drep1yffcjs0njfea0...

I fully support the integrations and the strategic direction behind this proposal. USDCx, Pyth, LayerZero, Dune, and Fireblocks are all valuable additions to the Cardano ecosystem.

However, before approving additional funding, I would like to see either the full delivery of CCI V1 or a clearer accounting of the V1 budget, including committed, spent, and remaining funds. Without that visibility, it is difficult for me to properly evaluate the necessity and timing of CCI V2.

For now, I will vote Abstain.

Eternl is my favorite Cardano wallet and an important part of the ecosystem.

That said, I generally believe treasury funds should be focused on public infrastructure rather than individual applications. With its strong user base, I hope Eternl can find sustainable revenue models or pursue Catalyst funding for new innovations built around the wallet. For now, I will vote Abstain.

I believe Cardano needs more mature and integrated development platforms if we want to attract larger teams and enterprise-grade applications in the future.

Scalus is also building on years of existing work rather than starting from scratch. Retaining experienced teams and continuing to develop ecosystem knowledge is important for Cardano's long-term growth, so I will vote Yes.

After further consideration, I believe a major blockchain ecosystem should have a flagship annual event. The revised proposal is more reasonable after the budget reduction, so I am supporting it.

why not

I believe supporting open-source maintenance is valuable for Cardano long term.

However, I’m still uncertain whether this governance and funding model can operate effectively in practice, so I’m voting ABSTAIN.

Many parts of this proposal are valuable and deserve recognition, especially some of the long-term research around scalability, security, and protocol design. However, the scope is extremely broad and covers too many different areas at once, making it difficult to properly evaluate the importance, priority, and expected impact of each component individually. For that reason, I’m voting ABSTAIN.

Peras is already an ongoing core protocol effort, and continuity matters. Stopping and restarting projects like this could waste a lot of the money and engineering effort already invested over the years.

Teams like Tweag also represent valuable long-term experience within the ecosystem. While Cardano often focuses on onboarding new developers, maintaining continuity among experienced protocol contributors is important as well.

That said, I still think the budget is on the high side, and some cost reductions or scope adjustments would likely make the proposal stronger.

I believe DeFi should remain a competitive market where projects succeed or fail based on product quality, execution, security, and adoption.

Treasury funds are probably better focused on shared public infrastructure rather than specific commercial DeFi ventures. This type of project feels more suitable for Catalyst or private fundraising, so I’ll vote No.

I understand the importance of improving Plutus, developer tooling, and smart contract security. These are all meaningful long-term investments for Cardano.

That said, the treasury ask is still quite large, and some parts feel very research-heavy with outcomes that are difficult for the community to evaluate upfront. For now, I’ll vote Abstain.

I understand the long-term vision behind this proposal, especially around onboarding and fee abstraction.

But at the same time, I’m not fully convinced whether introducing this level of complexity at this stage is the right move for Cardano, and it’s hard to predict all the long-term tradeoffs. For now, I’ll vote Abstain.

I think improving and simplifying the developer experience is a good thing for Cardano. Less fragmentation means builders can get started faster.

The treasury ask also isn’t that large compared to many other proposals, so overall I’ll cautiously vote Yes.

I voted YES on this proposal.

Blockfrost is one of the few infrastructure services in the Cardano ecosystem that already provides clear real-world utility and is widely used by developers and applications today.

I voted ABSTAIN on this proposal.

I appreciate the technical value and decentralization vision behind browser-based light nodes, and I respect the work HLabs has done for the ecosystem.

However, I am still uncertain whether this is a high-priority Treasury focus in the current environment compared to other core ecosystem needs.

I voted YES on this proposal.

TypeScript is one of the most widely used programming languages in the world, and improving the Cardano TypeScript developer ecosystem is a worthwhile long-term investment.

I voted NO on this proposal.

While I appreciate the real-world adoption effort, I am not convinced blockchain is the optimal solution for agricultural traceability.

The core issue remains the oracle problem: blockchain can preserve submitted data, but it cannot guarantee the data is true.

In practice, food safety and compliance still rely on accountable real-world entities, audits, enforcement, and reputation systems.

Given the current environment, I do not believe this is the best use of Treasury funds.

While L2 scaling technologies like Hydra and Rollups may become important in the future, I do not believe they are the highest priority for Cardano at the current stage.

Cardano is already known for its strong security model. Smart contract developers should be responsible for proper security reviews and audits before deployment, rather than relying heavily on automated tools.

Given limited treasury resources and current market conditions, I believe funding should prioritize core infrastructure, adoption, liquidity, and high-impact ecosystem development.

Supporting this proposal.

These maintenance efforts are essential and cannot be neglected, as they underpin the stability and security of the network.

That said, I’m not an expert in evaluating the appropriate scale of such budgets, so it’s difficult to judge whether the cost is optimal.

Nonetheless, this is necessary work that needs to be done.

Supporting this proposal.

Leios addresses a key limitation in Cardano’s current throughput and prepares the network for future scalability needs.

Strengthening the base layer is essential for long-term competitiveness.

My take: spending this much on marketing during a bear market feels hard to justify.

Selling this amount of ADA at relatively low prices is not ideal for the Treasury, and in a weaker market, the actual user growth and ROI from large-scale events are likely more limited.

Events can still have value, but timing matters. In this environment, I’d rather see Treasury funds prioritized toward core infrastructure, builders, and long-term ecosystem growth first.

Gerolamo and Pebble could significantly improve decentralization and onboarding if executed well. The direction is solid, with accountability built into the funding structure. I vote yes.

I choose to abstain on this proposal.
I am not very comfortable with centralized fund management, but I understand it may help the ecosystem grow.
Since I am not very familiar with this type of model, I don’t feel confident to support or oppose it now.
So I prefer to abstain and see how it goes.

I choose to abstain on this proposal.

I support this proposal.
At this stage, keeping the system operational is the top priority.
Disruptions would only create more uncertainty.

I support the idea of multi-client implementations for Cardano, and I’m also supportive of exploring a Go-based node.
However, since Amaru is already underway, I think it makes sense to first observe the progress of existing multi-client efforts before committing additional treasury funds.
Taking a bit more time may help ensure the treasury is used in a more efficient way. I also want to acknowledge the contributions Blink Labs has made to the Cardano ecosystem.
For these reasons, I will abstain on this proposal.

I’m generally supportive. The proposed budgeting framework for the Treasury looks reasonable and seems like a practical way to run the process.

I’d prefer to see a production-ready block-producing node delivered and validated first, before funding additional expansions or research. Combining unfinished core work with new scope feels a bit early to me, so I’m abstaining.

Supporting this for resilience. The current 7/7 structure is operationally fragile, so adding flexibility makes sense. Long term, though, I’d rather see expansion — e.g., 9 members with 7 operational — even if that’s not realistic yet.

Governance is still in its early days, so I prefer a cautious fiscal approach. The 300M ADA NCL feels aligned with treasury inflows and strikes a reasonable balance. Supporting.

low-risk technical improvement, well tested … why not?

I voted against the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget because I believe current DeFi demand on Cardano is still weak and the absence of native USDT/USDC is the real bottleneck. Since this proposal builds infrastructure for that same direction, my position remains consistent and I also vote no on this Treasury withdrawal.

Having an NCL is better than having no fiscal boundary.

The project direction has merit, and the DeltaDeFi team has demonstrated strong execution through long-standing contributions to developer tooling and infrastructure in the Cardano ecosystem. This deserves recognition.
However, at this stage, order-book trading is not among Cardano’s most urgent priorities, and Hydra has yet to show broad, mature application-level adoption. Advancing complex Hydra-based applications too early risks limited liquidity and usage.
I would prefer to reconsider such initiatives once Hydra itself is more mature and supports a wider range of real-world applications. For this reason, I abstain on this Info Action.

Clearer and enforceable governance rules reduce ambiguity and risk.
Standardized treasury accountability and immutable proposals improve trust.
Support.

The proposed Vision and Strategy align with my understanding of Cardano’s long-term direction and are appropriate as a non-binding reference framework. I therefore support this proposal.

If the community believes that the Constitutional Committee requires a redundancy seat, this should first be formalized through a constitutional or parameter change defining the CC structure as 7+1.
Without such a prior structural change, proposals to expand the CC around a specific candidate lack a proper governance foundation.

Support. I do not personally know the elected member, but I respect the community’s snap-election outcome. Restoring the Constitutional Committee to its minimum size is essential for Cardano’s governance to function normally.

Support. This withdrawal executes the budget I already approved and delivers essential integrations for Cardano.

Yes — Tier-1 stablecoins and secure cross-chain interoperability are the most critical infrastructure gaps for Cardano. We must prioritize onboarding USDT/USDC and adopt zero-knowledge-based, trust-minimized bridge technology to connect with major ecosystems including Ethereum, Bitcoin, Solana, and Cosmos. Strict milestone-based reporting and transparent oversight are also required.

I support this proposal. It’s fair to reimburse the lost deposit caused by a bug.

I like the idea of a loan-based treasury model — it’s creative and worth giving a try.

Support.
Fair and transparent compensation helps keep the Constitutional Committee independent and effective — a necessary step for mature governance.

Fully support this proposal.
Registering .ada and .cardano domains will help bridge blockchain technology with real-world internet applications, strengthening the connection between Web2 and Web3 and promoting broader Web3 adoption.

I support this proposal. A single voting round is sufficient, and removing the Budget Info Action improves efficiency. However, it's critical to enforce strict auditing and disbursement conditions to prevent treasury funds from being released without meeting the required standards, ensuring transparency and accountability.

I appreciate the importance of GovTool as a core governance platform for Cardano, and I recognize the value of keeping it actively maintained and updated. However, the requested withdrawal amount feels quite high for a 12-month period. It might be helpful to provide more detailed transparency on how the budget will be allocated, or consider whether a smaller phased budget with regular progress reviews could achieve the same stability while ensuring efficient use of treasury funds.

I oppose this proposal. Trading demand on Cardano DeFi is currently weak, and existing DEX liquidity already serves most retail needs. The absence of native USDT/USDC is the fundamental bottleneck; deploying 50M ADA now is premature and an inefficient use of treasury funds. I recommend waiting for clear growth in demand and then phasing in liquidity.

While the proposal presents a well-structured regional strategy, I find it difficult to clearly measure the real impact of community events, hackathons, and marketing activities. Without stronger, quantifiable KPIs tied to adoption and on-chain results, it is challenging to evaluate whether the requested budget will achieve sustainable outcomes. Therefore, I choose to abstain.

I support this proposal because it pioneers a loan-based Treasury model. If successful, it will not only increase Cardano’s visibility and liquidity through SNEK, but also set a valuable precedent for future projects. Demonstrating that Treasury funds can be deployed responsibly and repaid with interest creates a sustainable path for other initiatives to follow, strengthening Cardano’s governance and ecosystem growth.

I voted in favor because very few voters actually pay attention to Info Actions, and their purpose can be achieved through alternative means. Treasury withdrawal proposals already provide the key information, making the extra Info Action step unnecessary.