Cash

After reviewing the proposal, I am confident that this will be extremely beneficial to the Cardano Ecosystem.

Raise the NCL.

First and foremost - I am a big fan of the FluidTokens team. I think they are one of the most highly capable teams on Cardano.

With that said, I am on the fence for this proposal. On one hand, I truly trust this team and know the value successful BTC DeFi could bring to Cardano, especially non-custodial and open-source. On another hand, this proposal has some items I will outline in the following that are preventing me from voting yes.

1. Catalyst proposal isn't even half way closed out. This is with an extension. I won't say we missed the BTC liquidity market opportunity, but this product is no where near launching, making me think that the opportunity will pass us by while we are still building. https://milestones.projectcatalyst.io/projects/1400012

2. Pricing - This is round 2 of 3 for paying for this bridge. I am not saying the costs aren't justified but I don't think it's been made clear til now that this would take 3 funding rounds for rollout. Also pegged at .16 ADA, which i feel is very low. This funding won't even directly equate to a full launch, and also pushes out launch to next year. Seeing as I feel we are already behind, I feel like we are chasing the tail a bit here with blind hope.

3. FTE Rates - $210k per FTE is a bit over the top IMO. As someone currently running a Cardano development company, I would be more confident with rates closer to the $150k range or even lower.

I will be voting ABSTAIN on this one given my rationale. Open to change either way.

send it

Although somewhat risky, I see a lot of value investing in already established ecosystem builders. Strike has proven their ability to produce revenue and hype around their product, something many others in Cardano have not been able to do. I see this as an opportunity to drive focus and engagement around 1 protocol, that we can then push to the greater space/retail. We need to invest in something other than chain updates if we want to succeed.

I will be supporting this proposal with a YES vote.

I see the value in Hydra but I am worried that we are continuing to fund something that is not producing immediate value for Cardano.

In alignment with previous rationales, I will be voting NO on this proposal due to a lack of budgetary clarity. This proposal lacks a general understanding of FTE rates and overhead costs. Funding any proposal lacking these two items would irresponsible spending,

Originally I was going to Abstain on this proposal, as I am a direct beneficiary of the contracted work.

After seeing how multiple parties have voted thus far in the 2026 governance rounds, I have decided to vote YES. My delegators expect this as supporters of Anvil.

Thank you to everyone who supports us on this mission, we can't wait to make Cardano the Ticketing Blockchain!

I am voting YES for this. Although I would like to see a better breakdown of funding, this is an initiative that clearly needs funding given recent events, and the ask is well within moderation. I remember running mine for the first time, I would love to see people go back to running their own Deadalus Wallets. I trust the team behind this proposal to get work done.

Already voted yes for this via Intersect

Current Rationale: Due to the decline in price of ADA, I believe this proposal shows value in it's current form at about $5.4M.

Original Rationale:
I am voting ABSTAIN on this proposal with the hopes that it will be revised.

I do not want to lose our Cardano researchers. But the facts are facts, the market and token price are what they are and we cannot recklessly spend.

Spending money on research without knowing the salaries or overhead costs is irresponsible.

Thank you for considering community feedback. I am voting YES to the amended proposal.

Let's support a homegrown Cardano business that has a direct focus on this field (Events) and expertise/experience to run a successful event of this nature. Projects need to pick lanes and stay in them if we want Cardano to stand the test of time. Focus is paramount. I will not be voting YES for any proposals with staggered focus. Rare team is very focused and positioned to be the Cardano SME.

I support the Rare Evo team and hope they continue to serve the Cardano community the way they have.

Added Rationale: This proposal is paramount as the FEs seem to no longer be supporting this initiative like they did in the past, very disappointing. It's very alarming that our FEs are competing with companies on chain for the same scope of work. Shows a major lack of focus. https://x.com/RareRandCorp/status/2061764807074746423?s=20

Voting NO as i think first and foremost all FE's or teams named in the proposal should abstain.

Additionally, you can see my statement which i feel still applies here:
X Post

I realize these things need maintenance and contracts, i just feel like the cost does not reflect the absolute value back to the treasury or businesses on Cardano.

The treasury shouldn't be used to subsidize a lack of BD and opportunity solely for the FE and closely related parties.

I use Eternl wallet everyday. It is one of 5 apps that i fully rely on in my day to day Cardano activity.

I really would like to see the push towards the paid model and self sustainability. I am confident in the team to get it done.

No brainer.

The on-chain activity is there.

Proposal backed by real economic activity.

Love the initiative and reasoning but the team needs to start smaller and build up. Can't wait to see the revised vision!

Will be voting NO for this proposal due to budgetary constraints on the NCL. I respect the initiative to push outside of Cardano and hope that the team still strives to put this on-chain.

I have a lot of respect for this team and the goals of this proposal but I simply do not think the treasury is in a place to cover 2 years of operations especially of this size.

I am voting YES for this one with the expectation that the team gets it's previous milestones closed out!

I am Abstaining for now on this one.

I feel like a NO vote could be easily justified here due to the limited budget transparency.

With a clearer budget, I would be inclined to consider voting YES as Leios is a key piece of infrastructure that Cardano needs immediately.

After careful consideration, I will be voting YES for this proposal.

There are many things I would of liked to see changed but ultimately the need to fund community led initiatives outweighs my concerns.

There is no doubt in my mind that IO is the most capable to handle Cardano maintenance. I am doing everything in my power to keep this in mind while assessing this proposal. This is IOs work to lose. I do like the idea of IO bringing in a specialist team instead of keeping everything in-house aligning with Pillar 5 and the 2030 Vision.

With that said, this proposal is lacking details to justify the size of the spend. I cannot vote YES on this proposal until the following points are addressed:
-FTE Rates
-More Advanced Budget and Spend breakdown
-High level hand-off plan on how this work actually transfers to Ensurable Systems

I would be willing to switch my vote if the above are addressed transparently.

Bitcoin DeFi narrative has failed to produce on all fronts. We have been talking about it for over 2 years, funded multiple initiatives and yet it's still not here. I would like to see IO remain focused on engineering and critical dev work. This seems like an initiative best suited for a community business/project. Scattered focus will continue to lead us down a road of massive expenditure with little results.

I would be more inclined to vote on this if it was a standalone proposal, as I appreciate many details of the proposal.

This proposal is exactly what I expect to see out of IO and solves 3 real problems. I am very happy to see a focus around babel fees. CIP 159 will be a valuable add to the ecosystem. Multi asset treasury!

The KPI goals are extremely aligned with ecosystem growth as well the 2030 vision. These would be extremely meaningful if met.

One of my main concerns with blockchain at large is start-ups, and companies in general, not picking a lane and staying in it. Commonly teams work too many routes (guilty myself) instead of focusing on one core problem to fix. This proposal shows focus on relevant ecosystem issues and, to me, IOs major value add to Cardano. This narrowed focus is critical from the ecosystem as we progress forward. We commonly have too many people working on the same issue, causing fragmented progress. I want to see IO commit to Cardano Upgrades/Maintenance, and be laser focused on it.

While I appreciate that this proposal spreads funding across multiple quality ecosystem teams and builders, I cannot support it in its current form.

The primary issues are transparency in budgeting and measurable KPIs/alignment:

Budget clarity: The proposal names participating teams and high-level work packages, but provides no granular breakdown. There is no visibility into which teams are responsible for which specific deliverables, no FTE allocations, and no insight into cost rates or justification. At this scale, dReps and the community deserve a clearer picture of exactly how the treasury funds will be deployed.

KPIs and strategic alignment: The proposal does an excellent job explaining the theoretical value of high-assurance engineering (formal verification, audits, correctness testing). However, it lacks concrete market data or verifiable sources demonstrating that these gaps are currently blocking adoption, TVL growth, or developer activity. The listed KPIs remain high-level claims without quantified targets or success metrics. Questions such as “how many additional developers or dApps will this unlock?” are left unanswered, making it impossible to objectively measure the proposal’s success after the fact.

Finally, while IO’s coordination role is understandable given their existing code ownership, this work could (and arguably should) be structured as independent proposals from the specialist teams themselves. That would further strengthen the distributed-ownership model the 2030 Vision aims to achieve.

I remain open to revisiting my vote if the proposers provide a detailed budget table, quantified KPIs with baselines and targets, and clearer success criteria before the voting window closes.

I am voting yes on this one. I believe these two companies are co-dependent on eachother in terms of plutus maintenance, which is a good thing. I really resonate with the following quotation directly from this proposal:

The VacuumLabs co-venture signals that this is an ecosystem effort rather than a proprietary IO initiative. Cardano's core infrastructure benefits from being maintained and evolved across a broad contributor base of expert teams rather than a single organization. This distributed ownership model is a direct contribution to Pillar 5 (Ecosystem Sustainability and Resilience) and is the kind of structural outcome the Cardano 2030 Vision is designed to produce.

This proposal will greater decentralize core infrastructure. Although the costs seem towards the upper end of the scale, this work can truly only be carried out by a handful of people in the ecosystem. I trust the Vacuum Labs team to deliver and hope that we can hit the outlined milestones, as it would greatly benefit Cardano.

One thing i think that would strengthen this proposal is a more clearly defined plan of how the community becomes the owners of the maintenance and updates.

Will update vote again after talking with IO team - initiative may be more aligned than originally thought. This is a huge problem on Cardano and if this proposal is simply creating a pipeline, not new tooling, i am well aligned.

Blockfrost provides infrastructure and tooling that is widely used by the Cardano ecosystem. Albeit I understand the need for funding Leios preparedness, I feel that this proposal overall is out of touch with the general state and direction of the ecosystem. I would be more inclined to consider this proposal if it was fully focused on Cardano/Leios. There are parts in the proposal about Bitcoin indexing and other chains which I feel are not relevant at the moment.

Overall, I think this proposal is lacking details around exact FTE costs, build costs around Caylay, how the grant makes the product free ($900,000 quoted, would love to see actual data on how many accounts, what the costs would of been, overall ecosystem savings), and hardly any alignment with the 2030 main KPIs(would be satisfied with a list of projects who use it, can quantify impact easier).

First Rationale: I really think node diversity is very important to our continued growth as a blockchain. I also have a lot of respect for the Blink Labs team. Unfortunately, i see no semblance of balance in what is being funded through the treasury. We continually fund the technology but not the business development. I will likely be voting no on any additional nodes until there is a semblance of focus on business development in Cardano. If the value is there, I could be convinced. That said, the FTE costs associated with this proposal are way too high. Most teams in Cardano are barely making paychecks, it hardly makes sense to pay premier salaries for more node diversity at this time.

Current Rationale (Changed to Yes): After speaking with the teams, it is clear that node diversity was as important as i thought. Spending the amount we do on maintenance of the main node made me a little sick to find out. Additionally, it is completely monopolized right now. In order for us to sufficiently be protected, 3 nodes should be the minimum.

It's also been made clear to me that this does align with pushing towards business and outside opportunities. It also brings down maintenance costs.

I still stand that the salaries are high, but not when it comes to the level of work that they would be completing. There are certainly specialists required in these roles.

I have changed my vote to "yes"

After speaking with the team directly, i am very hopeful that this proposal will increase opportunity on Cardano, which is our number 1 issue as an ecosystem. Utilizing the Draper network, we should be able to infiltrate industries and start to push more real world, high chain utilization usecases. Business Development is a big issue as well on Cardano, this directly addresses that in a multitude of ways. This will better prepare Cardano businesses to break out and be better rounded. We are taking a shot here, but now is the time to do it.

The time for action is now. Let's get this done.

yes but i want cash.ada and cash.cardano :D

I agree that CC members should be compensated. That said, this proposal is lacking critical budgetary details that would allow me to make an informed decision.

I am voting yes on this proposal. Not only has the team behind this done a wonderful job socializing it on the timeline and answering all inquiries, but there is proven value to be had here, as stablecoin liquidity is imperative to the growth of the Cardano ecosystem.

The snek team has proven that they are industry leaders. This funding will not only help the Snek token but rather the entire Cardano ecosystem. I can't wait to see this expansion.

After a more thorough review and recent community findings i have decided to change my vote to Abstain on this proposal

Let's get Cardano NTs on some T1 exchanges!!

I attended the Cardano Summit in 2024 and it was a great event. I do not want to lose this event. I also trust the teams behind this proposal to deliver. Would love to see additional work done to address the comments and feedback that prevented people from voting yes on this.

Proposal was well outlined and seems extremely reasonable.

Team has shown they are capable and upgrading their platform to help bring visibility to governance.

I have a personal bias here as i believe this is in direct competition with my business

Love the tool, hate the proposal. Would love to see a better defined output for us to digest as DReps.

ZK is very important. Adding Aiken support makes sense. Open source as well.

I am a big supporter of the Cardano Product Committee's vision to advancing the blockchain. As a temporary voting member and day 1 participant, i can 100% back this group.

Continued maintenance and development + free API

Diverse node implementations. Trusted team. Getting a full node delivery for this price seems very good for 1 year.

Trusted team and important Lucid updates. Completely open source. Reasonable monetary request.

Clear goals in the proposal. Includes support for 12 months which i like. Would like to see more involved community engagement KPIs.

Python as the #2 used programming language on github, makes sense to support it especially with the project already being bootstrapped.

I believe this proposal provides good value and makes sense from an FTE perspective.

I believe Intersect is the MBO of all MBOs, this will be the future coordination layer for all kinds of smaller DAOs and MBOs. As a participant in the Product Committee i have seen the innerworkings, social aspects, learning, and improvement over the last year. I am excited to see what they can do.

Critical Infrastructure, would like to see a better breakdown of funding but all in all it's a pretty straightforward initiative.

I trust the team to deliver here but i think this proposal is more fitting for Catalyst or a bundled effort. That said, this specific proposal will add immense value to builders on Cardano, so i voted yes.

I trust that this is valuable and a good investment for the Cardano ecosystem, and i trust the team to get it done - However, i cannot vote yes as i believe this qualifies as more of a catalyst proposal or bundled effort.

As important as i think ZK is, Would like to see more info on exact outputs to expect as well as budget breakdowns/FTEs. I will be voting no due to this lack of clarity defined outputs in the proposal.

Low treasury impact but i still believe that this belongs more in Catalyst or bundled along with another proposal. I voted yes due to the minimal impact on the treasury while also providing good value in the sense of money spent per FTE.

I actually like that this one bundles a lot of different teams, who i personally think have quality experience in doing this. I went to the event last year, and it was awesome. I'm hoping to see this event stick around as i think it's important to have a 'Cardano Only" event that showcases our top teams and accomplishments of the year.

Along with the core proposal, i still think we could use more favorable rates when it comes to FTEs. That said, i have been around this proposal since it was first submitted to the product committee. I think the team did a good job of listening to feedback and this is an important part of long term development. I voted yes.

No explanation needed. This is a must have.

We have been reviewing and openly discussing this proposal for a few months now. I think the IO team did a good job reinforcing the importance of this proposal for a while. Let's get shipping.

The Midgard team hosts some of the top development talent on Cardano. Ask seems within reason based on outputs. I trust this team to deliver.

I agree with this in general. I cannot however vote yes here, because it's the first year of the budget. This is an insult to the entire process, and implying bloat to a large extent.

The budget is not perfect, but we will learn a lot about future budgets from the first one. I would be much more open to a proposal of this nature after seeing how the first 6-7 months play out. I think there will be some bloat, especially with the .50c ADA price peg, but part of this process should be learning, adjusting, adapting, and progress.

I agree in principle with a lot of the context of this Governance Action but unfortunately I cannot vote Yes until I see how the first iteration of the budget works or doesn't.

As a delegate, and participant in the definitions process, I am very pleased with the current state of the constitution. It is not perfect, but it is not impeding or harming the chain in it's current state. With continued workstreams planned, and people starting to pay attention to governance, i think we are ready to take this step and move towards a fully ratified on -chain constitution.