ADAR_Chris

This is a strong opportunity to WIN

I'm for an alternative builder-centric funding mechanism aligned to Cardano Vision 2030 goals.

I like investing in real-world use cases.

An actual USE CASE for Cardano that actually does something. This is the kind of thing I'm willing to roll the dice on. We need to demonstrate value somewhere besides DeFi; maybe this can be it.

Voting yes because of the repayment plan and I consider this tool a critical tool in the Cardano ecosystem.

Not against the idea or proposer at all, but the matrix of timing, scope, and risk make it a NO for me presently.

In a perfect world this is an easy YES vote. But, in our present market conditions, I don't feel that an omnibus withdrawal funding 38 FTEs is appropriate. I think we need more focus here. Where do we really need to prioritize research? What is the likelihood that such research would work its way into our technology stack with meaningful ROI? Where might we have some overlap with other proposals? Show me a proposal that reflects our market reality and an explicit expectation of ROI for targeted research.

I like the team and what they are trying to do here. I get there is some execution risk, and that even without this the node diversity roadmap has multiple avenues in progress. But this is also unique and compelling in terms of a competitive advantage that would make some noise.

I've been voting NO a lot lately, and had a hard time deciding which way to go on this one. Ultimately, I decided YES for the following reasons: 1) I've been to RARE before, and I think there is real value in face to face interactions. Of course that is true for onboarding 'new' clients and partners, but it's also true for our internal community. At these market lows and with all of the X strife, it's important to reconnect. 2) I appreciate the folks that put on RARE. They know what they are doing, have experience doing it, and are independent of the FEs that I do NOT appreciate draining the Treasury to do exactly the sort of thing they were chartered to do with genesis funds. 3) US based, organic marketing effort.

I'm relying here on the expertise of the Intersect Parameter and Technical Steering Committees. If there is an issue with backward compatibility that requires resolution the community would appreciate an update from those teams.

Genesis holder FE should be sustainable enough to fund such a basic endeavor without pulling from the Treasury.

I don't understand why a genesis FE with given mandate requires a Treasury withdrawal to deliver said mandate. The earnings on that genesis $ADA don't fund anything? How is the CF not able to deliver the most basic of functions in a more sustainable fashion?

You own it, you generate revenue for it, you maintain it. Simple! This isn't what Treasury was meant for.

Sounds great, but I don't care. IO was funded during the last major Intersect budget cycle with a long list of deliverables. Why wasn't all of this in competition for funding at that time if it was so bloody important. I'm not interested in cutting any more big checks from the Treasury with ADA at these price levels. Get your shit together and tell us what you want to accomplish as part of the primary budget cycle.

Sounds great, but I don't care. IO was funded during the last major Intersect budget cycle with a long list of deliverables. Why wasn't all of this in competition for funding at that time if it was so bloody important. I'm not interested in cutting any more big checks from the Treasury with ADA at these price levels. Get your shit together and tell us what you want to accomplish as part of the primary budget cycle.

Sounds great, but I don't care. IO was funded during the last major Intersect budget cycle with a long list of deliverables. Why wasn't all of this in competition for funding at that time if it was so bloody important. I'm not interested in cutting any more big checks from the Treasury with ADA at these price levels. Get your shit together and tell us what you want to accomplish as part of the primary budget cycle.

Sounds great, but I don't care. IO was funded during the last major Intersect budget cycle with a long list of deliverables. Why wasn't all of this in competition for funding at that time if it was so bloody important. I'm not interested in cutting any more big checks from the Treasury with ADA at these price levels. Get your shit together and tell us what you want to accomplish as part of the primary budget cycle.

Sounds great, but I don't care. IO was funded during the last major Intersect budget cycle with a long list of deliverables. Why wasn't all of this in competition for funding at that time if it was so bloody important. I'm not interested in cutting any more big checks from the Treasury with ADA at these price levels. Get your shit together and tell us what you want to accomplish as part of the primary budget cycle.

Sounds great, but I don't care. IO was funded during the last major Intersect budget cycle with a long list of deliverables. Why wasn't all of this in competition for funding at that time if it was so bloody important. I'm not interested in cutting any more big checks from the Treasury with ADA at these price levels. Get your shit together and tell us what you want to accomplish as part of the primary budget cycle.

Sounds great, but I don't care. IO was funded during the last major Intersect budget cycle with a long list of deliverables. Why wasn't all of this in competition for funding at that time if it was so bloody important. I'm not interested in cutting any more big checks from the Treasury with ADA at these price levels. Get your shit together and tell us what you want to accomplish as part of the primary budget cycle.

We'll get better results.

I'd like to see node diversity options rolled up and evaluated under a more strategic and focused Intersect initiative. Prefer to see the major initiatives in this proposal not bundled. And, given our depressed market, I'm not fully convinced that that the demand side of the equation justifies the extent of this investment.

Genesis funded entity with charter to do exactly this sort of thing can't do this sort of thing unless granted yet MORE funds from our Treasury? Strong no.

I support the rationale for an NCL that aligns with budget cycle, and prefer a 300M limit vs the prior 350M limit proposed.

Voting YES consistent with the prior Info Action. While I can see opposing viewpoints, and even support them, in terms of exactly 'how' this is accomplished, I don't want to miss the broader point or need which needs to be addressed.... liquidity and stablecoin facilitation.

I trust the recommendations of the Parameter and Technical Steering committees with respect to benefits of proposed parameter changes and assessment of any potential drawbacks.

Didn't know Max, but the community supports it so I do as well.

Prefer to see a lower limit.

1. Favor the team, know they can execute, a Hydra-based order book Defi trading platform would be awesome.
2. I'm leery of ad-hoc Treasury withdrawals outside the core budgeting framework. I want to be very careful what we spend on, and ensure that the ecosystem benefits in a manner fair to all players.
3. The scope of this budget, the track record of the team, and prior history leads me to believe Catalyst is a better platform for sourcing this funding.
4. I'm more in favor of 'exceptions' to my evaluation framework when there is some payback or income mechanism that feeds back to the Treasury. And, in such a proposal, I'd want to see some detailed plans that give confidence to realizing that positive feedback (e.g. plans that facilitate attraction of liquidity / users to platform, estimated platform income, etc).

I had voted previously in affirmation of the v2.3 changes. The change list here from v2.3 to v2.4 is relatively minor and I see no issues.

I really appreciate the effort that went into building this framework. It is a valuable reference point for evaluating proposals going forward against five defined pillars:

• Pillar 1: Infrastructure & Research Excellence
• Pillar 2: Adoption & Utility
• Pillar 3: Governance
• Pillar 4: Community & Ecosystem Growth
• Pillar 5: Ecosystem Sustainability & Resilience
  Key performance indicators are suggested, and provide a good reference point for decision making in the governance framework.

A formality that facilitates execution.

Voted YES during the Budget Info Action phase, and have heard no compelling arguments that would cause me to change my mind about following thru with the Treasury Withdrawal.

1. Well qualified candidate
2. Broad community support
3. Adds resilience to governance structure

These deliverables improve Cardano's trajectory and position for long term success. I appreciate the shared vision and set of objectives being committed to by the founding entities. Facilitating execution on these overdue deliverables is essential.

I'm not against compensation, but I think the discussion needs to evolve in a more comprehensive fashion. This just feels like a blind shot across the bow. Just how much time should the role require? How much is the community willing to compensate for that time? What about the time/effort put in by DReps? How can we strengthen the relationship between inputs (time, effort, documented output) and outputs (compensation)? I'm not ready to approve this proposal as a stop-gap measure to keep CAC in place. We'll survive without them while the conversation evolves.

CF is proposing to commit their funds and time/resources to managing dedicated domains. This has the potential of strengthening our brand. I'm "for" this only to the extent that it is not a direct trade-off against deliverables that are of much bigger consequence.

I voted yes for the associated Info Action, and believe that the value proposition here extends beyond just Snek.

Because it's right!

• Eliminates what I would consider to be a low-value, extraneous 'round' of info action voting prior to Treasury Withdrawals
• Maintains audit provisions for all withdrawals (vs the 2.0 version where this was only required if > 1M ADA).
• Improves clarity and consistency
• Takes into account multiple rounds of community feedback

A lot of nice words, but what does it really accomplish? The vision is perfectly reasonable, but without a concrete assessment of how to achieve those things, and the tradeoffs willing to be made to get there, it doesn't have much impact. It's impossible to have it all, so priorities need to be identified. Also.... in regards to the vision and strategy set by the Product Committee team, I think I'll wait for solicitation from that committee directly.

Support for GovTool active maintenance and development was previously approved by the community as a Budget Info Action, and I support the 'active' component of a treasury withdrawal. GovTool is a critical open-sourced, community led platform that helps ensure functional governance.

I believe this proposal is a positive investment in the Cardano DeFi ecosystem. It deepens liquidity, thereby reducing slippage and price impacts during trades. It strengthens visibility and user confidence in our native stables (e.g. USDM). And, the liquidity provisioning arrangement includes a flow back to our Treasury as yield. There are solid provisions for oversight, legal framework, and sustainability. Does this solve all of our issues with respect to stables? No. Is it a positive, community driven first step forward? Yes.

Strong team, strong community, and a value proposition that extends beyond just Snek.

We just went through a budget proposal / community vote / treasury withdrawal cycle, and I didn't see this one competing with those proposals. It should. Outside of that, go to Catalyst for funding.

I'm not comfortable with, at this juncture, the establishment of a 1M ADA threshold below which no budget info action is required and oversight requirements are reduced. Any changes in this regard I prefer to see come out of the "Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire" workstream that I voted for. It feels a bit early, and arbitrary, to get so specific about remediation around treasury withdrawals. I prefer the friction for now. I don't want to see projects just gaming the new rules to stack their requests below the 1M ADA limit to avoid audit and BIA scrutiny.

gov_action1fl6...9tgrd5

I own Snek, and recognize what they do for Cardano. This will likely go down as unconstitutional. My NO vote is because this proposal crosses a fuzzy line between private enterprise and public Cardano infra investment. If I were ever to vote YES on a proposal like this, there would have to be a direct return on investment back to the Treasury.

I have confidence in both process and outcome; that the elected members will serve the community well.

Better math / Better dev ux

Token selection criteria, prioritization, and ROI unclear.

We need some positive traction on stablecoin liquidity and on/off ramps to fit in with a broader context of regulation rework in the US that has put quite a bit of attention on this area. I appreciate the possibility of success having a positive return back to the Treasury.

Python dev community support is a good investment.

An investment with a high ROI, since it allows projects to focus on core deliverables instead of otherwise redundant CDN infra.

A focused analysis of our first round of governance and clarity on potential improvement vectors keeps the Voltaire era rolling in a positive direction.

Another valuable initiative to build out our developer reach and onboarding.

I believe this is an innovative funding approach worth exploring.

This is a sizable ask, but was supported by the community in the budget proposal round. High value deliverables, competent team, solid oversight, and an investment in core dev diversity are all positives.

Reasonable ask and good oversight mechanisms for a valuable deliverable.

High value proposition

I love what Tempo has been providing, and want to support them going forward. At the same time, this proposal seems very expensive for what is being provided, especially in terms of Infra.

Investment in our marketing footprint is necessary and CF is well capable of execution.

Prefer to see this one at Catalyst.

I'd say use Catalyst, but think this is very important.

I think @Invalid_eutxo will make excellent use of the funding to improve Cardano's brand.

I need to better understand exactly how this can take on legacy Trad-Fi. I'd like to see this idea more fully developed before a funding commit.

Not opposed to this in the future, but want to see the idea better socialized and matured.

My favorite wallet, but I prefer Catalyst for this funding request.

Demonstrated ability, methodology, and results that I can hang my hat on. I fully support the IOG core development plan.

This project has a good chance on delivering positive results toward scaling improvements.

A high value investment in decentralization and open sourcing of key API infra.

I'm not a fan of using this process for requests of such a a small amount. However, MLabs delivers results and Nix node support is needed.

Invalid. Will re-evaluate a future submission.

I support these projects

The community signaled support for the projects that comprise this budget. While I am not in favor of some of them, and I find the scope of the budget excessive, I'm not convinced that we should get bogged down here and insist on a more granular collection of budget definitions. I will NOT, however, approve of any Treasury withdrawal at this scale and scope.

While not in full agreement with the number itself, a vote YES here is an attempt to be pragmatic. The 200M NCL, which I preferred, failed. I prefer this proposal over the 350M competing proposal from Intersect because it is a more conservative limit, extends the timeline, and is community sourced. Most importantly, I feel that we need to clear the NCL hurdle to avoid funding delays.

1. Diversity in node implementation is good in terms of resilience and adoption
2. Excellent team that can deliver
3. Cost effective / good ROI

I believe an NCL of 200M represents a conservative limit that protects the long term interests of the Cardano Community yet supports mission critical investments.

I prefer this proposal over the community sourced NCL proposal in that it passes constitutionality checks, and focuses on just one year of Treasury management. The NCL limit, however, is still significantly too high IMO. Let's start conservative ($100-150M) until we demonstrate funding cycles with clear objectives, accountability, and oversight.

I believe that 300M ADA is significantly too high, especially given the nascent state of governance. I'd like to remain considerably more conservative until roadmaps are better defined and we've collectively demonstrated 'good sense' with our newfound governance capability.

Taking a high level view, the roadmap describes a comprehensive set of technical objectives that, if delivered upon, positions Cardano well going forward. To that end, I vote "Yes". That isn't to say that there are not valid criticisms of the proposal or that a full roadmap might not include additional information. For example, I'd like to see the roadmap include additional details around resources required and proposed milestones (i.e. more 'how'). I'd also like to see greater linkage between deliverables and intended end-user impact (i.e. more 'why'). My 'YES' vote is an endorsement of Intersect to continue building out this roadmap.