Eternl DRep Committee

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We appreciate the attempt to transform Blockfrost into a public good.

But 13600 USD per month per employee in Europe? How much of a monthly income does Blockfrost currently generate, what does it currently cover?

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.

While we appreciate the attempt, but the remaining NCL needs to be spend on voted Intersect budget items. Not saying NO to future attempts.

This could already be attempted, but it will likely fail to get participation. What about proposals that come up after the budget round, wait for a year to attempt getting funding if it isn't urgent enough?

Whenever the major chunks of the budget are to be distributed, the FE will likely capture the entire process. The deciding group would then be a gatekeeper.

That's just a few thoughts and concerns from reading this proposal. No specific critique, just observations from the past 2 budget seasons.

Eternl Wallet is hard fork ready.

Lots of Japanese DReps already voted YES, so we assume it's legit. Ping us if it turns out not to be.

This is a bit of a tricky one. We don't want single CC members to have more weight on their vote if the total number goes down to 5. On the other hand there are currently not many volunteers for this currently unpaid job. We vote YES to keep governance going, even if we drop below 7 CC members.

Good progress recently. More use cases to come.

Yes to Peras in this new slimmed-down proposal.

EDC votes YES on this business development use case implemented on Cardano.

EDC is neither for or against this proposal.

We abstain from our own proposal. (Did we mention that voting in Eternl v2.1.0 will be much more fun?)

We vote abstain on our own proposal.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

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

Sound proposal, capable team, nice-to-have features. But we can't currently justify a YES vote.

ABSTAIN on Cardano dOSPO and OMF Program;

While we support the cause, we think that more of the structure needs to be in place before DReps can decide to give a 12m ADA blank check to a council.

There is currently no mention of who would be willing to serve on such councils, and we can’t support locking up 12m ADA of the current NCL, given the many unknowns.

YES on Pebble & Ecosystem maintenance: TypeScript core of Cardano;

In line with our previous vote, we support HLabs' proposals.

YES on Pebble & Ecosystem maintenance: TypeScript core of Cardano;

In line with our previous vote, we support HLabs' proposals.

NO on [OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels;

This should not be a treasury proposal. We are sure that at the proposed scale, investors can carry the cost if they want temperature-proof traceability.

Overview of EDC vote on CD + Emurgo marketing spending:

➖ Revised Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore
✅ Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Baseline ‘Platinum' Sponsorship Proposal
➖ Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Top-Up ‘Title’ Sponsorship Upgrade

Singapore in that particular week is exceptionally expensive. Cardano must be at TOKEN2049, we can't miss that. We don't want stand in the way by voting NO, so ABSTAIN it is. But especially for the CF, which is a foundation with own funds and not a commercial entity, the summit could be paid them, which we deem to be their mandate.

Overview of EDC vote on CD + Emurgo marketing spending:

➖ Revised Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore
✅ Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Baseline ‘Platinum' Sponsorship Proposal
➖ Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Top-Up ‘Title’ Sponsorship Upgrade

Singapore in that particular week is exceptionally expensive. Cardano must be at TOKEN2049, we can't miss that. We don't want stand in the way by voting NO, so ABSTAIN it is. But especially for the CF, which is a foundation with own funds and not a commercial entity, the summit could be paid them, which we deem to be their mandate.

Overview of EDC vote on CD + Emurgo marketing spending:

➖ Revised Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore
✅ Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Baseline ‘Platinum' Sponsorship Proposal
➖ Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Top-Up ‘Title’ Sponsorship Upgrade

Singapore in that particular week is exceptionally expensive. Cardano must be at TOKEN2049, we can't miss that. We don't want stand in the way by voting NO, so ABSTAIN it is. But especially for the CF, which is a foundation with own funds and not a commercial entity, the summit could be paid them, which we deem to be their mandate.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

Overview of EDC vote on IO + Tweag proposals:

❌ IO: Developer Experience Initiative
✅ IO: Cardano Upgrades
✅ IO: Consensus Initiative
✅ IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative
❌ IO & Midgard Labs: L2 Scalability Initiative
➖ IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
✅ IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability
❌ Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing
❌ Pogun: Capital Without Compromise
❌ Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028
✅ IO: Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

Combined:

✅ YES: 147.7m ADA / 35.5m USD
❌ NO: 74.0m ADA / 17.7m USD
➖ ABSTAIN: 13.1m ADA / 3.1m USD

All proposed initiatives sound like nice-to-haves for Cardano; some are essential for Cardano's momentum. The asks on almost all of the proposals are too high. That's why we had to triage and prioritize the essentials over the nice-to-haves, allow for a remainder on the NCL, and leave room for other vendors to enter the race for this year's budget.

We want to make it clear that a NO does not mean we are against the proposed tech. Quite the opposite, for example we'd love to look into Midgard and Pogun for Eternl. We also appreciate the work Blockfrost is doing, trying to replace itself with decentralized tech.

But we need to leave some part of the NCL for other vendors and initiatives.

YES on IO: Cardano Upgrades;

CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement, CPS-23 Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury, Babel Fees are all worthwhile upgrades to the ledger rules enabling more possibilities for all protocol participants.

TL;DR: EDC votes NO on gov_action1hkg...t5459v;

This combined proposal has been voted down by the community.

TL;DR: EDC votes YES on gov_action13qr...qfu32x;

Draper is an established entity. The proposal is fair in the sense that it favors the Cardano treasury over its own profit. We need to give outside entities a chance, highlight their successes, and in this way invite more companies from outside our bubble to join the Cardano ecosystem.

TL;DR: EDC votes YES on gov_action1ky2...uz3scv;

We revised our vote on Dingo from NO to YES. Going forward, for node diversity, we will support the Haskell, Rust, Go, and TypeScript implementations.

Reasoning: If we introduce more than one node implementation, we need to add more than one additional implementation. Think of different node implementations as a multi-signature wallet controlled by two parties that do not trust each other. If one of the nodes introduces bugs or changes the ledger rules, whether intentionally or not, we do not want a 50/50 chain split. We want at least two honest and correct node implementations to prevent a situation similar to the one we had in November 2025.

We expect the maintenance cost to be significantly lower than the cost of implementing the different nodes now. Spend responsibly.

TL;DR: If you support node diversity, you need to choose at least two additional node implementations in addition to the Haskell one.

TL;DR: EDC votes YES on gov_action17df...jtsmpe;

We revised our vote on Dingo from NO to YES. Going forward, for node diversity, we will support the Haskell, Rust, Go, and TypeScript implementations.

Reasoning: If we introduce more than one node implementation, we need to add more than one additional implementation. Think of different node implementations as a multi-signature wallet controlled by two parties that do not trust each other. If one of the nodes introduces bugs or changes the ledger rules, whether intentionally or not, we do not want a 50/50 chain split. We want at least two honest and correct node implementations to prevent a situation similar to the one we had in November 2025.

We expect the maintenance cost to be significantly lower than the cost of implementing the different nodes now. Spend responsibly.

TL;DR: If you support node diversity, you need to choose at least two additional node implementations in addition to the Haskell one.

TL;DR: EDC votes YES on gov_action1a95...7g4d2u;

The new process is going in the right direction. 1000 ADA fee to participate as a vendor in today's market conditions is a lot, especially for smaller teams. We acknowledge that this is one of multiple processes and that teams can still submit TWGA's individually and present their projects. FYI: Eternl benefited from last year's process and received funding through Intersect’s budget process. It's likely that we will submit a new proposal this year. We will also vote in all stages of this process (including Ekklesia and the TWGA).

TL;DR: EDC votes YES on gov_action1k5v...468n2r;

Not much to approve here. If the two parties involved agreed on this we don't see the point in spending time and ADA on voting on this action.

TL;DR: EDC votes YES on gov_action1uhz...cgtufg;

In line with our decision to vote YES on this budget (gov_action1u4j...t3alsy) we also vote YES on the first withdrawal. We acknowledge that costs are higher than previously, but they need to start somewhere.

TL;DR: EDC votes YES on gov_action19uh...5ll3g0;

Node diversity is a necessary building block for Cardano's resilience. The team has made great progress and demonstrated transparent budget management. Let them cook.

TL;DR: EDC votes NO on gov_action1wwj...tft9tp;

The NCL is an upper limit for withdrawals from the treasury. A new NCL can always be voted on and we already have a NCL of 350m ADA for the same time frame in place.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1cgd...0m5y83;

The metadata goes into full detail, two committees signed off on this proposal and monitoring will be in place. Easy decision.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1fvg...xtz8r7;

In line with our decision to vote YES on this budget (gov_action1u4j...t3alsy) we also vote YES on the first withdrawal.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action13pz...95mp3f;

Max put a lot of work into Cardano. This hard-fork naming is a great way to honor his contributions. Rest in peace.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1m3x...4jsr7q;

As per constitution, we need an NCL in place to approve withdrawals. This proposal sets a 1.5 year limit / term. It's an upper limit and can be changed any time by submitting a new proposal.

TL;DR: EDC voted NO on gov_action18fd...8cqks4;

We're voting NO because anything we "lock in" today will age badly over the next 5 years; relevance shifts fast in crypto. We don’t want this turned into soft policy that quietly excludes new use-cases by labeling them "off-strategy." We are with Patrick that AI is missing, but adding AI doesn’t fix it; it just proves the point: picking topics becomes a restrictive checklist. It's also not enforceable: DReps ultimately decide with their votes.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1jxn...p6vp3p;

Thanks Yuta for putting in the work to update the Constitution. The update brings clarity on definitions (now being part of the document body), removed budget info actions, reducing the amounts of votes DReps have to do (though in reality only a on-chain proposal brings attention to a topic ecosystem wide and proposals will pop up multiple times with refinements and feedback from previous votes.)

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1aw8...d54zm8;

Christina was our choice for the additional seat and more people taking a role in the CC would be beneficial. Even if this proposal won't pass, we want to signal our support for Christina's candidacy.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1lqu...p042zv;

We approved the budget. Now we follow through and vote YES on the withdrawal. The Cardano community grants the founding entities another 70m ADA to get work done, that should have been done a long time ago. Make it count.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1fk4...tvqdkv;

We took part in Intersects snap election. There were 93 votes, a total of 3.5b of the total active 5.3b ADA voted. Cardano Curia won before Christina Gianelloni (musikc) with 1.79b to 1.64b voting power.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action169k...l47xry;

This proposal is a prerequisite for the "Cardano Critical Integrations Budget" (gov_action13a2...luwkxd), which we votes YES on.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action13a2...luwkxd;

This proposal is a grant for the three founding entities to partially cover the costs of integrating external providers. Fine, but then call it a grant. The Cardano community will contribute a total of 70m ADA of its rewards tax to something that should have been done a long time ago. This entire proposal is worded so manipulatively that is was unpleasant to read. Nontheless. Get this done, folks.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1x2z...2dgc7q;

We are all for returning the funds. But adding 3k ADA on top is just an annoying detail to be honest. The owner could have proposed to withdraw the 100k ADA way earlier. And 3k for 14 months is kind of a premium rewards amount. Anyway, we vote YES.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1q0m...zuxfxz;

We are voting YES according to our previously vote in budget info action: gov_action1jr8...c9uldx

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action15dh...78hvja;

Sure, go ahead. But consider that this could be a net loss on your balance sheet, if either demand for the domains isn't high or the price tag for individual domains is too steep.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1ezp...xjlfrc;

Thanks Yuta for putting in the work to update the Constitution. The update brings clarity on definitions (now being part of the document body), removed budget info actions, reducing the amounts of votes DReps have to do (though in reality only a on-chain proposal brings attention to a topic ecosystem wide and proposals will pop up multiple times with refinements and feedback from previous votes.)

TL;DR: EDC voted ABSTAIN on gov_action16td...5sr06h;

We appreciate the role GovTool plays for Cardano's governance and recognize the team's ongoing contributions. However, we vote ABSTAIN due to the size of this treasury request; ₳1,150,000 is too high. We would vote YES for a revised proposal closer to 50% of the current amount.

TL;DR: EDC voted ABSTAIN on gov_action1n9h...m57age;

This document has a whole lot of repetition, to put it nicely.

Some takeaways:

Implement an Active, Managed Treasury:
This section depends heavily on trust in whoever manages those funds — not entirely convinced about that part.

Capital Efficiency:
“Narrow focus to accelerate development and learning; pivot quickly if initial approaches are ineffective.”
“Pivot quickly” isn’t really possible with the current treasury system.

Annual L1 Revenue / Daily Meaningful Transactions:
KPIs like these depend on external market conditions. As seen in 2025, transaction volume decreased significantly. In a four-year market cycle, these metrics can fluctuate dramatically.

Overall, there are some nice-to-haves in here, but I’m not sure we need more of these lengthy documents for hundreds of people to spend time reading.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1u4j...t3alsy.

This info action was discussed internally quite extensively and only narrowly received a YES vote.

To keep it brief, the main concerns were:

• Adding this small amount of liquidity will likely not significantly improve DeFi activity on Cardano. Only easily accessible minting of stablecoins will meaningfully enhance liquidity once the ADA price rises and users shift from ADA into stablecoins.

• It remains unclear how much actual work the board members will contribute to this effort.

• A 5-of-9 multisig setup is not sufficiently secure. If the board members are expected to actively manage substantial funds, a 7-of-9 configuration would be preferable — 50 M ADA is a strong incentive target.

• Establishing such a structure could lead to centralization in decision-making over which protocols “win” or “lose” on Cardano.

Nevertheless, the majority felt that the potential positive impact justified giving this initiative a chance.

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1jr8...c9uldx;

Strong and capable teams are key to the success of Cardano.

The SNEK team has a proven track record of delivering what they promise in this proposal, paving the way for other CNT projects to follow in their foot steps by providing documentation and blueprints.

Their intend to repay the treasury with a clearly defined schedule is what makes this proposal a no brainer.

TL;DR: EDC voted NO on gov_action1fl6...9tgrd5;

See second withdrawal action.

TL;DR: EDC voted NO on gov_action1r44...5q3rtn;

This proposal includes CEXs which SNEK is already listed on. We would like to see a list (prepared by CF and SNEK), which shows which CEXs are technically capable of handling/listing CNTs and where the problem is 'just' the liquidity. Overall we would like the respective token communities to provide the liquidity for their tokens themselves, most of them have that also baked into their tokenomics anyway. Non-the-less: With a proper treasury repayment plan we might vote in favor in the future. Keep up the great work SNEK team.

TL;DR: EDC voted NO on gov_action1ypa...0x9jrw;

Process of going through the changes:

General: Have an LLM check the grammar and spelling, please; e.g. Block vs block, missing spaces after commas etc.

• 24 Delegated Representative (DRep). The individual or entity registered to vote with respect to on-chain governance actions for its own behalf or on behalf of other owners of ada.

• 24 Delegated Representative (DRep). The individual or entity registered to vote with respect to on-chain governance actions for its own behalf or on behalf of other Ada Holders.

• 26 Net Change Limit. Means the maximum amount or percentage by which the Cardano Treasury may not be reduced by in a given period.

• 26 Net Change Limit. Means the maximum allowed amount of Lovelace removed from the Cardano Treasury in a given period.

• 28 Stake Pool Operator (SPO). An individual or entity that manifests intent through the signed transactions of a Stake Pool.

• 28 Stake Pool Operator (SPO). An individual or entity who directly controls the cold key(s) to a Cardano block producing node.

30 Block(s) vs block(s)

87 - Three independent voting bodies - DReps, SPOs, and the CC - participate in on-chain voting; anyone holding multiple roles must publicly disclose such overlaps before engaging in any on-chain governance actions.
--- This is not enforcable. An anonymous DRep could also be an anonymous SPO.

Now leaning towards ABSTAIN.

92 - DReps may vote on all types of governance actions.
--- A bit of a non-sensical one. While they can vote on everything, hardforks are not determined by them.

94 - DReps shall ensure that any compensation received in connection with their activities as a DRep is publicly disclosed in a timely manner through relevant governance communication channels.
--- Again, not enforcable. What do you want to do, if you find out a DRep did not disclose it? Ban them by ledger rule?

95 - DReps shall not offer or provide compensation to an Ada Holder or in exchange for being appointed as a DRep or for voting on their behalf.
--- Again, not enforcable. Same as 94.

101 - SPOs shall publicly disclose if they are simultaneously voting as a DRep on the same governance actions.
--- This is not enforcable. An anonymous DRep could also be an anonymous SPO.

Now leaning towards NO.

103 vs 99. Almost same content, can that be shortened?

106 - ... The document hosted by such a URL shall be immutable in nature and incapable of being altered after submission of the proposed governance action for on-chain voting.
--- This reduces the hosting options dramatically. As long as the hash is correct and the document wasn't altered, the action should be valid.

135 - Treasury Withdrawal Recipients shall use treasury withdrawals for the purpose set out in Section 7, paragraph 1 above.
--- Makes no sense.

• 148 - ... owners of ada.

• 148 - ... Ada Holders.

153 - ... no confidence will result.
--- No proper English.

357/359/1141 ada holders vs Ada Holders. (It's a definition and should be capitalized). Please check 'owners of ada' and 'ada holders' in the whole document and replace it with Ada Holders.

TL;DR: EDC changed its vote from ABSTAIN to YES on gov_action13tf...dq823y;

Thanks to YUTA following up with the proposers it's now mandatory for token projects to provide a repayment plan to be considered for a listing through this proposal. Successful token projects will be repaying the treasury, so this proposal has way less impact on the treasury.

Link:
https://x.com/KevinSoobratty/status/1955471135832940680
https://x.com/KevinSoobratty/status/1954084058134458408

TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1g7s...2spyyt; Good luck to all new CC members and thank you for your service.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.

TL;DR: EDC voted:

gov_action18ne...66459t: YES
gov_action13tf...qx0ecg: YES
gov_action13tf...nrw6t9: YES
gov_action13tf...0vdlhj: YES
gov_action13tf...ufvuyl: YES
gov_action13tf...tnrdnx: YES
gov_action13tf...ckzwqt: YES
gov_action13tf...yeptuu: YES
gov_action13tf...huqg03: YES
gov_action13tf...488pdm: YES
gov_action13tf...xzxz7k: YES
gov_action13tf...6d98zp: YES
gov_action13tf...fgyy3v: YES
gov_action13tf...f074ea: YES
gov_action13tf...t5eumh: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...c3clg6: YES
gov_action13tf...y7m65d: YES
gov_action13tf...hm6e8q: YES
gov_action13tf...30y0dn: YES
gov_action13tf...79xfzf: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dq823y: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...0mqrnw: YES
gov_action13tf...u7pqqr: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...q3z9u5: YES
gov_action13tf...n5rx0e: YES
gov_action13tf...ywvhcq: YES
gov_action13tf...htd5td: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...tyw3h6: YES
gov_action13tf...cp0jyh: YES
gov_action13tf...66gmxa: YES
gov_action13tf...flfc4s: YES
gov_action13tf...4s2af8: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...x4t762: YES
gov_action13tf...7jt4x4: ABSTAIN
gov_action13tf...dh2k4c: YES
gov_action13tf...3cfnf0: YES
gov_action13tf...zags6z: YES
gov_action13tf...z29v77: ABSTAIN
gov_action193l...gl2qg0: YES;

We refrained from voting NO on any of the actions, voted ABSTAIN where the majority of our team (7 people) determined that the impact wasn't high enough, the concept wasn't something we would want to support, or the action asked for too much.

Keep in mind, that voting ABSTAIN helps each effected proposal by lowering the absolute voting power needed to pass the action.