Cerkoryn

I have not personally used Plutarch or Ply and don't really have expertise in them, but based on my research they are both widely used throughout the Cardano ecosystem. Also, MLabs is a reputable firm and the asking price is reasonable. This is a YES vote from me.

Mithril is a foundational technology for Cardano and a critical piece of Ouroboros Leios. Happy to support this proposal with a YES vote.

If the recent SecondFi hack taught us anything, it's that we should not rely on hot wallets to protect the private key controlling our assets. Continued support for hardware wallets is a must-have.

Intersect has been quietly doing excellent work behind the scenes for some time now. In the past I have been skeptical about the many different shoes they tried to fill in the Cardano ecosystem, but they have exceeded my expectations in almost every domain. I regularly see Intersect members in committee meetings holding vendors accountable. And looking at the treasury withdrawal contracts still holding sizeable amounts of undisbursed funds, it's clear that they are doing their due diligence in their duties as the budget administrator to ensure that milestones are met. In many ways, Intersect has grown to be the organization that many of us felt were lacking with some of Cardano's founding entities. I am happy to continue subsidizing the many successes of Intersect with treasury funds by voting YES on this proposal.

TxPipe maintains some of the highest-quality and most-used tools for developers on Cardano. The modest ask is very reasonable, so this is an easy YES for me.

TxPipe maintains some of the highest-quality and most-used tools for developers on Cardano. The modest ask is very reasonable, so this is an easy YES for me.

TxPipe maintains some of the highest-quality and most-used tools for developers on Cardano. The modest ask is very reasonable, so this is an easy YES for me.

TxPipe maintains some of the highest-quality and most-used tools for developers on Cardano. The modest ask is very reasonable, so this is an easy YES for me.

TxPipe maintains some of the highest-quality and most-used tools for developers on Cardano. The modest ask is very reasonable, so this is an easy YES for me.

As a member of the Technical Steering Committee I am obligated to vote ABSTAIN.

I was previously leaning in favor of this proposal, but after the SecondFi hack and the team's affiliation with them I think it's probably best to let that situation finish playing out before the treasury commits funds in this direction.

This is a difficult vote for me. I'm extremely happy to see the success that Strike Finance has had, bringing a huge amount of TVL to Cardano. That being said, the most important thing Cardano needs right now for sustainability is to generate more transactions on chain. Unfortunately most of Strike's execution happens on their own layer, which doesn't generate transaction fees for Cardano. The ask is also quite high, but since what they are asking for is a loan that would be something I can look past. However, I don't think it is enough to justify using treasury funds for.

I am a big fan of Eternl wallet and wish to see them find a sustainable business model. That said, I'm not necessarily convinced that a Pro plan will get the usage they are hoping for to reach that level of sustainability. I'm also a bit wary of voting in favor of a wallet that is not open source and simultaneously the 5th most powerful dRep. However I respect that they have voted ABSTAIN on their own proposal and so I too will vote ABSTAIN. However, as a show of support I will be purchasing a Pro plan.

I think this Info Action is somewhat of a step in the right direction, but not quite a workable solution. In my opinion we definitely need to figure out some way to separate planning and spending into two separate things. That way the treasury withdrawals themselves end up being more of a formality to carry out the agreed-upon plan. Splitting spending into different category buckets is one way of doing that, but I'm not sure how we get to that point simply from reading this info action. Will vote ABSTAIN because I am not convinced one way or the other.

I previously abstained on the IO & Midgard Labs L2 proposal because I liked both Hydra and Midgard, but felt the scope was too broad and that the proposal did not clearly show enough near-term demand to justify the treasury spend. This revised proposal addresses enough of those concerns for me. The ask is lower, the scope is focused directly on Hydra, and the proposal does a better job explaining specific use cases and existing builders that are already using or evaluating Hydra.

I would still like to see clearer coordination with related Hydra ecosystem work such as Gummiworm and Hydrozoa, but I do not think that should prevent support for this narrower proposal. Hydra is one of Cardano’s most unique scaling technologies. For these reasons, I am voting YES.

The testing has been completed and the ecosystem is ready. Send it.

Having attended last year's Rare Evo Dev & Gov day and planning to attend this year's, I do see the value add. However, with the current price of ADA trending even lower than what this proposal is using as a reference, I don't think the ROI is worth the spend at this time. I think there are more critical ventures that the treasury should be used to support instead. For these reasons I am voting NO.

I am loosely in favor of this proposal simply due to the large number of transactions it is expected to generate on the Cardano L1. However there are two things holding me back from voting YES. The first is that the ask is quite large and I would like to see a smaller pilot program if possible. The second is that it doesn't seem to give back to the treasury in any notable way and is potentially feeding public funds into a private, commercial enterprise. For now I will be voting ABSTAIN, but would consider switching my vote to YES if this proposal is resubmitted with these small changes.

It was a clear accident when the proposal deposit from Ikigai was mistakenly sent to the treasury in September 2024 rather than being returned to the proposer. This vote is an easy YES.

I appreciate the reduced cost and scope from the previous proposal. Based on this, I will be voting YES.

There is a clear need to lower the MINIMUM committee size simply for the sake of redundancy and governance continuity. I would prefer going as low as 3 for the minimum, but going from 7 to 5 is a big step in the right direction. This is a YES from me.

I'm a bit confused by this proposal because I was under the impression that the previous proposal (CCI v1) included maintenance in the budget that was already approved by dReps. Furthermore, my understanding is that Iagon is already pursuing Fireblocks integration independently. It is heartening to see non-founding entities take such a leadership role in Cardano's ecosystem and I would prefer to leave that integration to them in order to avoid stepping on toes. With some more transparency regarding ongoing maintenance and the removal of Fireblocks from scope, I might reconsider my vote. However for now I will be voting NO on this proposal.

I am a big fan of Eternl wallet and wish to see them find a sustainable business model. That said, I'm not necessarily convinced that a Pro plan will get the usage they are hoping for to reach that level of sustainability. I'm also a bit wary of voting in favor of a wallet that is not open source and simultaneously the 5th most powerful dRep. However I respect that they have voted ABSTAIN on their own proposal and so I too will vote ABSTAIN.

I think Scalus is taking the right approach by building a vertically integrated stack that combines smart contract development, application tooling, chain access, and L2 scaling. Especially native Hydrozoa/Gummiworm which are improvements to Hydra. It also offers a different value proposition by focusing on use cases that should not have to depend on third-party chain-access providers. Scalus also opens Cardano to the much larger JVM ecosystem through Java, Kotlin, and Scala. In addition to enterprise and financial applications, I think this could eventually create a stronger foundation for Android-native Cardano tooling and applications across a massive global device ecosystem. The ask is pretty high, but Scalus is an established open-source platform with existing integrations and applications already building on it. For these reasons, I am willing to justify the price by voting YES.

I am in favor of what this proposal is trying to accomplish, and I consider tool maintenance and DevEx to be critical needs. However, this proposal feels too heavy for something that still needs to be built largely from the ground up. There are also several related proposals competing under the same NCL, including the Paid Open Source Model, Cardano Tooling DAO, and the already approved IO Developer Experience Initiative. I would much rather see these teams work together on a unified plan that reduces duplication of effort to solve the same problems. I support the problem this proposal is trying to solve, but I think it is too much all at once. For these reasons, I am voting NO.

I am voting NO on this proposal as submitted. I want to be clear that this is not a vote against IO Research or against research in general. I think several parts of this proposal are valuable, especially post-quantum readiness and some of the governance and identity workstreams. Cardano’s research foundation is one of its biggest strengths and I do not want to throw that away or see our expert researchers laid off.

That said, I am not convinced this is the right treasury allocation right now. The ask is very large, and the proposal covers many different workstreams with very different levels of urgency, clarity, and practical connection to implementation. Some of the work seems important, but some of it feels less clearly justified at this stage, especially given the current NCL environment and the number of competing priorities already in front of the treasury.

My biggest concern is the gap between research and deployed implementations. The proposal itself points out that IO Research has produced a very large body of work, but only a minority of that work has made it into Cardano. And of the research we've actually implemented, we've often neglected to follow through, instead letting the blockchain network drift into a very rough state by many different metrics. In my view, that is the central issue. Cardano needs to do a better job turning the research we already have into practical application and execution.

I would be much more comfortable supporting targeted follow-up proposals that make the highest-priority parts of this work easier to evaluate on their own merits and that show a clearer path from research to implementation. I am especially open to future proposals around post-quantum security and other workstreams where the urgency and practical path are clearer.

For these reasons, I am voting NO on this proposal. I appreciate the work and the people involved, but I do not believe this proposal, at this size and in this form, is the best use of treasury funds right now.

Gerolamo offers a unique value proposition over the existing Haskell node and the other alternate nodes in development (Dingo, Amaru, etc.). In my mind, the other nodes are geared toward SPOs, but Gerolamo will be a major benefit toward dApp and light wallet developers. As a native TypeScript node, Gerolamo will be catering toward one of the most highly-adopted languages on the planet. With the capability to run a node in the browser, this opens up a lot of new use cases for developers that we simply don't have with other nodes or tooling. For these reasons I am enthusiastically voting YES on the Gerolamo proposal.

I am voting NO on this proposal. Although OriLife seems like an interesting project, I don’t believe this is the right use of Cardano Treasury funds right now. The proposal asks for 2.4M ADA, but the direct return to Cardano appears limited. Historically, we also haven’t really seen traceability proposals translate into meaningful on-chain transaction volume.

I also think the hardest parts of this proposal are off-chain and difficult for DReps to verify. Blockchain can prove that data was anchored, but it cannot by itself prove that fruit identification, field data, farmer onboarding, regulatory integrations, and supply-chain workflows are correct at scale. I would rather see the Treasury prioritize core infrastructure, alt. nodes, Leios, high assurance, developer tooling, and use cases that clearly depend on Cardano itself.

I generally support the direction of the work and think several deliverables are valuable, especially Peras and the hoarding node. Faster finality would be a meaningful improvement for Cardano, and the hoarding node seems useful for research and network observability around things like orphaned blocks/transactions, propagation issues, and invalid slot leader claims.

That said, I am not fully ready to vote YES on this version. The ask is large, and I would like to see a clearer explanation of the practical use cases Peras unlocks, how this work should be prioritized relative to other core infrastructure, and how it fits alongside Leios. I do not want to signal opposition to the work itself, but given the current NCL environment and competing priorities, I am abstaining for now.

Since this proposal is designed as an extension to the baseline Token2049 proposal, I will also be voting NO on this one for the same reasons.

I appreciate that this proposal is more compelling than a Cardano-only event because TOKEN2049 gives Cardano visibility in front of the broader crypto industry. However, I still do not believe this is the best use of treasury funds at this point in time. While increased visibility is valuable, I feel Cardano needs to focus more heavily on its unique selling points and finding product market fit first.

In my view, marketing and event sponsorships are most valuable when they amplify strong momentum that already exists. Right now, I think we still need to spend more time building the infrastructure and business applications that give Cardano a clearer commercial story to tell when we show up at major industry events.

For that reason I am voting NO on this proposal.

Typescript is arguably the most popular programming language in use today and is the native language of the internet. Having a native Cardano smart contract language based on TypeScript will unlock a huge portion of the developer market and make building on Cardano exponentially easier than it is today. Pebble is an easy YES for me.

I would very much love to see a vibrant Cardano Summit event this year, but this proposal is unfortunately difficult to justify spending treasury funds on in this point in time IMHO. While it would be great to see many industry giants exposed to Cardano, I feel like we are in a position where we don't really have much to offer that other blockchains can't also do just as well or better. In addition, a Cardano-only event is less likely to give us the visibility we desire compared to a joint event with the larger cryptocurrency/blockchain industry. As much as it pains me to say it, I think Cardano needs to spend more time focusing on key infrastructure such as alt. nodes and Leios, as well as unique commercial use cases that truly leverage the UTxO model that is our golden goose. I think that voting to spend treasury funds on in-person events right now is putting the cart before the horse. For that reason I have to unfortunately vote NO on this proposal.

I am a big supporter of Blockfrost and have used their API many times myself, but this proposal is difficult to justify spending treasury funds on at this current time. Project Cayley is an interesting idea and the prospect of SPOs being able to serve data slices as an additional form of revenue is enticing, but I struggle to see them earning enough through this. Especially when there are several other competing API services already such as Koiois and Maestro, as well as many other locally-hosted tools that can connect to the Cardano network and serve data. I'd like to see Blockfrost succeed, but at this current point in time this proposal is a NO for me.

As much as I agree with the intent of this proposal, I think the deliverables mentioned are not necessarily the best approach. DevEx is definitely lacking, but I think the best way to improve that is to invest heavily in alternate nodes that condense the tool stack and often come with their own RPC, API, or Indexer built-in. Additionally as far as smart contracts are concerned, I think the Cardano ecosystem greatly struggles from a lack of composability. Most of our existing dApps and protocols were designed in isolation from each other and thus don't interoperate well or share liquidity. Furthermore, there are several other proposals in this category aiming to solve the tooling/DevEx gap such as the Intersect Paid Open Source Model, the dOSPO and OMF program, and the Cardano Tooling DAO. I think the best path forward here is for these groups to combine forces and put together a joint proposal that will solve Cardano's DevEx woes. For that reason I'm voting NO on this proposal as it currently stands.

I am a big fan of both Hydra and Midgard as L2 solutions for scaling Cardano. That being said there are a few details missing from this proposal that make it hard for me to justify treasury spending as-is. Primarily I think a recurring challenge the Cardano ecosystem has faced is building technical solutions that end up seeing little to no actual use. I greatly appreciate that this proposal explains many of the use cases that both Hydra and Midgard aim to solve, and especially the specific mention of DeltaDefi and Masumi. However, as it currently stands there is a massive surplus of unused capacity on the Cardano L1 and I fear that there is simply no activity that would "flow over" into either Midgard or Hydra. In the case of Midgard specifically I'd like to see mentions of dApp builders wanting to build on-top of it. In the case of Hydra I am curious to know if other advances in Hydra tech such as Gummiworm and Hydrozoa are also being collaborated on through this proposal. Ultimately, I am concerned that the turnaround for the Cardano ecosystem to see any benefits from this may be too far out on the horizon, but am willing to vote YES if some minor improvements are made to it. For that reason I will be voting ABSTAIN.

Cardano's formal verification and high assurance is one of its crowning strengths, especially in the age of AI when smart contract hacks are becoming far more common amongst our competitors. Extending Blaster to work with some of our most popular smart contract languages and creating the CBDE will help us leverage this strength to come out on top.

Account Enhancement, the Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury, and Babel fees are some of the most high-impact and exciting upgrades planned for Cardano that I have seen. These will hopefully allow us to unlock new fee mechanisms that help us avoid the pains of minUTxO, and hopefully new funding mechanisms that allow the treasury to hold and disburse stablecoins to teams proposing to build on Cardano. This is an easy YES for me.

One of Cardano's greatest strength is the research and formal verification that goes into Plutus scripts, especially in the age of AI where creating an exploit is easier than ever. The added efficiency and developer experience benefits are also worth the cost. This proposal is a YES from me.

As the self-proclaimed #1 fan of the DeFi Kernel concept, Pogun is one of the most exciting proposals I've seen. I am relieved to see that the lending primitives are being designed as open-source, public infrastructure. Additionally, the treasury payback plan and indefinite royalties are more than enough in my mind to justify spending public funds on a commercial venture. I do have some slight reservations about transparency in regards to the possibility of a token launch in the future, and some lesser concerns about protocol fees for using Pogun's lending primitives that may stifle competition. However, in my mind the potential benefits vastly outweigh the risks of this proposal, making it an easy YES for me.

Ouroboros Leios is a necessary upgrade that will enable enough transaction throughput for Cardano SPOs to be sustainable without having to rely on treasury emissions indefinitely. The scalability that this will unlock is critical to the success of the blockchain.

Until we have alternate nodes available with sufficient stake, then maintaining our one-and-only Haskell node has to be the top priority for funding.

Gerolamo offers a unique value proposition over the existing Haskell node and the other alternate nodes in development (Dingo, Amaru, etc.). In my mind, the other nodes are geared toward SPOs, but Gerolamo will be a major benefit toward dApp and light wallet developers. As a native TypeScript node, along with the Pebble language, Gerolamo will be catering toward one of the most highly-adopted languages on the planet. With the capability to run a node in the browser, this opens up a lot of new use cases for developers that we simply don't have with other nodes or tooling. Coming together as a package deal with Pebble makes this even more attractive as a way to attract new developers, products, and use cases to the Cardano ecosystem. For these reasons I am enthusiastically voting YES on the Pebble + Gerolamo proposal.

While I appreciate trying to combine events and bring visibility to Cardano shared events with other crypto communities, I think the price for these events is way too high. It is difficult for me to see how the treasury funds spent here could have an acceptable ROI, especially when compared to many other high-value treasury withdrawals we could have instead. For this reason, I am voting NO on this proposal.

I am voting YES on this proposal because I believe the existence of an Innovation fund is important to the growth and success of Cardano. Historically I have been frustrated with the lack of much-needed improvements to the Catalyst program and I am optimistic that improvements will be made under new management. In particular I would like to see the ability to vote entirely via web/desktop without the use of a mobile app. I'd like to drop the requirement for registration at all, though it could optionally be used to link wallets together so that you can vote only a single time with more than one wallet. I'd like to fix proposal/text spam and quality, especially now in the age of AI. I'd also like to see more specific categories that are laser-targeted at exactly the products and use cases Cardano most desperately needs.

After careful consideration, I've decided to vote YES on this proposal. I was on the fence about it for quite some time. My main concerns are that the Cardano treasury carries virtually all of the capital risk here. I would like to see more outside investment if possible. In addition, I'm not entirely sold on the primary strategy of direct investments in Cardano-native and Cardano-integrated projects. I would like more clarity and transparency on how this will contribute to meeting the KPI goals, because on its surface it just seems like buying tokens to pump the price. However, I think that the decision to pay back the treasury FIRST before the GP makes any profit is the saving grace to this proposal. I think Cardano is at a critical juncture right now where we really need to see real products with solid use cases begin to surface and see adoption. Though I still have some concerns, I believe that the Cardano X Draper Dragon proposal has the potential to be the catalyst that we are looking for.

I have voted in favor of this proposal numerous times as I believe that the liquidity boost will help stimulate Cardano DeFi substantially. Also, this is not a spend by the treasury, this is a managed fund that has the potential to also generate returns for the treasury, making it inherently an EV-positive play (minus risk). I hope that this proposal can finally be put forward after being stymied multiple times by governance drama and technicalities.

Getting an alternate node to a Leios-ready state producing blocks on mainnet for 6.9M ADA is an absolute steal. Consider the costs that it has taken Cardano so far just to get the Haskell node to where it is at. Furthermore, Blink Labs has been consistently building open-source, foundational tools used by the entire Cardano community for years, and often for free. The $250k/yr ask per FTE makes sense when you consider the risks associated with ADA volatility, governance hangups, etc. Finally, alternate nodes specifically is one of the primary things I identified as a the highest need for Cardano right now. For these reasons I am happy to vote in favor of funding Dingo.

This Intersect Budget Process is a substantial improvement from last year. Using the product committee Vision and Strategy as a guideline for selecting those budget items that align with community goals is great (though I have separate concerns with the Vision/Strategy which I have communicated to them). Using the Strategic Pillars (deliverables) and aligning them to Ecosystem KPIs (outcomes) is something I've been hoping to see, so I'm glad to see it mentioned. Furthermore, structuring bundles as clearly-scoped Work Packages is a great way of bundling together budget items that share dependencies.

Regarding the Treasury Donation, I wonder if that 1000 ADA would be better served compensating the dReps/CC members who do the work reading through each of these proposals. Additionally it seems strange to me that vendors would prefer this donation, as the opportunity cost of paying a 100k ADA deposit for a standalone withdrawal is only about 200-300 ADA. I'm a big fan of the 67% Ekklesia threshold (necessary improvement from last year's 50% threshold), though I am a bit unsure about the consequences of using participating stake off-chain vs. active stake on-chain.

Ultimately I think this budget process is a huge improvement and I am happy to vote YES on this proposal.

Cracked team. Modest ask. Enormous value. Zero drama. Easy YES.

Although this parameter change cannot be enacted due to conflicts with another parameter change that was approved first, I am greatly in favor of lowering the MINIMUM size of the Constitutional Committee. There are some opinions that this might lead to an lowering of the ACTUAL committee size, but I don't think that is a necessary outcome that I would expect. The result of lowering the minimum should instead give us some leeway to continue governance operations in the case that one or more CC members retires suddenly, which has already happened before.

After careful consideration I have chosen to vote YES on this NCL of 300M ADA for 100 epochs (505 days). The reserve is dwindling and emissions have decreased since last year, the price of ADA currently at $0.28 gives us very little leverage against actual costs measured in USD, and the 2030 Vision/Strategy is not quite refined enough that I feel comfortable spending 350M ADA without a more promising ROI. For these reasons I am voting YES on this lower 300M ADA proposal in hopes that it passes in lieu of the higher one.

The budget for this proposal was already approved prior to the Constitution changing that no longer requires it. It is unfortunate that this governance action will likely be deemed unconstitutional due to this technicality and the expiration of the NCL. However, I still believe that using some treasury funds to subsidize DeFi stablecoin liquidity will be a huge boon to the Cardano ecosystem. I am especially glad to see that the smart contract development costs have shrank since the original budget due to some volunteer work by community devs, even though legal costs have increased slightly and the USD valuation of ADA has dropped. One other piece of feedback I'd like to leave is that I think technically the smart contract should be called a Pragma Contract instead of Amaru Contract, since the latter refers to node software. I hope to see this proposal make it through a future withdrawal in the near future.

This parameter change has been in the works for over two years since it was originally proposed in December of 2023. Given the clear benefits and the minimal-to-no tradeoffs, I see no reason to vote against this proposal as it seems to be an obvious benefit to the Cardano community.

After careful consideration I have chosen to vote NO on this NCL of 350M ADA for 100 epochs (505 days). While I appreciate that the lengthened timeline and the normalized reduction of about 27.72% from the previous NCL, I still think it is a bit too much for the Cardano ecosystem's current position. The reserve is dwindling and emissions have decreased since last year, the price of ADA currently at $0.33 gives us very little leverage against actual costs measured in USD, and the 2030 Vision/Strategy is not quite refined enough that I feel comfortable spending 350M ADA without a more promising ROI. For these reasons I am voting NO on this proposal.

While I never personally had the privilege of meeting Max van Rossem, I've heard nothing but great things about who he was and especially his contributions to the Cardano Community. Naming the next Cardano hard fork after him seems like the least we can do to honor him.

Although I am a big fan of SIDAN Lab and DeltaDefi, I’m voting NO on this Budget Info Action because I don’t believe the Cardano Treasury should be used to subsidize individual dApps via grant-style funding, even if the dApp is well-designed or positioned as “infrastructure.” If Cardano wants to support promising commercial ventures, I’d rather see capital deployed through structures that create accountability and potential return to the Treasury (e.g., loans, revenue-share, or equity-like instruments) instead of one-way grants.

I also think this team would be a better fit for alternative funding and incubation paths like Cardano Builders DAO to help them expand, validate demand, and scale in a way that aligns incentives without setting a precedent for Treasury-funded dApp subsidies.

This is an easy YES for me. Christina is a valued member of the Cardano community and would make for an excellent CC member. In addition, the off-chain vote was extremely close and I believe that it will be a huge win for the whole community to have an extra seat on the CC.

As a dRep deeply invested in Cardano's long-term success, I've reviewed the updated Vision and Strategy drafts alongside the governance action proposing their adoption. While I appreciate the ambition to outline a path toward success for Cardano, these documents fall short of being actionable or unifying. They also feel too broad such that it will be difficult to get everyone on the same page or hold anyone accountable for meeting the stated KPIs.

Both the Vision and the Strategy give off the impression that, "We're gonna do absolutely everything really well" but with little guidance on how exactly we are going to do that. The KPIs are great aspirations but we have little direct control over them. I propose using Measures-of-Performance (MoP) for how well we perform those things we do have direct control over. Similarly, we can use Measures-of-Effectiveness (MoE) to see if the things we actually did resulted in the effects that we want to see. From there I think it would be better to identify the most high-impact items and either focus on them one pillar at a time or in structured Eras like we did with the previous Cardano roadmap.

Finally, I think that if we want to live up to the stated vision of being the "most secure, reliable and censorship-resistant blockchain" then we need to have the moral courage and the political will to adjust certain incentives and parameter settings that have been stale for many years. The language in the SPO Incentives section about keeping the pool distribution where it is implies that the status quo is sufficient. But it is my strong belief that there is much improvement to be made there.

For these reasons I think that the Vision and Strategy documents still need some more work and am voting NO on this proposal.

This budget covers many of the integrations the Cardano community has been asking for for a long time. Perhaps even more exciting though is that this is a joint effort that will have us see all the founding entities of Cardano working together.

My understanding is that the 70M price tag is well below the actual cost of these integrations, and the entities themselves will be covering the difference. To me this seems like a no-brainer.

However, my primary concern that needs to be stated is what this will mean for our native, homegrown stablecoin and Oracle teams: Moneta's USDM, Anzens' USDA, Charli3, and OrcFax. My worry is that subsidizing outsider tier-1 stablecoins and Oracle solutions will cause unfortunate side-effects to the businesses of these loyal Cardano teams. I will be voting YES on this proposal, but my only ask is that we consider these Cardano-native teams when brokering any deals with other tier-1 stablecoins and Oracles.

This 8-epoch extension will help simplify the transition between the current NCL and the next one. I am in favor.

Intersect held an off-chain vote and the community chose Cardano Curia for the next seat in the Constitutional Committee. I believe that the process was fair and that the new script-based committee member will do an excellent job in this role.

This budget covers many of the integrations the Cardano community has been asking for for a long time. Perhaps even more exciting though is that this is a joint effort that will have us see all the founding entities of Cardano working together.

My understanding is that the 70M price tag is well below the actual cost of these integrations, and the entities themselves will be covering the difference. To me this seems like a no-brainer.

However, my primary concern that needs to be stated is what this will mean for our native, homegrown stablecoin and Oracle teams: Moneta's USDM, Anzens' USDA, Charli3, and OrcFax. My worry is that subsidizing outsider tier-1 stablecoins and Oracle solutions will cause unfortunate side-effects to the businesses of these loyal Cardano teams. I will be voting YES on this proposal, but my only ask is that we consider these Cardano-native teams when brokering any deals with other tier-1 stablecoins and Oracles.

This proposal is an instant YES from me. Ikigai was one of the first entities to submit a governance action on mainnet and as a pioneer were the first to discover this unfortunate bug/mistake resulting in the loss of 100k ADA. I only wish that they could have been refunded much sooner.

The fact that the Cardano Foundation is willing to pay for these domains out of their own pocket instead of asking for treasury funds to do so is a big win for the community. The only tradeoff I see here is that it would be nice for the community to somehow eventually have ownership of these domains. Nonetheless, this proposal is an easy YES for me.

While I am personally not a fan of memecoins, I do appreciate the activity and volume that Snek has contributed to the Cardano ecosystem. Furthermore, I am excited to see a bit of innovation in the treasury withdrawal process by asking for this exchange listing expansion as a loan instead of grant. For these reasons, I will be voting YES on this treasury withdrawal.

I am supportive of the idea of constitutional committee members receiving some compensation, but I feel like this ask is too much too soon. It is my opinion that this compensation should be more of a supplementary income rather than a full-time salary. Additionally, I feel like the amount asked for, per seat, is too much. In the future I would consider supporting a smaller amount of compensation, and probably even a smaller constitutional committee.

I’m voting YES on Constitution v2.3 because it is more clear and concise, which is a step in the right direction. Removing the Budget Info Action requirement will streamline treasury withdrawals and mitigate redundant voting. Removing codes of conduct is also an improvement because that is not something that is enforceable by the Constitutional Committee.

That said, there are still more improvements to be desired and unenforceable rules that should be removed. In my opinion one of the most troublesome sections are the CRITICAL & SECURITY parameter categories in the guardrails. Article II Section 5 tells SPOs to vote on “security-relevant” parameter updates, but these parameters are called "CRITICAL parameters" and listed in Section 2.1 of the guardrails. Even more confusingly, Section 2.4 has a different category called "Technical/Security Parameters", but these are different from the CRITICAL parameters or the "security-relevant" parameters mention in Article II Section 5. This confusing categorization desperately needs to be clarified in a future revision of the Constitution. However, since this iteration is an improvement over the current constitution I will be voting YES on this proposal.

This document in general feels too broad, but in some places, oddly over-specific. For example, trying to list every category of person/entity who Cardano was built for will inevitably leave someone or something out. I like that it includes KPIs, but there’s no clear ownership or accountability. Who is responsible for each KPI? How are results reviewed? What happens if targets aren’t met? Several pillars also read as duplicates. Points 1 and 4 are largely “adoption,” while points 2 and 3 are about “engagement,” which feels like mostly bloat. The governance action mentions defining the "Vision and Strategy", but the document seems to only mention the Strategy.

I'm not sure if this fits in the Strategy section or the Vision section, but personally what I would like to see is a continuation of the vision Cardano started with its initial roadmap. We had the Byron "Foundation" Era, the Shelley "Decentralization" Era, the Goguen "Smart Contract" Era, the Basho "Scaling" Era, and the Voltaire "Governance" Era. I think extending the roadmap to future Eras, each around a singular goal, will unite the community to accomplish those goals. It is clear to me that "Adoption" should be one of those eras (Gutenberg Era?). Some other ideas could be composability, modularity, interoperability, privacy, sustainability, quantum resistance, etc. I’m voting NO on this proposal for now because I feel that further refinement is needed before it can be considered sufficient and complete.

This is an expensive price tag, but as the only open-source and community-owned tool for proposing and voting on governance actions, I'm willing to vote YES on this proposal. However, I expect to see notable improvements to the platform as a result of this funding. Namely the ability to vote on multiple governance actions at once, a crowdfunding mechanism for governance action deposits, and the addition of all remaining governance action types to the list of proposals that can be submitted through the GovTools UI. At a bare minimum I think these changes should be made before submitting for any further treasury funding.

DeFi liquidity for stablecoins on Cardano is without a doubt one of the most important issues to address in our ecosystem. This proposal has gone through the ringer as individuals within the community have come forth with valid criticisms regarding DEX choices, stablecoin selection, multisig centralization risks, committee management expertise, and governance oversight mechanisms. Due to this feedback, the proposal has undergone multiple rounds of revision and improvement that has led us to the current iteration.

There are still many arguments that could be made for making further improvements to the proposal, but it is entirely possible that this could go on forever, leaving us locked in governance bureaucracy that has us constantly trying to satisfy every community concern. However, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect perfection out of the very first iteration of a proposal of this type, and the need to improve stablecoin liquidity is heavy. For these reasons, I believe the best path forward is to vote YES on this proposal and offer grace to the committee members if it doesn't work out perfectly. Voltaire himself phrased this the best I think...

"Perfect is the enemy of good." -Voltaire

Cardano is a global network, and treasury spending should be guided by neutral, impact-first criteria. Not geography. This proposal targets one region without a convincing strategic rationale (e.g., binding partnerships, regulatory advantages, or meaningful co-funding) that justifies prioritizing Oceania over any other region. I worry that approving it would set a precedent for generic regional asks from everywhere. For these reasons, I am voting no on this proposal.

All of the CC members chosen are well-regarded and supported by the Cardano Community. I believe that each of them will act in good faith to adhere to and enforce the Cardano Constitution.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the Cardano Constitution, I have decided to lean toward a YES vote on this proposal. I think that the changes are an improvement over the existing Constitution, but there is still a lot more to be desired.

The Good:
-Removal of the Budget Info Action and establishing the auditing/administrator/oversight requirements in the Treasury Withdrawal instead.
-Removing requirement for dRep Codes of Conduct (as these were generally unenforceable anyways).
-Adding a requirement for immutable URLs to governance actions.

The Bad:
-Clarity on the NCL is still somewhat lacking.
-Staggering CC members. I'm not sure how this would work given that the ledger only recognizes a single CC at a time. Additionally, I don't think it is enforceable.
-Treasury withdrawals requiring the identity of the recipient. To me this seems like it would implement a hard KYC requirement and not allow pseudonymous community figures (i.e., Hosky, Cardano Whale, etc.) from ever proposing a treasury withdrawal.
-"DReps have voting power equal to the number of Lovelace delegated to them." This would prevent changes such as quadratic voting power, which I think is something that should be left open for exploration.
-Required disclosures for people who hold multiple roles (dRep, SPO, CC). Also required disclosures for compensation. I don't think these are enforceable. And if they were, it could be the case that a single dRep refusing to disclose something might make the entire governance action unconstitutional.

Improving governance and establishing KPIs is great, but governance is already in a viable state and we have many other higher priorities.

Roadmap work and core maintainance. High cost. Complements IOG Core/Research.

Roadmap work and core maintainance. High cost. Complements IOG Core/Research

I appreciate what SNEK has done for the Cardano ecosystem but I find a 5M ADA ask to support SNEK listing on exchanges to be a bit too much. I'm personally more skeptical of memecoins than most, but I also think that our focus should really be on stablecoin liquidity and exchange listings more than any other CNT.

I appreciate what SNEK has done for the Cardano ecosystem but I find a 5M ADA ask to support SNEK listing on exchanges to be a bit too much. I'm personally more skeptical of memecoins than most, but I also think that our focus should really be on stablecoin liquidity and exchange listings more than any other CNT.

Interesting idea, but may be better suited for requesting funds through Catalyst or Cardano Builder's DAO.

I appreciate and supporting Haus's desire to build their Tokenized Real Estate platform on Cardano. However, I feel like the funding for this would be better allocated through Cardano Catalyst. At this time I am only supporting core/critical Cardano development projects for direct treasury funding.

This vote had me on the fence between NO and ABSTAIN. Personally, I think marketing is a bit of a tough sell on Cardano at the moment and that we need to have some killer projects step forward first so that we can market them. My worry is that we try to market some projects that might not necessarily have anything overly innovative or revolutionary about them other than being built on Cardano. That being said, I do believe it is incredibly important for Cardano to have a presence at other events and conferences, even more so than our own exclusive conferences. For this reason, I have pushed my vote toward ABSTAIN.

I appreciate the need to get Cardano Native Assets listed on major exchanges and to improve liquidity in our ecosystem. However, I'm concerned with the selection process for identifying which assets should be considered. Ultimately I think stablecoins should be our primary focus for exchange listings at this time.

I support improvements to Catalyst and especially the implementation of Hyperledger Identus in this proposal to mitigate issues like wallet splitting. However, I believe that the mains obstacles for Catalyst to overcome at this point is participation, proposal quality, and user experience. Quadratic voting is nice to have, but hard to set aside funds for as a top priority.

Although this item has a high price tag, I see it as a useful complement to Catalyst that will help close the gap between a project's innovation and productization. Builder DAO makes sense as a next step for a project after it has delivered its MVP though Catalyst.

Marketing is a tough sell at our current stage, especially with this price tag. I think it's more important to pour resources into product development and then market those key winners when we identify them.

I appreciate and support Tempo for the fantastic platform they have built and continue improving upon. However, I think the treasury should prioritize funding core Cardano infrastructure that serves as a public good. For me it is difficult to support funding for this proposal because it does not appear to have plans to open source.

Intersect has stepped up to fulfill the role of pioneering the first era of governance on Cardano. The process hasn't been perfect, but they have course corrected multiple times and listened to community feedback. In general I still feel like the ask is a bit too high to justify a YES vote, but now that the unknowns of the governance process are moving into the past, Intersect is working on narrowing their focus to cover just those things that are in their purview. Considering all the unknowns of governance, I think the fact that they did more than necessary is better than the alternative of having not done enough.

This was a tough vote for me. Initially I was inclined to vote NO due to the steep asking price and the history of UX issues. After some more thought, I started to lean toward ABSTAIN because the UX issues have improved substantially and because GovTools happens to be one of few open-source governance platforms on Cardano. I also think that GovTools having a budget of its own is overkill and that it would be better suited as part of another budget such the OSC's (Open Source Committee). But after reading through the longer, detailed version of the proposal linked at the end, I've come to understand a few more key features that may justify the higher price tag.

In particular, the integration with CoSponsor to develop a smart contract solution to crowdsource governance action deposits is sorely needed. That development on its own is likely to require a substantial amount of effort beyond developing and maintaining the GovTools site. Other features like performing multiple votes in a single transaction and improvements to the proposal discussion section are also in the works.

Given these additional considerations, I am casting a vote of YES on this info action on the condition that the features proposed are delivered adequately, and that any future asks from the Cardano treasury are significantly smaller in scope.

Key enabler of cross-chain DeFi such as BTC.

High value for scaling/privacy. Haskell maybe not the most approachable for other builders. Maybe some overlap with Starstream. Enabler of cross-chain DeFi such as BTC. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Sybil concerns. Workshops/meetings not ideal for community consensus on vision. Ask seems high.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Core ecosystem tooling. Can seek funding through Catalyst, IOE maintenance, OSC proposal, or resubmit for 2026 budget.

Some initial sybil concerns, but these have been partially addressed. Having a program for funding key, open-source tool development and maintenance is crucial. This could be a preferable alternative to Catalyst or direct Treasury/Budget funding.

Some items should really be moved out of the research phase and into the product/engineering phase.

Necessary for funding startups and critical ecosystem tooling. Scaled down cost from previous. UX needs to improve before next budget.

Critical alternate node. Open-source. Single-item proposal. High value for cost.

Critical L2. Open-source. Single-item proposal. High value for cost.

Mandatory maintenance and roadmap engineering work.

Cracked team. Modest ask. Enormous value. Zero drama. Easy YES.

While I appreciate the ambition behind this budget, the 275M ADA allocation feels large for a first cycle under a still-maturing governance process. Including 39 different proposals in a single budget adds significant administrative overhead, especially when several projects may struggle to reach the 67% withdrawal threshold later on. A more modest budget with fewer proposals would allow us to refine our procedures and iteratively improve for the next cycle. For these reasons, I will be voting NO on this proposal.

I support the principle of deploying some treasury funds to deepen stablecoin liquidity on Cardano, but for a first-time request of this nature, the 50M ADA ask plus relatively high management stipends feels a bit oversized. I would prefer a smaller pilot to validate the model and trim administrative costs. In addition, naming a seven-person multisig exposes those individuals to heightened physical-security and cyber-risk that is difficult to mitigate. It is also worth noting that due to tooling errors, this proposal will likely be re-submitted in the future. For these reasons I will vote ABSTAIN and look for a leaner, better-protected iteration when it is re-proposed in the future.

Due to the failure of the 200M Net Change Limit proposal, I am switching my vote to YES for the 300M ADA limit. The 300M cap replaces the existing 350M cap with a noticeably tighter ceiling while still covering every budget item that cleared the 50% off-chain vote. Several of those items are unlikely to also secure the 67% withdrawal vote, meaning that real spending is expected to be comfortably below 300M ADA. Furthermore, ADA’s market price has risen roughly 50% since those budgets were priced, making further restraint both feasible and prudent. This compromise keeps spending within expected inflows, preserves continuity for approved projects, and moves us toward more conservative treasury management until the governance framework matures.

I support this budget because every included proposal surpassed the 50% + 1 lovelace quorum and is on track to clear the 67% withdrawal threshold, demonstrating unmistakable grassroots backing. The package also excludes low-support or founding-entity items, avoiding the temptation to bundle weaker proposals together with popular ones merely to secure passage. Although I generally prefer pure line-item votes, this focused grouping of only high-support initiatives is a reasonable compromise that preserves transparency, respects constitutional thresholds. I believe it is a sound, community-aligned allocation of treasury funds.

I’m voting YES on the proposal for Amaru node development because it squarely targets a top‑priority roadmap goal of having an open-source, full-featured alternative node for Cardano. The price tag of 1.5M ADA is modest for the impact and the maintainer committee consists of seasoned experts that have already shipped core Cardano infrastructure.

I’m voting YES on the 200M ADA NCL because it is a fiscally responsible midpoint. It preserves-or-grows the Treasury instead of matching last year’s 350M inflow, yet it doesn’t delay the current budget cycle because the already-enacted 350M limit keeps the budget process open while this refinement is adopted. By shrinking the pot to 200M, proposers must sharpen their forecasts and compete harder, curbing inflated asks and driving better value. Most importantly, a tighter cap protects the protocol while on-chain governance, auditing, and budgeting mechanisms are still in their infancy, ensuring we learn and iterate under controlled risk rather than spending aggressively before the guardrails are battle-tested.

I am voting against this proposal because the proposed 350M ADA limit is excessively high. A limit set at this level risks incentivizing the community to withdraw funds up to the maximum rather than adopting a more conservative spending approach. Moreover, given that our governance process is still evolving, we do not yet have the maturity and robust oversight mechanisms needed to justify such expensive treasury withdrawals. I believe a more conservative approach is necessary to safeguard the long-term sustainability of our treasury and ensure that spending aligns with genuine strategic priorities rather than the convenience of a high limit.

I am voting against this proposal because the proposed Net Change Limit is excessively high. Setting the limit at 300M ADA for 2025 and 250M ADA for 2026 risks incentivizing the community to spend up to the full cap, rather than exercising fiscal restraint. Moreover, given that our governance process is still evolving, we do not yet have the maturity and robust oversight mechanisms needed to justify such expensive treasury withdrawals. I believe a more conservative approach is necessary to safeguard the long-term sustainability of our treasury and ensure that spending aligns with genuine strategic priorities rather than the convenience of a high limit.

I am voting yes on the Info Action proposal to define the Cardano Vision and Roadmap for 2025 and beyond. I believe the proposed roadmap covers the majority of essential improvements and technologies necessary to advance Cardano.

However, there are additional items I would like to see considered, including bootstrapping P2P-DeFi, seeding stablecoin liquidity from the treasury, and further enhancements to SPO incentives. I have submitted issues and a pull request on GitHub proposing the inclusion of some of these items in the roadmap.

Additionally, I note that the metadata attached to this proposal is not immutable, as it ideally should be. Nevertheless, since this is an Info Action and does not alter the ledger state, it does not affect the outcome of my vote.

For transparency and accountability, I include the SHA-256 hash of the raw text found at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IntersectMBO/product-website/refs/heads/master/src/pages/vision-roadmap-2025.mdx at the time of this vote: 72ac255dba0114b51d54d384016e0042e3a3ccab1648fa839e313ac5cfa007cc

There have been numerous discussions about decreasing Cardano's Tau parameter, most notably the Parameter Change Proposal submitted by EarnCoinPool in October 2023. IOG researchers initially recommended setting the Tau parameter at 5%, but prior to the launch of the Shelley mainnet, it was changed to 20%. Additionally, due to the way block rewards are calculated—using total stake instead of active stake—the effective tax rate is actually 33%.

In my view, the Cardano Treasury has had sufficient time to accumulate value, and the focus should now shift to ensuring that treasury spending and transparency remain within reasonable bounds. The small increase in rewards for delegators and stake pool operators resulting from a lower Tau would, in my opinion, be a better use of funds than continuing to grow the treasury at this stage.

One reservation I have is that I would prefer the change to be incremental over time rather than a sudden 10% drop. However, I do not believe this change to Tau—abrupt as it may be—would negatively impact the Cardano ecosystem.

For these reasons, I am voting yes to lower Tau to 10%.

After having participated in numerous Cardano Constitution discussions and reading various different drafts, as well as analyzing the current concerns about proposal & discussion availability on GovTools, I have decided to vote yes on the delegate-approved Constitution. I still think that the Constitution and the platforms/tools that inform delegators need some work, but this draft is still a major step up from the Interim Constitution that is in place. It is also worth noting that the Interim Constitution might REQUIRE this delegate-approved draft to be in place before other drafts can be proposed. For these reasons, I am voting yes.

Matthew Plomin was one of the greatest visionaries I’ve ever had the privilege of knowing. His passion, dedication, and ability to inspire others left an indelible mark on the Cardano community. Renaming the hard fork in his honor is a fitting tribute to his legacy and the countless lives he touched. I am proud to vote yes on this proposal.

In the short term, I believe raising k will shake up stake and hopefully increase decentralization, so will vote yes. However, I also think that k is currently ineffective. K represents the target number of stake pools and is set to 500, but there are over 3k stake pools. Additionally, it measures POOLS, not OPERATORS. The latter is more important for decentralization. Raising it will punish saturated single SPOs, but will hopefully add more new SPOs. Long term I think a new RSS is needed.

I agree with the sentiment expressed, and I will be voting yes.

私はこの感情に賛同し、「YES」に投票します。

While Hosky means well, he hasn't quite maintained the peg of 0 ADA per HOSKY token. Instead, I'd like to counter with an inspirational figure who rhymes with Hosky: Manuel Sadosky. Sadosky was an Argentine pioneer in math and computer science who laid the groundwork for technology in Latin America. With the Cardano Constitution set to be signed in Argentina around the same time as the fork, I propose naming it the Sadosky Hard Fork instead.