Angel Castillo

I am voting no to this proposal, this ₳5M ask reads partly like a grant with unclear ecosystem wide payoff, sets a precedent for “list us too” requests. SNEK’s wins are real, but much of its success, and the ecosystem’s, comes from foundational tooling, which treasury should prioritize.

I am voting yes on replacing the Interim Committee with DRep elected members (per Article VII §2), chosen via a transparent, audited process with staggered terms. This secures governance past epoch 580 with no constitutional breaches, treasury risks, or disclosure gaps.

I vote Yes, this proposal cuts dependence on a single API by shifting traffic to the Icebreaker network run by stake‑pool operators, bolsters the Blockfrost service that many Cardano builders rely on, and adds Hydra‑based micropayments for lightweight, future‑proof scaling and revenue. It supports Cardano’s decentralisation and technical roadmap.

This proposal plugs the funding gap for dApps that already bring users, liquidity, and real utility to Cardano. A community‑run DAO with clear, KPI‑based goals would give these teams the steady backing Catalyst can’t always provide, while keeping everything transparent. That long‑term support should toughen the ecosystem and help us hold onto top developers, both crucial for Cardano’s growth.

I’m for the OSC budget, is a good idea, it covers upkeep for the tools we already use and sets aside funds for new ones

ZK roll‑ups are central to Cardano’s future scale‑up, and zkFold already has a working prototype that bundles many contract calls into one L1 transaction, trimming congestion and fees. The technical side looks solid. Backing them now would give Cardano an early lead in ZK layer‑2s, so I’m on board with funding the project.

The 6 million ADA price tag feels too high without a clearer breakdown

I’m backing this program because it tackles the big questions; scalability, governance, and consensus; while handing IO’s research know‑how to a growing community of independent developers. The same team that delivered breakthroughs like Ouroboros and Plutus is behind it, so I’m confident it will push Cardano forward and add real depth and credibility to the network.

Catalyst has already proven its worth by delivering and driving Cardano’s innovation layer. It bundles Hermes infrastructure upgrades, a redesigned user experience, and the rollout of three further funding rounds (Funds 14–16), all aligned with Cardano’s 2025 objectives. Given Catalyst’s track record and the comprehensive scope of this plan, I fully support the requested withdrawal and look forward to its positive, long‑term impact on the ecosystem.

This proposal is a long‑term, strategic investment that strengthens Cardano’s scalability, decentralization, and practical utility. Building on Input Output Engineering’s track record with projects, it pairs concrete deliverables with a focus on knowledge sharing, ongoing maintenance, and a more diverse supplier base, principles central to Cardano’s open, decentralized ethos. Given its clear alignment with the Product Roadmap and the team’s history of successful delivery, I fully support the proposal as key to preparing Cardano for large‑scale, real‑world applications

Midgard aims to enable true layer‑2 roll‑ups that inherit Cardano’s complete security guarantees. The team behind it already has an impressive record of contributions to the ecosystem, and the project addresses one of Cardano’s current chokepoints. Given its scale and significance, direct Treasury funding is well‑suited to this proposal.

I vote YES on MLabs’ proposal to maintain and enhance Cardano.nix. The tool is already integral to the ecosystem, delivering reproducible, error‑resistant infrastructure for stake‑pool operators and developers. With a clearly defined scope and a proven DevOps crew behind it, this work promises high impact, and sustaining such open‑source infrastructure is essential for a stable, scalable, developer‑friendly Cardano ecosystem. The requested amount is also reasonable

GovTool is essential for DRep onboarding and CIP-1694, but its request, 1.5 M ADA for a single year of maintenance and incremental UX work, far exceeds what I consider reasonable at this stage.

After already approving ~280 M ADA of this year’s 300 M ADA NCL, I believe tighter fiscal discipline is critical. To signal the need for a leaner, better-justified budget, I will vote NO on this proposal and encourage a scaled-down resubmission.

Funding Amaru will diversify Cardano’s node infrastructure beyond Haskell, enhancing security and developer uptake. Smart-contract disbursement with on-chain metadata keeps every treasury payment transparent and auditable, and the team’s lean, well-planned budget shows responsible stewardship.

Therefore I vote YES on this Treasury Withdrawal governance action

I voted YES on the Budget Info Action because it is a procedural step to advance the budgeting process under the Constitution, it does not itself allocate funds. Actual funding will require Treasury Withdrawal proposals, passing a high 67% threshold. That provides enough protection against unvetted spending.