AdaLovelace777

I would vote YES on the Wirex treasury withdrawal proposal as it addresses a critical gap in Cardano's ecosystem by building real-world payment infrastructure that could unlock significant transaction volume and user growth. Wirex brings proven execution capability as a Visa Principal Member with 7M users and $20B+ in processed volume, making them well-positioned to deliver on this ambitious project. The infrastructure will be released as open-source, benefiting the entire ecosystem by providing reusable components for other wallet providers and fintechs to build upon. The proposal properly passed Intersect's 67% support threshold and includes milestone-based disbursement controls with oversight from independent third parties like Sundae Labs and Cardano Foundation. While the ~4M ADA request is substantial, the strategic investment in Cardano's long-term utility and adoption potential justifies the expenditure. This aligns with Cardano's vision of becoming a practical settlement layer for global commerce and could give the network a genuine competitive advantage. The proper governance process, combined with the open-source commitment and proven team track record, makes this a worthwhile investment for the ecosystem's future.

The Pro plan model is speculative - they need 4.2% conversion from 130K installs to break even. Critical infrastructure should be open-source for community trust and security. If current service fees can't cover costs in a down market, the business model may be fundamentally flawed. Market conditions are poor, questioning sustainability of Pro plan model. I love this wallet and all who build on Cardano and I hope they can find the funding but I cannot responsibly for Yes just out of love of the project. We really need to cut back spending

The proposal focuses on competing with established perpetual exchanges rather than leveraging Cardano's unique advantages. The 20% drawdown trigger for mandatory review is quite high for treasury funds. Strike has no prior track record with treasury deployments. The projected 10% annual yield (900K ADA) is aggressive for a conservative treasury deployment.
Modeled estimates assume optimal market conditions that may not persist.
Historical vault performance (43.52% APR) is based on a short 2-month period during favorable market conditions. Deploying during a period of market uncertainty increases risk. The Cardano Treasury should prioritize lower-risk, ecosystem-building investments that align with Cardano's long-term vision and research-driven approach. While Strike Finance shows promise, the risk-reward profile of this deployment doesn't justify exposing 9M ADA to the volatile perpetual futures market.

I’m voting yes because this upgrade meaningfully improves Plutus by making smart contracts cheaper to run, more correct through formal verification, and easier to develop with better tooling and simpler setup. That combination lowers friction for builders and increases reliability, which strengthens Cardano’s ability to support serious financial and DeFi applications. It also matters for real-world impact: more efficient contracts and better developer experience usually translate into more builders shipping on Cardano, more deployed dApps, and higher transaction activity over time. In that sense, we do need it—not because the system is broken, but because reducing cost, risk, and complexity is what drives the next wave of adoption and ecosystem growth. It also helps AI agents indirectly, since clearer tooling, better error reporting, and formal verification make smart contract behavior more predictable and machine-analyzable. That makes it easier for AI systems to safely generate, audit, and interact with on-chain logic.

I’m voting yes because this proposal strengthens the foundations needed for Cardano to compete in the next wave of AI-driven, high-frequency on-chain activity. The maintenance initiative ensures the base layer stays secure, stable, and continuously improved, while the L2 initiative (including Hydra and Midgard) unlocks the performance needed for sub-second, low-cost transactions that today’s applications require. Most importantly, this is about positioning Cardano for an “agent economy” where AI agents will be constantly transacting, routing value, and interacting with smart contracts. Without scalable L2s and reliable core maintenance, that level of automated economic activity can’t realistically run on-chain—but with them, it becomes a growth engine that feeds back into L1 usage and ultimately strengthens treasury sustainability over time. We must enter the singularity, ready.

I’m voting yes because this is not just feature funding, it’s the core maintenance layer that keeps Cardano secure, stable, and capable of scaling. It covers critical work like bug fixes, security reviews, CI/CD infrastructure, performance optimisation, monitoring, disaster recovery, and continuous upkeep of core components like Plutus, DB-Sync, and the node. Without this, technical debt and operational risk would build up over time, making future upgrades slower and more fragile even if the chain continues running. I also see this as part of preparing for a more automated future where AI agents increasingly handle infrastructure operations and transaction optimisation. If that trajectory continues, it could significantly improve efficiency, throughput, and economic activity on-chain, strengthening the network’s fee base over time. In that sense, maintaining a strong and reliable foundation now helps position Cardano for a future where automation and higher usage reduce long-term strain on treasury funding needs.

I’m voting yes because Leios is what makes Cardano capable of supporting the next major wave of crypto usage: AI agents doing transactions at scale. As agent-based systems start interacting with DeFi, payments, trading, and on-chain services, they won’t transact occasionally like humans — they’ll generate constant, high-frequency activity. Without a major throughput increase, blockspace becomes the limiting factor. Leios’ 10–65x capacity expansion ensures the network can handle machine-speed transaction flows while still keeping fees low and confirmations fast. This matters even more when combined with the broader ecosystem direction: AI agents, automated wallets, and cross-chain systems will need infrastructure where thousands or millions of micro-actions can happen per second without congestion. Leios is essentially preparing Cardano to be usable not just by people, but by autonomous systems operating continuously in the background. That’s the kind of demand shift that turns blockchains from financial platforms into full execution layers for digital economies. Let's get this thing passed!

I’m voting yes because these upgrades improve some of Cardano’s most important long-term usability and infrastructure problems. CIP-159 enables cheaper DeFi interactions, micro-payments, better wallet revenue models, and stronger Layer 2 functionality. The Multi-Asset Treasury helps protect the treasury from ADA volatility by allowing stablecoins and other assets to eventually be held alongside ADA. Most importantly, Babel Fees could fundamentally improve crypto onboarding by letting users pay transaction fees in assets they already hold instead of requiring ADA first. That removes one of the biggest friction points in crypto. Over time, fee abstraction combined with technologies like Midnight could allow transactions to settle using tiny “dust” amounts in the background, making blockchain interactions feel effectively free and seamless to normal users. That kind of user experience is critical for mainstream adoption.

I’m voting yes because this proposal strengthens Cardano’s core advantage in security and correctness by funding automated formal verification at scale.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I’m voting yes because this proposal strengthens Cardano’s core advantage in security and correctness by funding automated formal verification at scale. It extends IO’s Blaster tool from single-script checks to full DApp-level verification, integrates it across multiple smart contract languages (Aiken, Pebble, Scalus, Futura), and pairs it with a Common Vulnerability Library, VS Code integration, equivalence checking for safer optimizations, and a one-click developer environment (CBDE) that drastically reduces setup friction and improves developer onboarding. This also directly benefits AI agents and AI-assisted development by making smart contracts more machine-verifiable, structured, and analyzable. With formal verification, standardized vulnerability templates, and UPLC-level equivalence proofs, AI agents can more safely generate, audit, and optimize contracts while reducing hallucinated or unsafe code paths—enabling more reliable autonomous development and debugging workflows on Cardano as we enter an AI driven future.

Yes- this proposal focuses on improving the core developer experience on Cardano during a critical 6-month period for crypto adoption. At roughly ₳600k ADA per month (₳3.6M total over 6 months), the cost is relatively modest compared to many treasury proposals, while the upside could be significant

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I’m voting yes because this proposal focuses on improving the core developer experience on Cardano during a critical 6-month period for crypto adoption. At roughly ₳600k ADA per month (₳3.6M total over 6 months), the cost is relatively modest compared to many treasury proposals, while the upside could be significant if easier tooling and onboarding attract more builders to Cardano. If the CLARITY Act and broader U.S. crypto regulation progress this year, ecosystems that are easiest to build on could see major growth in developers, apps, users, and institutional interest. This proposal directly targets Cardano’s biggest weakness today: onboarding and developer friction. Improving tooling, documentation, starter kits, and reusable smart contracts could help Cardano compete more effectively with Ethereum and Solana during an important adoption window.

I'm voting yes in the hopes that this team delivers all that is promised for our ecosystem, Abstract Harmonic Laboratories (HLabs for short) is an R&D firm born and focused solely on the Cardano ecosystem. This proposal delivers critical infrastructure: Gerolamo enables browser-based light nodes for trustless dApps, Pebble lowers the barrier for TypeScript developers to build smart contracts, and ongoing tooling maintenance ensures ecosystem stability across hard forks. With strong governance through audited escrow and independent oversight, ₳8M for 10 FTEs over 12 months is a reasonable investment in Cardano's long-term decentralization and developer adoption. Pebble = TypeScript devs (17M+) can build Cardano smart contracts without learning functional programming Gerolamo = dApps run their own nodes instead of trusting centralized servers Tooling maintenance = devs don't get screwed by protocol upgrades Lower barriers = more devs = more dApps = better ecosystem. Simple math.

300 Million Ada is still too high and the only argument I've seen is that the price of Ada is lower and so we need a higher NCL at this time to spend on our future. And then in that future the price will be higher, and we can spend less Ada. It is a good argument but financially we cannot continue down this path as we will run out of funds in 4 years at this rate. We need a lower NCL now before its too late. We have spent so much on integrations and are still getting more. 250 Million Ada or lower makes more sense, and balances between the extremes of wanting to spend barely any Ada, and those who want to spend 300-350 million which is nearly a quarter of the treasury. I want us to try again once more for a lower NCL. Its not asking for much to suggest 250M.

It's not clear all the basic fundamentals as to why we need this as an ecosystem. You outline how you will obtain funding but you don't describe the products we are funding and why we need it. Development of what type of smart contracts and for what? Seems expensive and unclear.

I am voting yes for this proposal because it honors Max van Rossem, a community hero whose contributions fundamentally shaped Cardano's governance framework and Constitution! Max wasn't just a participant—he was integral to electing the first Constitutional Committee and was a primary driving force behind Article VIII in our founding documents. As both a dedicated DRep with the Dutch DRep Collective and founder of AdaMoments, he enabled real on-chain use cases that let ada holders preserve their personal moments forever. This tribute continues the cherished tradition of hard forks named after impactful contributors like Vasil, Chang, and Plomin, weaving lasting memories for their families and our entire ecosystem. We Love You Max <3

I am voting yes for this proposal because it helps our DApp builders from having to manually optimize due to insufficient Plutus script memory unit limits per transaction. This allows teams to focus on innovation rather than workarounds. This would also allow for more sophisticated smart contract logic, the kind that cannot exist with our 14 million memory unit ceiling. This will unlock new capabilities and use cases for our ecosystem! By allowing more plutus scripts to execute per block, we are greatly enhancing our scalability! This upgrade has been tested as being safe, as it has run on testnet and has passed all the proper safety checks. Let's get it passed!

Simply Put, we must lower the Net Change Limit well below 350M Ada because we will deplete our treasury if we max out the NCL! We need protections for the treasury! How about 100M Ada? Price has to find new highs this year, so that will be a lot more money than it is now, and it would protect us into the future. We paid 70M Ada for USDCx so let us reap those rewards before spending more!

Congrats Christina!

I vote Yes because this does not increase the current Net Change Limit. It simply extends the existing NCL so that Treasury operations can continue smoothly while we work on passing a new one. It also ensures that, if the Tier 1 Listings proposal fails on December 30 (Epoch 604), a revised or resubmitted version would still have time to be voted on and enacted within a valid NCL window. Overall, the extension maintains the same spending limit while preventing unnecessary operational roadblocks.

Cardano’s low TVL compared to other major ecosystems shows that we are missing the core infrastructure required for real liquidity and adoption. The absence of tier-one stablecoins, institutional-grade custody, analytics, oracles, and cross-chain bridges has held the ecosystem back for years. This proposal directly targets those gaps with integrations that are already in advanced negotiation stages and ready to deploy. I support this because stablecoin rails, data infrastructure, and interoperability are not optional—they are prerequisites for any meaningful DeFi or institutional participation. Without globally recognized oracles and real bridges, Cardano remains isolated and unable to attract serious capital or users. Treasury funding is the correct mechanism because these components are public goods that no single team can or should own. The milestone-based structure, combined with Intersect’s constitutional administration and independent oversight, gives me confidence the funds will be spent responsibly. The Steering Committee is uncompensated and structured to preserve neutrality while coordinating across the founding ecosystem entities. Confidentiality constraints around pricing are normal in enterprise integrations, and the proposal balances privacy with reporting requirements. Any unused funds return to the Treasury after 24 months, which protects community resources. The bi-annual reporting, audits, and contract-based milestones ensure transparency and accountability throughout the process. With the NCL expiring soon and negotiations already mature, timing is critical to avoid multi-year delays. These integrations unlock the infrastructure needed for major stablecoins, multi-chain liquidity, institutional on-ramps, and the next stage of Cardano’s growth. For these reasons, I believe voting YES is the most strategic decision for Cardano’s long-term competitiveness and ecosystem maturity. Plus the proposing entities have agreed to cover the total cost. Hoskinson estimated this cost to be around $100,000,000. 70,000,000 Ada at $.40 is only 35% of what this will cost. This is a steal!

I support this. I think it’s fair to reimburse the Ikigai submitter since they lost their deposit due to a bug, not their own actions. We don't get many bugs of this nature, so this is a rare occurrence. Covering the original amount plus a small compensation for missed rewards feels reasonable especially since he found the bug.

This would give all Ada Dapps and anything Ada related, the chance to use a .Ada domain which is beyond awesome and it strengthens our ecosystem as a whole. I think this is an important step to give Ada the proper credibility it deserves. Super Cool!

The compensation is crucial because, unlike other roles within Cardano, CC members lack a neutral funding source to cover their significant administrative duties, which include reviewing governance actions, conducting research, and attending meetings. Providing this funding ensures the CC remains independent, accessible to a diverse range of qualified contributors, and prevents potential biases that could arise if members had to self-subsidize their participation or rely on external institutions. Still, I think the number here is too large, and I don't want this to turn into the United States where public service is a for profit job that only the most corrupt take in order to make large sums of money by whatever means necessary. These CC members should want to work for free as Ada succeeding already pays them. Their payment is when we 10x. This way, they are greatly rewarded for investing with US!

This proposal lacks essential transparency for approval. A withheld cost breakdown prevents informed evaluation. Treasury assumes risks while SNEK gains upside. Repayment capacity remains speculative and unverified. No collateral secures this substantial treasury loan. Advisors provide credibility but not enforceable accountability. Ecosystem funds shouldn’t subsidize private token promotion.

I vote YES for Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.3. This update is exactly the kind of practical, thoughtful refinement our governance needs. It streamlines processes, removes non-binding clutter, and reinforces accountability for all treasury withdrawals — principles that are central to sustainable, community-led governance. I appreciate the clarity and consistency brought by unified terminology, clear definitions, and immutable proposal documents. These changes protect the integrity of the process and prevent ambiguity or manipulation. Most importantly, v2.3 builds on community feedback from v2.0, showing that the Constitution evolves responsibly while maintaining decentralization, transparency, and legitimacy. This is a solid, sensible update that strengthens Cardano’s governance framework without overcomplicating it. This aligns perfectly with my values: supporting clear rules, strong oversight, and a decentralized, community-driven ecosystem.

I’m voting YES on this GovTool treasury withdrawal. This proposal addresses some of the most critical needs for Cardano governance today. What stands out most is the Key Features and Roadmap: supporting group DReps, showing DRep and Governance Action voting history, allowing multiple votes per transaction, integrating CoSponsor for crowdfunding deposits, expanding APIs, and optimizing infrastructure. These improvements make governance more transparent, accessible, and efficient for the entire community.
The Governance & Oversight structure is also excellent — administration via Intersect’s smart contracts with checks from the Oversight Committee and a public dashboard for on-chain auditing ensures accountability, reduces risk of mismanagement, and strengthens trust.
With contributions coordinated through the GovTool Consortium — including LidoNation, ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, and Dquadrant — this proposal ensures that the platform remains community-led, open-source, and sustainable. The rationale is clear: prevent fragmentation, maintain a neutral platform, and safeguard the long-term health of Cardano’s on-chain governance ecosystem.
For all these reasons, I fully support this withdrawal.

I’ve read the entire 2030 Vision document, and it is absolutely beautiful — perfectly written, thoughtful, and inspiring. This is exactly the kind of roadmap Cardano needs: clear, strategic, and rooted in our principles of decentralization, self-determination, and community-led innovation. Truly inspiring read. Felt like a historical document, a milestone that future Cardano generations will look back on as a turning point.
It captures not just where we want to go, but how we plan to get there — balancing ambition with practicality, innovation with accountability, and growth with community empowerment. This vision respects the values that make Cardano unique while giving the ecosystem the clarity and focus it needs to thrive over the next decade.
For all these reasons, I’m voting YES. This is more than a vision — it’s a foundation we can build on, rally around, and evolve together as a community. Cardano’s future deserves nothing less.

I’ve been following the push for ADA stablecoin growth via funding it from the treasury for quite some time now, and I genuinely believe this is exactly the kind of boost we need. Deep initial liquidity is necessary in the grand scheme of what ADA stands for — not paying centralized entities for insider relief, but funding revolutionary progress ourselves. I think with this push, stablecoin liquidity can reach a self-sustaining level, and that’s the whole point: building something that lasts without reliance on outside control.
The 9-person committee is a great idea, and so is the system of checks and balances where dReps can veto members, or freeze and return funds to the treasury if fraud or corruption ever occurs. That kind of accountability is essential to avoid the same failures that have taken over traditional systems.
What I don’t like is the idea of paying dReps or turning governance roles into something people pursue for profit. That’s exactly how old-world governments became corrupted — people running for power because it pays, not because it serves. If some compensation is truly necessary due to the burdens described in the proposal, then so be it — but I would strongly prefer it be done only after responsibilities are fulfilled, not promised upfront.
I also appreciate that this proposal isn’t just about throwing liquidity at the problem, it’s building actual infrastructure with legal protections, transparency requirements, and a smart contract framework the community can reuse in the future. This proposal respects constitutional limits, keeps all assets trackable on-chain, and requires public reporting every month, showing that this isn’t reckless spending but rather a strategic investment with guardrails.
This is how we attract serious builders and market makers: not through speculation, but through dependable liquidity and deep markets.
In the end, this isn’t just funding, it’s an evolution of how Cardano governs itself. If we get this right, we prove that a decentralized treasury can act with the precision of an institution, but without becoming one. That’s the difference between repeating old systems and rebuilding them.

I vote Yes! This proposal is the formal, on-chain implementation of a democratic process that has already concluded successfully. While I wasn't able to participate in the working group, I, as a DRep, am participating right now by casting this vote to ratify the community's will. This vote ensures critical governance continuity, honors the results of a transparent, community-led election, and is an essential step in decentralizing power away from the founding entities and into the hands of the Cardano community.

This new proposal all they did was fix the error. I feel the same. 5 Million Ada will be worth $25,000,000 soon. We need guarantees for that type of cash.

I vote No because this proposal asks the treasury to assume significant risk for a highly speculative outcome with zero guarantees. While the Snek Foundation's past achievements are commendable, funding future listings is fundamentally different; exchange negotiations are opaque, and success is never certain, regardless of budget or past track record. The proposal's own text seems to contain a critical typo, referencing a "5 ADA" amount in the conclusion, which undermines confidence in the meticulousness of the proposal's creation and the seriousness of its financial governance. Investing 5 million ADA of community funds into a single memecoin project, no matter how popular, sets a precarious precedent and could divert crucial resources from more foundational, less volatile ecosystem development like core protocol upgrades, developer tooling, or educational initiatives. The potential benefits for ADA liquidity and visibility, while appealing, are theoretical and disproportionate to the concrete, non-recoverable cost of listing fees and marketing campaigns. The existence of an advisory board does not mitigate the core risk that this is a gamble with community funds on a specific asset's success, which is not the treasury's purpose.

This proposal requests ₳750,000 to fund Intersect’s Cardano Product Committee in creating a community-driven 2030 vision and 2026 roadmap. It will gather insights from the community, SPOs, builders, and businesses through workshops, focus groups, and structured research, creating the first consolidated product research framework for Cardano. Managed with audited smart contracts and independent oversight, the project ensures transparency and alignment with ecosystem needs. Supporting this strengthens Cardano’s long-term strategy and informed decision-making—this is why I vote yes.

This proposal requests a ₳3,000,000 treasury withdrawal to fund Haus’ tokenized real estate project on Cardano, migrating its HausCoin home equity liquidity protocol from Ethereum to Cardano’s mainnet. The platform enables homeowners to sell fractional ownership of their home equity for cash liquidity, while giving investors exposure to a stable, appreciating, real-world asset class. Haus has validated its model with $20M TVL on Ethereum and maintains a 30,000-person waitlist representing $4.1B in tokenizable home equity. Funds will finalize product development, establish liquidity pools, build a compliant legal framework, and drive adoption via partnerships and marketing. The team brings deep experience in blockchain, fintech, and real estate, with a proven record of scaling multi-billion-dollar ventures. Treasury disbursements will follow a milestone-based plan via TRSC/PSSC smart contracts, overseen by Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, Xerberus, and NMKR, with transparent, on-chain reporting, ensuring accountability and alignment with Cardano governance. This withdrawal is part of the approved ₳275M Intersect budget, advancing the integration of real-world assets into Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem. For all these reasons, I vote yes.

This funding helps Cardano projects gain global exposure at exhibitions, provides structured support to maximize ROI, and increases ecosystem visibility beyond just Cardano events. Supplyoneers FZ-LLC has 15 years of exhibition experience and a track record of helping projects gain visibility. Let’s do it!

I vote YES because securing CNT listings on tier-1 exchanges and enabling professional market making directly address two of the biggest barriers to adoption: liquidity and visibility. Without this, Cardano tokens remain disadvantaged compared to ecosystems with deeper exchange integration. The governance structure ensures transparency: funds go directly to exchanges and MMAAS providers, not intermediaries, with oversight from Intersect and independent entities. While expensive and not without risk, the strategic upside of enabling CNTs to compete globally justifies this investment.

I would vote YES on this proposal because it introduces an Extended Quadratic Funding model that complements Catalyst by addressing voter concentration, weak impact reporting, and inefficient milestone management while operating with zero overhead, ensuring 100% of funds go directly to Cardano projects. The design leverages quadratic voting with reputation scores, encourages external donations to amplify treasury impact, and implements strong accountability measures through standardized impact reporting, legal contracts, audits, and third-party assurance. Given the modest ₳1.5M request within the broader approved budget, the potential benefits in fairness, transparency, and long-term sustainability outweigh the risks, making this a valuable experiment to strengthen Cardano’s innovation ecosystem.

A Yes vote would release ₳592,780 from the Cardano Treasury to fund “Beyond Minimum Viable Governance,” led by Intersect in collaboration with Input Output’s Voltaire team—experienced in CIP-1694 workshops, constitution drafting, and CIP authoring—alongside WADA, members of the Constitutional Delegate Committee (Ken-Erik Ølmheim, Max van Rossem, Tevo Saks), and the Intersect Constitution team. Independent oversight would come from five trusted entities: Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, Xerberus, and NMKR. The rationale is that Cardano currently lacks a transparent, data-driven framework for assessing the effectiveness of its governance system, which risks decisions being made reactively without clear metrics or community-wide insights. This project would deliver a comprehensive State of Governance report tracking KPIs, mapping the governance ecosystem, and identifying improvement areas; engage the community through workshops, surveys, and interviews; produce a repeatable playbook so the process can be run annually; and draft Cardano Problem Statements (CPSs) or Cardano Improvement Proposals (CIPs) based on findings. I think this is genius because we as a protocol need a way to verify that our government is working as intended. This data driven framework will help identify specific areas we can improve and take targeted, evidence-based action to improve transparency, decision-making, and alignment with the community's vision.

A mobile governance platform like Tempo.Vote could be a game-changer for Cardano. Mobile is where most people live their digital lives, and if governance is to be truly inclusive, it has to meet users where they are. By making it easier for people to participate in governance from anywhere, this project could significantly widen the circle of active voters and contributors. While they have not yet delivered a funded Catalyst project, this also means they are hungry to prove themselves — and the scope of this proposal suggests they’ve thought big about what’s possible. Their vision for integrated mobile governance and a lending pool for governance participation is bold and could inspire more innovation in this space. The requested budget, though substantial, reflects the complexity of building secure, reliable, and scalable governance infrastructure. Investing in a team willing to push Cardano governance into mobile-native territory could yield long-term dividends in participation, decentralization, and adoption. The features outlined — especially mobile-first governance actions and a governance-focused lending mechanism — show ambition and an understanding of gaps in current tooling. Backing them now could accelerate the pace at which governance on Cardano becomes truly global and always-accessible. In short, this proposal represents a high-upside bet on expanding participation, experimenting with new governance incentives, and positioning Cardano as the most user-friendly blockchain for decentralized decision-making.

A mobile governance platform like Tempo.Vote could be a game-changer for Cardano. Mobile is where most people live their digital lives, and if governance is to be truly inclusive, it has to meet users where they are. By making it easier for people to participate in governance from anywhere, this project could significantly widen the circle of active voters and contributors. While they have not yet delivered a funded Catalyst project, this also means they are hungry to prove themselves — and the scope of this proposal suggests they’ve thought big about what’s possible. Their vision for integrated mobile governance and a lending pool for governance participation is bold and could inspire more innovation in this space. The requested budget, though substantial, reflects the complexity of building secure, reliable, and scalable governance infrastructure. Investing in a team willing to push Cardano governance into mobile-native territory could yield long-term dividends in participation, decentralization, and adoption. The features outlined — especially mobile-first governance actions and a governance-focused lending mechanism — show ambition and an understanding of gaps in current tooling. Backing them now could accelerate the pace at which governance on Cardano becomes truly global and always-accessible. In short, this proposal represents a high-upside bet on expanding participation, experimenting with new governance incentives, and positioning Cardano as the most user-friendly blockchain for decentralized decision-making.

After thorough consideration of Interests Budget Info Action for the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem, I cast my vote in favor of this proposal. While I initially advocated for a Net Change Limit preserving maximal treasury reserves, I find the withdrawal of 275,269,340 ADA to be a measured compromise. This allocation—distributed across 39 rigorously vetted initiatives spanning core development, governance, marketing, and innovation—reflects the collective will of our community, as demonstrated by the participation of over 3.8B ADA in stake-weighted signaling. My endorsement stems from profound appreciation for the contributors behind these proposals. Their dedication to advancing Cardano's infrastructure (e.g., Optimistic Rollups, ZK Bridges, decentralized funding models) and ecosystem tools (from PyCardano to hardware wallet maintenance) exemplifies the ingenuity that sustains our blockchain. The multi-sig oversight framework and milestone-based disbursements further ensure responsible treasury stewardship. This budget embodies the maturation of Cardano's governance: community-driven, constitutionally aligned, and strategically focused on delivering the 2025 roadmap. I commend Intersect for facilitating this transparent process and trust in their administration of these funds.

I voted No for the two prior Net Change Limits because we should not be allowed to withdrawal such a large portion of the Ada that we take in for the year. In that reasoning I suggested we save close to 50% of the fees we take in every year, since this is the first year of our governance experiment. We must be cautious and try to spend as little as possible like any wise person does. We must set a strong precedent early on. I am ecstatic to vote Yes for a proposal that I couldn't have written better myself. The only thing I would change is to make it 150 million Ada, but in negotiations, both sides have to give in a little. 200 million is a lot better than 350 million, especially when the year is 33% over. I hope we spend a lot less than the maximum we can withdrawal, then we could set the 2026 NCL for 200 million again, or hopefully less. The more savings, the better. Thank you all for voting No on the two prior NCL proposals. This one was worth the wait.

I voted no on this proposal for the following reasons. The Net Change Limit is essentially a savings plan, and it's critical for ensuring fiscal responsibility in the Cardano ecosystem. While I was always taught that 20% of my paycheck should go toward savings, I am closer to 90% savings going into Ada. For now, we need to recognize that the Net Change Limit is a foundational part of how we manage our funds, especially as it is used when reviewing both budget actions and treasury withdrawal actions to ensure constitutionality, as outlined by Article IV of the Constitution and the Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails in Appendix I. Given this, we cannot make any decisions until we reach an agreement, and I’m going to be firm on this. I want to vote yes to get this passed, but we must stand firm in what we believe. Why must we spend so much now, especially when this proposal doesn't account for the extraordinary growth we expect by the end of this year, driven by world adoption? In fact, we could see 10x returns this year, so why not save as much as possible? If I could choose the savings percentage, I would vote to save as much as we can. Even a higher percentage like 30% or 50% seems reasonable given the significant inflows expected over the next few years. The key point is that we should be focused on saving aggressively, given the market cap potential of Ada. I understand that the percentage of savings is something we should discuss further, but I believe it's crucial that we don't rush to pass something without thoroughly considering the long-term trajectory. The first year is a pivotal one for setting a precedent. If we are going to be able to adjust the Net Change Limit later on when necessary, it’s important to start out as conservatively as possible, ensuring we save as much as we can and only allow more spending when truly necessary. I would be in favor of a higher savings rate, like 50%, and I would even support lowering it to 40% later in the year, should circumstances require it. But let’s take a cautious, wise approach for now, focusing on saving as much as possible while we are in this early stage of development.

The Net Change Limit essentially represents a savings plan, which is important for ensuring fiscal responsibility. While I was always taught that 20% of my paycheck should go towards savings, I'm closer to 90% savings going into Ada. For now, we need to recognize that the Net Change Limit is a critical part of how we manage our funds. Since the Net Change Limit will be used when reviewing both budget actions and treasury withdrawal actions to ensure constitutionality, as required by Article IV of the Constitution and the Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails outlined in Appendix I, according to this, we cannot make any decisions until we reach an agreement. So, I’m going to be tough about this. I want to vote yes to get this passed, but eventually, we must stand firm in what we believe. Why must we spend so much now? This approach does not account for the extraordinary growth we expect by the end of this year, especially considering the potential for world adoption. In fact, we may see 10x returns this year, so why not save as much as possible? If I could choose the savings percentage, I would save as much as we can. Even a higher percentage, like 30% or 50%, seems reasonable when you consider the significant inflows expected over the coming years. The key point is that we should be focused on saving aggressively, given the market cap potential of Ada. The percentage of savings should be something we continue to discuss, as the long-term trajectory seems likely to outperform even the most optimistic projections. I think the right approach is not to pass something quickly just to get it done, because this is the first time we are ever setting this precedent!!! This is year 1. If we can always change it at any time, then why not do so when its necessary for us to spend more Ada than we set forth in the Net Change Limit. We should try to save as much as possible and then we can allow more spending when necessary. I would vote yes for 50% savings. I would vote yes to lower that percentage to 40% when the time comes this year. But the time might not come, so let us be conservative, let us be wise.

I’m excited for Cardano’s plans to increase liquidity with zero-knowledge proofs and introduce Babel Fees, making transactions more accessible without needing ADA initially. The L2 expansion with the AVS layer, alongside scaling Hydra and the Midgard rollup, will bring even more flexibility and efficiency to the platform. I’m also looking forward to faster transaction finality with Peras and an enhanced developer and user experience through improved tools, APIs, and decentralized services. The new programmable assets will unlock exciting use cases, and the focus on supporting multiple node implementations will make the network even more resilient and decentralized. As for the other upgrades, I’m excited for the scaling of L1, the Leios protocol, codebase optimization, and Mithril decentralization. Plus, I can’t wait to see the improvements to SPO incentives and the architectural excellence Cardano is striving for. 2025 is going to be big. Hi from the past.

While I support Tax Cuts to the United States Federal government, I do not support tax cuts at this time for Ada transactions. Firstly, Ada does not have bureaucrats laundering transaction money to themselves. We have very little corruption, because of the automated nature of this software. There is one formula which sends a portion of every transaction fee to the treasury. The treasury is controlled by We The Holders. The treasury will fund updates to this software forever. At this early juncture, We must ensure that the treasury grows at the current rate. Ada is still very cheap in comparison to the prices of peak bull run, and into the long term future. I can see tax cuts then, but not now. Your point of \"At higher ADA prices, the treasury retains substantial purchasing power even with a reduced cut\", inherently confirms that this cut slashes the purchasing power of the treasury in half, at a time when Ada is just barely over 20 Billion $ market cap. We should keep the tax where its at, which is still low and fair for all, so that the treasury grows twice as fast as it would if we slash it in half. Then if we achieve a 10x in market cap, the treasury will be substantially larger. At that time we can consider tax cuts. PS. Looking forward to a Midnight and Bitcoin partnership <3 PSS- Thank you for delegating to me!