Chris Cata

I am changing my vote from NO to YES.
My original concern was approving a higher Net Change Limit without a sufficiently compelling strategic purpose behind it. Since then, the Alpha Growth proposal has provided that context. While each treasury withdrawal must still be evaluated independently on its own merits, I no longer believe the NCL lacks a sufficiently compelling strategic justification.

Vote changed: NO → YES

After revisiting the proposal, I’ve changed my vote to YES.

While I’m generally conservative with treasury spending, Blockfrost stands out as one of the lower-risk proposals before us. It already provides critical infrastructure relied upon by a significant portion of the Cardano ecosystem, has an established track record of delivery, and this proposal supports transitioning that infrastructure into a community-governed public good rather than expanding a commercial business.

My previous concerns have not disappeared. I still believe the nearly ₳10M cost is substantial, and I’d like to see a clearer long-term sustainability model beyond the initial 18-month transition so the nonprofit is not expected to rely on ongoing treasury support. Those remain important areas for improvement.

Upon further reflection, I also don’t want to see other major ecosystem initiatives delayed, disrupted, or forced to solve infrastructure challenges because a foundational service like Blockfrost is not there to support them. Regardless of differing views on specific usage metrics, it has become deeply embedded across the Cardano developer ecosystem, and maintaining that continuity carries meaningful value.

I agree that Blockfrost should not become a permanently protected single provider, and I still want a clearer path to sustainability, open operation, and provider diversity. But rejecting the transition does not itself create that diversified future. It may instead introduce significant disruption to infrastructure that many builders already rely on. Upon reflection, I believe maintaining continuity under community governance is the lower-risk decision today, while continuing to push for a more open and plural data-access layer afterward.

My vote here is No.
While the proposal is well-developed and technically thoughtful, I do not believe it represents an appropriate use of Cardano Treasury funds at this time. It is fundamentally a market bet on a specific Bitcoin DeFi product category rather than broadly applicable public infrastructure, and its success depends on significant ecosystem adoption that has not yet been demonstrated. Given the funding requested and competing ecosystem priorities, I cannot support this level of treasury investment.

I am voting Yes because this proposal supports core technical coordination that helps Cardano evolve safely and predictably. While not directly user-facing, functions such as protocol parameter review, CIP stewardship, hard fork coordination, and independent technical oversight are foundational to a healthy ecosystem. At a relatively modest cost, I believe this is a reasonable investment in strengthening Cardano’s technical governance and long-term resilience.

Abstaining at this time while I seek additional feedback from the team.

From my review, the technical, delivery, and financial risks appear relatively low. The primary uncertainty for me is adoption. The value proposition depends on the DeFi Kernel becoming a shared standard across the Cardano DeFi ecosystem rather than simply being implemented by Dano Finance. Can you point to existing commitments, partnerships, or intentions from major protocols, wallets, or other builders to adopt or integrate the DeFi Kernel? Without meaningful ecosystem adoption, much of the proposal’s intended value becomes difficult to realize.

I am voting No.

This is consistent with my prior review during the Intersect budget process, where this proposal did not make my final supported list. While I recognize the effort and potential value behind Scalus, I remain unconvinced that this funding request should be prioritized against the broader set of treasury needs. The scope is large, the adoption case is still uncertain, and I do not believe this clears the bar for support at this time.

Voting Yes. This vote is consistent with my support during the Intersect budget review process. Pallas provides foundational Rust libraries that are relied upon throughout the Cardano ecosystem, reducing duplicated effort and supporting developers building on the protocol. Continued maintenance of shared infrastructure like this strengthens the ecosystem as a whole.

Voting Yes. This vote is also consistent with my support during the Intersect budget review process. Oura has become an important piece of Cardano’s data and event infrastructure, enabling applications and services to reliably consume on-chain events. Supporting widely adopted open-source tooling like this helps improve the developer experience and benefits the broader ecosystem beyond any single project.

I am voting Yes on this proposal.

I have consistently supported Intersect because I believe Cardano benefits from having a neutral coordination layer that helps turn governance decisions into execution. As governance has matured, so too has Intersect. Rather than expanding its remit indefinitely, this proposal demonstrates a more focused approach—reducing operating costs while concentrating on the responsibilities that are most critical to the ecosystem.

The technical stewardship component is particularly important. Coordinating network upgrades, maintaining core repositories, supporting incident response, and providing operational continuity are functions that are often invisible when they work well, but become immediately apparent when they do not. As Cardano continues moving toward decentralized governance and a more distributed development model, these responsibilities do not become less important—they become more important.

I also view this proposal as an investment in continuous improvement. Over the past year, Intersect has refined both its operating model and budget process, and this request reflects lessons learned rather than simply asking for more. That willingness to evolve, reduce scope where appropriate, and focus on core responsibilities is exactly what I expect from organizations receiving treasury support.

No organization should be beyond scrutiny, and continued accountability through milestone-based funding, independent assurance, and transparent reporting remains essential. However, based on Intersect’s demonstrated progression and the operational role it now fills within the ecosystem, I believe continued support is warranted. A resilient governance system requires not only good ideas, but also capable coordination and execution, and Intersect has become an important part of that foundation.

Voting yes - and that is consistent with my original vote on this proposal - https://most-brass-sun.quicknode-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmVkFkxPAWv3vRqyF73D3zU3BLg5K5Jdeam7Hbojsd4cLE (original proposal - https://adastat.net/governances/9a020ea7a6a0d813ff08c92bd8300b26077ae69a4b827c4d432ac665120325d700)

I am voting No on this information action because I disagree with its underlying characterization of Cardano’s treasury governance.

While our governance processes are still maturing and there are certainly opportunities for improvement, I do not believe they are fundamentally dysfunctional. Robust debate, differing priorities, and difficult funding decisions are expected in a decentralized governance system—not evidence that it is failing.

Many of the ideas presented here may be worth discussing in the future, but they begin from a premise that I do not accept. Cardano governance is evolving, proposals are being evaluated, funding decisions are being made, and the system is functioning as designed. Incremental improvements should be based on observed experience rather than an overstated narrative of crisis.

I see no real reason this next major hard fork shouldn't go forward.

I am voting YES.

One of the legitimate risks in this proposal is the opportunity cost of converting ADA into USDM. If ADA appreciates significantly over the next 12 months, the treasury could end up with fewer ADA than if it had simply held the original allocation.

Obviously, no investment is without risk, but neither is standing still. While we should recognize the potential opportunity cost of not simply holding ADA, I believe allowing proven ecosystem momentum to pass us by carries its own risk. On balance, I’m comfortable supporting this proposal and giving Strike the opportunity to continue building on what it has already demonstrated.

I believe the greater opportunity lies in supporting one of the few products on Cardano that has already demonstrated meaningful traction. Strike has shown sustained growth in users, trading activity, and on-chain volume, and additional liquidity addresses what appears to be its current limiting factor. All of this in a very ruthless bear market.

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Consistent with my 2026 Intersect budget process votes, I am voting YES. This is part of the bulk proposals submitted by Intersect from that process.
Hydra Evidence IPFS: https://bafybeie6yykngvn5xsq6va6nwz3sdeadgxd45yhsoeqpuiyxh4tky5tuzi.ipfs.inbrowser.link/
X-Post: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/2063660464450527709?s=20

Let's not over complicate this. Yes.

I am voting Yes on reducing the Constitutional Committee minimum size from 7 to 5. In simple terms, this doesn’t change what the Constitutional Committee does—it simply makes it easier to keep the committee functional when members step down, terms expire, or replacements take time to appoint. A minimum of 5 members still provides multiple independent voices and safeguards while reducing the risk of the committee becoming unable to operate due to vacancies. To me, this is a practical governance adjustment that improves continuity and resilience without meaningfully reducing oversight or decentralization.

I am voting Yes on this proposal because I believe Cardano should continue improving infrastructure that gives builders more viable options for commercial products and services. Hydra remains a niche solution today, and its broader adoption is not guaranteed, but the proposal is focused on hardening, performance, operations, and developer support rather than making an overly broad new bet. At this funding level, I view it as a reasonable investment in preserving optionality for use cases that may need lower costs, faster interactions, or application-specific scaling while still settling value back to Cardano.

I am voting Yes.

This proposal carries meaningful execution risk, and I remain cautious about some of the adoption projections presented. However, unlike many proposals focused primarily on infrastructure, tooling, or future technical capabilities, this initiative is directly aimed at creating real-world adoption and bringing new users and economic activity into the ecosystem.

At approximately 10M ADA, the request represents less than 3% of the current 350M ADA Net Change Limit. While not insignificant, it is also not large enough to meaningfully constrain the ecosystem's ability to fund other priorities.

I do not view every projection in the proposal as guaranteed to materialize, but I do believe treasury funding should leave room for a limited number of adoption-focused initiatives that have the potential to create meaningful ecosystem growth. On balance, I believe this proposal is a reasonable candidate for that category.

Pains me to not support this one but in the line of sacrifices I'm trying to make/find everywhere, this has got to be one. That said, I am abstaining, not voting No.

I am voting Yes.

Eternl is a widely used piece of Cardano infrastructure that many users rely on for staking, governance, and interacting with the ecosystem. What stands out to me is that this proposal is focused on bridging toward sustainability rather than creating permanent treasury dependence, with a defined paid-service model and commitments to repay treasury funds if successful. (CardanoCube)

I am voting Yes.

I originally opposed the earlier version of this proposal due to its scale, cost, and breadth. The revised proposal addresses many of those concerns.

The budget has been reduced substantially, from roughly 39M ADA to approximately 18M ADA, and the scope has been narrowed to focus on a smaller set of deliverables that are easier to justify on their own merits. Peras V1, History Expiry, and testing/conformance work all contribute to Cardano's continued evolution while avoiding a much larger and more speculative funding request.

While I remain mindful of treasury spending and prioritization, I believe the proposers made a good-faith effort to respond to community feedback by reducing both cost and ambition. This revised proposal represents a more reasonable balance between advancing important work and exercising fiscal restraint.

I am voting Yes.

While I remain focused on outcomes and long-term value, I supported this initiative previously and have seen evidence that committed work has been delivered. Governance should hold projects accountable, but it should also remain consistent when teams execute against approved objectives.

The ultimate success of this work remains to be proven over time, but I believe there is sufficient progress to justify seeing it through.

Note - we do need future proposals from this group to break out maintenance costs separately so we understand reoccurring commitments on implementations that will be required. It's not enough to bundle integration/implementation + maintenance.

I am voting Yes.

Although this is a highly technical parameter, I see sufficient benefit to parts of the ecosystem to support the change. It appears to be a measured adjustment that improves usability and flexibility without materially altering Cardano's core principles or security assumptions.

I am voting Abstain.

This is one of the more thoughtfully constructed proposals in the cycle, and unlike many infrastructure asks, it is at least directly focused on improving application delivery and reducing builder friction. The team has existing integrations, prior delivery history, and a credible understanding of the operational challenges developers face on Cardano today.

My hesitation is primarily around scope, scale, and execution risk. This proposal attempts to cover an enormous surface area simultaneously — smart contracts, runtime infrastructure, node capabilities, developer tooling, and L2 integration — all within a single large funding ask. While the vision is compelling, it remains unclear how much of this will translate into durable ecosystem growth versus expanded infrastructure complexity.

I also remain cautious about projecting adoption outcomes too far ahead. More tooling and platform capability do not automatically guarantee meaningful increases in users, transactions, or economic activity. We have seen that pattern before across the ecosystem.

I respect the quality of the work and the seriousness of the proposal, but given the size of the ask and the number of assumptions embedded in the long-term adoption thesis, I am not fully convinced enough to support it outright at this stage.

I am voting Abstain.

I think this proposal identifies a very real problem around open source sustainability, maintainer burnout, dependency risk, and long-term ecosystem resilience. The overall structure is thoughtful, governance-aware, and significantly more mature than many proposals in this cycle.

My hesitation is less about the intent and more about prioritization and ecosystem timing. This introduces a fairly large operational and governance framework around OSS sustainment, and I’m not fully convinced Cardano is yet at the stage where this level of institutionalization should be a top treasury priority relative to current adoption and growth constraints.

That said, I do think the underlying problem being addressed here is legitimate and increasingly important long term.

I am voting No.

While I understand the broader vision behind this proposal, I’m not convinced the timing, priority, or funding scale aligns with the ecosystem’s most immediate needs right now. Treasury capital is finite, and at this stage I believe we need to stay disciplined around focusing on initiatives with clearer near-term leverage on adoption, activity, and ecosystem growth.

I am voting No.

I appreciate the direction and the potential long-term value here, but I’m not convinced this is where treasury capital should be prioritized right now relative to other ecosystem needs and competing asks. At this funding size, I need stronger conviction around immediate ecosystem leverage and timing.

Voting yes - this is consistent with my prior vote which was for the combined proposal.

Voting yes - this is consistent with my prior vote which was for the combined proposal.

I am voting No.

This proposal bundles large, multi-year funding for important protocol work into a single ask, and that structure is the issue—not the work itself. It creates unnecessary pressures for a budget that must account for multiple asks.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting No.

This proposal bundles large, multi-year funding for important protocol work into a single ask, and that structure is the issue—not the work itself. It creates unnecessary pressures for a budget that must account for multiple asks.

Peras and Leios both have merit, but committing this level of capital upfront reduces treasury flexibility and crowds out the ability to fund other priorities as the ecosystem evolves. We should not be locking in large portions of the treasury across multiple years, especially for work that carries execution risk and has already seen timeline shifts.

I also question the timing. Fast finality is directionally valuable, particularly for enterprise and higher-assurance use cases, but it’s not clear this is a current constraint on adoption. Most active ecosystems operate without it today, and user growth has not been limited by its absence. If and when this becomes a real requirement, I would expect to see stronger demand signals—and ideally some level of co-investment from those stakeholders—before prioritizing it at this scale.

Additionally, prior treasury management decisions by proposers are not something the Cardano treasury should be expected to compensate for.

Finally, this vote is also a fiscal one. There are multiple large asks in this cycle, and we simply cannot fund everything at once without severely limiting flexibility for the rest of the year. Saying No here is not a rejection of the work, but a necessary constraint on capital allocation.

I would potentially support a restructured approach—breaking this into smaller, clearly scoped proposals (e.g., Peras and Leios separately), with single-year funding and milestone-based accountability. There is room to continue progressing this work so it is ready when needed, but not at the scale of a multi-million, multi-year commitment upfront.

I am voting Yes to both Baseline and Title Sponsorship proposals.

If we are going to show up at an event like TOKEN2049, we should do so with intention and make it count. This is one of the few opportunities to position Cardano in front of a global, external audience at scale, and a fragmented or minimal presence risks being lost entirely.

I view these proposals together as a single strategic decision around representation. While this level of spend requires scrutiny, the alternative—underinvesting and failing to stand out—undermines the purpose of being there at all. If we believe external visibility and ecosystem expansion matter, then we need to commit to it meaningfully.

That said, support here comes with expectations. This must translate into a structured pipeline—engagement, follow-up, and measurable outcomes—not just exposure. Future proposals in this category should be evaluated based on what is actually delivered from this effort.

This is a “make it count” moment. We need to show up with clarity, intent, and execution.

I am voting Yes to both Baseline and Title Sponsorship proposals.

If we are going to show up at an event like TOKEN2049, we should do so with intention and make it count. This is one of the few opportunities to position Cardano in front of a global, external audience at scale, and a fragmented or minimal presence risks being lost entirely.

I view these proposals together as a single strategic decision around representation. While this level of spend requires scrutiny, the alternative—underinvesting and failing to stand out—undermines the purpose of being there at all. If we believe external visibility and ecosystem expansion matter, then we need to commit to it meaningfully.

That said, support here comes with expectations. This must translate into a structured pipeline—engagement, follow-up, and measurable outcomes—not just exposure. Future proposals in this category should be evaluated based on what is actually delivered from this effort.

This is a “make it count” moment. We need to show up with clarity, intent, and execution.

I am voting Abstain.

Vacuumlabs has a solid track record and I don’t question the technical value of improving Plutus across performance, correctness, and usability. These are meaningful enhancements to the underlying platform.

My hesitation is around the degree to which these improvements translate into near-term ecosystem outcomes. While it’s fair to say they can support multiple long-term KPIs, the connection to actual user growth, adoption, and economic activity remains indirect and dependent on additional factors that are not addressed here.

We’ve spent years improving the technical foundation of Cardano with the expectation that adoption would follow, and that hasn’t consistently materialized. I don’t view this as unnecessary work, but from a prioritization standpoint, I’m not convinced it meaningfully addresses the most immediate constraints facing the ecosystem today.

I am voting Yes.

This proposal covers protocol and network upgrades that are necessary for Cardano’s continued operation and evolution. These are not optional in nature and are required to keep the chain current and functional.

That said, I want to be clear: this category of work should not become a recurring, open-ended funding cycle. Many of these upgrades have been part of ongoing roadmap efforts, and I would expect delivery within the scope of current funding. We should not see repeated asks for the same class of work without clear evidence of completion and impact.

Support here comes with the expectation of execution. Future proposals in this category should be evaluated based on what is actually delivered from this funding, not on continued promises.

I am voting No.

Improving developer experience is directionally positive, but this proposal continues a pattern we’ve leaned on for years—investing in better tooling with the expectation that adoption will follow. That hasn’t consistently proven true.

At some point, we have to acknowledge that the primary constraint is not just developer friction, but the lack of sustained user demand and economic activity to build for. Without that pull, improvements here risk being incremental optimizations rather than meaningful drivers of growth.

I don’t question the value of this work, but I do question its priority relative to the gaps we still have in attracting users and real usage into the ecosystem.

I am voting Yes.

While this proposal does not directly advance user growth, it addresses a core requirement for any sustainable ecosystem: security and correctness at the protocol level.

High-assurance engineering reduces the risk of critical failures that can undermine trust and adoption. In that sense, it supports the long-term viability of everything built on top of the chain.

I would still expect continued scrutiny around cost and efficiency in this category, but at a base level, this is important work to fund.

I am voting Yes.

Simply put, this is necessary to keep Cardano functioning as expected. While it doesn’t move the ecosystem forward on its own, nothing else meaningfully works without it.

Support here should not remove the need for ongoing scrutiny around cost, efficiency, and long-term decentralization of these responsibilities, but at a base level, this is a requirement.

I am voting Abstain.

I understand the importance of continuing to evolve Cardano’s consensus design over time, and I don’t question the long-term value of this type of work. However, this proposal reads as forward-looking research and improvement rather than something critical to the network’s immediate operation.

If this work were essential in the near term, I would expect it to be included within core maintenance efforts. As such, this feels more like an initiative to advance future capabilities rather than address a current constraint.

I don’t want to stand in the way if the ecosystem sees value in pursuing this now, but from a prioritization standpoint, I am not convinced this is among the most urgent areas to fund at this time.

I am voting No.

I understand the potential upside of enabling Bitcoin-related DeFi activity on Cardano, and the appeal of creating new revenue streams for the treasury. However, this proposal still relies on demand that has not yet clearly materialized at scale.

Across the ecosystem, the primary constraint today is not access to new financial primitives, but users, activity, and sustained engagement. Introducing additional infrastructure and complexity ahead of that demand feels premature.

This is not a rejection of the idea itself, but a question of timing and prioritization. I would rather see stronger evidence of user pull and market fit before allocating treasury funds to expand into this direction.

I am voting Yes.

I recognize the importance of this infrastructure and the direction it is heading. Project Cayley, in particular, represents a forward-looking step toward enabling a more scalable and potentially more distributed data layer as the network evolves.

That said, it’s important to be clear: this enables a path toward decentralization, but it does not deliver it on its own. Continued funding in this category should be tied to tangible progress toward a more open, multi-provider indexing ecosystem—not ongoing reliance on a single dominant provider.

I support enabling this step, but I do not want to see repeated funding requests without clearer movement in that direction. Either we evolve toward a more distributed model, or we need to be explicit about the long-term cost of maintaining centralized infrastructure. I would prefer we move toward the former.

I am voting No.

I understand the importance of scalability and the potential role of Layer 2 solutions in the long term. However, I do not believe this addresses the most immediate constraints facing the ecosystem today.

Cardano is not currently limited by throughput or execution capacity—we are limited by users, activity, and demand. Investing heavily in future scale before that demand materializes feels misaligned with where the ecosystem needs to focus right now.

This is not a rejection of the direction, but a question of timing and prioritization. I would rather see resources directed toward driving usage and adoption first, and allow scaling solutions to be pulled forward by real demand rather than built ahead of it.

Here’s a cleaner, more structured version that keeps your meaning and tone:

I am voting Yes.
The proposal being separated from TOKEN2049 addresses one of my main concerns from the prior version. The more focused scope, along with a modest reduction in total cost and a leaner event structure, moves this in a better direction.
I still believe there is opportunity cost here. My original concerns around pipeline, conversion, and post-event outcomes are not fully satisfied, but I’m also not sure they realistically can be at this stage. This is still partly an awareness and engagement effort, and the real test will come after the event.
I don’t know that the Cardano Foundation can fully predict what this converts into, but I do think they understand where Cardano needs to be represented and who the target audience is. Given the location, timing, strategic opportunity, and Cardano’s position as an L1 that needs to show up in these conversations, I view this as an acceptable proposal and cost.
That said, support here should not be interpreted as a blank check for future Summits. We need to take a hard look at the results in the months after the event and evaluate what actually came from it. Future Summit proposals should be benchmarked against the outcomes of this one.

I am voting No (regrettably).

I support investing in growth and ecosystem expansion, and I believe initiatives like this can play a role in increasing visibility. I also recognize that marketing ROI is not deterministic—KPIs here are signals, not guarantees, and I’m not expecting a direct “ADA spent = users onboarded” model.

What I am looking for is clearer evidence that this is intentionally building a pipeline—how exposure translates into sustained engagement—and that this progression will be tracked and reported over time. While the Summit has been running for several years and there is acknowledgment that it has operated somewhat within the existing ecosystem, I have not yet seen enough detail on what has changed structurally to produce different outcomes going forward.

I also think it’s important to distinguish between the two components of this proposal. External visibility at events like TOKEN2049 is highly valuable and aligns with the need to expand beyond our existing ecosystem. The Cardano Summit, while historically important, has largely served the internal community and may warrant reevaluation as a treasury-funded initiative at this scale. Bundling both together makes it difficult to assess their individual impact and necessity.

For a proposal of this size, I’m not yet convinced on that linkage, which is why my No is a regrettable one.

My initial hesitation was around whether this directly drives near-term adoption and user growth. I still believe that’s the primary gap Cardano needs to solve, and that we need to be intentional about building stronger demand-side pipelines across the ecosystem.

That said, I also recognize that this proposal contributes to foundational capabilities that align with where we want the ecosystem to go—particularly around trustless access and developer experience.

This isn’t a shift away from my broader view that we need to prioritize adoption, but rather an acknowledgment that we can—and should—do both. Strengthening the foundation while building better pathways to users doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive.

I’m voting YES on the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget proposal.

While the Cayman setup is more expensive than some alternatives, this isn’t just about cost. It's well established for crypto already, provides a bit of piece of mind and credibility that will help everyone focus Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem growth - and not legal hurdles. It's not always one dimensional (ie cost) at the end of the day.

The proposed ₳50M allocation is only a small portion of the treasury and will be deployed gradually, making it a measured step toward real liquidity for the ecosystem. Past delays in building these capabilities show why taking this step thoughtfully now is important.

This is a pragmatic and in my opinion measured move to strengthen Cardano’s defi ecosystem.

I’m voting YES on the Cardano Foundation taking over Catalyst. This is to ensure continuity for existing Catalyst funds (10–14). Not approving this is unnecessarily punitive to the past commitments already made and unfair to those projects.

As for Fund 15–16 being “unrelated” while also being mentioned. My read is: those funds are already committed to be returned (with Intersects Administration), and this proposal doesn’t change that—it just ensures there’s a clear operator in place to execute responsibilities cleanly.

I'm voting YES on the Draper Dragon Orion Fund proposal (Tranche 1: ₳50M treasury withdrawal).

Treasury Impact and Long-Term Risk/Reward Perspective
This proposal represents one of the largest and most structured treasury withdrawals Cardano has seen, with Tranche 1 at ₳50 million ADA—about 3% of the current treasury balance (approximately 1.65 billion ADA, valued at roughly $429–445 million USD at recent prices around $0.26–$0.27). The multi-year structure caps total treasury exposure at around ₳175 million ADA over 6+ years (with potential extensions), phased across tranches: Tranche 1 at ~$15M / 50M ADA, and subsequent ones targeting ~$30M each (up to ~85M ADA per tranche), requiring separate governance votes and milestone approvals each time.

This isn't a one-time hit—it's incremental and with capital repayment to the treasury prioritized before any GP carried interest (20%). In a realistic scenario of treasury growth (ongoing epoch rewards and fees adding 200–300M+ ADA annually in recent cycles, assumptions of NCLs with 300M ADA annual spend), the total impact could represent roughly 5–9% of the total treasury over time. It approaches 10–11% if growth lags even more. Personally, it makes me feel uncomfortable position to be in.

Cardano's position and let’s be frank, community push/mandate(?) as a top-10 crypto asset with one of the largest DAO treasuries makes this phased allocation somewhat tolerable. The real downside risk is I believe is manageable relative to the potential upside: successful investments could drive COMPOUNDING benefits through ecosystem growth (e.g., higher TVL, on-chain activity, protocol revenue). All things that move us towards long-term treasury sustainability—far outweighing the cost of inaction.

The Need for Professional VC Partnership and This Unique Opportunity -
Cardano has historically operated with limited institutional VC involvement compared to peers that have leveraged such partnerships for accelerated scaling, liquidity, and adoption. This proposal introduces professional management from Draper Dragon, a firm with experience in digital assets and blockchain investments, including accelerator programs that have helped ecosystems.

The terms aren't flawless—concerns around co-investments (e.g., parallel private funds alongside Orion, as highlighted by some and have merit) raise valid questions on conflicts, disclosure, and alignment. If I’m understanding this complex deal structure correctly, standard VC practices would address these concerns head-on. That said, rejecting the opportunity entirely over imperfect proposals is a risk I’m not sure that is worth it. We know what looking back at regret looks like (see Circle…). Most of the ecosystem has never been exposed to this scale of VC-structured deal —and it’s been stated this has been months of iterations. So, is this “Done is better than perfect”?: the proposal emphasizes net treasury benefit through KPIs (e.g., TVL growth targets, startup scaling, on-chain metrics), even if Draper Dragon realizes their own successes here.

This proposal is a step Cardano hasn't taken before, and there's a real FOMO factor in passing on a professionally managed fund that could be an actual ‘Catalyst’ (see what I did there?) for meaningful growth. As a DRep focused on continuous improvement, I'm voting YES to support this first step.

I'm voting YES on the Dingo proposal by Blink Labs.The requested ₳6,900,000 is a relatively small, low-risk allocation relative to the Cardano treasury's overall size, making it a prudent step toward advancing essential node diversity. This proposal doesn't need to be funneled through the Intersect budgeting process; we should deliberately exercise direct treasury pathways when suitable to test and refine governance alternatives. Over-reliance on a single mechanism—even a collaborative one like Intersect—could inadvertently centralize decision-making, which runs counter to the decentralization we champion. Node diversity remains a foundational requirement for long-term network resilience and security, and we've consistently affirmed that Cardano should avoid dependence on any single large entity, consortium, or implementation. That same principle applies to funding: direct treasury proposals merit fair, case-by-case evaluation without mandatory redirection.On its merits, Blink Labs brings a proven track record of open-source contributions to the ecosystem. Supporting this initiative backs an independent team leveraging Go—a widely accessible language—ensuring we don't concentrate efforts on just one alternative (Haskell or otherwise). Genuine diversity demands multiple teams with varied skill sets and approaches, reducing single points of failure and fostering innovation across the protocol.This aligns squarely with community goals of building a more robust, decentralized Cardano while balancing progress with prudent risk management. It also resonates directly with my own objectives as a DRep: striking a thoughtful balance in governance actions that serve both short- and long-term ecosystem health, prioritizing continuous improvement.

Clear deliveries and fund management have been demonstrated historically by Amaru. While cost demands are still meaningfully high, I can easily get behind a project that can continue to build and send back what's left from prior years withdrawels before asking for additional funds. We already know from prior proposals what is being delivered here is for the overall safety and security of the chain, so it's an important endeavor that some teams need to work on. I will continue to support Amaru on this project as a DRep.

I support this as a useful coordination, transparency, and planning framework for the 2026 budget process. My support should not be read as treating this action as a constitutionally operative budget approval or treasury-spending authorization or process. Under the Constitution update effective January 24, 2026, Budget Info Actions may remain on-chain as records of sentiment and guidance, but Treasury Withdrawals must stand on their own and satisfy the constitutional requirements directly. So I really view this action as a helpful reference point rather than a constitutional prerequisite for future Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions.

I will continue to abstain. Personally, I do not wish to see this total spend because it's not clear yet where it would go in terms of future proposals and we've not proven yet we've made good use of the prior years NCL/spend. It also doesn't sit right with me that we've not determined a way to make this a hard coded on-chain parameter.

I don't wish to stand in the way of progress so will not block this proposal. I'm not sure what NCL I would be comfortable with this year given what was put forth and ultimately successfully passed for the 2025 year. I'm not afraid to spend and get behind proposals that pass a bit more scrutiny going forward and clearer objectives on how it'll ultimately help boost Cardano's ecosystem and frankly price. For me that'll come in the form of liquidity, integrations that remove barriers to entry and walled off opportunities, and support/security needs for the daily operations of the chain. That may cost 150M, 300M, or 400M at the end of the day.

Voting yes to help secure governances ability to keep moving forward without disruptions of CC members coming and going. Since we have not met the threshold to increased CC members we must look to other avenues to help ensure we remain operational. The 7 to 5 move in minsize accomplishes this. It's not permanent, and can always be increased in the future should we add more members.

Per the polls and community feedback out there seems to be enough support for this where the benefit outweighs any real risk to overall performance.

Continued support for something I've already voted Yes towards.

Not much to say here other than of course we should do this to honor Max.

I do not want to stand in the way ultimately of progress so will abstain. I'm not satisfied with the NCL amount being so high, however this can be further managed as each proposal comes in throughout the next year and a half. We can play around with the numbers to stretch it out to make it seem like it's a lower amount due to it going into 2027, however I think that's just to cover the basis that an extension won't be needed like this past year to handle timing/pace of governance issues. I'm never really afraid to spend, especially when it means forward progress. However, as the realities of the reserve start to sink in for many we're on limited runway and curbing spend to ensure sustainability isn't something that can be done later, it must be done now. We approved a lot in funding last year - much of it that is going to carry into late 2026-2027 as it is. It does seem this year should be less, and focus on just a few key issues such as liquidity, marketing and growth.

Voting yes - in support of open-sourced components of this project that the ecosystem can benefit from as a whole as well as providing additional support for Hydra use case dapps and this one looks strong and can support the DeFi ecosystem. They've included 2030 KPIs into their proposal as well.
6-mo seems like an aggressive timeline, and I may have questions in the future how deeper liquidity and making DeltaDeFi a source of that liquidity for other dapps is supposed to be achieved. For now, however, I'm supportive of this budget action as is.

I have been increasingly more supportive of these constitutional changes as the revisions have gone on. I am in support of v2.4 of the constitution proposed to bring additional clarity and to help streamline some of the processes when it comes to treasury withdrawals.

I am supportive of a unified vision and roadmap that we as a community and ecosystem and point back to (if we so choose). This for me gives a longer-term vision to help guide where we should be making some decisions in the coming years to reach 2030 goals.

I initially voted for Christina in the Ekklesia snap election process. I am also in support of having more than just the minimum required for CC quorum (7) - so voting in continued support of both initiatives to strength our overall governance.

Voting yes on this TWA proposal., as I did with the BIA. I still strongly believe this is mission critical for Cardano. This proposal is less opaque or ambiguous to me given the context of the partners already alluded to in subsequent public discussions by members of this proposal. To address some concerns around that personally - I see this as needing to be pragmatic and understanding that we're having to navigate real-world commercial agreements. We don't want to jeopardize that, even as a "public" chain, that needs to extend itself into that arena.

On top of all that, there is overwhelming support from the community represented by DReps. The majority of the people in Cardano's ecosystem are ready to see this stuff committed to and done. It's not that they are against costs, but it's understood that this is a funding operation that is just a piece of the total that's going to be needed to get many of these critical integrations done. There's reputation on the line here with multiple entities - they cannot come back from failure, in my opinion, on this and expect future withdrawals without following through on the transparency expected (where legally possible for them).

I look forward to ultimately seeing how the CCs will vote on this proposal in contrast to others when it comes to fulfilling constitutional requirements. If we look back at the purpose of our treasury (moving past the founding entities, their origination and allocated ADA) - this is it. It's a resource that, while to be protected, is intended to help scale Cardano and keep it relevant or competitive.

Following the off-chain participation, voting YES to add new CC member - Cardano Curia - to get governance going again bringing the total members back up to 7 (meets the committeeMinSize parameter.

I would like to see an additional CC member added, or two - as this will help close up governance gaps in the even one leaves and not having to do snap-elections or rush to resolve to keep things flowing.

Happy with the selection here, even if I did not vote for this team directly. I believe there are multiple right choices here so looking forward to future CC member adds.

This proposal is pretty self explanatory. It doesn't seek to increase the NCL - just extend the time limit for which this one is valid for. Due to a couple of upcoming proposals reliant on being valid for the existing 2025 NCL, an extension may likely be needed for all the governance proposals to take place successfully within the time frame allowed due to epoch boundaries. This doesn't introduce any additional real risk to over expenditure and maintains the existing total of 350M. My vote will be YES here, and coincides in support of a recently submitted BIA for Cardano Integrations and an expected TWA in the coming days.

I strongly support the Critical Integrations Budget proposal, as it represents a meaningful forward step to gauge community sentiment on allocating 70 million ADA toward essential DeFi infrastructure, including bridges, oracles, and stablecoins. This proposal aims to accelerate ecosystem adoption while stating that detailed costs, commitments, and external funding contributions (where possible due to NDAs) are transparently addressed. I expect additional information to unfold in the coming week with subsequent spaces being hosted, community discussions and questions answered, and ultimately the TWA that is submitted.

I am trying to quantify/qualify the 1M ADA (or 500ADA/day per CC) and I'm not there with this proposal, however I will be voting YES to signal being in favor of compensation CC members overall. What I wish to see is some other mechanism/proof of work(?) tied to compensation to qualify for payment. In such a way that CC members would be eligible 'up to' 200K ADA, but they do not all equally earn it. In my mind, just trying to balance CC members that put in X hours vs others that put in Y hours. I hate to ask of more from CC members, but I really do feel that it should be something in place. The 1M ADA is arbitrary to me at this point, and I do wish to see it tied an actual USD amount - and basing payouts on a flat number so that ADA being withdrawn for payment can go up or down depending on the cost but we all agree what that's going to be in USD. This presents challenges in what that ought to be but again, to me that's important.

Voting the same the last time this came up for vote - Yes.
Supporting this proposal not because I absolutely think it'll be successful, but because I'd like to see us explore options with new teams to expand our CEX visibility and ecosystem overall for Cardano. We have founding entities with millions of ADA and we're still seeing challenges with listings, granted we've not quite yet meet the listing requirements for all of them to make it worth their while. SNEK does drive volume and activity, on-chain, for Cardano - and we should at least take this measured risk (in the form of an collateralized loan) to explore a different avenue. At the very least, a pathway will be determined for future CNTs. It's worth mentioning SNEKs' multiple business paths and options for revenue without this which could be attributed to their ability to pay back some if not all of this loan. While not structured appropriately, imo, for an uncollateralized loan - I do not think this sets precedence either for potential future loans.

Thoughts on risk here: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/1964291870407770286

There's not much to have to dig into here. A bug resulted in a lost deposit - this simply makes it right and returns funds to the submitter.

Voting yes to signal support. This makes sense and I have an appreciation for the CF leveraging the Info action to signal community sentiment towards them doing this on-chain. I have nothing additional to add as a DRep either and agree fully with full-context provided by the CF and them taking into account the ICANN changes going into 2026. This is proactive, forward thinking, and may remove cost barriers to future opportunities. All of this at no cost to the treasury is an easy win.

I am in favor of this constitutional update to make improvements to how governance operates in Cardano. It simplifies process, adds clarity to some definitions, and attempts to firm up the immutability of what is done on-chain. While I would have liked to see some of this broken out, particularly changes to budget info action process, consensus based on feedback from many throughout the community suggests this will ultimately be a net positive and I agree. It's an iterative leap but one that's needed as over time I have growing concerns of governance participation waning due to process fatigue and confusion/interpretation efforts due to these improvements being needed.

I'm voting yes to signal my support for this vision and strategy. I don't intend to get hung up on some of the details in terms of how we measure the success (KPIs), whether it's achievable, or other nuances of it. While it's important, this is an info action, not an ask for treasury withdrawals which for me gives some room for flexibility in terms of what this vote is asking for in terms of signaling support.

A 2030 vision/strategy that includes high or low-level KPIs isn't going to really fit into the compact document provided to us. Getting into the measurement specifics (technical numbers and how to achieve them) should be handled in a different format/document altogether.

There will be many different KPIs we could use at lower-levels, but at the highest organizational level the goal of the vision/strategy is clear - and that is what I'm voting for. As time passes, I expect how we measure and what we measure to change and as we apply specifics to achieving those things and start to look to delegate those action items to different groups within the community. Those KPIs will then start to become clearer through insight and more fleshed out which I do believe some are looking for. I would like to see these as well, but I don't see that as the intent of this Info Action. It's clear based on some feedback out there in the community that some intend to leverage KPIs more as a rigid target that has a guaranteed metric for success - instead of an effective and informative tool. It can be counterproductive, short-sighted, manipulated, and kill opportunities for growth and innovation.

This info action is looking for community feedback and signaled support on the overall scope of what has been put forth, and I don't wish to see getting hung up over whether that's $100M or $200M in growth in L1 revenues. It matters, but not here. The goals of Cardano is set clearly here, and that's what is most important - Grow revenues and daily transactions, drive enterprise integration and adoption, continued focus on decentralization.

Voting yes as I did with the budget info action - this is tooling that needs to exist for the time being and be supported. The platform continues to improve over time and I look forward to seeing Costs are also expected to go down over time.

I am voting YES to support this proposal to help support Cardano's stablecoin and defi ecosystems. I have long been a proponent of DeFi in general and it's become clear over time there's just a little bit more needed for the ecosystem to ensure it can continue to grow with momentum.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES to support this proposal to help support Cardano's stablecoin and defi ecosystems. I have long been a proponent of DeFi in general and it's become clear over time there's just a little bit more needed for the ecosystem to ensure it can continue to grow with momentum.

Through months of feedback and socialization of this process I feel at this time the proposal is sufficient enough to address community concerns. It has a governed process (tDAO) that allows the community to more or less walk away from the process and return funds to the treasury if they desire. It also enables the community to choose managing members once this has been bootstrapped.

I do wish to see a broader coverage of stablecoin types eventually available, however for just the 50M ADA this is a good start leveraging USDM and USDA.

Voting yes on this proposal for a few key reasons. Instead of a broad or sweeping growth initiative it's focused on a region, Oceania. From there this team has put forth a clear proposal on the who, what, how, and why. The funding ask, 778K ADA, to me seems to be about as lean as possible. I reached out to the team for feedback on this and it's intentional - minimum required to get the tasks completed. Ultimately, this proposal should help to establish putting down roots in the region and overall awareness for Cardano. We should be able to support this localized initiative for Cardano for these costs and look forward to 2026-2027 budgeting to determine if it's something we want to continue.

One line item that would have seen this proposal come down another 100K, which did raise an eyebrow, was the 100K reimbursement for the Ikigai action. I personally had thought that issue was resolved but if not, it should be reimbursed - just not sure it needed to happen bundled with this proposal. However, given the team involved I don't have any concerns around this line item - it's the right thing to do - and up to this point it has not been addressed by anyone else.

Over time, I've come to not want to vote no anymore on any project that could have gone another avenue for funding (ie. Project Catalyst). The reason being is that it pigeon holes it to a specific process that not everyone may be using or want to. The treasury is more open and available to all in my opinion, so I will always review a proposal as is.

Supporting this proposal not because I absolutely think it'll be successful, but because I'd like to see us explore options with new teams to expand our CEX visibility and ecosystem overall for Cardano. We have founding entities with millions of ADA and we're still seeing challenges with listings, granted we've not quite yet meet the listing requirements for all of them to make it worth their while. SNEK does drive volume and activity, on-chain, for Cardano - and we should at least take this measured risk (in the form of an collateralized loan) to explore a different avenue. At the very least, a pathway will be determined for future CNTs. It's worth mentioning SNEKs' multiple business paths and options for revenue without this which could be attributed to their ability to pay back some if not all of this loan. While not structured appropriately, imo, for an uncollateralized loan - I do not think this sets precedence either for potential future loans.

Thoughts on risk here: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/1964291870407770286

Voting deviates from decisions back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

While I am for continuous improvement, I have a couple of key issues here where this goes a bit beyond what I think of as iterative. While Yuta has gone through some lengths to collect feedback from the community this is absent, in my opinion, of broader community involved problem solving methods outside certain areas of social media feedback. It attempts to make a significant change to the budget process with insufficient explanation, reasoning, or guidance – as well as removes CC “gates” put in place when it comes to the original BIA – and perhaps its intent. The result here is a NO vote from me.
Where would I vote yes? I want to see a narrowed approach to the submitted changes (more than one proposal effectively) – with comprehensive and focused changes to key areas with expanded upon reasonings - which I would prefer to see for a change to the constitution at this level. The brief set of information in the proposal in my opinion lacks sufficient supporting links/evidence of the pros and cons of those larger non-insignificant changes (NCL, BIA, CC scope/impact). Even the link to the Google doc used to collect initial information from community members is missing here, which could have been a supporting link (although still not sufficient for me). Below is perhaps an iterative roadmap on constitutional changes that will be easier to move forward with.

**Proposal 1 – Constitution Update v1.1 ** - What I see as fixes to typos and additional definitions, clearer or narrower scopes defined amongst the roles, and ultimately some tidiness around guardrails and their groupings (network, economic, governance, etc.) – this should have been 1 proposal in and of itself. Easy win.
Proposal 2 – Constitution Update v1.5 Suggestion - I would have considered a second constitutional update proposal when it came to the NCL. Shoring up the definition and aligning the budget process to fit around those needs. There is still debates ongoing about how to handle this, so we should not look beyond this because of the downstream impacts this definition may have in the process.
Proposal – Constitution Update v2.0 Suggestion - Finally – if v1.5 did not resolve key process issues around the BIA and TWA - create another more narrowed/focused constitutional update to address budget/treasury related process changes specifically as it will make fundamental changes to the budget process, change the CC scope/”gated” process how it is today, and more things I’m forgetting to mention here.

Constitutional hurdles aside, this proposal still needs some additional work and expanded upon. The Snek community and leaders have done some great work and may be deserving of treasury funds to push global listing expansion - but this proposal seems to fall short of it somehow for the funds requested and ultimately the Snek team will need to rise up to meet those expectations.

Constitutional hurdles aside, this proposal still needs some additional work and expanded upon. The Snek community and leaders have done some great work and may be deserving of treasury funds to push global listing expansion - but this proposal seems to fall short of it somehow for the funds requested and ultimately the Snek team will need to rise up to meet those expectations.

Updated Vote YES
This proposal ultimately aligns with my needs of finding continuous improvement opportunities within Cardano as a whole. After having gone through the recent governance days workshops I would like to see this work continue. We need more actionable data to drive governance discussions and decisions going forward. This directly serves Cardano’s core principles—people, purpose, technology, research, and opportunity—while educating the community and enabling continuous improvement. Therefore, we should be making efforts to fund governance's success in what ways we can.

UPDATED TO YES: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/1953907893537059110

I'm in support of the risk and challenge here to take on this type of new product development on Cardano that aims to tap into a large real estate market.

Prior Statement
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Updated/Changed Vote: After some further review and consideration, I am opting to support this due to what I hope is a net benefit to the ecosystem with these events down the road. While I'm personally wary of the key founding entities that are taking part in operating these initiatives - I consider this a last change through 2025-2026 to see them make something of this. The track record, from my perspective, doesn't show a lot of positivity from past events and results - it's costs with no real revenues. Traction for Cardano's ecosystem however remains a top priority of mine to move things forward - and sometimes that means taking some risks and continuing the effort to bring more key businesses and developers into the ecosystem. A vote for YES here is to help support that.

As always - We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawals for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliency, and security) -- and business that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting YES my vote deviates from my other voting actions back in May 2025 on Ekklesia. I am pushing for more support for stablecoins within the ecosystem.
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting YES for MLabs, which deviates from my prior voting decisions made from a prior offchain vote for Ekklesia. I'm in favor of the MLab suite of proposals.
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting YES for MLabs, which deviates from my prior voting decisions made from a prior offchain vote for Ekklesia. I'm in favor of the MLab suite of proposals.
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

I want to support Tempo for another year and see where they go with development. I think we're still in a crucial time to see these tools get built out and offer different takes on the overall UX. There's the added benefit that the total amount of ADA asked for is to support a fee-based lending pool for submitting future gov actions. The 2026 plan for Tempo is still ambitious at an estimated 400K (per their feedback), however that assumes further development of the portal. It would be half as much if it was just for maintenance. Some more time will tell us whether there's demand for conintued support as other APIs are developed, additional open-source tooling becomes available, and community feedback on what ultimately users want to see. I have found Tempo useful as a DRep, and am voting in favor of their budget.

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrg

Ready to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).

We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.

My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt

At the end of the day this tool needs to exist and we should support it to ensure governance in Cardano is sustainable and viable solution for users to use.

Voting yes in support of an alternative node here, as I did for the initial proposal. Following through now by supporting the withdrawal as it looks like the remaining concerns I had in how treasury funds were going to work, associated smart contracts, where audits are, etc. is all there and linked.

I could be more supportive of this proposal if we saw a more consistent method for how the off-chain voting was going to translate into smaller proposals like this. I've voted yes to most of the projects included here, not all. That said, I would rather support a somewhat larger group proposal maybe categorized to areas of the roadmap - or something other than what's happening here. If the governance process shifts to be more in line with something like this I could be more in favor once all those proposals are understood in how they would be submitted. For now, I will vote abstain, being more in favor of an all encompassing budget proposal with a more granular and broken out treasury withdrawal process.

I'm supportive of most if not all the projects here in the proposal, just not on total spend allocated. That said, I have also signaled my support of a 200M NCL, this this exceeds. I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to wrap my head around the distinction of how the NCL operates and how budgets and their subsequent withdrawals will operate - and they can (and always will) coexist and yet not align completely when it comes to the numbers. I see this budget proposal as a commitment on the improvements and developments we as a community want to see happen for Cardano. There's enough flexibility between the constitution, how the NCL works, the reality of budget and treasury withdrawal timelines that this can still workout whether the NCL is 350M or 200M. The challenge is put towards Intersect to reconcile that as some of these projects extend beyond the actual epoch boundaries of the NCL, and I think that's where success in this comprehensive budget proposal becomes possible, while maintaining a more rigid or conservative control over the treasury. In short, we can control 6-mo net change of the treasury value while supporting a greater budget proposal that spans a year, or more.

I'm fully supportive of node diversity on Cardano. This is something we can work on while doing other developments in the ecosystem that are just as important. I'd prefer to see a completed smart contract to reference for future treasury withdrawals, however the roadmap on how it's going to be laid out and the team working on it is sufficient for now.

There will be a resubmit by the proposer.

The idea behind the proposal adjusting the NCL to cover 2026 can make sense, however I disagree with the motivation. It's letting an NCL be driven budget proposal timelines. I also do not see a need to have an NCL timeline match exactly to a budget proposal length. There is nothing to stop a treasury withdraw prior to the end of 2025 for a project that will not be completed until some time in 2026, or even later. NCLs do not have a need to stay open to meet budget timelines - it would never end.

This is an NCL aligned more to what strong community feedback has been. There is some concern over maybe potential whipsaw events due to how supersedence works but ultimately, I think this is likely the best possible way to start out with the budget for the remainder of 2025.

The rationale with this NCL highlights some critical changes still occurring within governance, understanding community sentiment, and things not yet determined in terms of budget process, etc. With those things in mind it attempts to appropriately set a limiting NCL until those things are hashed out. I am fully in support of this approach.

Some community sentiment are still strong around having a lower NCL. As a proponent of forward progress/continuous improvement, I'm inherently inclined to vote Yes. In this case, I can find some measures to cast this aside for a moment to get to NO. After some more review of budget proposals that continue to come in at meaningful values (millions of ADA) I think the right course of action here is to switch to a NO vote. It's clear that some downward pressure is needed for budgets (<300M NCL).

With ongoing committee elections (changing of the guard), a steady stream of budget proposals approaching 500M (not inherently bad), concentrated DRep delegate distributions, and continued lack of transparency to a degree over past programs (ie. Catalyst) - we as DReps should leverage the biggest stick we have to control budgets - and that's the NCL.

I will be voting no for a few reasons. The NCL limit at 300M ADA for 2025 is within personally what I would like to approve, however this proposal also sets expectations for a 2026 NCL which I do not want to be in support of at this time. For largely this reason, I will be voting no. However, it's important to note that the supporting documents, particularly the NCL model, is not openly available to access and can be edited. This is not a problem per say, but it's not an ideal way to structure such an important proposal having to vote on something that isn't immutable - not to mention accessibility isn't currently available (no longer have permissions). Lastly, verbiage around "we" and "drama" raises some concerns where that commentary could have just been excluded altogether - and focused on the NCL only. The "we" does not matter here in an open voting system.

Re-affirming my YES vote, while there is a disconnect in the Vision an Roadmap when it comes to community engagement and involvement. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with this. While it's a short-term focus Info Action, it's important that we can look ahead to the roadmap and see where it aligns back to the overall vision. The vision aims at scalability, development security/research, and community needs. However, the roadmap focuses in on all those things except seemingly community. There are no real deliverables defined for the later in the roadmap. This is not a problem, per-say, and to an extent it's a nitpick. While the roadmap supports the visions technical aspects, it doesn't address the community-driven, ecosystem-building aspects that the vision deems necessary.