AdaStat

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

I prefer not to evaluate future proposals based solely on whether they fit within the total budget. Instead, each proposal should be assessed individually based on its quality, impact, and value for money. Having a higher maximum budget provides flexibility and helps avoid rejecting strong proposals simply due to an artificial overall limit.

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.

More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703

I hope the team will be able to achieve their plans for self-sustainability in the future. For now, since that has not yet happened, I vote Yes to ensure development does not stop.

The 'van Rossem' Hard Fork is an important milestone in Cardano's development, and I would like to see it on mainnet.

I fully support returning the lost deposit to its owner. However, I still have some concerns and unanswered questions that I raised in the previous Info Action. So I will abstain.

Reducing the committeeMinSize parameter does not necessarily imply that the committee will be reduced. However, if that were to happen unexpectedly, a lower committeeMinSize would help ensure governance is not blocked.

Overall, I support the idea that governance needs reform. However, this proposal lacks sufficient detail, and many aspects are either not described at all or only addressed in very general terms. For that reason, I'm abstaining.

Hydra v2 brings a very important upgrade, and I would like to see it on mainnet.

The proposal is now focused on a one-year scope and does a much better job of prioritizing the key objectives for that period, so I'm happy to support it.

I haven't had the chance to review this proposal yet, and I'm going to do that a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain in case I don't manage to get to it before the deadline, just to allow the proposal to move forward.

I haven't had the chance to review this proposal yet, and I'm going to do that a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain in case I don't manage to get to it before the deadline, just to allow the proposal to move forward.

Although I generally support Cardano Critical Integrations V2 proposal, I am currently voting NO.

The proposal states that funds are requested 'to cover a focused Year 2 contracted cost', however in the initial proposal (last year) it was stated that the funding covered a 24 month period.

It is not entirely clear to me why additional funding is required this year if this year should already be covered by the initial proposal. If I receive clarification on this point, I would be happy to change my vote to Yes.

I definitely want to see these Plutus primitives on the mainnet.

I haven't had the chance to review this proposal yet, and I'm going to do that a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain in case I don't manage to get to it before the deadline, just to allow the proposal to move forward.

I haven't had the chance to review this proposal yet, and I'm going to do that a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain in case I don't manage to get to it before the deadline, just to allow the proposal to move forward.

I believe all of the research areas outlined in this proposal are needed as soon as possible. It is very unfortunate that we only have one company working on them and no real competition here.

Overall, I support this proposal. However, in its current form, I have to vote No.

Given the tightly constrained budget for the current year, there simply isn't enough funding available to satisfy requests covering multiple years in advance.

If the proposal is revised to focus on a one-year scope and clearly prioritize the most important objectives for that period, I would be happy to support it.

Having multiple, diverse nodes from different teams is critically important for any decentralized system, including Cardano.

I decided to vote Yes, since I believe the long-term value for the ecosystem outweighs the requested funds.

Overall, I support this proposal. However, in its current form, I have to vote No.

Given the tightly constrained budget for the current year, there simply isn't enough funding available to satisfy requests covering multiple years in advance.

If the proposal is revised to focus on a one-year scope and clearly prioritize the most important objectives for that period, I would be happy to support it.

In my view, using the Cardano blockchain for RWA is absolutely the right direction, and overall I like this proposal. However, I unfortunately cannot support it.

My main concern is the return on investment. Based on the figures provided, it seems unlikely that the direct financial benefit to Cardano would exceed the amount being requested.

That said, I also do not want to vote No. A successful implementation could generate meaningful value for the Cardano ecosystem even if the full investment is never returned to the treasury. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to assess at this stage, as there are few comparable examples to draw from.

For that reason, I am voting Abstain.

I'm going to revisit this proposal a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain just in case I don't manage to do that before the deadline.

I'm going to revisit this proposal a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain just in case I don't manage to do that before the deadline.

Despite the relatively large amount being requested, there is currently no alternative proposal available. So I'm voting Yes, since maintenance is necessary.

I definitely want to see Leios implemented on mainnet.

I definitely want these features to be implemented.

I'm going to revisit this proposal a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain just in case I don't manage to do that before the deadline.

I decided to vote Yes, since I believe the long-term value for the ecosystem outweighs the requested funds.

I'm going to revisit this proposal a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain just in case I don't manage to do that before the deadline.

I'm going to revisit this proposal a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain just in case I don't manage to do that before the deadline.

I decided to vote Yes, since I believe the long-term value for the ecosystem outweighs the requested funds.

I carefully went through both the positive and negative feedback. Some concerns are quite valid, while others feel more debatable.

In the end, I lean slightly toward the view that our community benefits from having both events, since I believe the long-term value for the ecosystem outweighs the requested funds.

As a result, I decided to vote Yes.

Definitely Yes. Having multiple, diverse nodes from different teams is critically important for any decentralized system, including Cardano.

Voting YES.

Previously, Project Catalyst was managed by IOG, a development-focused organization. While it has handled this responsibility well over time, I believe that transitioning management to the Cardano Foundation is a natural next step in Catalyst's evolution.

I am voting Abstain on the 'Dingo: a Production-Grade Block Producer' treasury withdrawal, not because of the proposal itself, but due to concerns about the overall voting process.

At the moment, there is an approved total budget (350M), yet funding requests are being submitted independently as separate governance actions. This creates a fragmented and unclear landscape: it's difficult to understand the total number of proposals, the combined requested amount, or how close we are to exceeding the available budget.

Without this broader context, it becomes challenging to properly prioritize proposals, assess trade-offs, or compare similar initiatives. If the total requested funds exceed the budget, there is no clear framework for how decisions should be made across competing proposals.

For these reasons, I believe the current process lacks the structure needed for effective decision-making, and I am abstaining on that basis rather than on the merits of this specific proposal.

I am voting Abstain on the 'Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget' treasury withdrawal, not because of the proposal itself, but due to concerns about the overall voting process.

At the moment, there is an approved total budget (350M), yet funding requests are being submitted independently as separate governance actions. This creates a fragmented and unclear landscape: it's difficult to understand the total number of proposals, the combined requested amount, or how close we are to exceeding the available budget.

Without this broader context, it becomes challenging to properly prioritize proposals, assess trade-offs, or compare similar initiatives. If the total requested funds exceed the budget, there is no clear framework for how decisions should be made across competing proposals.

For these reasons, I believe the current process lacks the structure needed for effective decision-making, and I am abstaining on that basis rather than on the merits of this specific proposal.

I am voting Abstain on the 'Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund' treasury withdrawal, not because of the proposal itself, but due to concerns about the overall voting process.

At the moment, there is an approved total budget (350M), yet funding requests are being submitted independently as separate governance actions. This creates a fragmented and unclear landscape: it's difficult to understand the total number of proposals, the combined requested amount, or how close we are to exceeding the available budget.

Without this broader context, it becomes challenging to properly prioritize proposals, assess trade-offs, or compare similar initiatives. If the total requested funds exceed the budget, there is no clear framework for how decisions should be made across competing proposals.

For these reasons, I believe the current process lacks the structure needed for effective decision-making, and I am abstaining on that basis rather than on the merits of this specific proposal.

Voting YES.

I fully support this proposal, since I believe that without a structured process that allows DReps to evaluate proposals in context, it is challenging to make well-informed decisions.

I am voting Abstain on the 'Amaru 2026' treasury withdrawal, not because of the proposal itself, but due to concerns about the overall voting process.

At the moment, there is an approved total budget (350M), yet funding requests are being submitted independently as separate governance actions. This creates a fragmented and unclear landscape: it's difficult to understand the total number of proposals, the combined requested amount, or how close we are to exceeding the available budget.

Without this broader context, it becomes challenging to properly prioritize proposals, assess trade-offs, or compare similar initiatives. If the total requested funds exceed the budget, there is no clear framework for how decisions should be made across competing proposals.

For these reasons, I believe the current process lacks the structure needed for effective decision-making, and I am abstaining on that basis rather than on the merits of this specific proposal.

I prefer not to evaluate future proposals solely based on whether they fit within the total budget. Each proposal should be judged individually on its quality, impact, and value for money. A higher budget of 350M provides more flexibility and reduces the risk of rejecting strong proposals just because of an arbitrary limit, so I'm voting No for 300M.

As a DRep and an SPO, I believe these protocol parameter changes will be beneficial for the network. They are an important step toward improving stability and long-term sustainability, so I'm voting Yes.

I'm voting Yes on the Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1. I believe DeFi liquidity is crucial for the ecosystem, helping applications grow, users interact, and the network thrive. This step is necessary to make it all possible.

I support naming the next Cardano hard fork after Max van Rossem, to honor his work and contribution to the Cardano ecosystem. It helps preserve his legacy and reflects the values of respect and continuity within the community, so I'm voting Yes.

While I've heard many concerns about the relatively high overall cap of 350M, I prefer not to evaluate future proposals based solely on whether they fit within the total budget. Instead, each proposal should be assessed individually based on its quality, impact, and value for money. Having a higher maximum budget provides flexibility and helps avoid rejecting strong proposals simply due to an artificial overall limit.

I consider this vote unnecessary, since a 67% approval threshold will be required anyway for the actual treasury withdrawal. But since it's currently a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Abstain just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote.

All the inaccuracies and misspellings I mentioned earlier have been fixed, so at this point, I see no reason to vote other than Yes.

Compared to the previous version of the proposal, this is definitely a step forward. However, overall it still feels to me like a vote For everything good and against everything bad. This is probably because the document is very broad and touches on a wide range of issues that are difficult to properly frame and address within a single proposal. Maybe it's worth considering each of these points more narrowly and separately?

In any case, as I mentioned before, this version of the proposal looks much better, so this time I will not vote No, but will Abstain instead, effectively excluding my vote.

Technically, although Christina came second after Cardano Curia in the preliminary vote, this does not mean that she would have taken first place if Cardano Curia had not been present. In reality, it is unknown how the votes would have been redistributed in that case (for example, those who voted for Cardano Curia might not have voted for Christina, in which case she still would not have come first).

However, as I have said many times before, I aim to reduce bureaucracy in Cardano, and I generally believe that most of these preliminary votes make little sense and only add confusion, especially since the final vote still has to pass a certain threshold anyway. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant to me what happened in the preliminary vote (or whether it happened at all), as I believe that in the final vote everyone ultimately expresses their own opinion.

Since I believe that adding an 8th member to the Constitutional Committee would be beneficial, and that Christina is a suitable candidate for this 8th member, I vote Yes.

I believe it's an important step that supports the ecosystem's growth, progress, and long-term stability, so I'm voting Yes.

I support the Critical Integrations Budget and believe it should move forward as soon as possible. Since its implementation would be delayed without this step, I'm voting Yes.

I consider this vote unnecessary, since a 67% approval threshold will be required anyway for the actual treasury withdrawal. But since it's currently a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Abstain just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote.

All candidates for the Constitutional Committee are well-known within the Cardano community. Since I have no reason to doubt their integrity, I'm voting Yes.

When evaluating treasury withdrawals, I usually base my decision on whether the proposal's impact will exceed the requested amount. In this case, I believe the positive effect on the Cardano ecosystem will clearly outweigh the cost, especially considering that the proposal involves the repayment of borrowed funds.

I believe that the existence of the .ada and .cardano domains fully serves the interests of the Cardano ecosystem. I found no reason to vote No or Abstain, so I'm voting Yes.

Although I fully support the idea of refunding the deposit for the Ikigai proposal, in this particular case I voted No, because I have no clear understanding of who exactly is submitting this proposal and what relation they have to the original author of the Ikigai proposal - this is not specified anywhere in the description. It is also unclear whether the author of the Ikigai proposal actually wants the deposit to be refunded. Since the author has never directly requested it (even though the community generally supports the idea, as it has been discussed multiple times), there is a possibility that the deposit was not lost by mistake but intentionally left as a donation to the treasury. Therefore, I would like to see confirmation from the original author of the Ikigai proposal that they indeed wish to have the deposit returned. I'll be happy to change my vote to Yes once I get clarification on these points.

Compensation for participating in governance can be discussed. However, at this point, I do not support it for any entities - neither for dReps, nor for SPOs, nor for the CC members. It's worth noting that SPOs receive rewards not for participating in governance, so trying to put existing pool rewards and the lack of rewards for dReps or the CC members under the same umbrella doesn't seem right to me.

As I mentioned earlier, I'll change my vote to Yes once I get answers to my questions. So I'm voting Yes, since the proposal's author provided clarification and shared the following link https://docs.gov.tools/important-updates/govtool-maintenance-ending-soon/updated-budget-proposal/updated-govtool-budget-proposal-long-version

I'm voting Yes. All the inaccuracies and misspellings I mentioned earlier have been fixed, so at this point, I see no reason to vote otherwise.

I voted No, not because I'm against this particular proposal, but because I'm against this kind of proposal in general. In my opinion, proposals like this clearly don't reduce bureaucracy or make governance more efficient. To be honest, I genuinely don't understand what exactly we're supposed to vote for here? For everything good and against everything bad? I really couldn't find anything specific here to actually vote for. Please point me in the right direction if I incedently overlooked it.

Further, if we look at this proposal specifically - on the one hand, it only describes very broad concepts, but on the other hand, it already defines KPI levels and similar metrics. Yet there's no explanation of how it's actually supposed to be implemented. For example - where does the number 200M come from? Of course, I wouldn't mind Cardano generating 200M. But I'd be even happier if it generated 400M or 800M. So should I vote Yes for 200M, or No? I just don't get it.

Initially, I was going to vote Abstain, since that seemed to reflect my position most accurately. However, I later reconsidered - the only reasonable approach I see toward this and similar proposals is not to vote for them at all. But since I wanted to leave a comment, I had to cast a vote - and No here effectively equals not voting at all.

I find the Info action step adds unnecessary delays and confusion, given that 67% approval is already required at the final vote. But since it's now a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Abstain just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote.

I find the Info action step adds unnecessary delays and confusion, given that 67% approval is already required at the final vote. But since it's now a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Abstain just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote.

I find the Info action step adds unnecessary delays and confusion, given that 67% approval is already required at the final vote. But since it's now a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Abstain just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote. It's worth noting that I voted Yes on this proposal earlier, for the reason mentioned above. However, after several discussions within the team and with other DReps, I came to the conclusion that Abstaining is the more appropriate option in this case. A Yes vote might create the false impression that I fully support the proposal, which isn't necessarily true. I simply don't want to take part in the preliminary vote, but at the same time I don't want the default No from non-voting DReps to negatively affect the proposal.

All candidates for the Constitutional Сommittee are well-known in the Cardano community. Since I have no reason to distrust them, I'm voting Yes.

Although I fully support some of the proposals in the new draft of the Constitution (for example, the removal of the preliminary Info action), other points - such as making oversight and reporting optional for amounts below 1M, or the disclosure of personal data - raise concerns for me and make me think this could have negative consequences. I may be wrong, but to confirm or refute this I would like to see a more detailed explanation of the proposed changes, with clear examples of what exactly they would lead to.\n\nIn addition, the current version of the Constitution contains errors that were not corrected in the proposed updated draft.\n\nAll of the above makes me vote No at this point, but I will be happy to vote Yes if clarifications are provided on the contentious points and the reasons preventing a positive vote are addressed.

I have already supported a broader budget proposal that addresses the listing of multiple tokens. While I do think that exchange listings can benefit the Cardano ecosystem as a whole, I am voting No here since this proposal targets only one specific token.

I have already supported a broader budget proposal that addresses the listing of multiple tokens. While I do think that exchange listings can benefit the Cardano ecosystem as a whole, I am voting No here since this proposal targets only one specific token.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

This is one of the two budget proposals (the second one is 'Expanding Stablecoin / Cardano Native Asset Support / Fiat Ramps') I initially voted Abstain on, based on the previously mentioned approach - I was unable to determine whether the potential benefit to the ecosystem would outweigh the amount requested from the treasury.\n\nHowever, after careful consideration and weighing all the pros and cons, I came to the conclusion that although exchange listings and other activities described in the proposal are unlikely to directly increase the ADA price (as we've seen many times recently that this doesn't tend to happen), they will likely have a positive long-term impact on the ecosystem. This would come through greater brand recognition, improved user experience through easier access to native stablecoins on centralized exchanges, and so on.\n\nSo, in the end, I decided to change my vote to Yes.

This is one of the two budget proposals (the second one is 'Ecosystem Exchange Listing and Market Making service pool') I initially voted Abstain on, based on the previously mentioned approach - I was unable to determine whether the potential benefit to the ecosystem would outweigh the amount requested from the treasury.\n\nHowever, after careful consideration and weighing all the pros and cons, I came to the conclusion that although exchange listings and other activities described in the proposal are unlikely to directly increase the ADA price (as we've seen many times recently that this doesn't tend to happen), they will likely have a positive long-term impact on the ecosystem. This would come through greater brand recognition, improved user experience through easier access to native stablecoins on centralized exchanges, and so on.\n\nSo, in the end, I decided to change my vote to Yes.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

Same as with any other preliminary Info action: I find this step adds unnecessary delays and confusion, given that 67% approval is already required at the final vote. But since it's now a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Yes just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote. Also, I believe that a more detailed cost breakdown would help address some of the DReps' concerns and improve the chances of reaching the required threshold.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

As a DRep, I voted for all projects in the 2025 budget vote based on a very simple principle:\n\n- Yes if I believe the long-term value to the Cardano ecosystem exceeds the requested amount;\n- No if it doesn't;\n- Abstain if I'm unsure.\n\nAll of my votes are consistent with my position in the May 2025 Ekklesia round.

Same as with any other preliminary Info action: I find this step adds unnecessary delays and confusion, given that 67% approval is already required at the final vote. But since it's now a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Yes just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote. Also, I believe that a more detailed cost breakdown would help address some of the DReps' concerns and improve the chances of reaching the required threshold.

Definitely Yes. Having multiple, diverse nodes from different teams is critically important for any decentralized system, including Cardano.

I think this step mostly adds delays and confusion, since 67% is already needed in the final vote. But since it's part of the process now, I'm voting Yes to let projects move forward.

Definitely Yes. Having multiple, diverse nodes from different teams is critically important for any decentralized system, including Cardano.

I decided to vote Yes, for two reasons:\n1. Even though 350M is quite high limit, it does not actually mean all this money will definitely be taken from treasury. Decision about withdrawal will be made by DReps for each proposal separately, and they are the ones who will decide in the end - to give requested amount or not.\n2. We need to accept the budget so we can move forward. Even if we make mistake now, we can change it later. But if we do not move forward, we will never know if we were right or wrong. So it seems better to take a step - even if it’s not perfect - than to stay stuck and do nothing.

In general I support the Cardano Vision and Roadmap. My doubts, however, were caused by the fact the Reference link leads to the website that may change at any time. But after much consideration, I decided that it is not so important for the Info type, because it is not the kind of thing that leads to changes in the protocol or something like that, but only needed to the temperature checking. Hence, Yes.

In my opinion, decreasing the treasury tax will not have a positive effect on the network in the long run. Increasing rewards can and should be achieved through other methods, such as growing the number of active projects on the network and, accordingly, increasing the total fees. So, I have decided to vote No

Despite the fact that this Cardano Constitution is still far from perfect, it is definitely sufficient to move forward. So, I have decided to vote Yes