AYOMI

So I initially i abstained from this proposal, and then I had to analyze so many things and I also had some deep conversations with my delegators. So, now I am changing to a yes vote because I understand the phase we are at the moment and also the need to keep things in movement and working for the ecosystem.

I just hope the proposed NCL will bring value to the ecosystem.

Shalom.

I just need to abstain from this proposal, I am not in the best position to either vote YES or NO. My delegators agrees to this decision.

I am voting YES because this is a necessary and time-sensitive governance action to ensure continuity of Project Catalyst, protect ongoing projects, and maintain ecosystem stability + The Cardano Foundation is well-positioned to assume this role.

At the same time, I strongly encourage the Cardano Foundation to provide clear direction on how existing contributor reputation systems will be handled, as maintaining this social capital is key to sustaining trust and participation in Catalyst.

Over multiple funding rounds, contributors such as Community reviewers, Milestone reviewers, Veteran participants etc have built credibility, track records, and reputation capital through consistent participation.

It is currently unclear whether this reputation system will be preserved, migrated, or reset under the new management.

Thank you all for reading.

Hey everyone, here's my thinking on this one, and why I'm voting yes.

A quick personal note first: this is only my second time voting as a DRep, and the first time I'm writing a public rationale. I want to be as transparent and useful to my delegators as possible, so I'll be doing this whenever I vote on any proposal going forward. Bear with me as I find my footing, and please, if you have thoughts or pushback, I genuinely want to hear it.

Now, on the proposal itself.
First, it's worth being clear about what this proposal actually is. This is not a spending decision. No ADA is being withdrawn from the treasury here. A yes vote simply means I support Intersect running a structured budget process for 2026. The actual spending decisions come later, through separate Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions, and I will try to review as well.

WHY I AM SUPPORTING THIS
Cardano needs a proper budgeting process, and this proposal delivers one. The five-stage framework is well thought out. It sets clear expectations for vendors, requires proposals to be tied to real strategic goals and KPIs, and introduces sensible guardrails like the 1,000 ADA treasury donation and minimum 100,000 ADA request threshold to keep things serious and spam-free.
The smart contract-based execution with escrow-style fund disbursement is also a genuine step forward. Funds won't just be handed over, they'll be governed on-chain, with milestone tracking and multi-sig controls. We actually need that kind of accountability.

WHAT I'LL BE WATCHING CLOSELY
That said, my yes vote comes with expectations. The Oversight Committee made up of NMKR, Dquadrant, SundaeLabs, Xerberus, and the Cardano Foundation plays a critical role as a check on Intersect's administrative powers. But right now, we don't have full visibility into how that committee operates: their terms, how conflicts of interest are handled, or what happens if a dispute arises. I would love to see that information to be made public as well.

MY CONCERN ABOUT THE ENTRY THRESHOLDS
I want to be transparent about something that genuinely concerns me, the 1,000 ADA entry fee and the 100,000 ADA minimum request threshold.
In principle, both make sense. The entry fee discourages spam, and the minimum threshold keeps the process focused on meaningful, scalable work. But in practice, these thresholds quietly favour larger, well-resourced organisations. A small team of talented developers or a grassroots community initiative with a genuinely valuable idea, but a budget that naturally sits at 60,000 ADA simply cannot enter this process ( unless the team or proposer(s) add unnecessary extra 40k ADA just to meet up the requirement and that is armed robbery lol) . Not because their work isn't worth funding, but because their ask isn't big enough.
I'm voting yes on this framework because it's a pragmatic and necessary step forward for Cardano. But I want to put this question directly to Intersect and the community: is there a complementary pathway being considered for smaller, high-quality proposals? A two-tier system, one for larger ecosystem proposals and one for smaller community grants could serve Cardano far better in the long run than a single high entry floor.

IN CONCLUSION
This is me saying yes to the framework. It's a meaningful step forward and I'm comfortable lending my support while staying engaged and holding Intersect accountable every step of the way.

As always, feel free to reach out if you have questions about my reasoning.