Dan

I support naming the Protocol Version 12 hard fork “von Bergen” as a tribute to Fabian’s contributions.

I would prefer to see resources focused on strengthening Cardano’s other funding mechanisms, such as the Intersect budget process, Catalyst, and the Orion Fund.

While I want to see Cardano integrate more with traditional finance rails, I’m not convinced this is the right approach.

Cardano needs an embeddable fiat on/off-ramp solution. This would allow wallet and dapp developers to include an easy way for users to go directly from fiat in their bank account to a stablecoin on Cardano (via card / Apple Pay / Google Pay) – similar to what Coinbase Onramp, MoonPay and others offer. Cardano currently has no providers serving this use case.

However, it is not clear the proposal will address this need. Instead it seems to be more about building on Wirex’s existing offerings.

I am not a fan of Wirex, despite having used their product on and off for several years (due to a lack of alternatives in my location). Their app is not particularly user friendly, and their fees are unreasonably high.

For example, they have an inactivity fee (or “service fee” as they call it) if you stop using their app. After 9 months, it will start automatically deducting 0.2%/$5 per month (whichever is higher). After another 9 months, that ramps up to 0.003 BTC equivalent per crypto asset per DAY – or about $200 every single day just to hold a crypto asset on Wirex. I realise that dormant accounts impose a cost, but the inactivity fees charge by Wirex are clearly a profit scheme, not cost recovery.

This is on top of their high fees for trading, withdrawing, and topping up. It is not even possible to swap or redeem their native token without having at least $300 worth of it. From my experience their whole model seems designed to extract as much as possible from users. This is not the type of business I want to see building key infrastructure on Cardano.

For these reasons I am voting no.

Important work.

I support funding these work packages. Intersect adds a lot of value to Cardano and their work to support governance and coordinate the ecosystem is important. Technical stewardship, incident response, and management of critical processes is essential work.

Plutarch and Ply are used by Cardano builders, it is important to maintain them.

Important to maintain Cardano’s hardware wallet integrations.

Not convinced that this proposal is the best way forward for Bitcoin DeFi.

I support transitioning Blockfrost into a community-owned public good.

Mithril enables fast, trustless blockchain verification that supports Cardano’s growth while preserving decentralisation.

The DeFi Kernel is a promising idea. It uses Cardano’s unique ledger design to deliver a permissionless DeFi experience, and offers a plausible path to improve liquidity.

Daedalus offers a Cardano wallet that is unique in the ecosystem, for users who want maximum security at every layer. This proposal funds ongoing maintenance and new features, including additional hardware wallet support and a direct dapp connector.

Abstaining as I do not have a strong preference either way.

My main issue with this proposal is that there is no commitment to making Eternl open source.

Voting yes. The proposal is strong and Anvil has a solid track record.

The Sellout ticketing platform is a great idea. Building on Cardano enables the platform to enforce royalties, control scalping, and provide a more open marketplace for ticket buyers and sellers. Onboarding is handled in the background, so users won’t even need to know they’re using blockchain.

If successful not only will this result in ongoing transaction volume for Cardano, the full treasury investment will be returned over time using 25% of marketplace fees. This then drops to a permanent 5% rate when paid off.

This is exactly the kind of business the treasury should support. As with any investment there is risk. But the team has delivered previously and I believe they have a good chance of success.

Peras will be a substantial improvement in Cardano’s finality, enabling faster settlement for bridges, partner chains, exchanges, and composable DeFi.

Cardano’s treasury governance does need improvement in these areas so I agree with the general sentiment of this info action. However, I am abstaining as I would prefer to see a more coordinated effort to give it the best chance of success.

Voting yes for the van Rossem hard fork. Protocol Version 11 enables new Plutus primitives and ledger enhancements that improve Cardano.

This is an opportunity for two wins: support a top Cardano project, and earn a yield for the treasury.

Like any investment it comes with risk. However, with drawdown triggers, multisig council managing funds, and Strike’s track record, the risk appears manageable.

Strike is a Cardano success story – supporting their growth helps Cardano as a whole.

Hydra enables use cases on Cardano that are not possible with the base network. It has a proven track record, having been used for the Midnight Glacier Drop and DeltaDeFi, and the Hydra Doom and Hydra vending machine demos. This proposal funds the development required to make it easier for builders to utilise.

This is an ambitious proposal but if successful it would be a significant contributor to Cardano’s transaction volume.

The proposal builds a trust layer for smallholder farmers in India, Cambodia, and Kenya; who are essentially invisible to formal systems. This enables verified farmer identities (who they are, their land, crops, yields, etc) which opens access to markets, credit, insurance, and local programmes. Traceability and compliance is significantly improved. Stablecoins are utilised to improve the flow of money, allowing settlement in minutes instead of days/weeks. Repayments are monitored on-chain, building a credit history.

While there is no guarantee this proposal will be a success I believe the foundations are there, it is solving a real-world problem which unlocks significant value for local communities. I would have liked to see a commitment to return a portion of revenue to the treasury over time, but if the estimated transaction volumes eventuate this will pay for itself over time.

Cardano needs more real-world use cases – this looks like a promising project.

Reducing the minimum CC size from 7 to 5 prevents governance from shutting down if a member resigns, as the process to replace them could take weeks or months.

The CC’s role in governance is a guard rail with well-defined responsibilities, so while it is helpful to maintain 7 members to provide a buffer, the job can be done by a smaller committee if needed (with 4/5 being required to pass a proposal, this change only reduces the required votes by one).

The loss of the deposit was due to a bug, it should be returned.

I like Eternl and hope they are able to achieve financial sustainability by offering a Pro plan. However I am skeptical that they will achieve their target conversion rate, particularly in the current market conditions.

If Eternl were to focus on being a public good and open-source their code, I would be inclined to vote yes. For now I am abstaining due to doubts about the viability of the proposal.

Important updates to Plutus that will improve efficiency.

I am not against the proposal but do not see an urgent need for it to be funded now. There are other funding needs that are higher priorities for this budget cycle. However, the cost is reasonable over 36 months, so I would consider voting yes if it were resubmitted in future.

I appreciate the goals of this proposal but the funding requested is quite significant. The work should be split into smaller proposals, with funding requested to cover one year of work rather than two.

Voting to maintain and improve these integrations.

The addition of full Fireblocks integration will be beneficial for CNAs looking to get listed on exchanges.

This was the most difficult of the IO proposals to vote for, given that it is an early-stage initiative, which normally I would not see as a good candidate for a treasury withdrawal. However, the Bitcoin DeFi narrative is worth pursuing given the significant opportunity it represents.

The proposal also appears well thought-out. What convinced me to vote yes was the commitment to return a portion of revenue to the treasury. While no product is live yet, and there is no guarantee of it being a success, I believe it is a risk worth taking. Bitcoin DeFi is not being ignored by the wider crypto industry. If Cardano does not make a move now, we may miss the opportunity to take a meaningful slice of the market.

These initiatives are worthwhile but the ask is significant for what is being proposed. Looking across all the IO proposals this is not one I feel is a top priority for this budget cycle.

Scaling is one of Cardano’s remaining challenges. While Leios will deliver a faster L1, certain use cases need even faster settlement and lower fees. I support this proposal’s funding of Hydra and Midgard, as they are Cardano’s two most promising scaling solutions.

This looks like an interesting project but the ask is too high for an early-stage initiative. It would be better suited for Catalyst funding, in smaller more focused workstreams.

These workstreams enhance the security and usability of Plutus. Necessary ongoing work.

Ongoing maintenance of Cardano’s code base is essential to ensure the system maintains security, reliability, and performance.

The Cardano Summit provides an opportunity for builders within the Cardano ecosystem to meet, collaborate, and share ideas. This is important to foster growth.

I appreciate that the budget has been reduced and the proposal decoupled from the TOKEN2049 one.

I voted yes for the ‘Platinum’ tier, but am voting no on this proposal. I do not feel the additional benefits would be worthwhile at this time.

While I’m skeptical on whether the immediate benefits outweigh the costs (I haven’t seen evidence that a significant number of builders or users come to Cardano through these events) it’s still important to maintain a presence to ensure the brand is represented within the broader crypto community.

Cardano’s unique selling points are its security, resilience, decentralisation, and evidence-based approach – I’d argue this is exactly what the industry needs right now. Let’s use the opportunity at TOKEN2049 to show why Cardano matters.

Pebble improves Cardano’s developer experience by offering a unique alternative to other smart contract languages. I support this treasury withdrawal to continue funding its development.

With Amaru and Dingo already further along in development, together with the Haskell node, I do not currently see the need to fund a fourth node implementation. Three nodes provides sufficient resiliency without creating too much fragmentation, and spreading resources too thinly.

The project is interesting but at this time non-essential. If the developers wish to continue it as a community project, I would welcome this, but of course I understand if it is shelved.

Blockfrost has a paid tier that could be used to cover the costs of Project Cayley.

Additionally, I do not believe the treasury should fund Blockfrost’s free tier, as it is in the best interests of the business to offer it (as a proportion will eventually convert into paying customers). If the pricing structure does not cover the costs of the free tier, then it should change, as relying on the treasury for continued funding for a revenue-generating business is not a sustainable long-term solution.

The treasury should be focused on funding initiatives that cannot generate business revenue, such as protocol upgrades and R&D. Catalyst, the Orion Fund, and other sources of funding exist for revenue-generating businesses.

This is a large sum of ada for research, but on balance I support this proposal. The priorities are essential for Cardano’s long-term growth, and IOR has the experience to do the work.

Yes, this is more sell pressure that we could do without given the current market conditions. But the current market conditions won’t determine Cardano’s position in 5, 10, 20+ years time… it will be the work that is done now to ensure it continues to be secure, resilient, and scalable to meet future challenges.

Babel fees and micro fees will substantially improve the experience for both users and developers, and enable new types of apps to be built on Cardano that are not currently possible.

Less interested in the multi-asset treasury, it could be beneficial for the treasury to hold stablecoins, but holding other CNTs comes with issues. Particularly around which tokens are included and which are not. I would only support holding non-stablecoin assets if it were part of some kind of overall market index. However, this still comes with the question of how the selection criteria is determined, as ideally the treasury shouldn’t invest in scam projects. But it could get political very quickly if we extend it beyond stablecoins, so I suggest we just start with that.

This work extends formal verification to every Cardano developer, enhancing their ability to deliver highly secure apps.

I believe this is absolutely necessary, particularly given the threat of AI to find and exploit bugs. Cardano needs to be the safest place in blockchain to build apps – this is a big step forward in that direction.

This proposal is better suited to Catalyst, the Orion Fund, or other sources of external funding rather than the Cardano treasury.

Leios is absolutely necessary to move Cardano forward and deliver a user experience that rivals other top L1s.

Voting No on the proposed NCL of ₳350 million. As ADA issuance from the reserve continues to slow over time, treasury spending must remain sustainable and forward-looking. While the proposed NCL period extends beyond 12 months, setting a higher absolute cap risks anchoring spending to historical inflows rather than future declining issuance, and normalising near-full drawdown without retaining a buffer. Although the NCL is a guardrail, withdrawals are likely to approach the full limit. I intend to support an alternative NCL of ₳300 million, which represents a more sustainable rate of spend.

Voting No. While I support the work DeltaDeFi is doing with Hydra, the amount requested is significant for the current stage of the project. The proposal is also better suited for Catalyst (with a trimmed down request) rather than a treasury withdrawal.

Voting Yes. This proposal provides a clear vision and strategy for 2030, giving DReps a framework to focus resources, strengthen governance, and drive Cardano’s long-term growth. It was developed with input from across the ecosystem, ensuring a broad range of perspectives are reflected.

Voting Yes. This is in line with my previous vote on the stablecoin liquidity info action. Even though we now have the critical integrations budget to bring additional stablecoins to Cardano, it is still important to support the growth of our homegrown options.

Voting Yes. Constitution v2.4 simplifies governance by removing redundant and non-binding mechanisms, ensures proposal documents are stored immutably, and applies safeguards to treasury withdrawals. It also addresses concerns from v2.3 and adds definitions for key terminology.

Voting Yes. This proposal funds the essential infrastructure Cardano needs to grow as an ecosystem: tier-one stablecoins, pricing oracles, institutional custody, analytics platforms, and cross-chain bridges. These are the building blocks that let capital move efficiently, apps scale reliably, and users interact with confidence. Without them, growth is capped regardless of how strong the base layer is.

If delivered, this should materially lift TVL, attract builders, and bring in new users and liquidity from outside the ecosystem. It is a focused investment in making Cardano economically competitive, not just technically impressive.

I support adding Cardano Curia to the CC to restore the ability for governance actions to proceed.

Voting Yes. This does not change the ₳350M NCL cap; it simply extends the clock by eight epochs so existing treasury actions (including the Critical Integrations proposal) are not derailed by epoch timing. With CC changes and proposals in progress, this avoids unnecessary disruption until the next NCL is put in place.

Voting Yes. This proposal funds the essential infrastructure Cardano needs to grow as an ecosystem: tier-one stablecoins, pricing oracles, institutional custody, analytics platforms, and cross-chain bridges. These are the building blocks that let capital move efficiently, apps scale reliably, and users interact with confidence. Without them, growth is capped regardless of how strong the base layer is.

If delivered, this should materially lift TVL, attract builders, and bring in new users and liquidity from outside the ecosystem. It is a focused investment in making Cardano economically competitive, not just technically impressive.

Voting: Abstain

I support compensating CC members. The role demands time, constitutional familiarity, and ongoing engagement, and compensation helps ensure participation isn’t limited to well-resourced groups or individuals. Funding the CC from a neutral source aligns with the constitution and supports institutional independence.

However, the request doesn’t provide enough detail to assess whether 200,000 ada per member is proportionate to the work involved. It’s unclear how many individuals within each group will receive compensation, whether any group members are opting out, or how responsibilities are shared. Without this information, it’s difficult to judge whether the proposed amount fairly reflects the effort required.

Based on publicly available information, the estimated number of individuals in each requesting group is:

• Cardano Atlantic Council: 6
• Tingvard: 6
• Eastern Cardano Council: 7
• Ace Alliance: 5
• Cardano Japan Council: 5

If all individuals are requesting compensation, the per-person amount would fall roughly between 28,500 and 40,000 ada, but this is still an assumption. A clear breakdown of (1) who is being compensated, (2) how the internal allocation works, and (3) the expected time commitments per individual would allow DReps to assess the fairness of the request with more confidence.

Future requests would also benefit from a transparent compensation framework that accounts for both multi-individual groups and single-individual members. Even though no solo members are seeking compensation this round, establishing this now would be useful. A base amount per CC member plus an additional amount per individual contributor would better align compensation with workload and avoid disadvantaging single-member seats.

Given the lack of clarity and the difficulty of verifying whether the budget is appropriate, I am voting Abstain. The proposal is directionally sound, but it needs clearer justification and a transparent compensation structure before it can be properly evaluated.

Voting Yes. This update improves the Cardano Constitution by making it clearer and more consistent, removing redundant and non-binding provisions, and strengthening accountability for treasury spending. It also requires that proposal documents remain unchanged after submission and incorporates community feedback from earlier versions.

Voting Yes. This governance action is structured as a loan with oversight, audits, and repayment plus interest. SNEK is currently one of the only Cardano-native tokens capable of securing Tier 1 exchange listings, and although it is a meme, the team has built revenue-generating products and has a proven track record.

SNEK can serve as a gateway for new users into Cardano while establishing the legal and technical infrastructure that other CNTs can reuse to access exchanges. Centralised exchanges are not the end goal, but they remain essential bridges for onboarding users and liquidity. Supporting SNEK is also an opportunity to show that Cardano is not a “ghost chain” and to increase awareness of our DeFi ecosystem.

Voting Yes. I support this info action to advance to a treasury withdrawal. The original Ikigai action author should be reimbursed, as they were an early pioneer of Cardano governance and lost their deposit because, at the time, an action could be submitted without a staking address. However, I would like the treasury withdrawal to include more information, specifically regarding who submitted this action and their connection to the original author.

Voting No. While I support GovTool’s mission, the amount requested is significant, particularly given the product is still affected by UX problems. I believe a smaller budget would be sufficient to address GovTools current issues and demonstrate commitment to quality, before requesting funding which includes a large portion for the development of new features.

Voting Yes. The Cardano Foundation is using its own funds to secure .ada and .cardano. By doing so, we keep control within the ecosystem, prevent misuse, and open opportunities for future Web3 innovation.

Voting Yes. This proposal strengthens Cardano by increasing stablecoin liquidity, improving trading efficiency, and supporting DeFi growth while generating ongoing revenue for the treasury. DAO oversight, legal protections, and transparent management provide accountability and responsible stewardship.

I am voting Yes on this proposal because I see strong potential in Oceania as a testbed for Cardano adoption. The region combines diverse economies, cultures, and industries, and has historically been used as a proving ground for new technologies. The team has put forward a structured plan that invests in people, projects, and outreach, and the funding ask is reasonable given the scope and ambition. I believe this initiative can demonstrate how decentralised, community-led growth models work in practice and create a repeatable template for other regions.

That said, given that this Info Action appears unlikely to pass at this stage, it may be best for the team to pursue Catalyst funding in the short term. This would allow them to deliver visible, high-impact results, build measurable traction, and strengthen confidence before seeking a treasury withdrawal. Nonetheless, I support this initiative because at this stage in Cardano’s growth we need more pathways for real-world adoption. Cardano is already a technical achievement, but without tangible use cases and compelling success stories, adoption risks falling behind other chains. Oceania is well-positioned to help close that gap, and this proposal is a step in the right direction.

Voting Yes. This proposal is structured as a loan with oversight, audits, and repayment plus interest. SNEK is currently one of the only Cardano-native tokens capable of securing Tier 1 exchange listings, and although it is a meme, the team has built revenue-generating products and has a proven track record.

SNEK can serve as a gateway for new users into Cardano while establishing the legal and technical infrastructure that other CNTs can reuse to access exchanges. Centralised exchanges are not the end goal, but they remain essential bridges for onboarding users and liquidity. Supporting SNEK is also an opportunity to show that Cardano is not a “ghost chain” and to increase awareness of our DeFi ecosystem.

Voting Abstain. The proposal introduces changes to the Constitution without sufficient community debate or detailed explanation of their implications. My concern is with the process and lack of participation, not with the idea of improving the Constitution, which I recognise does need refinement.

Voting Yes. Defining a clear 2030 vision and 2026 roadmap gives the Cardano community a shared understanding of long-term goals and a practical plan to achieve them. It enables coordinated development, highlights key priorities for builders and stakeholders, and provides a framework for ongoing community participation.

Voting Abstain. I am choosing to abstain rather than vote no, as while I see value in increasing Cardano’s global visibility and supporting exhibition booths that attract builders, broad participation offers uncertain long-term impact. Targeted event funding (potentially via Catalyst) would be a more strategic use of funds.

Voting Yes. This proposal builds on Cardano’s decentralised governance (a key differentiator) by establishing a structured process to measure performance, gather community input, and deliver improvements, ensuring the system evolves effectively and remains fit for purpose.

Voting Yes. This proposal establishes a DAO-based funding mechanism for live Cardano projects driving on-chain activity. It supports sustainable ecosystem growth by helping projects scale.

Voting No. This proposal lacks clear and transparent criteria for how tokens are selected and how funds are managed. Without community input or oversight, the process risks arbitrary decisions that may not benefit the broader ecosystem. More accountability and a well-defined strategy are needed before allocating significant treasury resources.

Voting No. NFTCDN is a closed-source service run by a single vendor with no clear plan for long-term availability or community involvement. Funding covers only 18 months of free use, risking dependency and sudden costs afterward instead of building lasting community-owned infrastructure.

Voting Yes. PyCardano is a leading Python library for interacting with Cardano. This proposal funds maintenance, protocol updates, and bug fixes to ensure it remains stable and functional.

Voting Yes. The Cardano Summit is a cornerstone event in the ecosystem. This proposal supports global reach by funding regional events to improve access and foster collaboration.

Voting Yes. This proposal enacts the results of the recent Constitutional Committee election, replacing the interim committee and ensuring governance continuity.

Voting Yes. This proposal modernises the Cardano Ledger app with a new UI, resolving confusing interactions and making future updates easier through better compatibility with Ledger’s testing process.

Voting Yes. This proposal ensures Ledger, Trezor, and Keystone hardware wallets stay compatible with Cardano as the protocol evolves. It funds critical maintenance, updates, bug fixes, and audits.

Voting Yes. Cardano native assets still lack proper support beyond our ecosystem, and stablecoin adoption remains low. This proposal addresses key infrastructure gaps such as custody, exchange access, and fiat ramps that will help make Cardano native assets more accessible.

Voting Abstain as it has been indicated this is going to be resubmitted as an info action, possibly with a different approach: https://x.com/goofy_crisp/status/1951735721103925507

Voting Abstain as it has been indicated this is going to be resubmitted as an info action, possibly with a different approach: https://x.com/goofy_crisp/status/1951735721103925507

Voting Yes. Gerolamo makes Cardano more accessible and decentralised by enabling browser-based node access without heavy infrastructure.

Voting Yes to fund AdaStat, a long-standing and widely used Cardano explorer. Continued funding helps ensure reliable data access and supports infrastructure decentralisation.

Voting Abstain on this info action as while I support Tempo (currently using it to vote) there is very minimal detail on how the funds will be used.

A 380k ADA ask for 6 months is quite significant so there needs to be more detail on how the funds will be used to justify the expense. I would also be keen to see a commitment to open source products if Tempo wants to use the treasury to fund operations.

Voting Yes to fund Dolos maintenance. TxPipe is a proven, active Cardano dev team delivering key tools. Dolos provides quick and efficient access to blockchain data, enabling dApps to operate without the resource demands of a full node. This funding keeps it reliable and optimised.

Voting No. This proposal would add complexity to Catalyst without clear evidence it solves urgent problems. The use of donations, reputation scores, and KYC is untested and could create more issues than it fixes. The 1.5M ADA ask is high for an experimental model with unclear demand and limited benefit to the broader community. Treasury funds should go to proven, high-impact projects.

Voting Yes to support the ongoing maintenance of Lucid, a critical library for building off-chain Cardano dApps. Keeping it updated ensures developers can build efficiently and remain compatible with network upgrades. Anastasia Labs is actively maintaining Lucid Evolution and is well positioned to continue improving this essential tool for the ecosystem.

Voting Yes to fund the ongoing maintenance of the Plutarch smart contract development tool. Regular updates will keep it compatible, reliable, and useful for developers. MLabs has the expertise and track record to maintain this core piece of Cardano infrastructure.

Voting Yes on the UTxO RPC funding proposal. It supports the continued development of a key open-source tool that makes integrating with Cardano easier, improving developer experience and interoperability across projects. TxPipe has a strong track record of delivery and active adoption from major projects in the ecosystem.

Voting yes for the Pallas treasury withdrawal because it funds a critical Rust toolkit used by key Cardano projects.

I am changing my vote on the GovTool proposal from Yes to Abstain. I support GovTool’s mission but believe a smaller budget could cover core maintenance and improvements. I also attempted to use GovTools to vote on treasury withdraws, but encountered errors several times while doing so. Others also reported issues voting. This makes me hesitant to vote yes on additional funding until the product is working as intended. Once these issues have been resolved, I would support a leaner GovTools proposal.

I am voting yes on this proposal as it enhances Cardano’s scalability, improving the experience for developers and users.

I am voting yes on this proposal as it enhances Cardano’s interoperability, supporting developers and users, and increasing liquidity.

I support this treasury withdrawal, as it simplifies access for developers, supports SPOs, and promotes decentralisation. The Blockfrost team has a proven history of successful delivery.

I am voting no for this governance action, as Catalyst is better suited for testing such ideas. The proposal risks significant funds with a team that has not yet built on Cardano. While I support projects that are new to the ecosystem, initial community funding should be more limited to confirm the team’s ability to deliver, and should be requested through Catalyst rather than as a treasury withdrawal.

Catalyst provides a vital role in the Cardano ecosystem by giving builders a clear pathway to access funding for innovative ideas. Continuing to support funding rounds ensures that community-led development remains active and well-resourced.

Introducing RetroPGF strengthens Catalyst by making it possible to reward projects that have already delivered real value. This helps retain experienced builders and encourages high-quality work that benefits the broader ecosystem.

Investing in infrastructure upgrades is also important. Enhancements to decentralisation, governance tools, and user experience will enhance Catalyst’s usability, transparency, and resilience. These improvements will make Catalyst more accessible and better aligned with Cardano’s focus on decentralised governance.

Cexplorer has a proven track record and is a widely used tool in the Cardano ecosystem. The funding request appears reasonable given its scope and impact. I’ve tested the Cexplorer 2.0 beta and am impressed by the progress made.

Changes to the treasury cut should at least wait until after we have a clear understanding of Cardano’s budget needs, both short-term and long-term. Since the first budget under on-chain governance hasn’t even been passed, it’s too soon for major treasury protocol changes. The treasury is a crucial asset — not only does it fund ongoing development, it also supports innovation within the community, and therefore overall adoption of Cardano. While costs may decrease over time, and ADA’s price will (hopefully) rise, it will likely be easier to reduce the cut later rather than increase it if funding falls short. A cautious approach is needed so that the treasury remains sustainable, especially as the reserve inflow declines over time. We should also assume conservative ADA prices so that we do not have to make drastic funding cuts during bear markets. Of course, every ADA should still be spent wisely (and systems put in place to ensure accountability), but I don’t believe lowering the treasury cut to decrease reliance would make a difference here.

While lowering the treasury cut would slightly increase staking rewards, it is unlikely that this would make much of a difference to staking participation. Staking ADA is very easy, and because it remains liquid there’s really no reason not to, so a small APY increase (e.g. from 2.5% to 2.8%) is unlikely to convince a large number of additional people to start staking.

In summary, changes to the treasury tax should wait until Cardano’s budget needs are clearer, keeping in mind long-term financial sustainability of the chain.