drep1yfd635ljn7qc0...

Pentad V1 is 3/5 completed.
Complete V1 first, then we talk. Thank you.

More infrastructure. I don’t see a clear way to measure the return on the work. It’s like: ‘I’m going to build the platform and see if someone shows up and builds on it.’ It’s the same as throwing darts at the wall to see what sticks. This project sounds very Marlowe to me. I can’t support it.

Proposal PDF not attached. Proposals must be submitted as an easy-to-read PDF file.

Please, I need you to include in future proposals the same in PDF format. With so many proposals being uploaded per week, it is almost impossible for one person to read all of this. We need PDFs to use them in AI tools and analyze the information faster regarding what I look for in a proposal. For that reason, I vote No.

Please, I need you to include in future proposals the same in PDF format. With so many proposals being uploaded per week, it is almost impossible for one person to read all of this. We need PDFs to use them in AI tools and analyze the information faster regarding what I look for in a proposal. For that reason, I vote No.

Solid proposal with good governance infrastructure and a well articulated problem. I think the biggest weakness is that Pebble's adoption KPIs are too conservative, I mean KPI are a little bit weak and the risk of low adoption is not formally mitigated. The stack maintenance component is the easiest to justify due to its direct and verifiable impact.

But overall, you have my vote. One thing I like to see is other team (in addition to IOG). building on Cardano, im not a fan of IOG having all the development on Cardano.

I do not support funding for Cardano Summit or Token2049 under the current market conditions. At this stage, marketing is not going to lift Cardano or any other cryptocurrency. If anything, we can look at Polkadot as a clear example. They reportedly spent around $37 million on marketing and sponsorships — equivalent to roughly 148 million ADA — and still dropped about seven positions on CoinMarketCap.I do not support this type of spending. This is not a marketing problem, it is a utility problem. I only support proposals that include measurable KPIs and a clear, concrete return to the blockchain. How many times have we attended these kinds of events, and what has been the result? Moving from #8 to #15? Even with significant investment, Polkadot still lost ground. That should tell us something. We should learn from these kinds of mistakes and avoid repeating them.

I do not support funding for Cardano Summit or Token2049 under the current market conditions. At this stage, marketing is not going to lift Cardano or any other cryptocurrency. If anything, we can look at Polkadot as a clear example. They reportedly spent around $37 million on marketing and sponsorships — equivalent to roughly 148 million ADA — and still dropped about seven positions on CoinMarketCap.I do not support this type of spending. This is not a marketing problem, it is a utility problem. I only support proposals that include measurable KPIs and a clear, concrete return to the blockchain. How many times have we attended these kinds of events, and what has been the result? Moving from #8 to #15? Even with significant investment, Polkadot still lost ground. That should tell us something. We should learn from these kinds of mistakes and avoid repeating them.

I’m a big fan of IO and everything they’ve accomplished over these nearly 10 years regarding Cardano. I believe it’s a top-tier company in terms of research, implementation, and blockchain, and I don’t question their capabilities at all.
However, as an observer—since I’m not deeply involved, but would still like to share my perspective. I feel that IO owes the community a clear, solid, and concise explanation of what has been achieved in previous governance actions. From my point of view, it’s very confusing; it feels like there are overlaps between this year’s proposals and last year’s, and it’s not clear at all.
It creates a lot of confusion, raising questions like: “Didn’t we already pay for this last year?” or “Why are we paying again if this was supposed to have been implemented already?” This starts to generate distrust across the community.

I would like to see clear, measurable frameworks and informative checkpoints for all these governance actions something like a “Messari-style” State of Cardano report. I understand that a report like that isn’t cheap, but considering that we are about to spend nearly $40 million, the minimum expectation would be a clear report outlining what is intended to be achieved and what was accomplished last year.

This is a humongous amount of money, and it’s unreasonable for there to be so much confusion especially knowing that IO does very good work, yet their efforts start to be questioned. I wouldn’t like to see that happen. If producing such a report costs $50,000 or $100,000, then include it in the budget it doesn’t matter. There needs to be clarity and a formal way to track the return on what is being done. It’s simply too much money for this to remain so informal.

This time, I will support the proposal. However, I want to express that if clarity fails again in future proposals if ambiguity and confusion persist regarding what was delivered versus what was supposed to be delivered—then unfortunately I won’t be able to support with my vote. Cardano is no longer what it was five years ago; now it’s up to us to ensure that what gets done is logical and properly scrutinized.

I’m a big fan of IO and everything they’ve accomplished over these nearly 10 years regarding Cardano. I believe it’s a top-tier company in terms of research, implementation, and blockchain, and I don’t question their capabilities at all.
However, as an observer—since I’m not deeply involved, but would still like to share my perspective. I feel that IO owes the community a clear, solid, and concise explanation of what has been achieved in previous governance actions. From my point of view, it’s very confusing; it feels like there are overlaps between this year’s proposals and last year’s, and it’s not clear at all.
It creates a lot of confusion, raising questions like: “Didn’t we already pay for this last year?” or “Why are we paying again if this was supposed to have been implemented already?” This starts to generate distrust across the community.

I would like to see clear, measurable frameworks and informative checkpoints for all these governance actions something like a “Messari-style” State of Cardano report. I understand that a report like that isn’t cheap, but considering that we are about to spend nearly $40 million, the minimum expectation would be a clear report outlining what is intended to be achieved and what was accomplished last year.

This is a humongous amount of money, and it’s unreasonable for there to be so much confusion especially knowing that IO does very good work, yet their efforts start to be questioned. I wouldn’t like to see that happen. If producing such a report costs $50,000 or $100,000, then include it in the budget it doesn’t matter. There needs to be clarity and a formal way to track the return on what is being done. It’s simply too much money for this to remain so informal.

This time, I won't support this proposal. Market conditions do not allow me to do that.

Honestly, I am strongly against this kind of spending on summits, parties, guest artists, and what feels like excessive use of treasury funds, especially under current market conditions. First, I don’t see any clear direct impact from this kind of expenditure. There are no defined KPIs or measurable outcomes that justify the cost. On top of that, it feels like we are reinforcing the same echo chamber the same Cardano community gathering at a Cardano-focused event. In other words, we are staying within the same island instead of reaching new audiences. If the goal is growth and adoption, then we should be prioritizing initiatives that expand beyond the existing community and deliver measurable results.
We are not in a bull market with ADA at all-time highs to justify this kind of spending on events and celebrations. Additionally, there have already been several summits, and from my perspective, I don’t see the value this event brings especially when it is being funded by the treasury.

First of all, I don’t understand why funding is being requested for two years, especially when the NCL operates on an annual basis. This would allocate a significant portion of the treasury to a single proposal what about the rest of the projects? That doesn’t seem balanced or fair.

Secondly, I’m unclear about the $176/hour rate. That figure appears excessively high for a developer. Can this be justified? It raises concerns about whether the budget assumptions are realistic.

It almost feels like these numbers are based on an assumption that Cardano’s price is at $3.65 which is clearly not the case. Budgeting should reflect current market conditions and responsible treasury management.

Overall, I believe this proposal needs more transparency and a more reasonable funding structure before it can be seriously considered.

I would recommend breaking this proposal into smaller phases instead of submitting it as one large two-year request. Especially in a bear market, where the community is already sensitive about treasury spending, asking for such a large amount upfront can create unnecessary resistance.

A phased approach would build more trust, allow for better accountability, and give the community the opportunity to evaluate progress before committing additional funds.

I’m a big fan of IO and everything they’ve accomplished over these nearly 10 years regarding Cardano. I believe it’s a top-tier company in terms of research, implementation, and blockchain, and I don’t question their capabilities at all.
However, as an observer—since I’m not deeply involved, but would still like to share my perspective. I feel that IO owes the community a clear, solid, and concise explanation of what has been achieved in previous governance actions. From my point of view, it’s very confusing; it feels like there are overlaps between this year’s proposals and last year’s, and it’s not clear at all.
It creates a lot of confusion, raising questions like: “Didn’t we already pay for this last year?” or “Why are we paying again if this was supposed to have been implemented already?” This starts to generate distrust across the community.

I would like to see clear, measurable frameworks and informative checkpoints for all these governance actions something like a “Messari-style” State of Cardano report. I understand that a report like that isn’t cheap, but considering that we are about to spend nearly $40 million, the minimum expectation would be a clear report outlining what is intended to be achieved and what was accomplished last year.

This is a humongous amount of money, and it’s unreasonable for there to be so much confusion especially knowing that IO does very good work, yet their efforts start to be questioned. I wouldn’t like to see that happen. If producing such a report costs $50,000 or $100,000, then include it in the budget it doesn’t matter. There needs to be clarity and a formal way to track the return on what is being done. It’s simply too much money for this to remain so informal.

This time, I will support the proposal. However, I want to express that if clarity fails again in future proposals if ambiguity and confusion persist regarding what was delivered versus what was supposed to be delivered—then unfortunately I won’t be able to support with my vote. Cardano is no longer what it was five years ago; now it’s up to us to ensure that what gets done is logical and properly scrutinized.

I’m a big fan of IO and everything they’ve accomplished over these nearly 10 years regarding Cardano. I believe it’s a top-tier company in terms of research, implementation, and blockchain, and I don’t question their capabilities at all.
However, as an observer—since I’m not deeply involved, but would still like to share my perspective. I feel that IO owes the community a clear, solid, and concise explanation of what has been achieved in previous governance actions. From my point of view, it’s very confusing; it feels like there are overlaps between this year’s proposals and last year’s, and it’s not clear at all.
It creates a lot of confusion, raising questions like: “Didn’t we already pay for this last year?” or “Why are we paying again if this was supposed to have been implemented already?” This starts to generate distrust across the community.

I would like to see clear, measurable frameworks and informative checkpoints for all these governance actions something like a “Messari-style” State of Cardano report. I understand that a report like that isn’t cheap, but considering that we are about to spend nearly $40 million, the minimum expectation would be a clear report outlining what is intended to be achieved and what was accomplished last year.

This is a humongous amount of money, and it’s unreasonable for there to be so much confusion especially knowing that IO does very good work, yet their efforts start to be questioned. I wouldn’t like to see that happen. If producing such a report costs $50,000 or $100,000, then include it in the budget it doesn’t matter. There needs to be clarity and a formal way to track the return on what is being done. It’s simply too much money for this to remain so informal.

This time, I will support the proposal. However, I want to express that if clarity fails again in future proposals if ambiguity and confusion persist regarding what was delivered versus what was supposed to be delivered—then unfortunately I won’t be able to support with my vote. Cardano is no longer what it was five years ago; now it’s up to us to ensure that what gets done is logical and properly scrutinized.

I’m voting YES only for critical things. I dont consider this is critical thing to spend the treadury reserves.

Even though I know the team behind this proposal and I’m aware that they are doing hard and phenomenal work, I honestly can’t give them my vote. With $ADA at 0.25, talking about L2 solutions when we barely fill blocks except during specific spikes of activity makes me feel that all efforts should be focused on Ouroboros Leios instead of being so fragmented into L2 initiatives. In the end, from a personal perspective and considering how blockchains are currently being used, I don’t think L2 solutions are necessary at this moment.

This is PRIVATE COMPANY generating private undisclosed revenue. If I go to blockfrost I have to pay for their services, why do I have to fund their bussines too? This proposal is totally inappropriate.

I’m a big fan of IO and everything they’ve accomplished over these nearly 10 years regarding Cardano. I believe it’s a top-tier company in terms of research, implementation, and blockchain, and I don’t question their capabilities at all.
However, as an observer—since I’m not deeply involved, but would still like to share my perspective. I feel that IO owes the community a clear, solid, and concise explanation of what has been achieved in previous governance actions. From my point of view, it’s very confusing; it feels like there are overlaps between this year’s proposals and last year’s, and it’s not clear at all.
It creates a lot of confusion, raising questions like: “Didn’t we already pay for this last year?” or “Why are we paying again if this was supposed to have been implemented already?” This starts to generate distrust across the community.

I would like to see clear, measurable frameworks and informative checkpoints for all these governance actions something like a “Messari-style” State of Cardano report. I understand that a report like that isn’t cheap, but considering that we are about to spend nearly $40 million, the minimum expectation would be a clear report outlining what is intended to be achieved and what was accomplished last year.

This is a humongous amount of money, and it’s unreasonable for there to be so much confusion especially knowing that IO does very good work, yet their efforts start to be questioned. I wouldn’t like to see that happen. If producing such a report costs $50,000 or $100,000, then include it in the budget it doesn’t matter. There needs to be clarity and a formal way to track the return on what is being done. It’s simply too much money for this to remain so informal.

This time, I will support the proposal. However, I want to express that if clarity fails again in future proposals if ambiguity and confusion persist regarding what was delivered versus what was supposed to be delivered—then unfortunately I won’t be able to support with my vote. Cardano is no longer what it was five years ago; now it’s up to us to ensure that what gets done is logical and properly scrutinized.