Army of Spies

This seems like a comparatively small price tag for such a well known contribution to the ecosystem's language diversity.

This is a "yes" vote for Mithril for all the reasons described over the years in videos where I have addressed Mithril.

This is a small price to pay for the technical expertise we get in return.

Intersect serves the ecosystem in very important coordination roles. I also haven't seen any viable alternative for those functions.

This is far too much money and a severe abdication of the power of the purse. A very easy "no" vote.

I am unconvinced this is prudent spending given competing demands on the Cardano Treasury and how quickly the Treasury will reach zero given current spending levels.

I am unconvinced this is prudent spending given competing demands on the Cardano Treasury and how quickly the Treasury will reach zero given current spending levels.

I am unconvinced this is prudent spending given competing demands on the Cardano Treasury and how quickly the Treasury will reach zero given current spending levels.

I am unconvinced this is prudent spending given competing demands on the Cardano Treasury and how quickly the Treasury will reach zero given current spending levels.

I am unconvinced this is prudent spending given competing demands on the Cardano Treasury and how quickly the Treasury will reach zero given current spending levels.

Hardware wallet maintenance is absolutely essential for the ecosystem. At this price, this is an easy "YES".

I have explained my support for Hydra ad nauseam over the years in videos. Forward to progress!

Yes to progress!

The Eternl wallet is very important infrastructure in the Cardano ecosystem. I voted "YES" to the proposal before, and it should have passed then. At $70k per FTE and a very low total price tag, this is an easy decision.

I do not favor removing the ability of individual proposals to reach the DReps without going through a centralized budget. I am unpersuaded that would be an improvement. Sounds like more centralization and more bureaucracy. Some on the inside would surely prefer that. But, I am unconvinced it would be a net benefit for our decentralized ecosystem or that it is even philosophically consistent with decentralization.

I voted "YES" on this last time and it should have passed. It is long overdue that this money be returned to the rightful owner!

This makes sense to help mitigate the need for emergency CC elections in the future. Also, relying on the judgment of the Civics Committee and the Technical Steering Committee here.

As in my previous "NO" vote on funding for this entity, I do not believe the DReps should be abdicating the power of the purse in this way.

I've expressed my viewpoint on the NCL over and over again in my votes, in videos, and on X. Happy to repeat it again here. I do not support levels of spending that would zero out the Cardano Treasury within a decade. I certainly cannot support even higher levels that would zero out the Treasury in something like a half-decade. Everyone can examine this for themselves at the Treasury Depletion Calculator: https://tempo.vote/treasury.

I will echo what I wrote in my recent vote rationale related to the Token 2049 event proposal. I am ever-weary of expenditure levels that would exhaust the Cardano Treasury inside of 10 years. Interest in crypto is also currently incredibly low. These types of events seem like we're marketing to already-converted crypto insiders when we need to reach the mainstream. We need to present a value prop to soccer moms, not Solana bros. I am unpersuaded there is sufficient ROI at many of these events. For those reasons, I am unconvinced that this would be a wise use of funds at this time.

While my interest was piqued by the reference to Zengate Global, this proposal was not persuasive enough to me to justify the price. There seem to be many different moving parts, many different parties engaging in different tasks, and I can't tell who's actually running this thing. Doesn't seem like a good recipe for justification of the large price tag.

Given Cardano's relative lack of success over the years in attracting developers vs. its peers, I believe it is worth taking a gamble on a typescript-shaped imperative language. There is a valid argument that functional programming is no longer as steep a challenge with the rise of vibe coding. But, Cardano's historic record of NOT overly attracting developers has not so far been disrupted by AI. So, the case for taking a gamble at this price on adopting an imperative smart contract programming language still seems persuasive enough. It only requires a modicum of first principles thinking to conclude that something akin to the world's most popular programming language has a good chance of seeing more adoption than something more akin to languages that are far less adopted. Additionally, this is not an "OR" situation where we replace one arrow with another. This would be an "AND" situation where we hope to add another arrow in the quiver.

Voting yes for node diversity here. As discussed in-depth many, many times on the Army of Spies YouTube channel, node diversity is a minimum infrastructure requirement of modern blockchains and we must meet a certain threshold in that regard.

Eternl has been very important wallet infrastructure in Cardano. The very modest price tag of $420k plus the plans for potential payback to the Treasury (if subscription levels allow) make this an easy decision.

Voting "yes" in full reliance on the expertise of the Intersect Parameter and Technical Steering Committees.

My rationale for supporting this initiative has not changed. Please see my prior votes in favor of this initiative for rationale.

This is easy. Does Cardano want post-quantum security? Does Cardano want the University of Edinburgh, Tokyo Tech, Oxford, the University of Buenos Aires, et al. involved in building that post-quantum future for Cardano? Yes, please!

The $2.1 million USD price tag seems very steep for 12 months for a proposal that only seems to list two named team members. Given that our current expenditure trajectory would exhaust the treasury within a decade, I am unconvinced this is the best use of Treasury funds.

The faster finality that would come with Ouroboros Peras is certainly desirable. But, this nearly $10 million USD price tag is too rich for my blood right now. It's also a two year project. They could have sought to fund only the first year. This is probably better timed for a future when we get more bang for the buck for our Treasury ADA.

This proposal was not persuasive enough to justify the 12 million ADA price tag. Some worthy ideals were expressed. But, I am not convinced this is the best use of Cardano Treasury funds.

Durian is delicious and the provenance use case for blockchains is compelling. However, I am unpersuaded this would be the best use of Cardano Treasury Funds. Our current projected spending would exhaust the Cardano Treasury inside of a decade. We also have many homegrown projects begging for funding just to survive. It doesn't seem compelling that we need to fund a proposal that references a "TonFarm NFT Collection on TON".

We, as a community, should be appreciative that we have a founding entity in Emurgo that is willing to manage a Cardano sponsorship at this level. However, I am ever-weary of expenditure levels that would exhaust the Cardano Treasury inside of 10 years. Interest in crypto is also currently incredibly low. These types of events seem like we're marketing to already-converted crypto insiders when we need to reach the mainstream. We need to present a value prop to soccer moms, not Solana bros. I also cannot reconcile the price tag with some of the KPIs (e.g. 260 Cardano wallet signups in the case of this top up sponsorship upgrade proposal). I'm sure Emurgo would do a great job for us managing this sponsorship. But I am unpersuaded there is sufficient ROI. For those reasons, I am unconvinced that this would be a wise use of funds at this time.

We, as a community, should be appreciative that we have a founding entity in Emurgo that is willing to manage our exposure at an event like this. However, I am ever-weary of expenditure levels that would exhaust the Cardano Treasury inside of 10 years. Interest in crypto is also currently incredibly low. These types of events seem like we're marketing to already-converted crypto insiders when we need to reach the mainstream. We need to present a value prop to soccer moms, not Solana bros. I also cannot reconcile the price tag with some of the KPIs (e.g. 200 Cardano wallet signups). I'm sure Emurgo would do a great job for us at this event. But I am unpersuaded there is sufficient ROI. For those reasons, I am unconvinced that this would be a wise use of funds at this time.

We, as a community, should be appreciative that we have founding entities that are willing and able to put on an event like this. However, I am ever weary of expenditure levels that would exhaust the Cardano Treasury inside of 10 years. Interest in crypto is also currently incredibly low. For those reasons, I am unconvinced that a nearly $2 million event like this would be a wise use of funds at this time.

For many of the same reasons expressed by my fellow dReps (especially those related to the role of the free market and the deleterious effects of subsidization vs. competition), I am not yet persuaded this is the best use of funds at the current time.

Cardano desperately needs to improve developer onboarding. At this price tag, I can get behind an initiative "directly targeting a 30%+ improvement in developer growth rate."

Unfortunately, we cannot fund every single proposal that we would with infinite money. I am not yet persuaded this is the best use of funds at this time.

Unfortunately, we cannot fund every single proposal that we would with infinite money. I am not yet persuaded this is the best use of funds at this time.

Unfortunately, we cannot fund every single proposal that we would with infinite money. I am not yet persuaded this is the best use of funds at this time.

Keeping Cardano from being another part of the Robbery Forest is a goal worth spending some money. I can get behind automated formal verification at this price. Yes to security! It will be even more important in an age of AI generated zero days.

I desperately want to vote yes for a proposal for maintenance of our beloved ecosystem. But, even a desperate man has limits. I am 100% for spending money on maintenance. But, the price tag has to be supported in some way. I am not yet persuaded that is the case here. Adding insult to injury, this price seems to only be for 9 months. I cannot in good conscience vote yes when I am not yet convinced the price is justified. I would happily vote yes if the cost were to be justified in a more detailed proposal or otherwise. This is not a vote against maintenance. This is a vote for a better justification of the price tag. As it stands, Jimmy McMillan put it perfectly: "The rent is too damn high!"

Yes to Babel Fees! This is another long awaited infrastructure goal.

Yes to Leios! Been looking forward to this for a long time.

I'm sure the CF and Emurgo would each do a great job administering these events. However, this is a high price tag and these events seem aimed at people who are already in crypto. We should employ these funds toward bringing the masses into Cardano/building things that will attract the masses.

While acknowledging that this proposal is related to both Gerolamo and Pebble, I will echo the vote rationale I provided in connection with my vote on the Dingo proposal:

Node diversity is extremely important for the ecosystem. However, there are several different initiatives seeking funding this year for node development and this proposal should be compared alongside the others once we see them during the Intersect budget process. So, this is a "no" vote as to timing. This proposal should be considered alongside the others during the budget process when the entirety of the budget can be considered. This applies to the funding for Pebble as well.

As far as VCs go, I do actually like Draper. However, this feels like another abdication of the power of the purse by the dReps. We put up $75M USD over 6-8 years and Draper finds another $5M USD? Then we pay $1 million (per year ?) in "management fees"? Is that the long term vision? What kinds of projects will they choose to fund with our money? Three more DEXs and two more prediction markets per year that they think will make us look more like other ecosystems? Is this just so we can say we're in the VC supported crowd? I'd rather put the money toward RealFi. I understand why Draper would like this. I am not persuaded this makes sense on our end.

Node diversity is extremely important for the ecosystem. However, there are several different initiatives seeking funding this year for node development and this proposal should be compared alongside the others once we see them during the Intersect budget process. So, this is a "no" vote as to timing. This proposal should be considered later.

My thoughts haven't changed. I will quote my previous vote rationale from 19January2026: "I voted "NO" on the related Info Action and I am voting "NO" on this withdrawal. Please see my X post related to the info action https://x.com/ArmyofSpies/status/1977565495302996409. I do not believe the DReps should be abdicating the power of the purse. Since we already have a "pentad" of founding entities in the greater Cardano Ecosystem, I also question the wisdom of creating yet another foundation entity (this time a "Cayman Islands Foundation Company" that will feature at least "2 Cayman-based professional directors who manage the FC's business and affairs"). We do not need to increase the entity count to a "Hextad". We have enough centralized entity drama as it is given that a decentralized ecosystem should really be...well...decentralized. I also do not believe this is currently the best use of treasury funds when the Cardano Treasury is already trending toward zero within a decade and there are significant questions around yet another centralized foundation entity picking winners and losers when "[c]rypto is filled with failed liquidity incentives" as Sebastian Guillemot succinctly put it in his abstention rationale as to the Info Action. The free markets always do a better job of identifying the best cases of product-market fit than centralized decision-by-committee. Adam Smith taught us this lesson 250 years ago in his 1776 work 'The Wealth of Nations'."

While I largely appreciate the efforts of Intersect and the voluminous work that goes into the budget process, I hate the bundling of proposals. I don't want to have to vote yes to a Treasury Withdrawal for a bundle when I strongly disfavor some components and favor others. Intersect can serve a valuable role in the budget process. But, the bundling overly burdens our ability to vote on-chain for one component and not for another. I don't want to be forced to vote (on-chain) for someone else's pork barrel proposal in order to vote yes (on-chain) for the valuable endeavors. As mentioned by at least one other dRep in their voting rationale, I also see the potential for problems with the participating stake metric over live stake in terms of centralization of voting power while I understand there are also voter turnout issues at play if live stake were adopted instead. I wouldn't mind seeing additional quantitative analysis of this issue.

Voting "YES" on this NCL as it represents an improvement in terms of being less than the prior NCL and is described as being at least under the previous annual inflows.

In this vote, I am relying on the judgment of the Hard Fork Working Group.

In this vote, I am relying on the expertise and unanimous vote of the Technical Steering Committee as evidenced in the minutes linked in the proposal. (See https://committees.docs.intersectmbo.org/intersect-technical-steering-committee/meeting-minutes/2025-tsc-meeting-minutes/meeting-minutes-october-01-2025).

This governance action goes in the wrong direction. I want more decentralization, not less. While it is important to keep the Constitutional Committee running smoothly, reducing its seats is not the answer. I also note the proposer seems to be the same as the recent constitutional rewrite. I found the outcome of that governance action to be highly undesirable. (See https://x.com/ArmyofSpies/status/2013807559476682878). The level of disclosure and transparency around how the Constitution was re-written was also unacceptable from my perspective. (See https://x.com/ArmyofSpies/status/2015848641085464848). That only further deters me from this governance action and further governance actions by such proposer.

As detailed in previous votes and various videos on the Army of Spies Youtube channel, I largely view direct treasury withdrawals as being most appropriate for infrastructure that will benefit the entire ecosystem and Catalyst as being more appropriate for individual dApps, barring some overwhelming rationale for an exception. Despite the fact that the word "infrastructure" is in the title of this treasury withdrawal governance action, I am not convinced this is the right kind of spending for a direct withdrawal from the Cardano Treasury. Also, since we have already funded Catalyst, I am always mindful of any additional incremental spending that would contribute to an overall level of spending that would tend to deplete the Cardano Treasury within the next decade.

I voted "NO" on the related Info Action and I am voting "NO" on this withdrawal. Please see my X post related to the info action https://x.com/ArmyofSpies/status/1977565495302996409. I do not believe the DReps should be abdicating the power of the purse. Since we already have a "pentad" of founding entities in the greater Cardano Ecosystem, I also question the wisdom of creating yet another foundation entity (this time a "Cayman Islands Foundation Company" that will feature at least "2 Cayman-based professional directors who manage the FC's business and affairs"). We do not need to increase the entity count to a "Hextad". We have enough centralized entity drama as it is given that a decentralized ecosystem should really be...well...decentralized. I also do not believe this is currently the best use of treasury funds when the Cardano Treasury is already trending toward zero within a decade and there are significant questions around yet another centralized foundation entity picking winners and losers when "[c]rypto is filled with failed liquidity incentives" as Sebastian Guillemot succinctly put it in his abstention rationale as to the Info Action. The free markets always do a better job of identifying the best cases of product-market fit than centralized decision-by-committee. Adam Smith taught us this lesson 250 years ago in his 1776 work "The Wealth of Nations".

This is a very mixed bag of a very large number of items. There are general ideas (e.g. let's ensure very high uptime for the blockchain) to which most people are very likely to agree. But, there are also many sentiments or ideas that are more controversial (e.g. DRep incentives, SPO incentives for support of L2s, multi-asset Treasury, managed treasury, "refine the ecosystem's tokenomics"). There are items in that latter category that may or may not be even directionally desirable. But, in any case , I think it would be far premature to commit to all these ideas at once for a timeline going all the way to 2030. Dealing with each of these items individually would be vastly superior from my perspective. Agreeing to all these things in one fell swoop without more detail or discussion doesn't seem prudent or desirable. I agree with other DReps that have noted they can see scenarios in 3 or 4 years when people are trying to reject or enforce ideas based on concepts being or not being "a part of the 2026 plan".

I am voting "No" yet again on this amendment to the constitution and the reasons are largely the same as my previous votes. Please see my previous explanations. Many of the grammatical and other smaller changes are marginal improvements. I may even be inclined toward some of the larger changes. However, on balance, I cannot agree with this overall amendment to the constitution. I do not agree with many of the substantive changes. They are not unreasonable or illogical. But, they do not seem like an improvement from my perspective. For instance, and as I have already explained with every past version of this amendment, I value much of the aspirational language that has been deleted. The Cardano Community is an aspirational community. Its constitution should also be aspirational. Some of the verbiage changes do not seem necessary at all. It seems like someone just wanted to change the language to suit their own style and preferences. I do not believe we should be changing the constitution just to satisfy someone's minor word choice preferences without some overriding purpose. The constitution was a huge undertaking for the Cardano Community and we should only be changing it if there is some substantial reason. I also do not believe this is an acceptable method to propose changes to a legal document. I have mentioned this over and over again with each iteration of this proposed amendment. An inline "tracked changes" redline is the standard for proposing changes in this type of legal document. The side-by-side document method is a terrible method for showing changes in a legal document. The original version of a section may show up several pages above the new edited version. This is essentially unreadable if you are actually trying to understand the changes and would be laughed out of the room in most legal settings since it's a great tool to obscure the true magnitude of changes. Inline "tracked changes" redlines are the standard and should be used with something as important as the Cardano constitution. Again, I have mentioned this over and over again with each new version of this amendment. Here's an example of an inline "tracked changes" redline in a lawmaking setting: https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/rules.house.gov/files/documents/bill-to-bill_bills-119pih_to_rcp_119-3_final.pdf. That is the way that changes to legal documents should be presented so that they can be read in a comprehensible manner.

See video on Army of Spies youtube channel of the same date.

See Army of Spies Youtube video of same date as vote.

See Army of Spies Youtube video of same date as vote.

See Army of Spies Youtube video of same date as vote.

See recent YouTube videos addressing this topic with detailed explanation.

Please see my August 6, 2025 post on X with respect to the previous v.2.0 vote. While I appreciate that many changes were made in v.2.3 that accommodated comments made by myself and others, I am voting "no" on this proposal as to v.2.3. As I noted in my v.2.0 comments, it is still very difficult to track the changes in this proposed new constitution. One document was attached to the proposal that tracked changes from v.2.0 to v.2.3. That document did what I suggested in my August 6, 2025 comments in showing changes to sections side-by-side. However, the bulk of the changes are in another document which shows changes from v.1.0 to v.2.3 and that document does not show the changes side-by-side. This makes it extremely difficult to track substantive changes. Many changes to the document were fine and involved things like capitalization, grammar, and punctuation. Those were improvements or necessary corrections in many cases. Thank you for those changes. However, many other changes were stylistic changes that seemed to be made at the whim of whoever made them. I don't think we should be changing things in the constitution based on anyone's whim. An example is the deletion of much of the aspirational language in the constitution. As I noted in my August 6, 2025 comments, Cardano itself is aspirational and I believe our constitution should be as well. A full set of explanatory comments (much more itemized and detailed than the current comments) would be helpful to justify all the changes in the proposal. An example that shows the need for side-by-side changes, and seems to include deletion of aspirational language (although it's difficult to track), is Art. II, Section 1 which shows up on Line 99 in one column of the v.1.0 to v.2.3 changes and in Line 160 of the other column. Many other no voters have pointed out substantive changes that are equally difficult to track and understand. I may have missed them if not pointed out by others. It makes me wonder what changes we all may be missing here. The starting point for understanding these changes should be a side-by-side tracked changes draft or a draft with in-line changes (deletions and insertions all marked in one single text) as you would see in any other legislative environment (e.g. any markup of a bill in the U.S. Congress or most modern parliaments in industrialized countries). Otherwise, it's too difficult to say what we are voting for here. I previously pointed this out on August 6, 2025. Once I can actually track the small grain substantive changes in a reliable way, I will be able to discern if I actually agree with them. But, I will vote "no" on this current proposal. I like many of the grammatical and other smaller corrections. But, the other substantive changes are too hard to track and the stylistic changes seem too arbitrary to justify a "yes" vote on something as important as the Cardano Constitution.

See X.com post of the same date related to this vote.

Please see X.com post of the same date related to this vote.

See post on x.com regarding this vote.

See X.com post relative to this vote.

See detailed post on X.com as to the previous corresponding info action.

See X post at https://x.com/ArmySpies/status/1977565495302996409.