CASIA- Cardano Asia Team

it is an old and Typescript is not having a clear path from Pebble point of view

good proposal from IO important for the core element as charles point out

These typ

These MKT event should be covered by previous budget asks MKT of Intersect or Founding entities the original budget plan. Skeptical on the impact

These MKT event should be covered by previous budget asks MKT of Intersect or Founding entities the original budget plan. Skeptical on the impact

These MKT event should be covered by previous budget asks MKT of Intersect or Founding entities the original budget plan. Skeptical on the impact

Sorry, but the team need to prove the previous proposal deliverables with explanation, before the continue withdrawal of the treasury

This is an aligned internal actions amongst father and mother of Cardano. The founding entities should resolve this quickly and regain trust from community (eps with fund 15 bad reputation)

I am not deeping dive into this yet. So I remain abstain

a slight abstain without clear information updates from previous year defi liquidity progress

No, the Draper Dragon joined cardano with Catalyst and since then they jumped to further with more fund without any clear plan on this Orion Fund (a duplication with Catalyst)

Given the current CC debates and how Interect working create doubts for me for this facitilitating role

reasonable as per decrease from 350 to 300m ADA.

Should be a penalty for returning back to the treasury if the team fails to deliver within the promised timeframe

the delay should be put the budget back to the treasury as per discipline for the proposing team and ensure the seriousness of delivery timeline

This is important feature with the current development of Cardano, as long as this not complicate and risk the network security or speed

No, The Defi liquidity budget is at the high-end of the total treasury, the delivery is unclear and improper update to the community.

More explanation needs to be involved when the project is late in delivery.

This is for sure a Yes, as per his contribution for the Cardano Governance in particular and generally Cardano as a community. What a dignity member

No, this is just a demo and do not have concrete example on the Defi with risk emerged. The team also secured rounds of other fundings on Cardano Catalsyt

Yes, Yuta and the team always working diligently driving for the new constitution.
Moreover, he updated frequently on the version of the constitution with the contribution of the community members.

Across the DReps forums are also well updated.

Yes for us, the same with the constitution.
The Cardano 2030 is a longer term and strategically approach with quantifiable KPIs for the community to come together across different point of view.

This is curcial even when the IOG now launching and shifting some focus for the Midnight network

It is better for Cardano block chain as a whole with the all founding entities collabroation again.

BUT the proposal is very much high-level, I agree but the team should consider to add more

• Budget detail
• withdrawal plan by deliverable and bottom up for each of the delivery phase of this big 70 mio ADA proposal

The delivery status of the whole first year 2025 pilot is still delayed

so by the delaying of the whole deadline will help to save the treasury instead.

But with the condition to have fix DEADLINE (No more delay after this round)
If the team cannot delivered their approved budget, it should be returned back to the treasure for better team/or future NCL 2026

I stayed abstain as this is vague and not clear about the payment with interest should be taken into account to make the treasury more sustainable

this is interesting idea and should consider to lock up domain ahead of the bright future of cardano

Very innovative idea and deserve the support from the Community to make it more accessible for people to enter the GA participation

no, this vote is not transparent from the begining and only the CC voted yes for this, which is self-interest conflict

It should be together with CC term and transparent when voting at the beginning with clear kPI and responsibility

yes, this version is showing the continuous effort of Yuta and the team
they listen to feedback from the community and help shaping the goverannce for the nearest future

We explored SOCIOUS fund and see it super beneficial for the under-developed and underserved community

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I still stand by those decisions.

For proposals with large budgets (>500k ADA), I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.
But I stand firmed on Exhinbition and Events
Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I still stand by those decisions.

For proposals with large budgets (>500k ADA), I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I still stand by those decisions.

For proposals with large budgets (>500k ADA), I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

We voted yes for this as consistent with our vote when the new CC election

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

• with the condition, Mlabs should not resubmit redundancy at the Catalyst

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

With the growth of Amaru node, this is crucial for more RUST compatible on Cardano toolings

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

Catalyst is crucial for SME and new entries to the Cardano blockchains, with the growth of the treasury withdrawal from Intersect MBO. With 13 fund experience in years, we strongly support

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

Migard for me is crucial in the development roadmap of Cardano.

I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.

Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I still stand by those decisions.

For proposals with large budgets (>500k ADA), I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.

This is a slight yes for us to encourage the Tempo platform. However, we are more inclined towards suggestions for them to resubmit a better and clearer version.

Plus points:

1. Tempo offers a 100k loan to propose a GA
2. The proposal is considered more cost-effective then that of Gov.tools

Need improvement

1. Self-driven is completely new and lacks the how to manage accountability for the community
2. Imagine it as a proper catalyst proposal, which would require more well-planned and detailed articulations for the community (Timing/phasing/team resource/cost breakdown). A product development sprint (time/task/human resource + cost breakdown) would make it more convincing as a strong yes from the community

On behalf of CASIA team, I’m voting no on this proposal — not because I don’t support GovTool (I do), but because the ₳1.15M ask feels too high right now (~ 100k ada/ month)

I get that a lot of work has gone into it, and the team clearly cares, but jumping straight to the top funding tier without trying a more phased or leaner approach first just doesn’t sit right. Especially with Treasury funds, I think we need to be a bit more cautious.

Would love to see a trimmed-down version, maybe start with just maintenance + community incentives, then build up from there based on progress. That would make a yes vote much easier.

Plus cost benchmarking to prove value for money for community is a plus point

1. The Amanu team's Treasury withdrawal for 2025 is planned following their previous budget proposal.
2. Node decentralization is definitely to make Cardano more decentralized and less reliant on the founding entities
3. The Rust programming language is also very important and had been discussed on the cardano forumn https://forum.cardano.org/t/node-diversity-workshop-april-2025/145248%E2%80%A6

We voted YES on this Budget Info Action.

The community has worked hard to bring this process forward — from open submissions, to the Ekklesia temperature checks, to now asking DReps to formally ratify it on-chain. The level of participation in this cycle shows that the community cares about shaping how Treasury funds get used.

No budget process will ever be perfect. But this one has followed an open and inclusive path, with more than 3.8B ada worth of live stake engaged. The outcome reflects real community priorities across maintenance, development, governance, and innovation.

As DReps, we see it as our role not only to approve the budget itself, but also to take responsibility for reviewing each Treasury Withdrawal that follows. We’re ready to do that. It’s a lot of work — but it's the right kind of work.

That’s why we supported this action. Moving the 2025 Cardano roadmap forward needs both good proposals — and clear governance. We’re committed to helping make both happen.

This is definitely a yes for me, that the Cardano community usually don't have a transparent roadmap. Usually at the Cardano Summit at Q4 of the previous year, which spent most of the time on the rewards and recognition instead of focus on the agenda for next year.
This together with the clear roadmap and prioriites
https://forum.cardano.org/t/cardano-foundation-sebastian-cardanos-roadmap-a-tier-list-summary/144669 thank to good developers from Cardano Product Committee of Intersect
(i.e such as KtorZ - Techincal Director CF and Sebastian - ex IOG CTO and Giorgio Zinetti CTO from CF)
This is for me is the Cardano Constitution in pratical with clarity and the Cardano Roadmap in Action with Priority
Needs to be repeated every year not just 2025. Onwards with clarity in priorities

First, Treasury is what makes Cardano unique versus. Other chains don't have that big pile of treasury to fund the growth of the community funded projects.

Second, timing-wise, we are at the final stage of Voltaire. We (as Cardano community as awhole) need that money to keep people working on Cardano.( Imaginge the fuel funding like Project Catalyst and now with Intersect MBO. We need that money to keep those things going.

And if we want to help people who stake their ADA, there are other ways to do that. We can change some numbers, or the Cardano Foundation or IOG/EMURGO can have more decentralization stakepools to people who run stake pools. And Cardano is already the most decentralized blockchain with 3000 pools+. We don't need to touch the treasury.

So, all in all, I'm voting no. That treasury instead needs to be used wisely.