Florian Volery

Such an event should prioritize giving existing dApps and builders booth space at the summit to showcase what they have built.

Too many Cardano events have been organized without creating opportunities for actual builders to present their products, which misses a key part of the ecosystem.

A summit can only succeed if the spotlight is placed on the existing products and the builders already creating on Cardano.

This should be proposed with IO and Intersect as part of the 2030 roadmap.

Such an event should prioritize giving existing dApps and builders booth free space at the summit to showcase what they have built.

Too many Cardano events have been organized without creating opportunities for actual builders to present their products, which misses a key part of the ecosystem.

A summit can only succeed if the spotlight is placed on the existing products and the builders already creating on Cardano.

Such an event should prioritize giving existing dApps and builders booth free space at the summit to showcase what they have built.

Too many Cardano events have been organized without creating opportunities for actual builders to present their products, which misses a key part of the ecosystem.

A summit can only succeed if the spotlight is placed on the existing products and the builders already creating on Cardano.

After reflecting on the issues raised and engaging extensively with the Cardano community in recent discussions (reference: https://x.com/sachs_johnny/status/2057466309625962756), I have decided to change my vote to NO. In my view, it is important that Cardano continues to strengthen its operational resilience and reduce potential concentration risks.

Maintenance activities are undoubtedly critical, and I would be prepared to support a revised proposal from IO that provides greater transparency regarding the scope of work being performed. Such a proposal should also include a clear strategy for knowledge transfer and capability building, enabling other teams within the ecosystem to progressively acquire the expertise required to perform these maintenance activities.

In addition, greater visibility into the effort, costs, and roles of subcontractors would allow the community to better assess which activities could potentially be contracted directly in the future. Under such a model, IO could continue to serve as the prime contractor, providing oversight, prioritization, coordination, and quality assurance across the various workstreams.

Looking ahead, an ideal outcome would be that by Q4 2026 or Q1 2027, Cardano is in a position to open at least part of the maintenance work to a competitive bidding process among multiple qualified teams. This would strengthen resilience, foster ecosystem growth, and further advance Cardano’s decentralization objectives.

I support this vote, as Leios is key for Cardano scalability.

I would prefer to see a complete breakdown of the work, effort ($) and timeline for such a big project for transparency pruposes.

This is a quick win for the developers on Cardano and with a reasonable budget.

There are enough credit solutions on Cardano, and all can accept Bitcoin as collateral as soon as it will be available.

Just to name a few: Liqwid, Fluid, etc.

Blockfrost is the only indexer that we have on Cardano. The budget is acceptable for something that ca be used by all the applications built on Cardano.

Midgard is an important scaling solution for Cardano, and I reiterate my support for it.

As mentioned elsewhere, once these larger proposals (above 10M ADA) are approved, I intend to vote against any further proposals that are not critical to builders or core blockchain infrastructure, with the goal of keeping the NCA around 200M ADA (around $50 millions).

Any proposal that receives approval should first demonstrate tangible delivery before being allocated additional funding. They will not get anymore money in the future.

Housing Catalyst under the Cardano Foundation enables the program to utilize existing operational frameworks and resources.

This is the most cost-efficient and pragmatic solution.

Rationale – Vote in Favor of Creating the Orion Fund

The creation of the Orion Fund would allow the Cardano ecosystem to tap into new decision-makers and access new pools of investable capital within the blockchain and digital asset space. By engaging institutional and professional investors through a dedicated investment structure, the ecosystem can broaden its capital base and strengthen its financial infrastructure.

In addition, the fund would help build a stronger case for liquidity partners to join the Cardano ecosystem, thereby improving overall market liquidity and reinforcing Cardano’s positioning within the BTC DeFi landscape.

Finally, the Orion Fund would contribute to raising awareness of the Cardano ecosystem and expand Cardano’s marketing reach, helping attract new developers, users, and strategic partners.

For these reasons, the creation of the Orion Fund represents a strategic step in strengthening Cardano’s ecosystem, liquidity, and capital markets presence.

350M is way to much. 300M is enough, but the allocation is key. We can always expand if necessary, but focus should be put on generating value for the chain, e.g. through apps or improved security and/or scalability.

I will vote YES on [Reduce minimum Constitutional Committee size (committeeMinSize) from 7 to 5].

Current Risk

At present, the actual number of Constitutional Committee (CC) members is equal to the minimum required size. In this situation, if even one CC member resigns, the committee would fall below the minimum threshold and become non-functional. This would prevent not only ordinary governance actions but also critical actions such as urgent security updates. This represents a serious structural risk that must be addressed urgently.

I will vote against this proposal because insufficient testing has been conducted on the proposed parameter changes, and the process appears rushed.
Modifications of this magnitude should be thoroughly tested — ideally validated multiple times by independent groups of developers or experts.
The Intersect team should clearly present and document the testing that has been performed before proceeding.

This is the best practice I would like to see being implemented by Intersect.

DeFi is the primary source of value creation for Cardano as a decentralized and secure blockchain for financial applications. It represents a big part of the economic activity and the revenues created for the treasury,and, as such, must be reinforced and prioritized.

Cardano’s spending should be primarily focused on DeFi and other application sectors that generate sustainable revenue for the treasury.

Spending strategies and funding proposals should be developed in close conjunction with builders, who are the most knowledgeable and directly connected to the realities of the Cardano ecosystem. A top-down approach driven by entities or individuals disconnected from on-the-ground development should be avoided.

I will support this budget; however, any future proposals that do not align with these principles will be rejected.

Cardano DeFi cannot fully bootstrap itself without having the essential building blocks in place. For more than two years, I have consistently advocated for stronger stablecoin infrastructure and enhanced wallet support—both of which are critical prerequisites for attracting institutional participants to this ecosystem.

The realisation of this proposal would grow significantly the Cardano DeFi (and Liqwid).

I support this vision for Cardano, as it will guide and coordinate the various initiatives and treasury actions that underpin the ongoing development of the Cardano blockchain and its ecosystem.

I support this proposal, as it is open to any DeFi project to apply. Also the Fund will be managed within a proper governance structure, while also giving the Cardano ecosystem the much-needed push on liquidity.

It is, in many ways, a “chicken and egg” situation: liquidity must come first to enable growth. Importantly, these assets will not be spent or lost—they will remain in USDA/ADA and USDM/ADA pools, as well as within lending protocols.

After reading the changes (see https://most-brass-sun.quicknode-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafybeiezgj4gu6fyxfpnu7h7cgrhfyyvbn4ve72ytpxrv7cmatbok32e4m, this version is much clearer and I am voting YES.

As with all Intersect-related governance matters, I believe such initiatives should originate from individuals who have been elected on-chain. I would support this type of proposal—but only if it comes from legitimately elected representatives.

All committees should undergo reform to ensure transparent governance, with onchain elected members who present a clear strategy and corresponding budget.

In line with this position, and for the sake of consistency, I am voting NO on this proposal.

Onboarding traditional finance requires a focused effort on education and building strong relationships with key stakeholders in that sector. This proposal does not clearly address or prioritize that target audience.
For this reason, I am voting NO.

I would prefer to reform the whole intersect / governance workflow, and only we have approved a new way of operating, then we would decide what we need, determine the features and the vote the appropriate budget.

Tokenization is easy, giving utility for it is another use case.

3M ADA for just the tokenization is too much.

Current system with Catalyst works well. No need to change it.

There is an urgent need for clear, well-crafted materials that highlight Cardano’s capabilities—such as a comprehensive marketing booklet and regular webinars. Beyond that, we need a dedicated "salesforce" able to engage directly with enterprises and communicate Cardano’s value effectively. The current spray-and-pray approach is not delivering meaningful results.

I'm open to collaborating on shaping a more strategic and targeted plan. However, allocating 6M ADA for broad event spending, without a focused execution strategy, does not align with Cardano’s current priorities.

Cardano’s strength lies in its Champions. Marketing efforts should center around them, and the ecosystem should actively support and develop more of these visible leaders.

For these reasons, I am voting NO on this proposal.

Similar to my stance on Intersect, I fully recognize the undeniable value that Cardano’s research has brought to the ecosystem. However, moving forward, research efforts must be aligned with the network’s current needs and long-term strategic goals.

At present, there is no detailed breakdown of the proposed research initiatives, and not all components appear to be critical. While I support continued research, I believe it should be pursued in a more focused format, with clearly defined objectives that are aligned with Cardano’s evolving priorities—a conversation that has yet to take place within the governance process.

Furthermore, if we are voting to approve a 5-year research initiative, key questions remain unanswered:
– When are concrete results expected?
– How will costs be tracked and evaluated over time?
– Will a new 26M ADA research budget be introduced annually?

The absence of transparent budgeting, strategic planning, and open discussion around these long-term commitments is concerning. For these reasons, I have chosen to vote NO on this proposal.

I support Anzens and the growth of stablecoins for Cardano. Currently, DeFi markets are in urgent need of more supply and infrastructures is key for expansion. I vote YES.

The team is strong, costs are unfortunately high, but we see nobody else for doing this important task.
Therefore, I vote Yes.

I will support the Cardano Foundation in its role as an organizer of events, as it currently stands as the most established entity with a strong and consistent track record.

The Foundation has both the legitimacy and experience to lead such initiatives, along with the network necessary to attract new participants, including individuals, corporations, and NGOs.

While Intersect was established to represent the interests of the DRep community, it has not effectively fulfilled this role, particularly in terms of incorporating early and ongoing feedback. Much of the current frustration and fatigue surrounding Cardano's governance process can be traced back to decisions made by the Intersect Board—whose authority to define key governance workflows remains unclear and lacks broad legitimacy (due to the absence of onchain elected board members).

The recent proposal to support alternatives outside the 39 governance proposals marks, in my view, a decisive misstep. For this reason, I will be voting NO on the proposal.

I believe Intersect requires structural reform, including the establishment of a transparent, on-chain governance board and a revised decision-making process. Rather than proceeding under the current framework, I support pausing its operations, redesigning its governance structure, and bringing the proposal back to vote once a credible and community-aligned solution is in place.

We already have tools like Cexplorer and Tempo supporting governance actions. If a new product is to be developed in this space, Catalyst is the appropriate avenue for funding and evaluation.

Also, if you plan to create a standard solution, then try to partner with existing projects using DB-Sync to read metadata.

Liqwid supports Cexplorer and has been using their technology since 2023. We stand behind this strong team, which has consistently delivered high-quality work over the years.

Cardano needs scalability.

Similar to my vote on Intersect, I question the current approach of the Open Source Committee (OSC). Its members were not elected on-chain, and I believe a broader reform of the governance model surrounding such committees is needed.

In my view, every committee—particularly those with strategic or budgetary responsibilities—should be led by an elected board. That board should then be responsible for proposing a clear strategic plan and corresponding budget.

While I fully support the development of open-source capabilities within Cardano, funding decisions should be made with greater transparency and granularity. Rather than approving a single allocation of 5.8 million ADA, I believe each item should be voted on individually, with proper structure and visibility.

For these reasons, I am voting NO on the current proposal.

I support the Catalyst program on Cardano. While it is not without its flaws, it has consistently demonstrated its value to the ecosystem.
Looking ahead, I would welcome a broader discussion on how funding is allocated across different types of projects, to ensure alignment with the community’s evolving priorities.

Tempo voting system has been developped quickly and is really good. No sure GovTool competes with Tempo.