, stating that the unclaimed ADA was either redeemed by original buyers or donated to Intersect, Cardano’s governance body, after a seven-year redemption period. He emphasized that IOG never appropriated the funds for itself and called the accusations “false and misleading.” Hoskinson also announced plans for an independent audit to provide transparency and address community concerns.

The controversy has sparked debates about transparency and governance within the Cardano ecosystem. The outcome of the forthcoming audit is anticipated to shed light on the situation and potentially restore confidence among stakeholders.

Conclusion

From its dramatic split with Ethereum to repeated governance disputes, Africa’s unfulfilled blockchain revolution, and recent allegations surrounding unclaimed ADA, Cardano has faced intense pressure to live up to its self-proclaimed status as the most principled blockchain in the industry. Its founder, Charles Hoskinson, has become both the face and the flame of the ecosystem, an outspoken leader whose declarations often rally supporters while simultaneously inflaming critics.

Yet, for all its turbulence, Cardano remains one of the most recognizable and enduring names in the cryptocurrency space. It has never been hacked, never gone offline, and continues to foster a dedicated community that believes in its long-term vision. Whether it can evolve from a controversial pioneer into a trusted pillar of decentralized infrastructure will depend not just on its technology, but on its ability to learn from its missteps, embrace transparency, and unify its fractured governance.