drep.collective

We vote YES on this proposal because real-world payments are an important missing piece in the Cardano ecosystem. Cardano already has strong foundations in DeFi, infrastructure and governance, but it still needs better rails for everyday spending, merchant acceptance, stablecoin payments and fiat-connected financial activity. A practical payment layer can help turn Cardano from a blockchain people hold and use on-chain into a network that can also support real-world economic activity.

Wirex brings relevant execution experience, an existing user base, card infrastructure and payment-industry access. This makes the proposal more credible than a purely theoretical payment initiative. We also see value in connecting Cardano to self-custody wallets, on-chain settlement and reusable payment infrastructure that other ecosystem participants can build on.

We recognize that there must be clear accountability to ensure the treasury is funding open Cardano infrastructure and not only subsidizing a private commercial product. However, given the strategic importance of real-world payments, the moderate size of the request, and Wirex’s ability to bring Cardano closer to everyday financial use cases, we support this proposal.

We vote YES on this proposal because Bifrost addresses one of the most important missing pieces in Cardano DeFi: a credible and secure path for Bitcoin liquidity to enter the Cardano ecosystem. Unlike more indirect BTCfi products, Bifrost is focused on building actual Bitcoin-to-Cardano infrastructure. If successful, fBTC can become a native Cardano asset that can be used across DEXs, lending markets, collateral systems, structured products and other DeFi applications. This would give Cardano direct access to the largest asset in crypto and could meaningfully improve TVL, liquidity, user acquisition and ecosystem relevance.

We also appreciate the phased approach. This proposal does not ask for a full public launch immediately, but focuses on hardening, audits, formal verification, SPO coordination, private mainnet deployment, SDKs, transparency tooling and long-term stewardship. Given the security risks of bridge infrastructure, this cautious path is appropriate. The project already has testnet traction, experienced teams, SPO participation and interest from relevant Cardano applications. While execution and security risks remain significant, we believe the strategic upside is important enough to support Phase 1. Cardano needs strong Bitcoin DeFi rails, and Bifrost is one of the most credible attempts to build them.

We vote NO on this proposal.

We recognize the historical importance of Daedalus as Cardano’s full-node desktop wallet and appreciate the role it has played in supporting self-custody, decentralization and direct interaction with the Cardano blockchain.

However, we are not convinced that additional treasury funding for Daedalus maintenance and improvements is justified at this stage. The wallet experience no longer feels competitive compared to modern alternatives in the Cardano ecosystem. Synchronization can take a very long time, the user interface feels outdated and overloaded, and the overall benefit for most users is not clear enough.

While a full-node wallet has value from a decentralization perspective, we believe the practical user demand and ecosystem impact are limited compared to other wallet infrastructure, light wallets, hardware wallet support, and tools that provide a better experience for everyday users.

Given limited treasury resources, we believe funding should prioritize infrastructure and products with clearer adoption impact, stronger usability, and broader relevance for current Cardano users. For these reasons, we do not support this proposal.

We vote YES on this proposal because Cardano DeFi needs better composability, shared liquidity infrastructure, and more advanced financial primitives. Today, many Cardano DeFi protocols operate as separate liquidity and integration silos. This creates friction for wallets, bots, indexers, builders and users, and makes it harder to build more advanced applications across the ecosystem. A common DeFi Kernel standard, public registry and reusable transaction builder SDK can help improve discoverability, integration quality and composability. We also support the practical focus of the proposal. It does not only describe an abstract standard, but combines registry work with concrete DeFi primitives such as a Spot Leverage Order Book and an American Options Market-Making protocol. These are useful building blocks for a more mature financial ecosystem on Cardano.

The requested amount is meaningful, but the scope is focused, milestone-based, and includes security reviews, public reporting, KPI targets and Minswap Labs as budget administrator. In our view, this makes the proposal more accountable than a broad or vague ecosystem funding request. For these reasons, we support this proposal as a reasonable investment into Cardano’s DeFi infrastructure, developer tooling and recurring on-chain activity.

We vote YES on this proposal because Blockfrost is critical developer infrastructure for the Cardano ecosystem. Many wallets, dApps, developers and infrastructure providers rely on Blockfrost to access Cardano data and submit transactions without having to operate their own full infrastructure. Keeping this access reliable, scalable and affordable is important for developer experience, application uptime and ecosystem growth.

We especially support the proposed transition of Blockfrost into a community-governed not-for-profit public good. This addresses a major concern around treasury funding for commercial infrastructure and creates a path toward broader community stewardship, public reporting, and long-term sustainability. While the requested amount is significant, Blockfrost is already widely used and operationally important. Losing or weakening the free public API layer would create friction for builders and could harm adoption. For that reason, we believe supporting this transition is a reasonable and strategic investment into Cardano’s developer infrastructure.

We vote YES on this proposal.

While we initially had concerns about adding another funding layer between the Cardano Treasury and individual projects, we believe the Cardano Builder DAO has a strong enough track record and ecosystem relevance to justify support.

A key reason for our support is that the DAO includes many well-known Cardano projects and builders with a long-standing history in the ecosystem. This reduces the risk of funding an unproven structure and increases our confidence that the funds can be allocated toward teams that already understand Cardano, have delivered before, and are capable of creating measurable ecosystem value.

We also believe that an additional coordination layer for builders and DAOs can be useful. Cardano’s ecosystem is becoming more complex, and not every funding decision can be handled efficiently through isolated treasury withdrawals. A well-structured Builder DAO can help coordinate funding, align projects around shared goals, and support initiatives that improve adoption, on-chain activity, TVL, and user growth.

We still believe that transparency, reporting, milestone tracking, and accountability are essential. However, given the track record of the participating projects, the previous work already completed by the Builder DAO, and the potential value of stronger builder coordination, we support this proposal.

We vote YES on this proposal because it represents a concrete real-world adoption opportunity for Cardano. Ticketing is a strong use case for blockchain technology: ownership, transfers, resale rules, royalties, anti-scalping mechanisms, check-ins and transparent lifecycle data can all benefit from on-chain infrastructure. This proposal is especially interesting because it is not starting from zero. Sellout already has an existing Web2 user base, event pipeline and ticketing business, while Anvil brings Cardano-native development experience.

We also appreciate that the proposal includes measurable adoption targets, milestone-gated delivery, an independent audit, public reporting and a revenue-share mechanism designed to repay the Cardano Treasury over time. This makes the proposal more accountable than a simple grant. While we recognize that this also supports a commercial product, we believe the broader ecosystem value is meaningful if the integration succeeds. Bringing real users, real events and real ticketing activity on-chain could become an important enterprise adoption case study for Cardano. For these reasons, we support this proposal.

We vote NO on this proposal.

We acknowledge that the revised Scalus proposal is more focused and significantly smaller than the previous version. We also recognize the technical quality of the team and the potential value of better interoperability, Dijkstra readiness and developer tooling.

However, we are not convinced that funding another open-source development platform is the right priority for the Cardano Treasury at this stage. The ecosystem already has several developer stacks, libraries, SDKs and tooling initiatives, and we believe the focus should be on stabilizing and maintaining the tooling that is already broadly used by builders.

In particular, we would prefer to see treasury funding directed toward keeping existing TypeScript infrastructure, wallet integrations, SDKs and core developer tools reliable, compatible and easy to use. Adding or expanding another platform risks further fragmenting the developer experience instead of improving it.

Cardano needs better developer experience, but that does not necessarily mean funding more platforms. Given limited treasury resources, we believe the priority should be consolidation, maintenance and adoption of existing tooling rather than expanding the tooling landscape further.

For these reasons, we vote no.

We vote NO on this proposal. We recognize that open-source maintenance is important for Cardano. Critical libraries, tooling, developer infrastructure, wallets, indexers and governance tools need sustainable support, and we appreciate that this revised proposal is smaller, shorter and more focused than the previous version. However, we are still not convinced that creating another dedicated funding and coordination structure is the right approach at this stage. The proposal asks the treasury to fund a new operational layer that would then decide which projects and maintainers receive support. In our view, this delegates too much allocation authority away from direct DRep evaluation and into a secondary structure.

We are also concerned that the advisory councils and legal entity are program deliverables rather than fully established preconditions. At the moment of withdrawal, final allocation authority remains concentrated with the designated administrator, even if reporting and advisory feedback mechanisms are planned. Cardano should support critical open-source infrastructure, but we prefer focused proposals tied to specific repositories, tools, maintainers, deliverables and measurable outcomes. Treasury funding should be as direct, transparent and accountable as possible. For these reasons, we do not believe this proposal is the right use of treasury funds at this stage and vote no.

We vote NO on this proposal as the team has publicy announced that they are withdrawing their proposal.

We vote YES on this information action. In general, we support a disciplined and conservative approach to treasury spending. Fiscal responsibility is important, and increasing the Net Change Limit should never be interpreted as a mandate to spend the full amount.

However, the current market environment has changed the practical reality for treasury budgeting. The prolonged bear market and the resulting weaker ADA price mean that many necessary ecosystem investments require more ADA than originally expected. If Cardano wants to remain competitive, we must continue investing in critical infrastructure, developer tooling, adoption, DeFi liquidity, governance, and ecosystem growth.

A higher Net Change Limit gives DReps the flexibility to evaluate serious treasury withdrawals on their individual merits. It does not automatically approve any spending, and it does not remove the responsibility to reject weak or oversized proposals.

In our view, the ecosystem should not stop investing during difficult market conditions. If we believe in Cardano’s long-term potential, this is exactly the time to fund the right initiatives carefully and responsibly. For these reasons, we support increasing the Net Change Limit.

We vote YES on this proposal because Cardano urgently needs a stronger DeFi ecosystem. Over the past years, Cardano has made important progress on infrastructure, integrations, tooling and governance, but this has not yet translated into enough DeFi liquidity, stablecoin usage, institutional attention, or durable on-chain economic activity.

If Cardano wants to compete as a serious financial ecosystem, we need to support initiatives that can activate liquidity, improve protocol readiness, attract LPs, and turn existing infrastructure into real usage. DeFi is not a side topic; it is one of the most important drivers of transactions, TVL, fee generation, and long-term treasury sustainability.

We recognize that the requested amount is very large and that strong oversight, transparent reporting, clear release gates, and return-to-treasury mechanisms are essential. However, the proposal includes a structured operating model with phased execution, Operating Group oversight, Intersect administration, audit allocation, and return triggers for unused, unreleased, unearned, or excess funds.

In our view, the strategic need is clear: Cardano cannot afford to underinvest in DeFi while competing ecosystems continue to attract liquidity and builders. For that reason, we support this proposal as a bold but necessary step toward building a more competitive and liquid Cardano DeFi ecosystem.

We vote YES on this proposal because Eternl is one of the most important wallets in the Cardano ecosystem and a critical access point for users, developers, DApps, staking and governance.

A strong wallet experience is essential for adoption. Eternl has proven over many years that it can provide reliable infrastructure, broad feature coverage and practical tools for power users, newcomers and governance participants alike. We especially value Eternl’s role in Cardano governance, where it offers one of the most complete in-wallet governance interfaces available.

We also appreciate that this revised proposal adds more clarity around audits, oversight metrics and treasury repayment mechanics. The requested amount is comparatively modest, especially given Eternl’s user base, operational importance and relatively low FTE cost structure.

In our view, keeping Eternl secure, stable and actively maintained is a valuable investment for the Cardano ecosystem. A strong wallet layer is fundamental if Cardano wants to grow real usage.

We vote YES on this proposal because the van Rossem hard fork is a sensible and important protocol upgrade for Cardano.

The upgrade improves Plutus performance and capabilities, makes built-in functions more consistent across Plutus versions, adds useful new primitives, and strengthens ledger-level validation and node diagnostics. These are practical improvements that can help developers build more efficient and capable applications on Cardano while keeping the upgrade scope focused and manageable.

We also appreciate that this is an intra-era hard fork, meaning it does not introduce a full era transition and minimizes disruption for the ecosystem. The proposal has gone through technical review, includes clear readiness requirements, and aligns with Cardano’s long-term need for better performance, stronger tooling, and more reliable infrastructure.

For these reasons, we support the upgrade to Protocol Version 11.

We vote YES on this proposal because Strike Finance is one of the few lighthouse projects currently live on Cardano and one of the strongest examples of real product-market fit in the ecosystem.

Strike is already one of the most used Cardano-native DeFi products, has meaningful trading volume, and also attracts cross-chain users from outside the Cardano ecosystem. In our view, this is exactly the type of application Cardano should support: a working product with real users, real volume, and a clear path to increasing on-chain activity.

We also support the structure of this proposal because it is not a grant, but a productive treasury deployment. The treasury-owned liquidity is intended to deepen Strike’s markets, improve execution, increase trading activity, and generate yield that flows back to the Cardano Treasury. If successful, this can become an important blueprint for how treasury capital can be deployed productively rather than simply spent.

For these reasons, we support this proposal as a strategic investment into one of Cardano’s most important DeFi applications.

We vote YES on this proposal because early participants in Cardano governance should not be punished for bugs in the system.

The original Ikigai governance action was submitted very early after on-chain governance became available, and the deposit loss was caused by a technical issue rather than malicious behavior or misuse of the governance process. In our view, reimbursing the affected submitter is fair and sends the right signal to early contributors who helped test and use Cardano governance in practice.

We also do not see a meaningful risk of this creating a problematic precedent, because the issue can be verified on-chain and is tied to a specific historical bug. This makes the case clearly distinguishable from ordinary failed or expired governance actions.

For these reasons, we support reimbursing the lost deposit.

We vote YES on this proposal because reducing the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5 is a sensible adjustment to improve the operational resilience of Cardano governance.

The current setup creates unnecessary fragility: if the Constitutional Committee has 7 members and the minimum is also set to 7, a single resignation, expiration, or temporary issue could prevent important governance actions from progressing. That is not a healthy failure mode for an on-chain governance system.

This proposal does not reduce the current size of the Constitutional Committee and does not prevent Cardano from maintaining a 7-member committee. It simply creates a buffer so governance can continue to function if one or two seats become temporarily vacant. In our view, this is a pragmatic and reasonable safeguard that improves continuity while keeping the constitutional checks in place.

We vote NO on this information action. While we agree that treasury governance needs improvement and that a more strategic budgeting process is an important topic for the Cardano ecosystem, we do not believe this proposal is suitable in its current form.

The proposal raises relevant concerns, but it remains too vague and informal for a governance action that discusses such a fundamental restructuring of treasury governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clear author information and the presence of formal issues in the proposal metadata. For a topic this important, we expect a higher standard of transparency, structure, accountability, and implementation clarity.

Treasury governance reform should be discussed seriously, but it should be introduced through a more complete, better specified, and properly attributable proposal. For these reasons, we vote no.

We vote YES on this proposal because Hydra is the most important Layer 2 technology currently available in the Cardano ecosystem and a critical building block for real-world adoption.

Cardano needs a scalable execution layer that can support fast, low-cost and high-throughput applications while still settling back to Cardano L1. Hydra can provide sub-second finality, near-zero fees and strong settlement guarantees, which are essential for use cases such as DeFi, micropayments, AI agent commerce, gaming, point-of-sale systems and other applications that need to interact with the real world.

We also see strong value in the projects already mentioned in the proposal. Delta DeFi, Masumi, Blockfrost, Intersect voting infrastructure and other Hydra-based initiatives show that this is not only theoretical research, but infrastructure with real users, real experimentation and meaningful application potential.

In our view, supporting Hydra is a strategic investment into Cardano’s ability to compete as a high-performance blockchain ecosystem. We need this technology as a practical bridge between Cardano’s secure base layer and real-world applications.

We vote YES on this proposal because fast finality is a critical infrastructure upgrade that Cardano needs in order to remain competitive and usable at scale.

Reducing finality from roughly 12 minutes to around 2 minutes would materially improve the user experience for payments, DeFi, bridges, exchanges, and other applications that depend on faster settlement guarantees. In our view, this is not a nice-to-have feature, but an important foundation for broader ecosystem adoption.

We also support the fact that this proposal focuses on core infrastructure rather than speculative application-layer work. Peras, History Expiry, and conformance testing all contribute to making Cardano faster, more resilient, and more scalable. While the requested amount is substantial, we believe that getting fast finality mainnet-ready is a strategic priority for the ecosystem.

We vote NO on this proposal. We want to clearly acknowledge that Rare Evo has been an important event for the Cardano ecosystem over the past years and has created value through community building, visibility, networking, and governance participation.

However, given the current market environment and the limited resources available in the Cardano Treasury, we do not believe that funding a large event sponsorship should be a priority at this time. The requested amount may be reasonable from an event sponsorship perspective, but treasury funds should currently be focused on critical infrastructure, security, scalability, developer tooling, and initiatives with a more direct and measurable impact on adoption.

We appreciate the work Rare Evo has done for Cardano, but in the current phase we do not think the ecosystem has enough available funding to support this type of proposal. For that reason, we vote no.

5am.earth Trust Layer Targeting Vision 2030 KPIs

We support this proposal because it represents a real-world use case with the potential to demonstrate how Cardano can solve practical problems beyond the crypto ecosystem. Agriculture, supply-chain transparency, identity, payments, and access to finance are all areas where blockchain technology can create meaningful value if implemented successfully. The project already has an operational foundation and focuses on measurable adoption rather than purely theoretical development. While the execution risks are significant, we believe this initiative could serve as an important blueprint for how Cardano can be used in real-world environments and help showcase the network’s utility to governments, institutions, and enterprises.

Cardano Critical Integrations V2

We support this proposal because critical infrastructure integrations such as Circle (USDC), LayerZero, Pyth, Dune, and Fireblocks are important building blocks for Cardano’s long-term competitiveness and adoption. These services improve liquidity, interoperability, institutional accessibility, analytics, and developer experience, making the ecosystem more attractive for users, builders, and enterprises.

While the funding request is substantial, maintaining and expanding already-established integrations is often more valuable than continuously funding new experimental initiatives. We believe that ensuring these integrations remain operational, supported, and compatible with future Cardano upgrades is a worthwhile investment. Strong infrastructure and institutional-grade integrations are necessary foundations for sustainable ecosystem growth.

Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)

We support this proposal because Eternl is one of the most important pieces of user-facing infrastructure in the Cardano ecosystem. For many users, developers, DReps, and DeFi participants, Eternl is the primary gateway to staking, governance, payments, and decentralized applications. A secure, reliable, and actively maintained wallet is essential for adoption and day-to-day network usage.

We also appreciate that Eternl is pursuing a path toward long-term sustainability through paid Pro plans and has included a mechanism to repay treasury funds if the business becomes self-sustaining. While treasury funding should not become permanent, supporting critical ecosystem infrastructure during challenging market conditions is justified. Given Eternl’s track record, feature set, governance tooling, and broad adoption across the ecosystem, we believe this funding represents a reasonable investment in maintaining one of Cardano’s most important wallets.

Scalus: Cardano’s Application Platform for Building, Launching, and Scaling

Rationale

We are voting against this proposal because, while we recognize the quality of the team and the work already delivered, we are not convinced that Cardano currently needs another large-scale application platform. The ecosystem already offers a wide range of developer tools, SDKs, frameworks, and infrastructure solutions, and we believe the priority should be driving adoption and usage of existing solutions rather than funding yet another platform.

With a treasury request of over 8.5 million ADA, we do not see a sufficiently clear path to ecosystem-wide impact that justifies the cost. Given limited treasury resources, we would prefer funding initiatives that directly drive users, transactions, liquidity, and adoption rather than expanding an already crowded tooling landscape.

Cardano dOSPO and OMF Program

Rationale

We are voting against this proposal because we do not believe Cardano currently needs another large, multi-year governance and administration structure for open-source funding. While we agree that maintaining critical open-source infrastructure is important, the proposal requests a significant amount of treasury funding over a 36-month period and introduces multiple new programs, councils, committees, reporting structures, and operational layers.

We are not convinced that the additional complexity and overhead are justified relative to the expected ecosystem impact. Cardano already has multiple funding mechanisms and organizations supporting open-source development, and we would prefer to see more focused, targeted funding requests for specific infrastructure needs rather than creating another long-term institution. Given the size of the treasury ask, the long duration, and the uncertain return on investment, we do not believe this proposal represents an efficient use of treasury funds at this time.

We support this proposal because research and academic rigor are a core part of Cardano’s identity and one of its strongest long-term differentiators. Cardano’s value proposition is not only innovation, but building secure, stable and resilient infrastructure through formal research, peer review and evidence-based engineering. As blockchain systems become more complex, continuous investment into research and development remains essential.

We believe continued work around scalability, post-quantum security, formal verification, decentralized identity, interoperability, zero-knowledge systems and governance design is strategically important for Cardano’s long-term security, usability and competitiveness. Maintaining strong academic partnerships and a research-driven culture is, in our view, one of the ecosystem’s biggest strengths.

At the same time, we acknowledge community concerns regarding overlap with previously funded initiatives and the need for clearer implementation pathways and transparency. Nevertheless, we believe sustained investment into high-quality research is essential for Cardano’s future and long-term resilience.

We vote YES on this treasury withdrawal.

The Cardano Summit is one of the most important ecosystem events for bringing together builders, developers, enterprises, institutions, policymakers, and community members around Cardano’s long-term direction. A dedicated Summit creates a focused environment to showcase Cardano’s governance, technical roadmap, ecosystem innovation, and real-world adoption.

We especially support this revised proposal because it strengthens Cardano’s ability to communicate its value beyond isolated community discussions. By creating a professional, globally visible event in Singapore, the Summit can help attract new stakeholders, support ecosystem projects, and provide a platform for meaningful conversations around adoption, enterprise use cases, governance, and future development.

Singapore is also a strategically strong location, given its relevance for finance, regulation, blockchain adoption, and institutional engagement in Asia. The planned focus on governance, builders, enterprise adoption, networking, and ecosystem showcases can help Cardano increase visibility in an important global market.

We also appreciate that this revised proposal reflects community feedback through a reduced budget and stronger accountability measures. Clear fund management, milestone-based disbursements, oversight, public tracking, and the return of unused funds are important elements for responsible treasury usage.

For these reasons, we support this proposal.

🟢 Rationale – YES on Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore

We vote YES on this treasury withdrawal.

TOKEN2049 is one of the largest and most relevant crypto events in the world. If Cardano wants to attract serious attention from builders, investors, institutions, and industry partners, it is essential that the ecosystem is present at this level.

We especially support the proposal because it combines the Cardano Summit with TOKEN2049 into a more holistic strategy. Instead of only speaking to the existing Cardano community, this approach creates a broader funnel to reach new users, developers, enterprises, and interested stakeholders from across the global Web3 industry.

A strong presence in Singapore also makes strategic sense, given the region’s importance for crypto, finance, and institutional adoption. The planned booth, builder showcases, mainstage visibility, networking opportunities, and follow-up structure can help Cardano projects move beyond the ecosystem echo chamber and gain meaningful external exposure.

For these reasons, we support this proposal.

🟢 Rationale – YES on Pebble + Gerolamo (HLabs 2026 Budget)

We vote YES on this proposal.

Harmonic Laboratories (HLabs) has established itself as a trusted and highly relevant contributor within the Cardano ecosystem, particularly through its ongoing work on TypeScript tooling that already underpins a large part of current development activity.

A key strength of this proposal is its contribution to node diversity. Multiple independent node implementations are critical for the long-term resilience of the network. Beyond pure redundancy, different implementations bring different perspectives and architectural approaches, which improves overall system robustness. Additionally, more diverse, open-source implementations expand the available dataset for emerging tooling (including AI-driven development workflows), enabling better understanding of the protocol and ultimately making it easier for developers to build on Cardano.

We also see strong value in the TypeScript-first approach. TypeScript is one of the most widely used programming languages globally, and lowering the barrier to entry for this developer base is a major lever for ecosystem growth. By enabling developers to interact with Cardano using familiar tools and paradigms, this proposal significantly improves onboarding and reduces friction.

In particular, Pebble creates a bridge for Web2 and EVM developers, while Gerolamo expands infrastructure accessibility through lightweight node implementations, including browser-based use cases. Together, these components make it easier to build, test, and deploy real-world applications on Cardano.

Overall, this proposal strengthens infrastructure, developer experience, and ecosystem accessibility in a coherent and well-aligned way.

We vote YES on this treasury withdrawal.

If we as a community are not willing to invest in our own DeFi ecosystem, it is difficult to expect external capital and builders to do so. Strengthening on-chain liquidity is a critical step toward making Cardano more competitive, functional, and attractive for real-world usage.

We also recognize that this proposal is led by experienced and competent individuals who are familiar with both Cardano’s ecosystem and the operational requirements of deploying capital responsibly. This significantly increases our confidence in the execution of the proposed plan.

In addition, the proposal provides a high level of transparency and structure, with a detailed breakdown of how the requested funds will be used, clear deliverables, defined timelines, and explicit refund conditions. This level of specificity is essential, as it allows the community to hold the responsible parties accountable against clearly defined expectations.

From our perspective, this is a well-structured initial step to establish the necessary legal and technical foundation for a broader DeFi liquidity strategy.

For these reasons, we support this proposal.

We vote YES on approving the Cardano Foundation as the new managing entity of Project Catalyst.

Project Catalyst has been a key pillar of innovation within the Cardano ecosystem, enabling early-stage ideas, developer experimentation, and community-driven growth. Ensuring its operational continuity is therefore of high importance.

We support the transition of management responsibilities to the Cardano Foundation and trust the Cardano Foundation to take on this role responsibly. As one of the core institutions within the ecosystem, the Foundation has demonstrated its ability to operate with a long-term perspective and in alignment with Cardano’s broader interests.

From our perspective, this transition represents a pragmatic and necessary step to avoid disruption of ongoing projects and funding processes. We currently do not see any substantial reason that would argue against this change, especially given the urgency of maintaining continuity for existing grantees.

For these reasons, we support this proposal.

We vote YES on this protocol parameter update.

Increasing the Plutus memory unit limits per transaction and per block is a measured and technically justified step to improve Cardano’s smart contract capacity. The proposed adjustments remain within all constitutional guardrails, have undergone benchmarking and testnet validation, and preserve Praos timing and propagation guarantees.

From a governance perspective, this change addresses a well-documented developer pain point. By modestly increasing execution memory limits, DApp builders gain greater flexibility without requiring structural protocol changes or introducing new systemic risk. This supports sustainable ecosystem growth while maintaining decentralization and network stability.

We also acknowledge that this is the first part of a controlled, two-step adjustment, respecting guardrail limits on parameter increases per epoch. The phased approach reflects responsible parameter governance rather than aggressive scaling.

Given the available performance headroom and the demonstrated technical review by the Parameter Committee and Technical Steering Committee, we consider this a low-risk, high-impact improvement that strengthens Cardano’s application layer and long-term competitiveness.

For these reasons, we support this proposal.

We vote YES on naming Protocol Version 11 the “van Rossem Hard Fork.”

We had the opportunity to meet Max van Rossem during the Constitutional Convention and experienced him as a sincere, thoughtful, and highly competent contributor to the Cardano ecosystem. His dedication to governance, community building, and constitutional development reflected the very values that Cardano strives to embody: responsibility, collaboration, and principled decentralization.

Max’s contributions to the Constitutional process, his work within the Constitutional Committee Election Working Group, and his active role as a DRep demonstrate meaningful and lasting impact on the network’s governance foundations. Honoring contributors who have helped shape Cardano’s institutional framework strengthens the cultural continuity of our ecosystem.

Naming this hard fork after Max is not merely symbolic — it acknowledges the human layer behind decentralized systems. It reinforces that Cardano is built not only through code, but through community, service, and commitment.

We therefore support this proposal as a respectful and appropriate continuation of Cardano’s naming tradition.

We support the establishment of a Net Change Limit for Epochs 613–713 and vote YES on the proposal setting the limit at 300 million ADA.

This level reflects a prudent and sustainable approach to treasury management by aligning the spending ceiling with the ecosystem’s realized treasury inflows from the previous year. In our view, matching outflows to historical inflows reinforces fiscal discipline, protects long-term sustainability, and reduces the risk of structural overspending.

At current market conditions, 300 million ADA already represents a very substantial budget in USD terms, providing more than sufficient capacity to fund high-impact development, infrastructure, and community initiatives during the proposed period.

We believe that, at this stage of Cardano’s governance evolution, it is important for the community to consciously adopt a more conservative financial posture. Establishing clear and firm limits strengthens confidence in the treasury system and sets a healthy precedent for responsible, long-term-oriented decision-making.

We vote NO on the proposal setting the Net Change Limit at 350 million ADA for Epochs 613–713.

While we recognize the intention to account for previously approved initiatives, we do not support increasing the Net Change Limit beyond the ecosystem’s realized treasury inflows. In our view, exceeding historical net income introduces an unnecessary step toward deficit-style treasury management and weakens the principle of fiscal discipline.

The proposed 300 million ADA limit already represents a very large spending capacity and is sufficient to support innovation and ecosystem growth within this period. Establishing a higher limit at this stage risks normalizing incremental expansions of the treasury ceiling and sets a precedent that may be difficult to reverse.

We believe that 2026 should be a year in which the Cardano community consciously learns to operate with stronger budgetary restraint, prioritizing efficiency, impact, and accountability over expanding spending envelopes.

We support this Budget Info Action.

The DeltaDeFi team has a strong and proven track record within the Cardano ecosystem, including long-standing contributions to developer tooling and infrastructure. Their work has been closely aligned with advancing Hydra as a practical Layer-2 scaling solution, helping move it from theory toward real-world adoption.

If successful, this initiative does not only benefit a single application. A production-grade Hydra trading venue lowers the barrier for other dApps and projects to adopt Hydra, accelerating ecosystem-wide scaling, performance, and user experience improvements.

Importantly, the proposal defines clear, measurable KPIs and deliverables. This provides transparency and allows the team to be held accountable for outcomes.

For these reasons, we believe this proposal represents a constructive and ecosystem-positive direction, and we vote Yes.

We do not support this constitutional update at this time.

The proposal does not clearly identify an author or accountable steward, which is a concern given the foundational role of the Constitution. Changes to such a core document should have explicit ownership and responsibility.

Furthermore, the Cardano Constitution is still relatively new. In our view, it is premature to amend it so soon, before there has been sufficient time to observe how the existing version performs in practice under full on-chain governance.

While some of the proposed adjustments may be reasonable in isolation, we believe that changes to the Constitution should follow a broader and more deliberate process. A more inclusive approach—such as structured community deliberation and in-person workshops—would provide stronger legitimacy for a new constitutional version.

For these reasons, we vote No.

We support this Info Action.

The proposal provides a clearly articulated Vision, Strategy Framework, and concrete KPIs toward 2030. These give the entire Cardano ecosystem a shared roadmap and a common set of measurable reference points that DReps, builders, and treasury proposals can align with over time.

The work originates from Intersect’s Product Committee, following a broad, community-led process and drawing on the expertise of many experienced contributors across the ecosystem. This lends both legitimacy and practical relevance to the outcome.

Our main concern is that Cardano currently lacks a clear executive function. If ecosystem-wide KPIs are not met, accountability is inherently diffuse. However, this is a structural challenge of decentralized governance rather than a flaw of this proposal itself.

Despite this limitation, we believe adopting a shared vision and KPI framework is an important step toward more disciplined, coherent, and outcome-driven governance. For these reasons, we vote Yes.

We acknowledge the intent of this proposal to strengthen governance resilience by adding an additional Constitutional Committee member and increasing redundancy above the minimum committee size.

However, we believe that how redundancy is achieved is just as important as achieving it. We strongly prefer consortium- or council-style Constitutional Committee seats over additional single-person seats. Consortium-based representation allows for a broader range of expertise, internal deliberation, and more robust collective decision-making before votes reach the chain.

In our assessment, the current Constitutional Committee already includes several individual members with predominantly technical backgrounds. Adding another single-person member with a similar profile does not materially improve diversity of perspective or the overall balance of competencies within the committee.

For these reasons, while we remain supportive of improving redundancy and continuity in the Constitutional Committee, we do not believe this proposal is the most effective way to achieve that goal. We therefore vote No.

We are happy to see the founding entities united in the effort to bring the next round of integrations to the ecosystem.

We see the extension of the Net Change Limit as sensible proposal.

As we have already voted for Cardano Curia during the snap election we are happy to congratulate them with this vote.