Dave

I am voting ABSTAIN on the MLabs Core Tool Maintenance and Enhancement treasury withdrawal for Plutarch and Ply. Since this has already been ratified, I will not stand in the way of the community vote.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting ABSTAIN on the MLabs Core Tool Maintenance and Enhancement treasury withdrawal for Plutarch and Ply. Since this has already been ratified, I will not stand in the way of the community vote. However, I believe the budget ask for this proposal is too high. I actually favored the Encrypted Programmable Tokens with TFHE proposal, as I believe that innovation could have unlocked some really unique use cases on Cardano, but unfortunately that did not make it through the budget process.

I am voting YES on the Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support treasury withdrawal. Safe and well coordinated protocol upgrades are vital for network resilience, making the work of the Hard Fork Working Group and independent technical reviews absolutely essential.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on the Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support treasury withdrawal. Safe and well coordinated protocol upgrades are vital for network resilience, making the work of the Hard Fork Working Group and independent technical reviews absolutely essential. While I fully support funding this core protocol evolution, I would like to suggest an increased focus on the Community & Ecosystem Growth pillar moving forward, as I believe this is an area we should improve in.

I am voting YES on the Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026 treasury withdrawal. Maintaining continuous Ledger and Trezor compatibility is absolutely critical to ensuring users and developers retain secure and unbroken access to the Cardano network.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on the Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026 treasury withdrawal. Maintaining continuous Ledger and Trezor compatibility is absolutely critical to ensuring users and developers retain secure and unbroken access to the Cardano network. Funding this preventative maintenance guarantees that future protocol upgrades or vendor firmware changes will not break our most essential security access layer, especially in the current climate of advanced AI.

I am voting NO on the Bringing Real World Payments to Cardano with Wirex treasury withdrawal. While establishing payment infrastructure and Visa integration could expand ecosystem utility, the budget request of nearly four million ADA is exceptionally high.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO on the Bringing Real World Payments to Cardano with Wirex treasury withdrawal. While establishing payment infrastructure and Visa integration could expand ecosystem utility, the budget request of nearly four million ADA is exceptionally high. This represents a high risk endeavor lacking any profit specifics or sharing schemes for treasury reimbursement, and I ultimately do not feel the ask justifies the value returned.

I am voting YES on this proposal primarily for its critical focus on technical stewardship and ecosystem defense. I am hugely supportive of the security allocations here.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on this proposal primarily for its critical focus on technical stewardship and ecosystem defense. I am hugely supportive of the security allocations here. Being well aware of the current threat landscape, with Cardano increasingly in the firing line, I want to reinforce the absolute necessity of not merely tracing and mitigating attacks, but proactively preventing them. Hardening our infrastructure must be a top priority, and that requires investing directly in the talented individuals within our ecosystem who have the expertise to fight back, assist and coordinate, ensuring trust.

On a personal note, I have been speaking with Jack on and off; he has consistently been extremely welcoming of feedback, and it is clear this receptive approach and ownership has driven the significant operational improvements we have seen over the past year. Funding this proposal ensures continuous network resilience, proactive security, and structured ecosystem coordination at an improved efficiency.

Mithril is incredibly valuable, non-negotiable infrastructure for Cardano's scaling and decentralization, allowing trustless verification in minutes rather than days. Funding Teragone ensures continuity, as they have co-developed the protocol with IOG from its inception.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Mithril is incredibly valuable, non-negotiable infrastructure for Cardano's scaling and decentralization, allowing trustless verification in minutes rather than days. Funding Teragone ensures continuity, as they have co-developed the protocol with IOG from its inception. I am happy to support its continued development.

I am voting YES. We must balance infrastructure funding with ecosystem investment; this proposal offers productive returns when viable yield options are strictly limited. The perpetuals market is thriving, and anchoring this volume on-chain is a strategic necessity.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Strike Finance V2 Treasury Deployment proposal.

Each budget cycle demands a pragmatic balance between core infrastructure and ecosystem investment. I support this proposal because it offers productive returns when our viable yield-generation options are strictly limited. The perpetuals market is thriving globally, and anchoring this volume on Cardano is a strategic necessity. The Strike team has executed well—I have used the platform frequently in the past, though I hold no Strike tokens. Crucially, I strongly encourage the team to collaborate with L2 teams (like Hydra and Midgard) to ensure our scaling infrastructure is driven by genuine, high-volume market feedback rather than purely technical theories.

Structurally, securing funds via an independent 3-of-3 multisig is a strong defense against collusion. However, future deployments of this magnitude must expand these committees to further decentralize control and eliminate single points of failure. While I ultimately advocate for a generic, ecosystem-wide stablecoin liquidity mechanism rather than protocol-specific applications, this proposal's strict drawdown limits and 12-month timeline make it a responsible, risk-managed deployment today.

Thank you to the Strike team for building on Cardano.
To all other projects, there is opportunity here, and we are watching and listening.

I am voting YES on this resubmission. Eternl is widely used across Cardano and continues to deliver a great user and developer experience. Importantly, the team has successfully addressed the Constitutional Committee's previous concerns by clearly defining independent, third-party audits.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on this resubmission. Eternl is widely used across Cardano and continues to deliver a great user and developer experience. Importantly, the team has successfully addressed the Constitutional Committee's previous concerns by clearly defining independent, third-party audits.

I also want to credit the team based on a personal experience: I recently reported a bug with a specific voting issue. It was replicated almost instantly and fixed within just a few days. This level of dedication is exactly what I look for when directing treasury funds. Combined with their self-sustaining "Pro" model and treasury payback mechanism, funding this 12-month bridge is essential for the ecosystem.

I am voting NO. While I agree the current treasury process is adversarial, creating an "Expert Commission" and a "Strategic Entity" centralizes too much power.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO. While I agree the current treasury process is adversarial, creating an "Expert Commission" and a "Strategic Entity" centralizes too much power. This distances the community from actual funding decisions and risks reducing DReps to mere rubber stamps for top-down omnibus budgets. We must solve DRep cognitive overload through better tooling and voluntary coalitions, not by creating centralized bureaucracy that removes our granular oversight.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Protocol Version 11 (van Rossem) Hard Fork on behalf of my delegates.

Technically, this intra-era upgrade delivers a massive leap in Plutus performance by unifying built-ins, adding native case expressions, and unlocking ZK-SNARK capabilities.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Protocol Version 11 (van Rossem) Hard Fork on behalf of my delegates.

Technically, this intra-era upgrade delivers a massive leap in Plutus performance by unifying built-ins, adding native case expressions, and unlocking ZK-SNARK capabilities, drastically reducing script execution costs. Beyond the vital technical improvements, naming this hard fork after Max van Rossem is a beautiful, permanent tribute to a pioneer who shaped our governance and community and whose contributions will always be remembered and valued. I fully support this essential upgrade.

I am voting YES. This early governance pioneer lost their 100,000 ADA deposit due to unforeseen technical complications. As a community, we should support those who actively participated in our earliest governance milestones. Reimbursing the original deposit along with 3,000 ADA for missed staking rewards is a fair and equitable way to make this community member whole.

I am voting YES. Currently, both the Constitutional Committee and the minimum size parameter are set at 7. This creates unacceptable fragility where a single member's resignation halts the entire governance system, blocking hard forks and treasury withdrawals. Reducing the committeeMinSize to 5 provides a necessary operational buffer to prevent catastrophic gridlock during member transitions. This does not change our goal of electing a 7-member body, but simply ensures Cardano governance remains resilient during the temporary loss of one or two members.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Hydra v2 treasury withdrawal request on behalf of my delegates.

Having been in contact with the Hydra team for a while, especially when I first started playing with the protocol, I experienced many of its early limitations firsthand. Since then, I have seen the team actively improve these pain points. They have been exceptionally great at responding to feedback and questions, and I fully support this continued investment.

I am seeing more live adoption using Hydra and believe this will only continue to grow. There is a wide array of untapped use-cases that Hydra solves which we have not even utilized yet. It holds undeniable value in Cardano's broader scaling roadmap, perfectly complemented by in progress innovation like Leios, Peras, and Midgard which I am focused on heavily.

My one strong recommendation for the team moving forward is to practice regular, hands-on demos and showcase them to the community across social channels to better highlight this ongoing progress, using metrics like TPS & Latency.

I am formally registering a NO vote on the Rare Network treasury withdrawal request on behalf of my delegates.

While I highly respect the team, their contributions towards Cardano, and recognize the value Rare Evo brings to the ecosystem, it is difficult to justify a sponsorship of this scale under current market conditions. Especially when I have to strategically allocate funds while remaining fiscally responsible with a lot of other pending proposals, I must direct our limited treasury capital toward core protocol infrastructure and development at this time.

I wish the Rare Network team a highly successful event.

I am voting YES. I use Eternl every day across a variety of wallets. A serious, underappreciated part of Eternl's functionality is the intense developer configurations available that make building on Cardano much easier, alongside their exceptional normal wallet operations.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Eternl treasury withdrawal request on behalf of my delegates.

Firstly, I use Eternl every day across a variety of different wallets. I think a serious, underappreciated part of Eternl’s functionality is the intense developer configurations available that make building on Cardano much easier. There is a wide variety of functionality that helps a developer build on Cardano, and that is without even complimenting them on their exceptional normal operations for wallet activities. Additionally, their hardware wallet support is what I would describe as best in class, and their comprehensive in-wallet governance user interface remains a vital pillar for decentralized governance.

For me, this technical depth is what pivoted my vote to a YES from an ABSTAIN. I highly credit their proposal in terms of the proactive treasury payback mechanism and the clear path to self-sustainability through their upcoming Pro plans. This request functions as a highly accountable, revolving bridge to commercial independence.

Keep up the great work, Eternl team.

I am voting YES. This proposal delivers proven real-world impact, actively operating on Mainnet with over 10,500 verified farmers, and reaffirms Cardano's ability to improve real-life processes globally. I believe this is an exceptional use-case to showcase the blockchain's core benefits.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the 5am.earth Foundation treasury withdrawal request on behalf of my delegates.

This proposal delivers what our ecosystem critically requires: tangible, large-scale real-world impact. Project Swaminathan is actively operating on Mainnet with over 10,500 verified farmers and is uniquely positioned to scale via established institutional pipelines. This initiative powerfully reaffirms that the Cardano blockchain possesses the genuine ability to improve real-life processes globally. Furthermore, I believe this is an exceptional use-case to showcase the blockchain's core benefits: transparency, immutability, reliability, global availability, and security.

Beyond raw adoption, this open infrastructure targets core metrics, projecting an ambitious path toward $900 million in Total Value Locked (TVL) by establishing the verifiable data foundation required for on-chain credit and lending.

Crucially, whilst it lacks a direct capital repayment mechanism, its architecture drives structural treasury replenishment. By targeting 112.5 million annual on-chain transactions, this sheer scale of network utility will yield substantial, compounding protocol fee revenue. Securing this massive transaction volume is also essential to properly utilize and economically support our upcoming high-throughput Ouroboros Leios upgrade, and it's this kind of usage and adoption that is the foundation for the long-term sustainability of Cardano.

I am voting ABSTAIN on this standalone proposal. I commend Lantr Engineering for their unbundled request and technical talent. I am standing by my prior position in the current market.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering an ABSTAIN vote on the standalone Scalus treasury request.

I commend Lantr Engineering for their comprehensive, unbundled proposal and their strategic focus on opening our blockchain to the massive JVM developer ecosystem. Their technical track record and commitment to the application layer are undeniable. I previously voted abstain on high-cost infrastructure proposals, and I am standing by this position in the current market.

Whilst I recognise the immense technical advantages of a unified application platform and the value it brings to our ecosystem, an 8.5 million ADA request for a 12-month delivery window is an extraordinary draw on the treasury. I cannot allocate funds for this as a priority at this moment in time given the market and my current planned focus on strict fiscal prudence.

I am voting NO. While sustaining open-source infrastructure is critical, a 12M ADA commitment over 36 months is an unjustifiable treasury draw in the current market.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a NO vote on the d(OSPO) treasury withdrawal request.

While I agree that sustaining our core open-source infrastructure is absolutely critical to the blockchain's survival, a 12 million ADA commitment over 36 months is an unjustifiable draw on the treasury in the current market. Specifically, allocating 2 million ADA purely for operational overhead, administration, legal setup, and advisory stipends before a single line of code is funded runs directly counter to the modernized, lean engineering approach we desperately need right now.

Creating a brand new, heavily-funded administrative entity to distribute funds is not a capital-efficient way to achieve ecosystem resilience. My fiduciary duty to my delegators requires me to prioritize treasury replenishment and strict, code-driven ROI over funding multi-year bureaucratic overhead. We must find more streamlined, direct ways to compensate our maintainers.

I am voting ABSTAIN on this standalone proposal. I previously voted abstain and stand by this position in the current market. Whilst I recognise its advantages and value to our blockchain, I cannot allocate funds for this as a priority right now given the market and my planned focus.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering an ABSTAIN vote on the standalone Gerolamo treasury request.

I commend the HLabs team for taking prior feedback on board by unbundling their initiatives. I previously voted abstain, additionally I have since supported their Pebble proposal with a yes vote. I am standing by this position in the current market. Whilst I recognise the unique technical advantages of this proposal and the value it brings to our blockchain, I cannot allocate treasury funds for this as a priority at this moment in time in the current market and with my current planned focus.

However, out of profound respect for the team's exceptional track record, I will not use my voting weight to actively block it. I will not stand by if the community were to decide this is required, and I am stepping aside to let the collective voice of the ecosystem determine the outcome.

I am voting YES. I value Cardano's research-led engineering approach, which heavily drives my and my delegators' interest in this blockchain. I am proud to support the continuation of this vital work. I would like to see ways of working pivot toward a modernized engineering approach.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Cardano Vision 2026 treasury withdrawal request.

I have always deeply valued the research-led engineering approach that defines Cardano. It is a foundational characteristic that personally interested me in this blockchain, and I am confident it did the same for many of my delegators. I am highly supportive of this scientific foundation and believe it is an avenue we must continue to fund, provided the blockchain's financial cost permits. I deliberately chose to wait to vote on this proposal until I could thoroughly evaluate its scope and make an informed decision in an extremely challenging market.

Going forward, however, I would like to see the programmatic direction pivot slightly into a more streamlined, coordinated effort. We need a tighter pipeline where foundational research rapidly drives functional proof of concepts, allowing the ecosystem to evaluate whether a theory is genuinely feasible from an operational perspective. This approach will allow us to iterate faster and explore the practical realities of what is being researched. In a governance-led funding model, we cannot afford to deliver pure research and then wait years for its practical engineering execution, as this impacts our ability to compete.

Given the fierce competition in the broader layer-1 landscape, I would love to see the ways of working improved and adapted to a more modernized, agile engineering approach. This would not only allow the community to see tangible value from our research investments sooner, but it would also improve the final technical outputs by accounting for real-life operational scenarios that formal mathematical models might overlook. Furthermore, I believe a great improvement for future iterations would be giving the community a voice or a structured set of options to help dictate the directional focus of the research. I have also provided this feedback prior to this vote, and I believe it was well received.

Ultimately, I want to credit all of the incredible academic and technical contributions made to Cardano's research over the years. This scientific rigor is what sets us apart, and I am excited to support its continuation through this proposal.

I am voting YES. My initial feedback on their earlier proposal was to focus on Peras, and I value them taking that on board. Faster finality is another exciting milestone for our blockchain. Being able to vote on this independently is super beneficial.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on Tweag's treasury withdrawal request.

When evaluating their earlier proposals, my initial feedback was that they should narrow their focus specifically toward Peras. I deeply value the team taking this community feedback on board and structuring this proposal to prioritize the mainnet deployment of Peras v1. Faster finality is another exciting milestone for our blockchain, and delivering this production-grade cryptography and hard fork readiness is super beneficial to Cardano.

Being able to vote on this independently is also super beneficial. I have to credit the DReps who pushed for this, and most importantly, the proposers who listened to the community. My only feedback would be to please provide regular demonstrations, updates, and exciting progress. As a community, we would love to see it and share it too, as it is highly beneficial to the entire ecosystem. For me, this is an easy yes, even in an extremely challenging market.

I am voting YES. This update safely optimizes the cost model for Plutus V1, V2, and V3 in preparation for the van Rossem hard fork. It expands critical cryptographic and data primitives, has been thoroughly benchmarked, and has successfully passed SanchoNet, Preview, and Preprod testnet deployments.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Plutus V3 Cost Model Parameter Update proposal.

This update represents a critical step forward for Cardano's smart contract ecosystem, introducing vital new primitives for cryptography, list manipulation, array operations, and value or data manipulation. Standardizing and enabling these primitives across Plutus V1, V2, and V3 ensures technical consistency and significantly enhances inter chain capabilities.

The proposal demonstrates exemplary governance and technical diligence. These changes are fully recommended by Intersect's Parameter Committee and confirmed by the Technical Steering Committee. Furthermore, identical updates have already been successfully enacted across the SanchoNet, Preview, and Preprod testnets. Finally, the benchmarking adheres strictly to the reference architecture and satisfies all constitutional guardrails including PCM-01, PCM-02, and PCM-03. I am fully supportive of this upgrade as we prepare for the van Rossem hard fork.

I am voting NO. While the technology is innovative, a 2.4M ADA request for a localized pilot is highly speculative. Fiduciary responsibility dictates that any substantial draw from the treasury must be justified by a clear, quantifiable return on investment, which this proposal lacks.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a NO vote on this proposal. While the biometric tracing technology is innovative, a 2.4 million ADA request for a localized pilot represents a highly speculative use of community capital.

Fiduciary responsibility dictates that any substantial draw from the treasury must be justified by a clear, quantifiable return on investment. Unfortunately, the direct financial ROI presented here is too ambiguous and extended to warrant public funding. As a DRep, I must prioritize treasury replenishment and strict financial metrics over abstract ecosystem benefits. Furthermore, the 15% upfront mobilization advance directly conflicts with my requirement for strict, milestone-driven accountability.

I am voting NO. Since I voted NO on the baseline proposal, it makes no sense for me to support this top-up. However, I want to credit EMURGO for the modular approach. Splitting the request is excellent practice, and I really like that it allows DReps to make an isolated decision.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a NO vote on this upgrade. Since I voted NO on the baseline proposal, it makes no sense for me to support a top-up proposal that adds an extra 1.76 million ADA to the event budget.

However, I want to explicitly credit EMURGO for this modular approach. Splitting the request into a baseline and an upgrade is excellent practice, and I really like that it allows DReps to make a clear, isolated decision on premium marketing spend.

I know this passed, but I want to log my NO vote. The proposal benefits builders, and I credit EMURGO's zero profit structure. However, a 3.3M ADA ask with an 85% upfront drawdown conflicts with my principles. Historically, I cannot easily tie this event spend back to clear KPI value.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I know this proposal has already passed, but I wanted to still formally register my NO vote and share my rationale for transparency.

Singapore is a great location, and I credit EMURGO for a zero profit, Platinum tier pass through structure that directly responds to community feedback. The proposal easily demonstrates clear benefits to Cardano by providing free tickets, dedicated stage time, and critical networking access directly to ecosystem builders.

However, a 3.3 million ADA ask paired with an 85% upfront drawdown conflicts too deeply with my core fiscal principles. This is an exceptionally high amount for an event where, historically, I am unable to easily tie the spend back to clear value on Cardano in the form of KPIs. Ideally, I would prefer we focus on treasury replenishment initiatives, growing our treasury and on chain usage, before we have the luxury of spending out at events to join other blockchains that do have utility generating further on chain usage. Even though the community heavily favors this presence, as a DRep I must prioritize strict treasury discipline, and I cannot in good conscience support these specific financial parameters.

As this has since passed, I would welcome EMURGO to demonstrate this proposal's value, and I look forward to seeing this during the event, especially across social media, which will in turn assist my position for future funding.

I love the Peras work (~2 min finality is a huge win), but bundling 17 packages makes it too hard to analyze. The 39.7M ADA ask is too high for an all-or-nothing vote. I value Tweag but cannot support this mega proposal. I urge a decoupled Peras proposal be submitted with extreme urgency.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I want to explicitly state that I absolutely love the Peras work highlighted in this proposal. Achieving faster finality is a massive win for Cardano, and the technical merit of that specific upgrade is undeniable. Achieving ~2 min finality from the current ~12 min finality is extremely ambitious and valuable to Cardano.

However, bundling seventeen different work packages into a single, unchangeable delivery pipeline makes it incredibly difficult to properly analyze and support. The overall financial ask of nearly forty million ADA is exceptionally high, and bundling everything together forces DReps into an all-or-nothing decision on a massive volume of community capital.

While I highly value Tweag's historical contributions and engineering expertise towards Cardano, I cannot support a mega proposal of this scale under these parameters. I would warmly welcome and look forward to a new, decoupled proposal covering the Peras infrastructure work specifically so I can further analyze in detail and possibly prioritize it as a DRep. From my current perspective, I strongly recommend that this standalone Peras proposal be submitted with extreme urgency.

I vote NO. Singapore is a great location and the only event spend I considered supporting at this time. However, given the current position of ADA, I must prioritize spend elsewhere. As a DRep with Cardano Foundation delegation, I must stay true to my principles despite this tough choice.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Singapore is a great place to do this, and I absolutely back the decision of location. The strategic value of aligning with TOKEN2049 in a major financial hub is undeniable.

I am formally registering a NO vote on the Cardano Summit 2026 in Singapore Treasury Withdrawal. This was an incredibly difficult decision, and I want to begin by explicitly acknowledging how much I value the Cardano Foundation's continued hard work and unwavering commitment to expanding our global footprint.

To be completely transparent, I was massively on the fence regarding this proposal. Out of all the marketing and event funding requests presented to the community, this Summit was the absolute only event spend I was genuinely prepared to consider at this time. I also deeply appreciate the feedback they have taken on board since the original proposal, which demonstrates a commendable willingness to listen to the community.

However, as a DRep entrusted with delegation from the Cardano Foundation, I have an absolute duty to stay true to my core principles and beliefs. Given the current market position of ADA, I simply cannot support this magnitude of spend for the proposal in question. An ask of 7.8 million ADA for a single event is exceptionally high, particularly when paired with a milestone structure that unlocks eighty percent of the capital immediately upon enactment. I have to prioritize this finite treasury spend toward other critical areas of the ecosystem right now.

Additionally, I want to highlight a broader reality for the community. Voting is incredibly difficult for DReps right now. We are entirely unpaid, doing our absolute best to diligently review and work through a massive volume of significant proposals currently in flight. While I deeply respect the Foundation's strategic vision for Singapore, strict fiscal discipline must take precedence under these specific financial parameters.

I vote YES. I credit the team for splitting this from their prior proposal. Bringing strongly typed languages like TypeScript to Cardano is essential for growth. Crucially, the value ask entirely justifies the value output. I look forward to seeing this progress if funded.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Pebble and Ecosystem maintenance Treasury Withdrawal. First and foremost, I must credit Harmonic Laboratories for their persistence, their passion, and their undeniable commitment to Cardano. I deeply appreciate that this specific initiative has been split out from their original, broader proposal on which I previously voted NO. This demonstrates a highly mature responsiveness to community governance and feedback.

From a technical standpoint, I am voting to specifically support and credit the development of Pebble. Having the ability to build smart contracts using widely recognised paradigms like TypeScript is absolutely essential for Cardano. It dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for millions of global developers and has the potential to drive massive ecosystem growth. Furthermore, because of the strongly typed nature of TypeScript, Pebble serves as a perfectly placed blueprint for how we can successfully adopt and integrate other mainstream programming languages into our ecosystem in the future.

Crucially, having reviewed the financials, I firmly believe that the value ask of this proposal entirely justifies the value output. I consider this to be a highly strategic and accountable investment in our core infrastructure and developer onboarding pipeline. I am proud to support it today, and I look forward to seeing this progress if funded.

I am changing my vote to NO. Unprofessional conduct by leadership has caused brand damage and severely diminished my faith in their ability to execute. Furthermore, sweeping 62M ADA into an opaque budget is fiscally irresponsible. I cannot deploy 66.9M ADA to endorse poor governance.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

With 67 million ADA voting power, I have decided to vote NO on the treasury withdrawal: IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative

On behalf of my loyal delegates.

I am officially changing my vote from YES to NO on the IO and Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative, representing 66.94 million ADA on behalf of my loyal delegates. Initially, I intended to support this proposal to secure our operational foundation. However, upon deeper reflection, my faith in the current leadership to successfully execute a mandate of this magnitude has severely diminished. I cannot in good conscience deploy my delegates' voting power to endorse this request under its current conditions.

Professionalism is the bedrock of decentralised governance, and I am profoundly disappointed by the recent public conduct displayed by leadership. The Cardano brand represents a mature, enterprise grade ecosystem. When individuals approach the public Treasury for tens of millions of dollars, their behaviour must absolutely reflect that maturity. The recent conduct falls drastically short, causing undeniable brand damage and directly undermining my confidence in their ability to lead and execute effectively.

Furthermore, governance of a finite Treasury requires absolute financial accountability. Approving an opaque budget of over sixty two million ADA is fiscally irresponsible without a granular, line item breakdown. The community can no longer be expected to write blank cheques while being denied basic financial transparency, this ask is significant.

We must hold our infrastructure stewards to the highest possible standards. Technical capability does not excuse financial opacity, nor does it excuse unprofessional conduct that damages our ecosystem's reputation. Until these fundamental standards are met, my vote remains a firm NO, I appreciate the hard work done by all of the team at IOG, and would welcome a proposal with further transparency on specific spend.

I vote NO. I refuse to fund a second iteration when initial deliverables remain unfinished, despite administrative closure by Intersect. Furthermore, the highly unprofessional social conduct of contributors damages our brand. We demand full technical delivery and absolute professional maturity.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a NO vote on the Cardano Critical Integrations V2 Treasury Withdrawal. Whilst maintaining core infrastructure is undeniably important, I cannot support a request of this magnitude given the glaring issues surrounding both technical delivery and professional conduct.

Firstly, I categorically refuse to authorise twenty three million ADA for a second iteration when numerous integrations from the initial funding round remain glaringly unfinished. The fact that Intersect has administratively classed the first phase as closed does not alter the reality on the ground that the original scope of work is incomplete. A public Treasury should never issue secondary funding while primary deliverables remain undelivered. The community expects absolute technical completion before any subsequent capital is unlocked. Compounding this issue is the proposal's financial structure, which once again sweeps over twenty million ADA into an opaque bucket entirely devoid of granular accountability.

Furthermore, I must express my profound disappointment regarding the highly unprofessional conduct displayed by certain contributors to this proposal across our social channels. Cardano is a mature, professional ecosystem, and we fiercely protect our reputation and brand integrity. When individuals approach the public Treasury to request millions of dollars in community funds, we expect them to conduct themselves to the absolute highest standards of professionalism and decorum. The recent behaviour witnessed in the community falls drastically short of this mark and is fundamentally unacceptable.

Until the outstanding deliverables from the first budget are fully completed on mainnet, and the individuals representing these proposals demonstrate the maturity and respect expected of enterprise infrastructure stewards, I will not support this withdrawal.

I vote NO. The Treasury is not a VC firm. Fronting 12.29M ADA for a private venture forces us to shoulder all market risk whilst privatising the upside. It also unfairly weaponises public funds against dedicated long term ecosystem builders. EBITDA offers no real financial protection.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

building a robust Bitcoin DeFi and credit layer is technically compelling, I fundamentally reject the premise that a public, decentralised Treasury should act as an angel investor for private, commercial enterprises.

This proposal requests over twelve million ADA to seed a private venture, introducing a gross asymmetry of risk and reward. We are being asked to socialise the massive downside whilst privatising the upside. The refund clauses outlined in Section 6.5 only protect the Treasury against a failure to ship code; they offer zero protection against a failure to find market fit. If the platform launches but fails to attract volume, the ADA holders absorb a one hundred percent financial loss. Conversely, if it successfully captures its projected multi billion dollar market, the private founders will reap the overwhelming majority of the wealth generated, entirely subsidised by our public capital.

Furthermore, the proposed repayment mechanism is structurally flawed. Pogun promises to return twenty percent of its EBITDA until repaid. However, for an unlisted private entity, EBITDA is a notoriously malleable metric. Because it represents earnings after operational expenses, a private venture can effortlessly suppress its EBITDA to zero through aggressive expensing, inflated administrative costs, or high executive compensation, thereby legally circumventing any obligation to repay the Treasury whilst remaining perfectly compliant with the agreement.

Additionally, deploying public capital to fund this venture actively weaponises the Treasury against our existing ecosystem builders. We have dedicated founders who have demonstrated long term commitment to Cardano, bootstrapping their own credit and liquidity protocols through immense personal effort. Subsidising a new competitor with twelve million ADA of public money creates an entirely unlevel playing field. The Cardano Treasury exists to fund vital public goods and core open source infrastructure. If this venture represents such a lucrative commercial opportunity, its founders should secure funding through traditional private capital markets. I absolutely cannot support deploying public funds to underwrite private risk.

I ABSTAIN. I will not block community consensus, but cannot allocate 11.8M ADA here today. Many features await a future hard fork. Rather than funding heavy Plutus-specific refinements, I prefer directing capital toward driving adoption across Cardano's diverse alternative languages.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering an ABSTAIN vote on the Plutus Language Capabilities and Developer Experience Treasury Withdrawal. I readily acknowledge the technical merit of this initiative, particularly the drive to enhance Plutus expressiveness, eliminate complex Nix dependencies, and integrate VacuumLabs as a strategic co-venture. However, I fundamentally do not feel this specific programme of work is an immediate requirement.

Governance of a finite Treasury demands ruthless prioritisation and a keen awareness of opportunity cost. Whilst the deliverables outlined are undeniably valuable network optimisations, they are not existential necessities for the blockchain today. Indeed, the proposal explicitly notes that several core enhancements are contingent upon the future Dijkstra hard fork before they can even be activated on mainnet. Furthermore, from a strategic standpoint, I would prefer to direct our capital towards initiatives that drive immediate smart contract adoption by supporting the diverse array of alternative languages currently flourishing on our blockchain. Concentrating nearly twelve million ADA so heavily on Plutus-specific refinements feels misaligned.

My decision is therefore rooted in optimal capital allocation rather than outright opposition. I firmly believe the substantial Treasury allowance consumed by a YES vote could achieve a far greater, more immediate impact elsewhere within our ecosystem. Nevertheless, I have no desire to stand in the way of broader community consensus, nor will I actively obstruct an initiative that many builders view as beneficial. By abstaining, I entrust the final decision to the electorate, preserving my principled stance on strategic prioritisation.

I vote YES. Competing blockchains have recently lost billions to smart contract exploits. Democratising formal verification empowers all developers to mathematically immunise our ecosystem against these attacks. This is a vital investment in institutional trust, and I am happy to support it.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a YES vote on the Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration. Throughout 2025 and early 2026, the wider Web3 ecosystem has haemorrhaged billions of dollars to smart contract vulnerabilities and bridge exploits across competing blockchains. Cardano’s fundamental value proposition is its high-assurance security, yet this has historically been gatekept by expensive auditing firms and formal methods specialists.

This proposal elegantly democratises that security. By embedding the Blaster formal verification tool directly into the native languages our builders actually use—such as Aiken, Scalus, Pebble, and Futura—it empowers every developer to mathematically prove their applications are immune to catastrophic exploits prior to deployment. Furthermore, the Container-Based Developer Environment solves a glaring onboarding bottleneck, compressing notoriously complex, multi-day configurations into a seamless, single-click setup so builders can focus on engineering.

Mathematically safeguarding our ecosystem's Total Value Locked against the exploits currently crippling rival blockchains is an absolute necessity. Distributing the stewardship of this critical tooling across a consortium of ecosystem partners ensures resilience and correctly aligns with our open-source ethos. This initiative is a vital investment in Cardano’s institutional trust and long-term growth, and I am happy to support it.

I vote NO. Whilst I highly value Midgard's technology, missed 2025 mainnet promises, neglected legacy milestones, and inadequate public communication present unacceptable risks. We require formal progress demonstrations and the completion of all existing milestones before funding.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am formally registering a NO vote on the L2 Scaling Infrastructure Treasury Withdrawal. Whilst I remain a steadfast proponent of the Midgard protocol and readily acknowledge the exceptional technical calibre of its engineering team, I cannot in good conscience endorse this proposal until fundamental operational and communicative deficiencies are rectified. I am generally supportive of the broader Layer 2 concepts bundled herein; however, the project's historical delivery trajectory currently presents an unacceptable governance risk.

Despite unequivocal public commitments from the team guaranteeing a mainnet launch by the close of 2025, this pivotal milestone remains conspicuously unrealised as of May 2026. Furthermore, a concerning pattern of paused and past-due milestones persists across both the 2025 budget funding and prior Catalyst rounds. Although my independent analysis of the repositories indicates substantial codebase maturity, the sustained failure to formalise these deliverables and execute milestone claims highlights a severe deficit in operational prioritisation.

Whilst I deeply appreciate the direct, private dialogue with Phil to ascertain the project's true developmental status, ecosystem transparency cannot rely upon private, back-channel communications. The broader community requires radically improved public engagement and consistent, verifiable showcasing of ongoing work to facilitate informed governance decisions.

I have conveyed comprehensive feedback to key individuals whom I believe possess the capability to realign this project's trajectory and bridge these existing gaps. Moving forward, I strongly recommend the team host a formal, public demonstration of current progress, paired with a transparent explanation regarding the unfulfilled 2025 mainnet commitments. Furthermore, it is imperative that all outstanding Intersect and Catalyst milestones are fully completed prior to any subsequent requests for Treasury capital. I genuinely believe Midgard possesses the potential to succeed, and I view this juncture as a critical, final opportunity for the project to definitively prove its merit to the Cardano ecosystem.

References regarding 2025 mainnet commitments:

https://x.com/midgardprotocol/status/1900506931598438482?s=20

https://x.com/AnastasiaLabs/status/1868427407142584420?s=20

I vote NO. Developer experience must be a standard deliverable, not a retrospective fix. Rapid AI advancements already multiply our talent pool, risking obsolescence. The KPIs misalign with actual on chain volume, whilst vague bounties risk favouritism. Outputs do not justify the opaque cost.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO on the Developer Experience Treasury Withdrawal. As an active builder within the Cardano ecosystem, I intimately understand that a seamless developer experience is paramount. However, I fundamentally disagree with treating it as a costly, retrospective fix. Instead, I firmly believe that exceptional developer experience must be an inherent prerequisite, woven into the fabric of all future funded proposals. If we are deploying millions to construct core infrastructure, intuitive tooling and comprehensive documentation must be standard deliverables from the outset. If they are absent, I consider the development unfinished and of an unsatisfactory standard, and therefore cannot in good conscience support its funding via the Treasury.

Furthermore, the technological landscape has shifted dramatically. With the rapid evolution of AI capabilities, navigating and building upon Cardano has become exponentially more efficient in a remarkably short timeframe. AI serves as a formidable force multiplier, meaning our historically constrained pool of developer talent now possesses the capacity to operate as a significantly larger workforce, priced highly competitively alongside established structures of expertise. Allocating capital to this specific tooling now risks discounting further AI innovation, which could quite easily render this proposal's deliverables obsolete and result in a regrettable misallocation of funds. Consequently, I do not consider this initiative a priority at this present juncture.

Additionally, I hold significant reservations regarding the metrics and execution strategies outlined within the proposal. A thirty percent increase in sentiment or onboarding speed offers no guarantee of a corresponding rise in Total Value Locked, Daily Active Users, or indeed on chain transaction volume, which are the fundamental metrics that ultimately drive protocol revenue. Relying upon subjective barometers such as Net Promoter Scores is inherently precarious. Such metrics are easily skewed by positive bias environments, such as hackathons or incentivised surveys, potentially masking a stark lack of genuine technical adoption. Moreover, the proposed framework for community bounties lacks the necessary rigour. The absence of a transparent methodology or an independent board to select recipients inadvertently invites the risk of favouritism, whereby capital might be directed towards familiar entities rather than the most impactful innovators.

Finally, my mandate for strict fiscal prudence applies equally to this request. The proposal seeks in excess of three million six hundred thousand ADA, with nearly three million swept broadly into an opaque development category, completely lacking a granular breakdown of headcount or hourly rates. Ultimately, in my opinion, I do not believe the anticipated outputs justify this immense financial outlay. Given the swift advancements in AI and our broader ecosystem budget requirements, the timing for this specific request is, in my assessment, fundamentally flawed.

I vote NO. While I like the first two upgrades, sweeping 11.2M ADA into an opaque development bucket without detailing headcount or hourly rates is not something I can support, the proposal ask for this in my opinion is too high against the deliverables stated.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO on the Cardano Upgrades Treasury Withdrawal. I want to explicitly commend the teams involved for proposing solutions that could undeniably bring immense technical value to our ecosystem. However, as a representative tasked with the prudent management of our Treasury, I must ground my decisions in strict financial reality rather than purely technical ambition. When reviewing an expenditure of this magnitude, the financial mechanics must be rigorously scrutinized.

The proposal requests over thirteen million ADA, which the authors themselves estimate at a dollar value exceeding three million one hundred thousand USD based on a twenty four cent ADA price. Of that immense total, a staggering eleven million two hundred sixty eight thousand six hundred fourteen ADA is broadly swept into a generalized development category. While I acknowledge that the document provides a macro total for each individual workstream, there is an absolute absence of a granular development breakdown. Without detailed accounting of headcount, hourly rates, or specific engineering resource allocations, I cannot comfortably support a funding request of this scale.

Furthermore, the practice of bundling three distinct initiatives into a single all or nothing vote creates an environment of financial ambiguity that I simply cannot endorse. While I genuinely recognize the merit in the first two proposed upgrades, I personally believe the total requested capital is too high for the deliverables stated. This is a genuinely tough decision for me.

I vote YES. Leios delivers crucial scalability whilst maintaining our decentralization. The team has handled community feedback exceptionally well, incorporating our challenges gracefully. This great leadership gives me full confidence in their execution. Keep up the great work!

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on the Leios Treasury Withdrawal. As a representative who consistently demands strict financial discipline, approving an expenditure of this magnitude is not a decision I take lightly. However, true fiscal responsibility does not mean freezing all capital. It means deploying it precisely where it drives absolute foundational value. While the twenty seven million ADA ask is undeniably high, the step change in throughput that Leios delivers is absolutely crucial to the future of Cardano.

I have closely monitored the ongoing work of this development team. They have established an exceptional standard for transparently showcasing their progress, which I consider to be hugely important for any initiative funded by our Treasury. I would love to see this continued transparency and close community alignment so we can collectively amplify this progress. Achieving massive scalability whilst maintaining our core decentralization and security is a unique selling point for Cardano that we must champion.

Additionally, I highly appreciate the specific focus on hard fork enabling Leios within the proposal. This crucial section directly addresses the broader ecosystem dependencies and the various other moving parts that will be required to allow Leios to operate effectively in the real world.

Finally, I want to commend how exceptionally well the team has handled community feedback. I and others have actively challenged certain decisions, and I deeply respect how the team has responded and incorporated our input. It is my firm belief that this receptiveness is a sign of great leadership. As a result, I am entirely confident in their ability to execute upon this proposal to the highest standard. Keep up the great work!

Cardano will scale.

I vote NO. We funded this team over 1M USD via Catalyst and a 1.3M ADA withdrawal last year. Their private revenue must ensure self sustainability. Bundling creates ambiguity. Our Treasury must not subsidize operating expenses. Finally, I expect professionalism during active votes.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO on the Project Cayley and Blockfrost Treasury Withdrawal. I want to explicitly commend the Blockfrost team for their immense historical contributions and unwavering dedication to our blockchain. However, I must respectfully dispute the assertion that their infrastructure currently serves ninety percent of our ecosystem free tier traffic. Through my close and ongoing conversations with builders across numerous projects, the reality on the ground indicates a much more diverse infrastructure landscape. While Blockfrost is undeniably a foundational pillar, this specific metric appears significantly overstated, fundamentally weakening the justification for such a massive operational subsidy.

Furthermore, it is imperative to contextualize this request within the broader scope of their historical funding and active commercial models. The community has already generously backed this team with well over one million dollars across thirty seven separate Catalyst proposals, in addition to a substantial one million three hundred thousand ADA Treasury withdrawal granted just last year for their platform community budget. As a consistent paid user of their premium tier for quite some time, I know firsthand that they possess a successful commercial revenue stream. A private enterprise collecting premium subscription fees should naturally transition toward self sustainability, rather than relying on massive Treasury subsidies to permanently float their operating expenses.

Additionally, I am fundamentally opposed to the practice of bundling disparate funding requests into a single proposal. Bundling inherently creates ambiguity in governance voting, forcing representatives to either accept unjustifiable expenditures or reject otherwise valuable initiatives. While I acknowledge the theoretical merit in decentralized slice indexing to prepare for Leios, funding this architecture today is premature. I would strongly prefer to see this research presented as a standalone proposal when Leios is actually mainnet ready. Only at that juncture can we accurately measure the empirical increase in usage and data requirements necessary to justify this scale of investment. With ADA having fallen out of the top ten and struggling in price action against competing blockchains, our capital must be ruthlessly directed toward immediate value accrual. I strongly encourage the team to unbundle this request and return when Leios is live with a purely research focused initiative and reduced ask.

As a final note, I would like to clearly establish my expectations regarding community conduct. I strongly reinforce the absolute requirement for utmost professionalism across our ecosystem whenever any active proposal has been submitted for governance review.

I vote NO. Though the Cardano Foundation provides thirty percent of my delegation, abstaining betrays my other delegators. The 14M ADA cost is unjustified. With ADA falling out of the top 10 against competing blockchains, we must reclaim the top 5 before funding expensive marketing.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO on the dual event proposal for the Cardano Summit and TOKEN2049. Initially, I strongly considered abstaining, given that approximately thirty percent of my voting power comes directly from the Cardano Foundation. However, stepping aside would be a profound injustice to the rest of my loyal delegators. I possess a strong conviction on this matter, and my duty requires me to represent my entire constituency transparently.

Candidly, the requested expenditure of over fourteen million ADA is simply too high. We currently lack the luxury to sustain spending of this magnitude. With ADA having fallen out of the top ten and struggling in price action against competing blockchains, we must operate with ruthless fiscal responsibility. I do not believe the tangible value returned to our ecosystem justifies this massive capital outlay.

If our ambition is to host flagship global events, our primary focus must first be directed toward reclaiming our position in the top ten and pushing into the top five. Attempting to improve our relevance by purchasing presence at large industry events does not fundamentally drive the sustainable growth and fiscal discipline we require to compete right now. We must prioritize strict capital efficiency over expensive marketing, and therefore, I must firmly reject this proposal.

I am voting ABSTAIN on the Harmonic Laboratories Treasury Withdrawal. I want to explicitly commend the HLabs team for their ongoing contributions to Cardano. I am a tremendous advocate for their passion, their undeniable technical talent, and their proven track record of executing for our ecosystem.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting ABSTAIN on the Harmonic Laboratories Treasury Withdrawal. I want to explicitly commend the HLabs team for their ongoing contributions to Cardano. I am a tremendous advocate for their passion, their undeniable technical talent, and their proven track record of executing for our ecosystem.

While I see immense strategic value in this proposal, particularly the Pebble programming language which I would have strongly considered supporting in isolation at an appropriate valuation, the bundled nature of this request presents an insurmountable hurdle. In our current financial climate, I cannot justify a combined expenditure exceeding eight million ADA for this specific functionality. Furthermore, funding these expansive and parallel infrastructure projects today inevitably guarantees ongoing Treasury obligations for future maintenance costs. If this proposal were to fail, I would strongly encourage the team to consider unbundling this initiative in the future, as a standalone proposal focused purely on bringing Pebble to market would find a highly receptive audience.

Despite these strict fiscal reservations, my profound respect for this team dictates that I will not use my voting weight to actively block their initiative. I firmly believe HLabs brings exceptional value to our blockchain, and as a mark of that respect, I am formally stepping aside to allow the broader community to determine the ultimate fate of this governance action.

I vote YES. Credit to Samiz for professionally addressing my capital flight concerns. Investments will stay focused on Cardano and accrue value to our Treasury. This lets us invest now, act for growth, bring in outside expertise and back our ecosystem. I am excited to see this progress!

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on Tranche One of the Draper Dragon Orion Fund (50M ADA). From a structural standpoint, this proposal demonstrates a highly sophisticated approach to risk mitigation. By employing a capped tranche deployment model and a strict distribution waterfall, mandating that the Treasury is fully repaid its deployed capital before any General Partner profit participation occurs, it establishes a robust financial safeguard for the ecosystem.

My primary reservation entering this governance action pertained to the risk of capital flight, specifically the possibility that entities funded by the Treasury might leverage our capital to build out their infrastructure, only to subsequently migrate their operations and revenue to competing blockchains. After engaging directly with Samiz, these concerns have been fully resolved. I want to explicitly commend him for addressing my inquiries with exceptional detail and professionalism. This transparency provided the necessary assurance that a structured process and clear operational focus are in place to ensure these investments remain decisively dedicated to Cardano, and that the long term value generated will properly accrue back to the Cardano Treasury.

Ultimately, this initiative empowers us to invest now and act decisively for growth. It injects critical capital into our ecosystem while simultaneously importing highly valuable institutional venture expertise. Furthermore, it affords us the opportunity to cultivate tangible success stories that amplify a vital market signal, proving that Cardano is a premier destination for development and that we possess the conviction to actively back our builders. This is a strategically sound, calculated step required to aggressively scale our TVL and institutional adoption, and I am excited to see this progress unfold.

Let's grow Cardano.

I now vote ABSTAIN. Blink Labs' recent progress and community discussions proved Dingo's value. Though Treasury conservation & strategy prevents a YES for me right now, I will not stand in the way of this stellar team. This ABSTAIN is a formal nod of respect & acknowledgement of their hard work.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

As a representative of my loyal delegates, this marks the first time I have ever changed a vote, which speaks to the deep consideration I have given this specific proposal since my last vote.

My initial NO vote was rooted in strict fiscal pragmatism. At the time, I felt strongly that funding a third node implementation was a luxury we could not afford, and that we needed to wait for Amaru's progress before taking on another permanent Treasury commitment.

However, over the past few weeks, I have actively listened to the Blink Labs team discuss Dingo in deeper detail across community Spaces. I have been genuinely impressed by the tangible progress they are making. Their passion and talent are undeniable, and they have successfully demonstrated the extreme, long-term value that increased node diversity brings to the resilience of the Cardano ecosystem, along with lots of other benefits Dingo will allow.

While my core philosophy regarding Treasury conservation means I still cannot comfortably support this with a YES vote right at this exact moment, I have realized that I do not want to stand against something I believe is highly valuable and impactful in addition to Amaru. I refuse to let my voting weight act as a roadblock to a passionate team of builders who I truly believe can deliver on their promises.

Therefore, my ABSTAIN vote is a formal nod of respect to the importance of node diversity and to Blink Labs. I am stepping aside to let the broader community decide this proposal's fate, without standing in the way.

I vote YES. Credit to the team for improving this proposal. Fragmented liquidity forces USDCx swaps via NIGHT, compounding LP fees for users. By funding deep ADA/stable pairs, we fix this routing friction, drastically reducing slippage and driving on-chain growth alongside the CF's moves

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on this Treasury Withdrawal. While the administrative and legal setup costs are high, they are a necessary step to safely execute the upcoming 50M ADA liquidity deployment. This aligns perfectly with the Cardano Foundation’s recent eight-figure ADA deployment via Flowdesk, proving that deepening stablecoin markets is a coordinated ecosystem priority.

Despite our stablecoin market cap reaching $48.88m (with USDCx commanding over 35% dominance), we face a severe routing problem. Because deep ADA/stablecoin pairs are lacking, massive USDCx liquidity is concentrated in non-ADA pairs like Minswap's NIGHT/USDCx pool (~$5.89M TVL). This fragmentation forces multi-hop routes, penalizing users with compounded swap (LP) fees just to move between core assets.

By executing this proposal's mandate to aggressively fund ADA-to-stablecoin pairs, we will establish ADA as the highly efficient, deep-liquidity hub it needs to be. This eliminates the reliance on current fragmented pairs like NIGHT, drastically reducing slippage and ensuring efficient swaps without unnecessary multi-hop LP fees, which benefits our ecosystem users.

Finally, credit to the team for taking tough community feedback and drastically improving this proposal. While core infrastructure is undeniably important, deep liquidity is equally vital to allow sustainable growth, build user confidence, and spur the on-chain activity required for our projects to truly thrive. I am confident in the teams ability to execute on this commitment.

I vote NO. I oppose off-chain polling via Ekklesia. Moving governance off-chain invites collusion. It also adds heavy, unfunded voting burdens onto DReps, ironically worsening the exact lack of DRep participation the ecosystem complains about. Governance must be transparently on-chain.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO on the 2026 Budget Process Framework.

While I strongly support the goals of fiscal discipline, anti-spam measures, and strict adherence to the Net Change Limit (NCL), I fundamentally oppose the framework's reliance on off-chain polling and third-party platforms like Ekklesia to determine treasury allocations.

If we have to move critical decision-making, prioritization, and voting off-chain, then we have failed in delivering true decentralized governance. Off-chain activities and "sandbox" environments act as gatekeepers; they are prime targets for exploitation, gaming the system, and backroom collusion. They lack the immutable transparency and cryptographic guarantees that the Cardano blockchain was built to provide.

Furthermore, mandating an entirely separate off-chain review and polling process places an unacceptable burden on DReps. We are already dedicating significant time and effort to on-chain governance in what is currently a highly demanding, unfunded role. It is incredibly ironic that the system constantly questions the lack of DRep voting activity and contributions, yet proposes frameworks that drastically increase our workload by forcing us to duplicate efforts across third-party platforms. This is a direct recipe for voter fatigue.

We are a blockchain ecosystem. Our governance infrastructure must be robust enough to handle the entire lifecycle of a proposal on-chain. I will not support a framework that obscures the most critical phase of treasury management the selection and prioritization of multi-million ADA budgets behind off-chain systems.

I vote YES. Catalyst-funded tooling inspired me to build on Cardano, and I deeply appreciate CF stepping up to ensure continuity for Funds 10-14 builders. Crucially, CF returning Funds 15 & 16 replenishes the Treasury, perfectly aligning with my strict mandate to protect our reserves.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on this Info Action to appoint the Cardano Foundation (CF) as the new managing entity for Project Catalyst.

Before addressing the administrative transition, I want to express my profound appreciation for Project Catalyst, its hard-working team, and its massive impact on our ecosystem. The innovation and Catalyst-funded tooling were exactly what inspired me to personally learn and build on Cardano. It has been a foundational pillar of our community's growth and onboarding.

As we enter this new phase, I also want to state my sincere appreciation for the Cardano Foundation stepping up to take on this massive responsibility. Ensuring operational continuity so that builders from Funds 10-14 receive their milestone payouts without disruption is critical for maintaining trust with the teams doing the hard work.

From a fiscally conservative perspective, this transition is the most responsible path forward. Not only does it protect active builders, but it also secures CF's explicit commitment to return the previously approved allocations for Funds 15 and 16 directly back to the Cardano Treasury. This aligns perfectly with my mandate to enforce strict fiscal discipline and protect our treasury by recovering these unspent funds. A clean handover to CF honors Catalyst's legacy, protects our builders, replenishes our treasury, and provides a much-needed reset.

I vote YES. Node diversity is crucial for Cardano's resilience and requires dedicated, ongoing funding for engineering. I've personally run Amaru and see the team's hard work. I am also impressed by their financial discipline in returning excess funds to the treasury. It's a strong YES from me.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on the Amaru 2026 Treasury Withdrawal.

I believe node diversity is crucial for Cardano's future and foundational to the long-term resilience of the blockchain. Building this level of core infrastructure requires dedicated focus, and I recognize it will inevitably require ongoing funding for maintenance and engineering advancements.

I strongly support these focused efforts. Having personally run an Amaru node, I can see firsthand the hard work the team has put into the codebase. Furthermore, I was highly impressed by their financial discipline when they recently returned excess funds to the Treasury. I am excited to watch Amaru progress into a fully adopted, mainnet block-producing node.

I am voting NO. 300M ADA is still excessive. We must enforce strict fiscal discipline based on minimal treasury inflows. I advocate for a reduced limit of 200-250M ADA to force prioritization. After our initial heavy spending to plug gaps, we must now grow the treasury, not deplete it.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO. A 300M ADA limit is still excessive. We must enforce strict fiscal discipline based on conservative, minimal inflow projections.

I advocate for a reduced Net Change Limit in the region of 200-250M ADA. This would force prioritization and ensure we operate within our means. Especially after our recent initial spending to plug significant infrastructure gaps, we should be growing the treasury rather than depleting it.

I vote YES. Max van Rossem was a pivotal contributor, co-leading the CC Election WG and championing Article VIII. Naming the hard fork after him signals our collective respect and appreciation for his profound impact on Cardano's governance foundations.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I vote YES. Max van Rossem was a pivotal contributor, co-leading the CC Election WG and championing Article VIII. Naming the hard fork after him signals our collective respect and appreciation for his profound impact on Cardano's governance foundations.

I vote YES. This is a zero-cost upgrade to utility. Increasing Plutus memory limits allows further DApp functionality and improves developer experience. Verified deployments on Preview/PreProd and IOE benchmarking confirm this fits within safe propagation limits.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on this Protocol Parameter update. This proposal represents a pragmatic, zero-cost upgrade to the network's utility that enhances the developer experience and potential DApp throughput.

I explicitly credit Intersect's Parameter Committee for their diligence in pushing this forward. From a strategic perspective, increasing maxTxExecutionUnits (+17.9%) and maxBlockExecutionUnits (+16.1%) leverages existing headroom to improve performance. The proposal demonstrates responsible governance through verified deployments on Preview and PreProd testnets and benchmarking by IOE's Performance & Tracing team, confirming that propagation times remain safe. This is exactly the kind of "smart growth" I support.

I vote NO. This is a painful vote as I see the solid benefit and hard work in this proposal. However, I must prioritize fiscal responsibility ahead of upcoming budgets. The proposal assumes $0.40/ADA; at current prices, this withdrawal is significantly underfunded. ADA is currently $0.2865.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO on this withdrawal. This is a difficult decision, as I recognize the immense hard work behind this proposal and the solid benefit this brings to Cardano. I previously voted YES on the governance action and I fully support the strategic intent.

However, my duty of care requires strict fiscal responsibility for the security, sustainability and investments of ADA holders, especially with significant budget requests on the horizon. The proposal relies on a $0.40 ADA peg. With the current price significantly lower (~$0.286), this withdrawal is underfunded upon execution. I cannot justify this treasury spend at this moment in time, and I welcome this withdrawal's re-submission when the ADA price improves and the timing is right.

As a DRep, I accept the responsibility of making these difficult decisions to ensure our spending never outpaces current market conditions.

I am voting NO. The proposal suggests we "Fund DReps... based on observable activity (votes, rationales, attendance)." This is unreliable, who would decide what counts? This introduces centralized judgment. I also have to reject using this static document as a rigid "filter" for future funding.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO. I commend the significant work regarding this strategy and vision, and I understand its importance for Cardano. I specifically appreciate the open source focus and the inclusion of node diversity.

However, I cannot overlook the recommendation to:

"Fund DReps, SPOs and the Constitutional Committee based on observable activity (votes, rationales, attendance)..."

Who decides the value of this attendance or what observable activity really means? This metric invites centralized judgment, possible exclusion and gate-keeping.

Additionally, the proposal states this document gives DReps a "community-vetted filter to rigorously evaluate funding requests." This concerns me; DReps must act independently, voting based on their own judgment and principles, not bound by a static document.

I believe this needs further work, and would welcome further changes.

I am voting YES. v2.4 streamlines governance by removing redundant mechanisms while keeping strict audit safeguards. I commend the creator for their commitment to improving the constitution. The added requirement for immutable proposal documents is a vital upgrade for system integrity.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES. This update matures our governance framework by removing redundant "Budget Info Actions" while preserving fiscal discipline via universal audit safeguards.

I explicitly commend the proposal creator for their commitment to improving Cardano governance whilst listening to community feedback. Their work to streamline rules and enforce immutable proposal documents significantly strengthens our system integrity and accountability.

I am voting NO. 350M ADA is excessive. We must enforce strict fiscal discipline based on minimal treasury inflows. I advocate for a reduced limit of 200-250M ADA to force prioritization. After our initial heavy spending to plug gaps, we must now grow the treasury, not deplete it.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO. A 350M ADA limit is excessive. We must enforce strict fiscal discipline based on conservative, minimal inflow projections.

I advocate for a reduced Net Change Limit in the region of 200-250M ADA. This would force prioritization and ensure we operate within our means. Especially after our recent initial spending to plug significant infrastructure gaps, we should be growing the treasury rather than depleting it.

I am voting NO. The Treasury should fund shared infrastructure, not individual commercial DEXs. ₳1.5M is an excessive subsidy for a single product that should seek venture capital or Catalyst funding. We must preserve treasury funds for protocol-level upgrades, not application-layer winners.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO. While I support the development of Hydra, I do not believe the Cardano Treasury should be used to subsidize the operational costs of individual commercial DEXs to the tune of ₳1.5M.

Projects like DeltaDeFi should seek funding through Project Catalyst or private venture capital. Direct treasury funding should be reserved for neutral, protocol-level public goods, not picking or funding winners in the competitive DEX market.

I am voting YES. Christina received significant support, and this strengthens resilience without overriding the election winner.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES.

By adding an 8th member, we create a resilience buffer. If a member resigns in the future, governance can continue uninterrupted. Christina received substantial community support in the close election, and adding this seat improves decentralization and stability without overriding the official winner.

I'm voting YES to prevent operational disruption. However, I must note that based on treasury projection analytics, the 350M ADA limit is too high. I support this procedural time extension to avoid gridlock, but future NCLs must have lower, data-backed caps to ensure long-term sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES to ensure treasury continuity and avoid technical gridlock into 2026. This extension is necessary for operations.

However, I must register my concern regarding the underlying limit. Factoring in treasury projection analytics, the 350M ADA cap is too high for long-term sustainability. I approve this time extension, but I expect significantly stricter limits in the next NCL cycle that align with actual revenue data.

I'm voting YES on this withdrawal. This 70M ADA investment is a strategic necessity. To remain competitive, we must invest in ourselves and close the infrastructure gap. Tier-1 stablecoins, oracles, and bridges are non-negotiable for growth. This withdrawal unlocks liquidity for sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I'm voting YES on this withdrawal. This 70M ADA investment is a strategic necessity. To remain competitive, we must invest in ourselves and close the infrastructure gap. Tier-1 stablecoins, oracles, and bridges are non-negotiable for growth. This withdrawal unlocks liquidity for sustainability.

I am voting YES. We must restore the Constitutional Committee to its minimum size to unblock governance. I welcome Cardano Curia to the CC following their election victory. This ratification is essential to resume full on-chain decision-making and ensure continuity.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES. This is a critical step to restore the functionality of our governance system. We must fill this seat to meet the committeeMinSize and unblock key governance actions.

I welcome Cardano Curia to the Constitutional Committee following their clear victory in the community snap election. Ratifying this result respects the democratic process and ensures we can immediately resume full governance operations.

I'm voting YES. This 70M ADA investment is a strategic necessity. To remain competitive, we must invest in ourselves and close the infrastructure gap. Tier-1 stablecoins, oracles, and bridges are non-negotiable for growth. This unlocks the liquidity needed for our long-term sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES. This was a tough decision given the cost, but to remain competitive, we must invest in ourselves. This proposal addresses the critical infrastructure gap—Tier-1 stablecoins, oracles, and bridges—that has held back our growth.

This is a strategic necessity to unlock liquidity and attract institutional capital, ensuring long-term sustainability and interoperability. With defined milestones for accountability, we must unite to execute this vision. Cardano is open for business, and we are strong competition, we will invest in our ecosystem.

I'm voting YES. This historic 5M ADA loan is a strategic investment to break Cardano's isolation and pave the way for all native tokens. This isn't a grant; it's a sustainable model with 2.44% interest, Intersect as administrator, and a top-tier Board of Advisors. This is accountability in action.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting YES on this proposal.

This is a historic first for Cardano: a repayable loan, not a grant. I'm backing this as a strategic investment to break our ecosystem's isolation and pave the way for all native tokens, driving ecosystem growth.

Accountability is key, and this proposal delivers. It's a repayable loan with 2.44% interest, administered by Intersect, and overseen by a top-tier Board of Advisors. It's a sustainable and strategic treasury replenishment model.

I will be watching the bi-yearly reports closely and encourage the Snek team to build community trust by considering early repayments. I am confident they will do us proud, as I welcome the improved oversight, public legal contract, and clear success metrics.

The time is now. Let this be a clear message to the industry, we will not be excluded. We will invest in our own ecosystem for growth, inclusion, and competition.

I'm voting YES. Trust in our governance system is essential. This early pioneer lost their deposit due to a critical flaw in the governance tooling, not their own error. This should have been caught in testing before launch. Making this user whole is non-negotiable for ecosystem integrity.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting a strong YES. My vote is built on a non-negotiable principle: trust in our governance system is essential for it to be used.

This community member was an early pioneer of governance, and they lost their deposit due to a critical flaw in the tooling provided to submit governance actions, not user error. This is a failure of the system's readiness, and it should have been caught in testing before governance went live. These early pioneers deserve our full support. Making this right is a fundamental test of our ecosystem's integrity and sustainability.

I am voting NO. I value our CC members, but this ask is way too high. It creates an unfair pay gap, especially since this committee stepped in without a promise of compensation for this term. We need more governance maturity before we can commit to a spend like this.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO. While I greatly value our CC members and the critical role they perform, this ask is way too high.

My concern is that it creates an unfair compensation gap between the CC and other vital contributors, additionally it sets a standard which is difficult to reverse. More importantly, this committee stepped in and committed to this role without any promise of compensation for this term.

For the sake of our long-term sustainability and decentralization, I believe we need more governance maturity before we can commit to a spend like this.

I am voting YES. This is a mature iteration, and I credit the proposers for their hard work. Removing the redundant Budget Info Action streamlines governance, will reduce voter fatigue, and applying universal audit safeguards to all withdrawals is a massive win for accountability and sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting a strong YES. I credit the immense work that went into this responsible and mature evolution of our Constitution, which clearly incorporates extensive community feedback.

This is a major win for governance. Removing the redundant Budget Info Action streamlines the process and will significantly reduce voter fatigue. Crucially, it makes administrator and audit requirements mandatory for all treasury withdrawals. This is a non-negotiable upgrade for sustainability and a clear sign of our governance maturing.

While I value recent GovTool improvements and the expertise of LidoNation and Dquadrant, I cannot vote yes. The budget is not justified by current quality or UX, and metrics lack transparency. I would support a reduced budget aligned with demonstrated impact.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

While I appreciate the recent improvements to GovTool and recognize the expertise of vendors such as LidoNation and Dquadrant, I cannot vote yes on this proposal. The requested amount is not justified by the current quality, performance, or user experience, both from my own experience and from feedback within the community. The reported metrics, including “50,000+ unique mainnet users across 170+ countries,” are not sufficiently supported by transparent data or verifiable evidence. For a request of this scale, I would expect stronger validation, clearer performance metrics, and a higher standard of UX, performance and functionality. I would however welcome a reduced budget that better reflects the current stage of the product and its demonstrated impact.

This significant spend was a difficult decision. However, our lack of stablecoin liquidity is a critical barrier to growth. To remain competitive, we must invest in ourselves. I credit the DRep-led tDAO oversight and will vote YES as an exception, with clear expectations for treasury replenishment.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This was an exceptionally difficult decision due to the significant spend, which I would have preferred to avoid under normal circumstances. However, I am voting a cautious YES as an exception, recognizing that our ecosystem currently suffers from a lack of deep stablecoin liquidity. The result is substantial price impact even on swaps involving the most liquid stablecoins.

To grow our ecosystem and remain competitive, we must invest in ourselves. Major stablecoin providers have sidelined Cardano, favoring ecosystems in which they hold vested interests. Their support strengthens competing chains while Cardano is left to build without equivalent backing. To shift this imbalance, strategic investment in our own ecosystem is not optional—it’s essential. This conviction is exactly why I became a DRep: to advocate for Cardano’s self-determination and long-term growth.

I want to credit the proposers and the DRep-led tDAO participants for stepping up to design and lead this initiative. My support is contingent on a focused, outcome-driven strategy. Initially, I believe this investment should prioritize protocols that have already contributed the most liquidity to Cardano, as this is a meaningful and measurable indicator of value added to the blockchain.

While I believe more than one DEX should be supported, funding should be limited to a maximum of three ideally we should avoid liquidity fragmentation and ensure users benefit from reduced price impact. I also strongly recommend that recipient protocols open-source their batchers to further promote decentralization and transparency.

Finally, I expect frequent and transparent updates on treasury replenishment, liquidity growth, and ecosystem performance metrics, so that the community can clearly assess the impact and accountability of this investment. I look forward to seeing this initiative drive meaningful growth across the Cardano ecosystem.

This is a very well-structured proposal. However, I'm cautious of the total amount of funding I've supported so far and must be selective. Therefore, I am voting NO. The high cost for a single-region pilot feels less efficient than a global framework, making this a difficult but necessary no.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I want to credit the team for this excellent proposal, which has made this a difficult decision. However, I will be voting a reluctant NO out of fiscal prudence.

Having already supported a number of proposals, I am cautious about the total budget being approved. While I support regional growth, the high cost of this single-region pilot makes it a less efficient use of funds than a global framework. Given the need to be selective with the remaining budget, I cannot justify this particular expenditure at this time, despite its merits.

This repayable loan sets a new standard for treasury use. It strategically tackles Cardano's isolation by using a proven team to secure top-tier exchange listings. This initiative paves the way for all native tokens, boosting ecosystem-wide liquidity, visibility, and user acquisition.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting yes on this proposal because it represents a strategic, accountable, and high-impact investment in the entire Cardano ecosystem's growth, structured as the treasury's first-ever repayable loan.

A Responsible Precedent: A Loan, Not a Grant

This proposal introduces a new model of fiscal responsibility for the Cardano Treasury. By structuring this as a repayable loan with interest, it ensures funds are deployed as an investment expected to generate returns, rather than a simple grant. The Snek Foundation has a clear repayment plan backed by existing revenue streams, demonstrating a sustainable business model. This sets a powerful precedent for future projects to seek funding in a way that respects and replenishes our collective treasury.

Breaking Cardano's Isolation for Ecosystem-Wide Benefit

Cardano's biggest challenge is its isolation from the broader crypto market. This proposal directly tackles that by using SNEK, our most prominent community token, as a "gateway" to top-tier exchanges. Securing these listings accomplishes several critical goals for all of us:

• Boosts ADA Liquidity: Creates deep ADA/SNEK trading pairs on major platforms, increasing ADA's utility and visibility.
• Onboards New Users: Leverages SNEK's viral appeal to attract mainstream users who would otherwise never interact with a Cardano wallet or DEX.
• Paves the Way for All CNTs: The legal, compliance, and technical frameworks built for these listings will create a reusable playbook for other Cardano projects, drastically lowering the barrier for them to get listed in the future. It's funding critical infrastructure for everyone.

I support this constitution as a beneficial "living document" designed to evolve via on-chain governance. This capacity for constant updates is crucial for the ecosystem. I would also like to thank YUTA and the community for their significant contributions.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I support this constitution as a beneficial advancement for Cardano. I welcome this update with the understanding that it is not a final, static document, but a foundational framework designed for continuous improvement.

The constitution itself is structured as a "living document" that is expected to evolve. It establishes a clear on-chain governance process for amendments, allowing it to adapt over time as new technical insights are gained and the needs of the ecosystem change. This capacity for constant updates is crucial, and I welcome this approach to governance.

I would also like to thank YUTA for his effort and the community for their contributions.

I welcome the newly elected Constitutional Committee and support this action to formalize their mandate and ensure continuity in Cardano governance.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I welcome the newly elected Constitutional Committee and support this action to formalize their mandate and ensure continuity in Cardano governance.

I have voted NO on all previous marketing proposals, so this was a difficult decision. However, I'm voting YES here. This isn't just a handout; it's an educational model with a shared cost. It's a pragmatic, community-led middle ground to help projects learn to market themselves effectively.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This proposal had me on the fence, as I have consistently voted NO on marketing proposals. However, I've decided to make an exception and vote a cautious YES.

What makes this different is its focus on education and shared cost. It's not a simple handout; it's a well-organized & presented, community-led effort to teach projects how to market effectively. The requirement for projects to contribute ensures they have skin in the game. At a fraction of the cost of other marketing proposals, this feels like a pragmatic middle ground for sustainability and one that allows me to achieve a fair and fine balance in voting.

I'm voting NO. While events are valuable, this is a marketing initiative led by founding entities. If they believe in this strategy, they should fund it from their own revenue, not the public treasury. The treasury is for common goods, not to subsidize the marketing of established organizations.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I'm voting NO. This top-down marketing strategy, led by founding entities, conflicts with my principles on decentralization and sustainability.

A decentralized brand should emerge from the community, not be directed by its founders. Furthermore, this is an unsustainable use of public funds. If the founding entities see value in these events, they should contribute from their own revenues. Our treasury is for common goods, not to subsidize the marketing of established organizations.

I am voting NO. While events are valuable, they should be self-sustaining or community-driven, not centrally managed by founding entities like the Cardano Foundation and funded by the treasury. This is not a sustainable use of public funds, and bundling five events prevents granular oversight.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I'm voting NO. While I support community events, I have fundamental concerns with this top-down structure and unsustainable funding model.

For true decentralization, our global presence shouldn't be centrally managed by founding entities. This should be a diverse ecosystem of independent organizers. Furthermore, large events should strive for self-sufficiency, not rely on the treasury for what are effectively marketing costs. The bundling of five distinct events also prevents necessary granular oversight from the community.

I am a huge supporter of Snek, its team, and community. However, I am voting NO. When the treasury is asked to fund a project's growth, there must be a clear pathway for value to be returned. Lacking a repayment or profit-share model, I cannot support this precedent for treasury use.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am a huge supporter of SNEK, its team, and what they contribute to Cardano. Their self-funded success is exemplary. However, I will be voting a principled NO on this proposal.

My reasoning is crucial for treasury sustainability: when public funds are used for a project's commercial growth, a clear pathway for treasury replenishment must be included. This proposal lacks such a mechanism. I fully support SNEK's mission, but I cannot support a funding model that socializes costs without a plan to return value to the community.

I am voting NO. This budget is extremely high and, in my opinion, not justified by the value demonstrated to date. While I welcome the recent leadership changes and a new focus on listening to the community, trust must be earned. I hope they can prove their value going forwards.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO. The budget requested is extremely high and, in my opinion, is not justified by the value Intersect has historically demonstrated to the community.

While there have been positive and negative aspects to their work, I believe trust must be earned before a budget of this magnitude is approved. I am encouraged by the recent leadership changes and a renewed focus on listening to the community. I sincerely hope they can demonstrate clear value and earn our support in the future. I will be monitoring their progress.

I am a huge supporter of Snek, its team, and community. However, I am voting NO. When the treasury is asked to fund a project's growth, there must be a clear pathway for value to be returned. Lacking a repayment or profit-share model, I cannot support this precedent for treasury use.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am a huge supporter of SNEK, its team, and what they contribute to Cardano. Their self-funded success is exemplary. However, I will be voting a principled NO on this proposal.

My reasoning is crucial for treasury sustainability: when public funds are used for a project's commercial growth, a clear pathway for treasury replenishment must be included. This proposal lacks such a mechanism. I fully support SNEK's mission, but I cannot support a funding model that socializes costs without a plan to return value to the community.

I am voting YES. This is a necessary and overdue update for a critical piece of user infrastructure. A standard, intuitive UI on Ledger improves user experience and security. Aligning with modern testing suites pays down technical debt, making future maintenance more efficient and sustainable.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting FOR this necessary upgrade. Improving the user experience on a critical hardware wallet like Ledger is a direct investment in user security and ecosystem growth.

This rewrite provides a safer interface and pays down significant technical debt by aligning with modern testing suites. This is a vital move for the long-term sustainability of our hardware wallet support, making future updates more efficient. Vacuumlabs is the proven and trusted team to deliver this work.

I am voting YES. Dolos is a critical tool for infrastructure decentralization. By providing a lightweight, efficient alternative to a full node, it lowers the barrier to entry, empowering more developers to run their own backends and reducing reliance on centralized API providers. A great project.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting a strong YES. This is a direct investment in the decentralization of Cardano's infrastructure layer.

The high cost of running a full node is a centralizing force. By providing a lightweight alternative, Dolos empowers more developers and teams to run their own backends, reducing reliance on a few large API providers. This enhances ecosystem resilience and sustainability. My continued confidence in the TxPipe team to deliver critical, open-source public goods makes this an easy decision.

This is a critical investment in Cardano's scalability, a top priority for our future. ZK rollups are a proven solution to increase throughput and lower fees while inheriting L1 security. Supporting diverse scaling solutions like this is essential for long-term growth and decentralization.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting a strong YES. Addressing scalability is a top priority, and this proposal tackles it with powerful, proven technology.

A general-purpose ZK rollup will dramatically increase throughput and lower fees, directly fueling ecosystem growth and sustainability. For the sake of decentralization, our future cannot hinge on a single scaling solution. Supporting this initiative ensures a diverse and resilient roadmap for Cardano, making this a vital investment in our core infrastructure.

This is a strong YES. When the original Lucid maintainer disappeared, Anastasia Labs stepped up to support this critical library, saving many dApps. They have earned our support. We must learn from the past and fund the maintenance of our core open-source infrastructure for ecosystem sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This is an extremely important proposal, and I'm voting FOR it with full conviction.

When Lucid's original maintainer left suddenly, putting many dApps at risk, Anastasia Labs stepped up for the community. They have truly earned our support. This is a crucial lesson in sustainability: we must fund the maintenance of foundational open-source tools to ensure the stability of our ecosystem. This is exactly the type of critical project the future OSC should be supporting.

I am voting YES with my full support. I've been watching this project and the TxPipe team's contributions closely. UTxO RPC is a vital open standard that simplifies development, prevents fragmentation, and boosts interoperability. This is a crucial investment in our core developer infrastructure.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I'm voting FOR this with my full support. I have been watching this project and the TxPipe team's contributions closely, and I'm confident in the value this brings.

UTxO RPC is creating a vital open standard for blockchain interaction, which is a massive win for interoperability and decentralization. It prevents fragmentation and makes our ecosystem more resilient and easier to build on. This is a strategic investment in the long-term sustainability and growth of our developer community.

I am voting YES. Pallas is a critical, foundational library for Cardano's Rust ecosystem, depended on by major projects like Aiken, Lucid, and Mithril. Supporting its maintenance is a non-negotiable investment in our developer infrastructure, tooling decentralization, and overall stability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting a strong YES. Funding foundational, open-source libraries like Pallas is one of the most effective uses of our treasury.

Pallas is the bedrock for our Rust developer ecosystem, with critical projects like Aiken, Lucid, and Mithril depending on it. Its maintenance is a direct investment in the decentralization of our tooling and the sustainability of many other projects. Supporting a trusted team like TxPipe to maintain this critical public good is a straightforward, high-impact decision.

I am voting YES. This is a crucial investment in foundational tooling for advanced cryptography on Cardano. By creating a reusable, open-source framework for ZK proofs, it empowers all developers and prevents risky, redundant work. This is essential for future innovation in privacy and scalability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This is a clear and strategic YES. This proposal funds foundational, open-source tooling for advanced cryptography, a critical capability for Cardano's future.

By creating a flexible framework for ZK proofs, the expert MLabs team will empower our entire developer community to innovate in areas like privacy. This is a direct investment in ecosystem growth and is essential for future scalability and interoperability solutions. Funding this core, reusable infrastructure is an excellent use of the treasury.

I am voting YES. For Cardano to remain competitive, a scattered vision is not enough; we need a shared, cohesive long-term strategy. While not perfectly decentralized, this committee-led process is a crucial and structured first step to transition from a founder-led to a community-led roadmap.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

After careful consideration, I will be voting YES. To ensure Cardano's long-term sustainability and to remain competitive, a cohesive and shared product vision is essential. A purely fragmented approach risks stagnation.

While not a perfectly bottom-up process, this committee-led initiative is a pragmatic and structured first step in transitioning from the founder-led roadmap to a community-owned one. It provides a necessary coordination point to define our future. This is a strategic vote for Cardano's focus and growth.

I am voting YES. PyCardano is a foundational library for the entire Python developer ecosystem on Cardano. With over 170 projects depending on it, ensuring its maintenance is critical for stability and future growth. This is a non-negotiable investment in our developer infrastructure.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting a strong YES. PyCardano is a foundational library that unlocks Cardano for the global Python developer community, directly fueling ecosystem growth and sustainability.

As a critical tool with over 170 dependent projects, its ongoing maintenance is non-negotiable for the stability of a large part of our ecosystem. This funding is a clear investment in the decentralization of our developer tooling and ensures future compatibility. Ideally I think this may be better suited within Catalyst / OSC in the future however.

This is a critical investment in developer onboarding. OpShin opens the door for the massive Python community to build on Cardano. Diversifying our smart contract languages is essential for the long-term decentralization and growth of our ecosystem. A fantastic community-led initiative.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting a strong YES. Lowering the barrier to entry for developers is one of the most effective strategies for ensuring Cardano's growth and sustainability.

OpShin achieves this by opening our ecosystem to the massive global community of Python developers. Fostering a diverse set of smart contract languages is fundamental to decentralization, as it prevents a tooling monoculture. Supporting this proven, community-led initiative is a clear, high-impact investment in Cardano's future.

Cardano's research-driven development is what sets it apart and is the foundation of its impressive reliability. IOR has a proven track record of delivering world-class research, and continuing this work is a direct investment in the long-term security, reliability and innovation of the blockchain.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting a confident YES. Cardano's research-driven development is its key differentiator and the very foundation of its impressive reliability.

IOR has a proven, world-class track record of delivering the foundational science that secures and advances our blockchain. For the long-term sustainability and competitive growth of the ecosystem, funding this proven research engine is a pragmatic and essential investment in our core strength.

I am voting ABSTAIN. While the goals are critical, this asks the treasury to fund a private company with no defined way for value to return. I would have seriously considered voting YES if a clear pathway for treasury replenishment was included, but as it stands, I cannot support the precedent.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting ABSTAIN. The proposal's goals for growth and inclusion are critical, but the funding model is problematic.

It asks the treasury to fund a private company, I would have seriously considered voting YES if a clear pathway for value return was included. As it stands, the model is too one-sided to set as a precedent, forcing me to abstain for the amount in question.

I am voting NO. While I welcome high-quality projects, the treasury is for public goods, not to fund the expansion of a successful, for-profit company. The impressive track record of the Haus team is the very reason they should self-fund this move, not ask the community to pay for it.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO, based on the strong principle that our treasury must fund public goods, not the expansion costs of successful, for-profit companies.

The Haus team's impressive track record is the very reason they should self-fund their migration to Cardano, not ask the community to pay for it. This proposal socializes their business risk while privatizing the profits, which is contrary to a fair and sustainable ecosystem. We should attract projects on our technical merits, not by giving grants to private ventures.

I am voting YES. This is non-negotiable maintenance for critical infrastructure. Ensuring users can securely access their funds via hardware wallets is paramount.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting FOR this proposal. This is non-negotiable maintenance for our most critical user security infrastructure. The ability for holders to securely access their funds is foundational to ecosystem sustainability and trust.

I urge the community to find ways to diversify this skillset for future resilience.

I am voting NO. I have concerns about the high cost and the potential infrastructure dependency on DexHunter. A treasury-funded service should be open to all native assets and leverage open tools like Rosetta for a more decentralized and cost-effective path for the entire ecosystem.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I appreciate the goal here, but I will be voting NO due to concerns about the proposed approach.

A key issue is the potential dependency on a single project like DexHunter for infrastructure. Furthermore, any treasury-funded service should be open to all native assets, not a curated few. For true decentralization and fairness, we should prioritize open standards like Rosetta, which provide a more cost-effective and permissionless path for the entire ecosystem.

I strongly support experimenting with Quadratic Funding, but I am voting NO for now. Catalyst's Fund 14 includes a QF proof-of-concept at the tallying stage. It is more prudent to first analyze the valuable data from this live experiment and iterate, rather than funding a parallel initiative.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I strongly support Quadratic Funding as a tool for decentralization, but am voting NO for now.

My decision is reinforced by the fact that Fund 14 includes a QV proof-of-concept at the tallying stage. This is the perfect, low-risk experiment. The most responsible path is to analyze the data from this POC before funding a separate, large-scale system. For the sake of a sustainable, data-driven approach to governance, let's learn from this live test first. I look forward to supporting an evolved proposal based on these valuable findings.

I was on the fence, as I'm not a fan of the proposed metrics. However, I'm voting YES because this DAO fills a critical gap between Catalyst and the OSC, especially for supporting builders integrating new tech like Leios. I will be monitoring this DAO's professionalism and conduct closely.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I was on the fence with this proposal, but will be voting a cautious YES. I have reservations about the proposed metrics, but a clear funding gap exists between Catalyst and the OSC.

This DAO is uniquely positioned to fill that gap by supporting established builders integrating core advancements like Leios. My confidence in many of the reputable builders involved and ones I had spoken with regarding this, ultimately sways my vote especially when factoring in historical behaviour, I had concerns of some members especially ones with close partnerships, although this was promptly responded to by the DAO. I feel the response does drive a fair chance. I expect professionalism from this DAO, and I will be monitoring its conduct closely, as it will be a driving factor in my decisions on any future funding. I would love to see regular updates and transparency. I like the idea overall.

This is a strong YES. Having seen its value first-hand, I am a firm supporter of Catalyst. It is our primary engine for grassroots innovation, empowering builders across the globe. This funding ensures that continues, while also crucially upgrading its infrastructure for greater decentralization.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This is an enthusiastic YES. I have seen first-hand the value of Catalyst and am a strong supporter of the opportunities it brings to our ecosystem. It is the primary engine for grassroots growth, empowering builders around the world.

This funding not only continues this vital work but also invests in key upgrades, like the Hermes infrastructure, to further the decentralization and sustainability of the platform itself. Supporting Catalyst is a direct investment in the innovative heart of the Cardano community.

I am voting NO. While improving governance is vital, this initiative is led by IOG's Voltaire team. This is a significant conflict of interest. The architects of a system cannot be the impartial arbiters of its success. Governance evolution must be led by truly independent community bodies.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

While improving our governance framework is critical for sustainability and I do like the proposal in question, I must however vote NO due to a fundamental conflict of interest in this proposal's leadership.

It states that Input Output's Voltaire team will lead the work. For true decentralization to flourish, the architects of a system cannot be the primary arbiters of its success and future direction. This vital research must be led by neutral, independent community bodies to ensure legitimacy and prevent entrenching the incumbent's vision.

I am voting YES. Explorer diversity is critical for decentralization. AdaStat is a valuable, easy-to-use tool, and I value their recent move to open-source their frontend after community feedback. Supporting them ensures our blockchain remains transparent and accessible to all.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting FOR this proposal. AdaStat is an exceptionally valuable and easy-to-use platform, and my vote is guided by the principle of strengthening decentralization through tool diversity.

A healthy blockchain ecosystem cannot rely on a single source of on-chain truth. I especially want to commend the team for recently open-sourcing their frontend based on community feedback. This commitment to transparency makes them an ideal team to support for the long-term growth and health of Cardano.

I am voting NO. This architecture centralizes the critical /tx/submit endpoint, creating a "pre-mempool" controlled by a single entity. This introduces unacceptable risks of censorship, front-running, and MEV, undermining the permissionless and equitable nature of the Cardano blockchain. Concerning.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I am voting NO due to the severe centralization risks this architecture introduces at the transaction submission layer.

entralizing the /tx/submit endpoint through a single gateway creates a privileged "pre-mempool." This gives one entity the power to censor transactions, front-run users, and perform MEV attacks. This architecture fundamentally undermines Cardano's core promise of being a permissionless and censorship-resistant network. The risk to users and ecosystem integrity is simply too great.

Disappointing proposal.

I am voting NO. While the goal is valid, existing services like Blockfrost already handle the heavy lifting of querying the chain. I find the 9-month build estimate questionable, and a generic CDN like Cloudflare offers wider global distribution. The value presented does not justify this spend.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

While improving native asset delivery is a worthy goal for ecosystem growth, I am voting NO.

I believe the proposal overstates the problem, as services like Blockfrost already solve the core challenge of querying the chain. Consequently, the 9-month build estimate seems highly inflated. A top-tier CDN like Cloudflare also offers superior global reach than a bespoke service. Given that developers can already leverage these powerful tools, I cannot justify this level of treasury spend for the value offered.

This is an easy YES. As a daily user, I see the immense value Cexplorer provides to developers, SPOs, and the entire community. The team consistently delivers new features at a reasonable cost, making this a high-impact investment in critical infrastructure that directly fuels ecosystem growth.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This is an easy YES for me. I use Cexplorer daily, and its value as a critical tool for developers and the community is immense, directly fueling ecosystem growth and sustainability.

The team has a proven track record of actively pushing new features, and the requested funding is a reasonable cost for the significant value delivered. Supporting multiple, high-quality explorers is also a clear win for decentralization. This is a straightforward and high-impact investment.

I am voting Yes.

Scalus drastically lowers the barrier for Scala/Java developers to build on Cardano, boosting our ecosystem's growth. Diversifying our developer tools is crucial for decentralization.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Onboarding developers is critical, and Scalus provides a vital bridge to the massive pool of Scala/Java talent, directly supporting ecosystem growth and sustainability.

Creating a diverse set of high-quality development tools is also a direct win for decentralization, preventing over-reliance on a single framework.

I am voting Yes.

I am voting YES to support this widely-used and reliable community wallet. However, for a critical piece of infrastructure like a wallet, transparency is paramount. I strongly urge the Eternl team to transition to an open-source model, which I would see as a key factor for future funding.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Eternl is a widely used and reliable wallet, and its continued maintenance is essential for the ecosystem's growth and sustainability.

My support comes with a strong expectation. For a wallet, transparency is paramount. Therefore, I strongly urge the Eternl team to pivot to an open-source model. This would increase security and align with our community's decentralization ethos. While I support this funding to ensure stability now, my vote for future funding will be contingent on this transition.

I am voting YES.

This ZK bridge is vital for Cardano's interoperability and growth. Using ZK proofs is a significant step towards more secure and decentralized cross-chain solutions, moving away from risky centralized bridges

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Secure, trustless interoperability is critical for Cardano's future, and this ZK bridge directly tackles that need.

Using ZK proofs is a major advancement for on-chain decentralization, moving us away from insecure, centralized bridges. This is a focused, unbundled, and highly valuable project from a strong team that I believe merits support.

Side note, as an output, I would love to see them show examples of this in action on Cardano mainnet and with another blockchain.

here is significant value in many of these infrastructure projects, but I would not vote to approve all of them. Bundling them into a single, high-cost proposal removes the essential right to granular consent. A more democratic and granular approach is preferred.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I acknowledge TWEAG's immense talent, and this proposal contains valuable projects for Cardano's growth and sustainability. However, I would not vote to approve all of them.

Because they are bundled into one high-cost package, I am voting NO. This all-or-nothing structure removes our right to granularly assess each item in terms of value against cost. I would gladly re-evaluate these projects if submitted individually.

Maintaining Plutarch is vital for developer tooling, supporting ecosystem growth and sustainability. While the budgets are still unknown, I'm making an exception for this core tool. In the future, I believe this is better directed via the Open Source Committee or Catalyst.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Maintaining core infrastructure like Plutarch is vital for Cardano's growth and sustainability, directly empowering our developer community.

In the future, I believe this is better directed via the Open Source Committee (OSC) or Catalyst.

Midgard is a critical investment for Cardano's scalability & growth. Though significant, it offers vital L2 throughput via a unique, decentralized, permissionless optimistic rollup. Inheriting L1 security, it empowers dApps and expands capabilities, ensuring sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

** This is a critical investment for Cardano's scalability and growth. While the amount is significant, it brings substantial value in an area we urgently need to improve: Layer 2 throughput. Midgard's uniquely decentralized, permissionless optimistic rollup design, inheriting L1 security, empowers advanced dApps and is essential for expanding Cardano's capabilities and long-term sustainability.

Gerolamo's browser-based TypeScript node offers a transformative opportunity for node diversity, enhancing decentralization by empowering trustless access. It significantly boosts user & developer experience, lowering barriers crucial for growth and long-term sustainability on Cardano.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This proposal for Gerolamo represents a transformative opportunity for Cardano. By delivering a browser-based Typescript node, it significantly enhances node diversity, a vital aspect for network resilience and long-term health. This tool empowers decentralization by offering truly trustless access directly to users. It also dramatically improves the developer experience through language familiarity, lowering the barrier to entry for a wider range of talent. This initiative is crucial for accelerating overall ecosystem growth and ensuring Cardano's continued sustainability.

This critical investment in a Paid Open Source Model improves Cardano's open-source ecosystem by filling gaps and ensuring long-term sustainability for building. It drives growth through diverse contributors

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This proposal for a Paid Open Source Model is a critical, foundational investment for Cardano's future. It directly improves our open-source ecosystem by providing essential, structured funding that fills existing gaps in maintenance, security, and contributor incentives. This ensures long-term sustainability for building on Cardano, moving beyond reliance on ad-hoc efforts. By fostering a more robust and engaged community of developers and contributors, this model is crucial for accelerating overall ecosystem growth and resilience. The transparent management and oversight mechanisms further bolster this vital initiative's merit.

Maestro's proposal is a critical investment for Cardano's future. It directly enables interoperability with Bitcoin, unlocking huge liquidity and user base, driving growth (especially in DeFi). Maestro's proven track record reinforces this essential initiative for scalability & sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This proposal represents a critical investment for Cardano's strategic positioning and long-term future. Maestro aims to enable vital interoperability with Bitcoin, transforming Cardano into its primary smart contract layer and unlocking Bitcoin's immense liquidity and vast user base. This initiative will drive significant growth across the ecosystem, particularly in DeFi, and strongly enhance Cardano's competitive edge. Maestro's proven track record of delivering robust infrastructure for UTxO chains reinforces the merit of this essential project for Cardano's scalability and sustainability.

Essential for Cardano's future. IOG's proposal directly boosts scalability, decentralization, and dev experience/security. This foundational R&D by reputable IOG, with nearly 8 years of uptime reflecting their proven delivery of quality, is critical for growth, sustainability, and competitive edge.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

This comprehensive proposal from IOG is essential for Cardano's long term success and continued evolution. It directly targets crucial areas like scalability and decentralization, while significantly enhancing developer experience and overall network security. This foundational research and development, led by reputable IOG—whose nearly 8 years of uptime and consistent quality delivery underpin Cardano's robust presence—is critical for enabling substantial growth, ensuring the platform's long term sustainability, and maintaining its competitive edge in the blockchain space.

I would also like to mention, to reduce potential future monopolization / reliance, I would like to see these funds further distributed in the next budget.

The ₳45,217 is a fair and essential investment for the maintenance and enhancement of Cardano.nix. This tool enables easy, reproducible, reliable infrastructure deployment, greatly enhancing decentralization by empowering diverse builders. This is crucial for Cardano's growth and sustainability.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

The ₳45,217 is a fair and essential investment for the maintenance and enhancement of Cardano.nix. This tool enables easy, reproducible, reliable infrastructure deployment, greatly enhancing decentralization and resilience by empowering diverse builders. This is crucial for Cardano's growth and sustainability.

I vote Yes. ₳99,600 for BloxBean's Java tools is fair for essential developer tooling. Consistent maintenance & frequent releases show high reliability, crucial for Cardano's growth, sustainability, and decentralization by empowering builders.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I vote Yes for this proposal. The requested ₳99,600 for BloxBean's Java tools is a fair amount for what is truly essential developer tooling for the Cardano ecosystem. Their team's consistent maintenance and frequent releases demonstrate a high level of reliability and commitment. This direct support for foundational development tools is crucial for fostering Cardano's continued growth, ensuring its long-term sustainability, and strengthening decentralization by empowering a wide array of builders.

Highly value Tempo.Vote's reliability, innovation, accessible governance for mobile, and independent data. Crucial for decentralization & growth. Will closely watch listed goals for future votes.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

I vote Yes. My positive experience using Tempo.Vote confirms its reliability and value. Their commitment to accessible governance for mobile users, coupled with independent infrastructure, is vital for decentralization and fostering broader participation. This directly supports Cardano's growth and sustainability through essential innovation. I will be closely watching the listed goals and will factor their achievement into future voting decisions.

Govtool's current unreliability impedes effective governance, undermining trust and hindering Cardano's growth and sustainability. Prioritizing stability before further funding is crucial.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Govtool Funding Proposal: Vote No

Govtool's current unreliability directly impedes effective governance participation, thereby undermining trust and hindering Cardano's overall growth and sustainability. Prioritizing stability and proven reliability before further funding is crucial for the long-term health of the ecosystem.

As per the budget I previously approved, Cardano needs node decentralization to ensure resilience and reduce reliance on a single implementation. The Amaru Node, built in Rust by a capable team, advances this goal with security and long-term sustainability in mind.

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

Rationale

As per the budget I previously approved, Cardano needs node decentralization to ensure resilience and reduce reliance on a single implementation.

The Amaru Node, built in Rust by a capable team, advances this goal with a focus on security and long-term sustainability.

With the treasury withdrawal now initiated, I remain supportive and will vote yes to continue backing this important effort.

I strongly support several key proposals in this Info Action, particularly Midgard, Starstream, Dolos, and certain others included. These initiatives reflect community priorities and the kind of innovation Cardano governance should fund.

However, I am voting NO against this bundled proposal. I believe each proposal should be voted on individually to allow for more precise and democratic decision-making. There was no clear consent from the named administrator, and at least one project, Starstream, publicly stated they did not currently agree to be included under Intersect’s administration.

I am voting NO on the proposed "Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by Intersect" because I believe the total amount requested is too high. More importantly, I believe this process has failed to meet the standards of decentralized governance.

I’m disappointed that the vote was not conducted fully on-chain. As a DRep, I cannot support off-chain processes that lack transparency, auditability, and decentralization.

Bundling 39 proposals into a single vote is misleading, non-transparent, and enables manipulation. It forces DReps into a binary, all-or-nothing choice despite significant differences among the proposals.

The proposal also relies on unverifiable off-chain metrics, such as the claim that "More than 3.8B ada in voting stake participated, representing over 70% of actively delegated stake (excluding pre-defined voting options)." Without on-chain data, such figures cannot be independently verified or trusted and as a result I believe does not support this proposals accuracy.

I previously voted Yes on an NCL proposal at 200 million ADA, and No on proposals targeting 300 million ADA or more. For this current 300 million ADA proposal, I’m voting No again, for the same reasons. I continue to believe these limits are too high for the current stage of Cardano governance.

I voted yes on the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget: Amaru Node Development 2025 proposal because one of my core objectives is decentralization. Amaru will enhance node diversity, resilience, and the long-term sustainability of the blockchain. The team is composed of reputable contributors to Cardano, and the choice of Rust brings strong security guarantees and a rich ecosystem of tools designed for building high-assurance systems. This not only strengthens code reliability but also invites new contributors. It’s a high-impact investment for the cost and an essential step toward a more decentralized and robust Cardano ecosystem.

I previously voted NO on NCL proposals targeting 300–350 million ADA, as I felt those limits were too high for where Cardano governance is today. Ideally, I'd prefer a lower NCL around 100–150 million, and I hope we can look at that properly for 2026.

This proposal sets the NCL at 200 million, which is more reasonable given the circumstances. With the time pressure and the need to have an NCL in place to allow Treasury spending, I am voting YES on this proposal. It's not perfect, but it's a sensible step for now to keep Cardano moving forwards.

I'd also like to thank the proposer(s) for bringing this together at short notice.

While I support the establishment of a Net Change Limit as an important mechanism for financial discipline and long-term sustainability, I believe the proposed limits are excessively high. Particularly for a governance system that is still in its early stages of maturity.

Introducing such large spending thresholds at this point could set a precedent that undermines fiscal responsibility.

I encourage the exploration of future proposals with reduced NCLs.

I am voting YES on the proposed 2025 Vision and Roadmap for Cardano due to its comprehensive and strategically robust approach toward enhancing scalability, security, and usability, which are crucial for Cardano's long-term success. The roadmap clearly addresses key community priorities, including Layer 1 performance optimization through Leios, expansion of Layer 2 solutions such as Hydra and Midgard, and enhancements in developer and user experience, which is essential to Cardano's adoption and, I personally believe, has been overlooked in the past.

Specifically, the introduction of Leios is particularly promising as it targets significant scalability improvements through parallel block creation, potentially positioning Cardano as a leading blockchain for high-throughput applications.

There are certain items within the roadmap that appear subjective, in my opinion, but I welcome further research, community feedback, and refinement on these topics as indicated by the iterative nature of the roadmap.