GAIA

Very happy to vote YES for this proposal.

It has become recently very clear that node diversity and development away from IOG maintained products is essential for the longevity of Cardano. Without node and developer diversity for core Cardano tooling, IOG can hold the treasury hostage every year, and they have already shown that this is their current and future intent. Apart from this, a lightweight browser-based node like Gerolamo is an essential step for Cardano to facilitate future mainstream adoption and support of the blockchain with ease-of-use access.

I sincerely hope that the rest of the Cardano Community votes yes for this proposal so that we can all see the benefits of Gerolamo come to fruition.

Very happy to vote YES for Pebble!

This proposal brings Cardano essential upgrades and alternatives for our smart contract programming - opening our ecosystem to JavaScript, TypeScript, and even Solidity developers removes a barrier of being forced to learn Plutarch or Aiken to contribute and build for the Cardano ecosystem.

It is essential for us as a community and a blockchain to provide ease of access to the Cardano blockchain for developers if we truly want to compete for the #1 spot. If smart contract development is a constant friction point for developers outside of our existing ecosystem, we cannot grow or compete with Bitcoin, Ethereum, or Solana over the long term. This also allows for more competition in our ecosystem, and a better overall long term cost for future building, including a reduced dependency on developers who would hold our blockchain hostage, ie: IOG.

Despite the revisions to this proposal, I still have to vote no as the proposal is currently structured.

Last year's Cardano Summit was funded with the express distinction from the Cardano Foundation that the funding supplied and the extortion-level pricing for vendors and attendees was to make the Cardano Summit self-sufficient.

Instead, we still have the Cardano Foundation asking for more money this year, and no disclosure of what happened to make the event unsustainable. As far as I can tell, the CF has no intention to make the Cardano Summit self-sustainable now or in the future.

Considering the very tight NCL budget room left for 2026, I don't see the value in the community funding the Cardano Summit again this year.

Instead, I expect the Cardano Foundation to step up and fund the summit using genesis ADA if this is something they want to have happen this year.

Take responsibility for what happened last year, and actually pay your fair share into building our our ecosystem. Exploiting the treasury every chance you get cannot continue.

I'm happy to vote YES for this proposal. All three workstreams are necessary functionality improvements for Cardano to continue to grow as #1 in blockchain security. Continued development of Plutus is essential as it is the current programming core of Cardano and until alternative full nodes in other programming languages are on par with Plutus for Cardano, continued support of Plutus is needed.

I’m also happy to see that there is a focused goal on simplifying Plutus coding workflows, and a focus on cross-implementation conformance so that alternative nodes can be deployed with the same level of security that is expected across the Cardano ecosystem.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I expect this proposal to complete all deliverables as stated, and if this is not done, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.

I'm happy to vote YES for this proposal. Blaster is an essential tool that can be used to significantly reduce the startup costs of any builders on Cardano through an open-sourced automated formal verification tool without the high costs required to submit code to formal verification companies.

Additionally, support for Blaster with 4 additional programming languages (Aiken, Pebble, Scalus, and Futura) is a significant additional support for builders in the Cardano ecosystem.

What concerns me is:

CBDE directly converts the current multi-day Nix setup barrier into a 60-second initialization. Source documents indicate that developer onboarding attrition currently runs at 60–70%; CBDE targets a reduction to under 20%.

A developer onboarding attrition rate of 60-70% is terrible for Cardano, and this tooling should have been prioritized sooner if it results in an attrition rate of under 20%. This is a serious developer bottleneck that has not been prioritized or addressed in the past, and has likely resulted in serious losses for the Cardano ecosystem over the years we have been attempting to attract builders.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I expect this proposal to complete all deliverables as stated, and if this is not done, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.

I have to vote NO on this proposal in its current form. I am all for continuing to maintain Cardano, but there are no clear details of what exactly we are getting that costs 62 Million ADA. This cost is exorbitantly high for only maintaining existing tooling, and seems more like a proposal to fund IOG’s overall operations for 9 months. This also means that IOG’s entire operational structure is too expensive to continue like it is if Cardano is the only source of revenue for this company.

When current annual treasury revenue only amounts to approx 2.6 Million ADA, you can’t have a 9 month operational maintenance cost of 62 Million ADA.

This is a concern that must be addressed for the continued longevity of the Cardano blockchain, and if IOG cannot perform maintenance in the range of less than ½ the revenue of the blockchain per year, something needs to change, possibly the company that performs the maintenance for Cardano. At the very least we need a plan on how we can make annual Cardano blockchain maintenance sustainable. I am very surprised that so many DReps voted Yes for this proposal in its current form, as the cost is not justifiable as is.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I expect this proposal to complete all deliverables as stated, and if this is not done, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.

I am voting YES for this proposal, as Leios is an essential upgrade for Cardano and required for the continued lifespan of our blockchain.

What I am not happy about is that I was under the impression that Leios had already been funded, and now we are being asked to pay again.

This will be the last time Leios funding gets a yes vote from me, and I expect all deliverables to be fully completed. If they are not and Leios is not released for mainnet as stated, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I'm happy to vote YES for this proposal. All three workstreams are necessary functionality improvements for Cardano to continue to compete in the Blockchain ecosystem.

I do express concern that Babel fees are designed with only support for Lace Wallet in mind with this funding. Lace is a proprietary IOG wallet, and they will reap all the benefits of inital Babel fees until other providers are established. The decentralization of this technology and future on chain income will be subject to future funding of other providers (possibly at treasury cost), and I am not happy to see this designed without fully open sourced tooling in mind. I would expect this for delivery on treasury funding, and it is the one thing I would change with this proposal:

Lace Wallet Integration and Product Delivery: Lace wallet updated to support Babel Fee payments. Production-ready software supporting Babel Fee service for two major native assets. MVP: one Babel Fee provider; the network layer is not required to be open and permissionless at this stage, however, the architecture will be designed with extensibility as a core principle, ensuring it can be further designed to support multiple providers and wallets in a decentralised, permissionless network in subsequent iterations.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I expect this proposal to complete all deliverables as stated, and if this is not done, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.

While I agree that there are clear issues with fragmented tooling, scattered documentation, lack of coordination, and a steep learning curve, I have to vote NO on this proposal in its current form.

This is a good start to solve a real problem, but it is a problem that IOG and the Cardano Foundation created themselves. This could have been addressed early on by unifying a singular location for all things Cardano developper related, and would not need additional funding to solve.

I think this is still worthwhile exploring, but probably not the most viable solution to attracting and retaining developers. I believe this issue primarily lies in improving Cardano’s overall tooling and codebase simplicity, and supporting other proposals like these are a much better use of community funds:

• Pebble & Ecosystem maintenance: TypeScript core of Cardano
• IO: Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration
• IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus - Performance, Correctness, and Usability

I recommend that IOG does further work ensuring that the Cardano Foundation, Intersect, and Cardano developers will use the desired designated tooling portal, and ensure that any developer can submit documentation and tooling to this portal. Once this proof is available, I am more likely to part with the ADA required to make this happen.

I am also uncertain that the requested costs of 3.6 Million ADA are justifiable for what is being proposed. If IOG cannot complete this work for less than the amount requested, I think this workload should be tendered out to other companies, as this mostly amounts to organizational work and I cannot see how this would require top tier salaried programmers to make this happen.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I expect this proposal to complete all deliverables as stated, and if this is not done, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.

I have to vote NO on this proposal in its current form. I think the idea of Pogun is a great one, and something like it should be built out for Cardano to benefit from the potential income stream of the Bitcoin network. Here are my concerns:

As far as I can tell, this proposal is treasury funding for a for-profit company tool that will not be open-sourced. The rationale behind this is:

Most treasury-funded proposals are grants. They fund work, the work ships, and the treasury sees no financial return.

However, this is inaccurate as most current treasury-funded proposals are for open-source ecosystem tooling, maintenance, or advertising. These are all costs that have a social benefit for our ecosystem and are not primarily for-profit enterprises.

If Pogun is going to be so great, why doesn’t IOG just build it with their own funding and ship it as it is a for-profit product anyway?

Since this is a 100% treasury funded ask, I expect IOG to revise the 5% EBITDA yield back to the Cardano treasury to a worthwhile portion, at least 20%.

Also, this revenue return specifically states “5% of EBITDA on Cardano-related products in perpetuity. “ This revenue return should be on all POGUN products, not only Cardano-related products if Cardano is 100% funding POGUN.

Finally, is there going to be a token sold or used for interacting on Pogun? There are no details regarding this, and it is a major concern to take into consideration if so.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I have to vote NO on this proposal in its current form. This proposal has several misleading and false statements regarding Blockfrost:

“an operational subsidy ($900,000) to maintain the free-tier infrastructure that Blockfrost has funded entirely on its own since inception.”

“Since its first day of operation, Blockfrost has provided free API access to the Cardano blockchain for developers and projects across the ecosystem — absorbing 100% of the infrastructure cost of that free tier without ever passing it on to users.”

Blockfrost has been funded multiple times through Project Catalyst community funding under the ownership of Five Binaries. Now after being purchased by IOG, funding is again being requested under the guise of “doing the work for free”.

Blockfrost is a for profit system, and if the Cardano treasury is continued to be expected to pay for its support, then I suggest ownership of Blockfrost be transferred to the Cardano ecosystem as compensation for continued funding.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I have to vote NO on this proposal, as there is no clear description of what has been delivered for past funding on Hydra and Midgard, and what exactly we will be getting as a final product for both L2s.

There is much hype and buzz in this proposal about potential value both L2s could bring, but no clear details about how these L2s will get us there and what will be built out for the community to make this all happen.

This is much too vague of a proposal to justify spending 10.5 Million ADA of community funding, and I expect that if IOG would like Hydra and Midgard funding that they address my previous concerns and resubmit.

Also, in no way should any founding entity, like IOG or its founder Charles Hoskinson publicly attack and pressure Cardano community members and DReps into voting Yes for their proposals. This dishonorable and disrespectful behavior is unbecoming of any leader who wishes to be taken seriously and in turn granted respect.

If this behavior continues in the future, I will be downvoting every proposal by such entities who behave this way as a consequence. Please keep in mind that actions have repercussions.

I also do not appreciate IOG frontrunning the entire Intersect budget process with the intent of claiming the entire NCL for 2026 and leaving nothing for community builders.

I expect this proposal to complete all deliverables as stated, and if this is not done, IOG will receive no further Yes votes from me in the future.

Hell no! After last year's Cardano Summit fiasco where the community was exploited with abusive ticket prices, there is no way I am voting yes for this.

Both the Cardano Foundation and EMURGO should be using genesis ADA to pay for building Cardano, not exploiting the treasury every week or two.

It is not in Cardano's best interest to burn through the treasury on wasteful spending like this during a bear market. Burn some genesis ADA instead if you want to actually support Cardano.

Also, if EMURGO or YOROI votes anything but abstain on this proposal, it is 100% a conflict of interest and we all know it!

I originally voted no on this proposal only due to the low cost of ADA and the need to prioritize spending, however as it is now clear that IOG intends to raid the treasury every year for funding, alternative nodes are a top priority.

Without node diversity and a seriously reduced dependence on IOG, IOG will continue to hold the network and treasury hostage.

I therefore see this spending as excellent value and I hope that Pebble + Gerolamo get funded!

As per my previous voting rationale, I view the Cardano Foundation as a bad actor in the Cardano Ecosystem, who uses their genesis ADA to influence governance in their favor. See their previous use of genesis ADA in Catalyst Fund 13 to act as kingmaker in determining votes of most proposals.

I see the CF now managing Catalyst as a serious conflict of interest, and would rather Project Catalyst be managed as an independent entity funded by the treasury or managed by Intersect. An entity who does not have a financial incentive via genesis ADA to affect voting and the entire Catalyst process would be ideal.

As much as I love what Blink Labs has done with Dingo, I have already voted yes on one alternative node (Amaru), and I belive this is all the Cardano ecosystem can financially support at this time. Alternative nodes in different programming languages are important for longevity and long term security, but we just voted on huge spending for major infrastructure updates last year, and I believe any spending now needs to be focused on ROI for ADA holders and financial benefits for the chain. In the future I would look at voting yes to support a 3rd node, most likely in 5 years time unless the financial status of the Cardano ecosystem improves significantly sooner.

I would also like to see this proposal submitted as part of the Intersect budget process. This is a better way for the Cardano community to work together and establish a formal budget and spending system that is transparent and accountable.

I am voting yes on this withdrawal request, as I have already voted yes on the initial proposal.

I believe the Cardano ecosystem does need a fund like this targeted specifically with a VC capital investment strategy mindset. The overall structure of the fund is very fair, provided that it performs well. What I cannot get behind is that there is not enough documented evidence provided in this proposal that Draper Dragon & Draper University can deliver the value they are expecting for the 50 million requested for the treasury withdrawal.

Furthermore, there is no investment capital being allocated by Tim Draper / Draper Dragon / Draper University, this proposal is to be funded from the treasury, paying a $1 Million + administration fee with entirely no risk to the Draper entities.

Providing the fund succeeds, the Draper entities will get 20% of all profits, and the possibility of purchasing into a variety of crypto startup companies at favorable rates to gain ownership. There is huge upside for Draper with all the risk from the Cardano community.

I would rather see a 20% investment allocated by Draper so that they are incentivized to earn that 20% profit + startup ownership potential. I am even okay with paying a standard management fee rate providing Draper actually contributes financially to this deal.

It's close, but more needs to be done to make this happen for a supporting vote from me. Please rework this proposal when the appropriate changes are made.

I would also like to see this proposal submitted as part of the Intersect budget process. This is a better way for the Cardano community to work together and establish a formal budget and spending system that is transparent and accountable.

I fully support using the Cardano Budget Process Framework by Intersect. They have effectively proven to be capable administrators that can facilitate a well run budget process.

You can view the entire current and previous Intersect treasury distribution process here:
https://treasury.sundae.fi/instances/9e65e4ed7d6fd86fc4827d2b45da6d2c601fb920e8bfd794b8ecc619?projectState=Active

What I am most happy to see:

• Ekklesia voting process for DReps (this worked well last time).
• 1000 ADA donation to the treasury for Vendors. This is a great way to weed out spam and treasury drain attacks.

What I would like to see:

• A multiple choice NCL submitted for DReps to vote on instead of only 1 set number.
  For myself, I'd like to see these 4 NCL numbers represented:
  50 Million ADA, 100 Million ADA, 150 Million ADA, 200 Million ADA

• Significant voting time allocated for Ekklesia voting. I would like a minimum 3 week period for DReps to be allowed to review and vote. Also, a 1 week viewing period on Ekklesia prior to being able to vote would be great to give extra time for DReps to properly review. This entire process should be advertised well in advance (starting 2 weeks to 1 month prior).

• A newsletter and regular polls that can be signed up for by DReps and administered by Intersect for the entire budget process. This way DReps can stay informed and we are guaranteeing DRep opinions are being considered by Intersect for the budget process.

The Amaru team has successfully proven their capabilities to deliver with effective contingency planning in place. They were able to avoid using their contingency fund from last year and returned the leftover ADA from their previous funding to the treasury. This proves the Amaru team's honesty and credibility, and they deserve full support to continue to build critical infrastructure that Cardano needs. Thank you Amaru team, I'm happy to vote yes on your proposal!

This proposal does not provide adequate rationale to justify this planned NCL of 300 Million ADA.

Although many see NCL as a spending limit that does not need to be met, functionally it has so far been treated by the community and proposers as a pot of money to be used up every year.

To be fiscally responsible, I would expect there be a concrete plan in place on how this ADA is to be budgeted prior to approving a large spending limit.

A budget serves as a practical and honest way of considering the financial impacts the spending of ADA will have on ADA holders, and without some kind of collaborative community budget presented to support a large NCL of 300 Million ADA cannot support this proposal.

There has been no proof summited to date that we need to spend anywhere close to this NCL amount, and I would have expected a community poll and engagement on this topic before submitting on chain. That way we could have multiple choice options to gauge sentiment on what this level should be.

I would personally expect a NCL of 100 Million ADA or less since there has been no budget submitted.

As I have not had time yet to properly review this proposal, I am voting Abstain for now.

Voting yes for a proposal I already voted yes on previously. As stated before, I am unhappy that EMURGO and The Cardano Foundation did not pay for half of the cost of this initiative.

There is still time to actually contribute and pay some of your genesis ADA back to the treasury for these costs CF and EMURGO.

Lets get this done, thanks everyone!

As I have not had time yet to properly review this proposal, I am voting Abstain for now.

This proposal does not provide adequate rationale to justify the planned NCL of 350 Million ADA.

Although many see NCL as a spending limit that does not need to be met, functionally it has so far been treated by the community and proposers as a pot of money to be used up every year.

To be fiscally responsible, I would expect there be a concrete plan in place on how this ADA is to be budgeted prior to approving a large spending limit.

A budget serves as a practical and honest way of considering the financial impacts the spending of ADA will have on ADA holders, and without some kind of collaborative community budget presented to support a large NCL of 350 Million ADA cannot support this proposal.

There has been no proof summited to date that we need to spend anywhere close to this NCL amount, and I would have expected a community poll and engagement on this topic before submitting on chain. That way we could have multiple choice options to gauge sentiment on what this level should be.

I would personally expect a NCL of 100 Million ADA or less since there has been no budget submitted.

As I have not had time yet to properly review this proposal, I am voting Abstain for now.

As I have not had time yet to properly review this proposal, I am voting Abstain for now.

Ultimately, I see this proposal and the funding withdrawn to execute it as a waste of time and resources.

This could have been accomplished without spending 750,000 ADA, and honestly DReps will determine governance and policy with their votes no matter what is drafted here.

Code is law according to the blockchain, and even if there is a directive vision document like this, it will not hold sway like the constitution does.

This proposal is also still too vague on what exactly the target goals for the blockchain should be, and this is more so a matter of opinion. Ultimately DReps will decide what these goals will be when they vote.

The KPI section brings usefulness and practicality to it, but I think that the thresholds for decentralization for K (~500 pools, no target for increasing K and decentralization). For governance/operational resilience, the current number and math is not clear. The goal for decentralization should be much higher.

KPIs and Goals are too stagnant and signal more of the same we've had in regards to staking/rewards/spending and overall governance direction. We need a shakeup with more power leveraged to the community and a real focus on decentralization, the pillar of what should be Cardano.

I think we have already made good moves in the right direction with what has been spent and enacted to date, and more paperwork without constitutional enforcement is not helpful.

There is already a process in place to add Constitutional Committee members, and that process should be followed. We already had an election and a successful candidate was selected. If there is a desire to add more CC seats, then this should be socialized and submitted as a change request to the CC size instead.

Do we need all of these things to ensure Cardano succeeds? Yes.

Weren't these things the responsibility of the founding entities to use their genesis ADA to pay for and get done? Also yes.

Why weren't these expenses included in the 2025 budget? Who knows.

Why aren't EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation paying for this infrastructure since it is their financial responsibility as part of their role? They would much rather make ADA holders pay, and keep their genesis ADA to continue to influence governance.

**At the time of this vote, Emurgo controls ~16% of all governance voting power through EMURGO and YOROI, and the Cardano Foundation controls ~4.22% **

I am happy to see these critical integrations finally addressed, since they have been largely ignored by the founding entities for some time. The entire Cardano community has voiced concerns regarding the need for this infrastructure during the initial Cardano roadmap period, and only now are we seeing action (at the cost of all ADA holders).

Regardless of my vote, this action will pass - it is needed so that is good.

Why am I voting no?

• ADA holders should not be footing the bill for this, EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation should be spending genesis ADA to finally fulfill their contract with the Cardano ecosystem.

• This should have been included in the budget process for 2025, especially considering the large ask.

• This amount surpasses my personal NCL for 2025, and there are no good reasons for me to vote yes despite this.

• If EMURGO, the Cardano Foundation, and Input Output Global were all to pitch 50% of the cost to cover these expenses together, I would vote yes. They want it to be 100% covered from community pockets when EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation should actually be paying for this infrastructure.

A message to the two founding entities that continue to extract value from our ecosystem: Have some honor, take ownership, and use your genesis ADA as intended. You should be covering some of this cost and disclose what % you are contributing.

The rationale behind extending the Net Change Limit duration is valid. It does not change the spend amount of NCL, and it makes sense to approve this action.

Do we need all of these things to ensure Cardano succeeds? Yes.

Weren't these things the responsibility of the founding entities to use their genesis ADA to pay for and get done? Also yes.

Why weren't these expenses included in the 2025 budget? Who knows.

Why aren't EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation paying for this infrastructure since it is their financial responsibility as part of their role? They would much rather make ADA holders pay, and keep their genesis ADA to continue to influence governance.

**At the time of this vote, Emurgo controls ~16% of all governance voting power through EMURGO and YOROI, and the Cardano Foundation controls ~4.22% **

I am happy to see these critical integrations finally addressed, since they have been largely ignored by the founding entities for some time. The entire Cardano community has voiced concerns regarding the need for this infrastructure during the initial Cardano roadmap period, and only now are we seeing action (at the cost of all ADA holders).

Regardless of my vote, this action will pass - it is needed so that is good.

Why am I voting no?

• ADA holders should not be footing the bill for this, EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation should be spending genesis ADA to finally fulfill their contract with the Cardano ecosystem.

• This should have been included in the budget process for 2025, especially considering the large ask.

• This amount surpasses my personal NCL for 2025, and there are no good reasons for me to vote yes despite this.

• If EMURGO, the Cardano Foundation, and Input Output Global were all to pitch 50% of the cost to cover these expenses together, I would vote yes. They want it to be 100% covered from community pockets when EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation should actually be paying for this infrastructure.

A message to the two founding entities that continue to extract value from our ecosystem: Have some honor, take ownership, and use your genesis ADA as intended. You should be covering some of this cost and disclose what % you are contributing.

Time to update our CC and get governance back on track!

Voting YES based on my position taken for the Info action of the same proposal. A great pioneer project for loans on Cardano.

Using genesis ADA or Cardano Foundation resources to secure generic top-level domains for the Cardano Ecosystem seems like a very large waste of time and resources:

• There is no demand for this service - all those currently established in the Cardano ecosystem are using existing domains and are unlikely to switch or purchase a domain simply for a redirect.

• Anyone can buy the domains and use them for potentially harmful purposes (ie scam sites mimicking legitimate sites). Legitimizing the .ada and .cardano domains will actually help make this problem worse.

• The funds could be used in much better ways to support the Cardano ecosystem, like matching the resources allocated for the Stablecoin investment fund.

• This is a focus only on the Cardano internal ecosystem. Those outside of Cardano are unlikely to care about this "investment", and we will not bring new users by spending funds on vanity websites for those already in our ecosystem. Onboarding new users to Cardano and retaining them is our #1 issue to be solved, this doesn't even rank.

100% yes - participants need to be reimbursed for the Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit. I'm surprised none of the founding entities or Intersect stepped up to make this happen - it's been far too long to fix this mistake.

Thank you for pioneering governance, and for weathering the delays by those that should have acted sooner.

While I believe the Constitutional Committee should receive compensation out of all the Cardano representatives, the ADA ask is too much, so I must vote no.

The CC should have socialized this proposal before putting it on chain if they wanted to get it passed on the first go.

We as a community need to have the discussion of compensation for CC members and DReps, so perhaps this is how we now start.

Feedback:

• There needs to be rationale and calculations provided about how the amount requested of 200,000 ADA per CC seat was reached.

• As far as I can tell, there are 23 individuals seeking compensation (hard to find out if there is one or more member of Tingvard). We can either assign payment based on seat or on individual participants.

In my opinion, I would expect no more than 2,000 ADA per month per person of compensation for the CC committee, so that works out to 24,000 ADA per person per year, and a total of 552,000 ADA (about half of what is being requested).

The main benefits of having a council of members per CC seat as opposed to a single member should be: efficiency in reaching a decision faster, splitting the workload, enabling a more democratic process.

Having a council of members per CC seat should not increase costs to ADA holders dramatically as opposed to having a single person hold a seat, and compensation needs to reflect this.

We also need to set an example to the community that getting a CC seat does not mean we are granting someone a golden goose. To prevent this from happening and to reinforce that splitting a CC seat should result in efficiency, not an overall increase in cost, I recommend that each individual CC seat be compensated no more than 50,000 ADA per year. This would set us at a reasonable 350,000 ADA for all 7 seats and incur a fair annual cost to the treasury and ADA holders.

Glad to see this proposal resubmitted with changes from feedback integrated. I sincerely hope this improvement to the Cardano Constitution passes. Thank you YUTA for your hard work in creating further clarity and simplification of the Cardano Constitution. Also, thank you to everyone who submitted constructive feedback. I appreciate the improvements made for the betterment of Cardano governance :)

As I have not yet had time to review this proposal, I have submitted a vote of Abstain for now.

As I have not yet had time to review this proposal, I have submitted a vote of Abstain for now.

After an extensive review, I can confidently say I will be voting yes for this proposal.

DeFi Liquidity is a serious issue our ecosystem faces, and this proposal presents a solid solution with relatively low risk. Here are some key points to consider:

• I would have expected the Cardano Foundation or EMURGO to fund something like this with genesis ADA, but once again the community and treasury are forced to fund it instead.

• I would like to see some kind of contribution match by both the CF and EMURGO to bring up the stablecoin liquidity budget total to be higher, or to cover half the costs so the remainder can be returned to the treasury.

• If the CF and EMURGO don't contribute financially to this proposal, I'd like to see their voting seats removed and replaced with other contributing members from the community.

• When choosing vendors / exchanges, I would expect if any of the voting members have conflicts of interest, that they would abstain from voting.

• Although this proposal would put the total spend above my personal NCL of 250 million ADA, the community has decided for a NCL of 350 million ADA and has already green lit a spend above my personal NCL. As a DRep I have to be responsive to community wishes, and this is one proposal I see as a true large scale infrastructure investment for our ecosystem, and not a proposal with high cost high risk and low ROI. It is needed, and should be accomplished sooner rather than later, so I believe this spend is valid for us to make to fill up the remainder of NCL for this year.

Thank you to everyone who has put so much work into this proposal, I appreciate your efforts to solve critical problems in our ecosystem.

I'm happy to see the SNEK proposal restructured and resubmitted. Requesting funding for this initiative as a repayable loan is a good way to go about the proposal, and the SNEK team has a proven track record of valuable contributions to the Cardano ecosystem. This initiative also aims to solve a major issue Cardano continues to have, which is onboarding CNTs onto centralized exchanges. I would have preferred to see genesis ADA from the Cardano Foundation or EMURGO spent on this kind of initiative, but since both entities continue to fail the Cardano ecosystem in fulfilling their roles and utilizing genesis ADA as intended, we must rely on treasury withdrawal proposals like this instead. Thank you for being a trailblazer for the rest of the Cardano ecosystem SNEK team!

After reviewing this proposal in detail, I believe it is a worthwhile endeavor. The team involved has established trust, and has the necessary knowledge and skills to achieve success.

If this proposal does not succeed, I recommend taking further time to popularize it on social media and resubmit after more attention has been drawn.

Good luck team!

A new Constitutional Committee is sorely needed, as only some of the previous CC members took their role seriously and voted with the best interest of the Cardano Ecosystem.

I am very happy to see the replacement of the unelected seats (The Cardano Foundation, Input | Output Global, EMURGO, and Intersect) with elected members.

This is a big step in the right direction where we can have a more democratic governance process with significantly less conflict of interest by CC members.

This update to the Cardano Constitution does exactly what it sets out to do:

• Fixed typos and cleaned up wording
• Simplified structure and reduced word count
• Clarified key definitions
• Removed unused or outdated clauses
• Removed the budget requirement for treasury withdrawals

Given that this GA streamlines and improves the Cardano Constitution without making any changes to functionality that should require ample community debate, this proposal deserves to pass.

Thank you YUTA for making needed improvements to the Cardano Constitution - you have my YES vote! :)

Should your GA fail to pass due to not enough participation, I encourage you to resubmit as it takes a longer than normal timeline for DReps to review this particular GA.

I appreciate what SNEK has done for the Cardano ecosystem to date, and getting listed on two major exchanges as a CNT is a huge win for ADA.

I also see value in community contributions towards getting CNTs listed on major exchanges, as it is a huge issue that is holding our entire ecosystem back.

Without CNT listings, we are not going to overtake Ethereum or Solana (unless they crash and burn). This is something I had expected IOG / Cardano Foundation / EMURGO to facilitate, use genesis ADA for, and build bridges between exchanges and community projects. Sadly this has not happened, and I feel is a huge failure of responsibility on their part.

Despite this, I appreciate that there are builders trying to make CNT listings happen, so thank you.

Here are my concerns and why I have to vote no for now:

• The GA is unconstitutional, and its not something nitpicky that is worth overlooking. Constitutionality nitpickiness is an abuse of power IMO, so as a DRep I also vote based on the spirit of the proposal and how big or small any errors are.

Article IV Section 3: The proposal does not appear to be part of an approved Cardano ecosystem budget. This would be an example of constitutional nitpickiness. There are always going to be proposals submitted that are outside the approved ecosystem budget, and it is our job to review edge cases. What I would expect is some kind of socialization of the proposal before dropping it on chain. Then you will get feedback, and have time to garner support from the community.

Article IV Section 4: No allocation is made for independent audits or defined oversight mechanisms. This is a requirement.

Article IV Section 5: The proposal does not specify that the receiving wallet is undelegated or delegated to the auto-abstain option. This is a requirement.

• The ask of 5 Million ADA without clear details or a clear plan/KPIs is too much. Bringing hard data to the table showing the impact of the Kraken and Crypto.com listings will help your case. Having a business plan that can sell this proposal to the community will help even more.

• I would expect 5 Million ADA would get us multiple CNT listings for a variety of tokens, not just SNEK. As this is a huge ask for only SNEK, I'd expect some kind of repayment plan or community compensation plan in exchange for the ADA given, since ultimately this will be supporting only one private project token and not the broader community.

• The board of directors plan looks stacked, this can be both a good and bad thing. How much of this budget is being allocated to paying them?

Please take this feedback as constructive and resubmit after taking time to socialize your proposal. I'd like to be able to give you a yes with revisions made.

I appreciate what SNEK has done for the Cardano ecosystem to date, and getting listed on two major exchanges as a CNT is a huge win for ADA.

I also see value in community contributions towards getting CNTs listed on major exchanges, as it is a huge issue that is holding our entire ecosystem back.

Without CNT listings, we are not going to overtake Ethereum or Solana (unless they crash and burn). This is something I had expected IOG / Cardano Foundation / EMURGO to facilitate, use genesis ADA for, and build bridges between exchanges and community projects. Sadly this has not happened, and I feel is a huge failure of responsibility on their part.

Despite this, I appreciate that there are builders trying to make CNT listings happen, so thank you.

Here are my concerns and why I have to vote no for now:

• The GA is unconstitutional, and its not something nitpicky that is worth overlooking. Constitutionality nitpickiness is an abuse of power IMO, so as a DRep I also vote based on the spirit of the proposal and how big or small any errors are.

Article IV Section 3: The proposal does not appear to be part of an approved Cardano ecosystem budget. This would be an example of constitutional nitpickiness. There are always going to be proposals submitted that are outside the approved ecosystem budget, and it is our job to review edge cases. What I would expect is some kind of socialization of the proposal before dropping it on chain. Then you will get feedback, and have time to garner support from the community.

Article IV Section 4: No allocation is made for independent audits or defined oversight mechanisms. This is a requirement.

Article IV Section 5: The proposal does not specify that the receiving wallet is undelegated or delegated to the auto-abstain option. This is a requirement.

• The ask of 5 Million ADA without clear details or a clear plan/KPIs is too much. Bringing hard data to the table showing the impact of the Kraken and Crypto.com listings will help your case. Having a business plan that can sell this proposal to the community will help even more.

• I would expect 5 Million ADA would get us multiple CNT listings for a variety of tokens, not just SNEK. As this is a huge ask for only SNEK, I'd expect some kind of repayment plan or community compensation plan in exchange for the ADA given, since ultimately this will be supporting only one private project token and not the broader community.

• The board of directors plan looks stacked, this can be both a good and bad thing. How much of this budget is being allocated to paying them?

Please take this feedback as constructive and resubmit after taking time to socialize your proposal. I'd like to be able to give you a yes with revisions made.

I think this is unnecessary spending to deliver something that does not require the expense asked for.

Cardano has had a longstanding vision that has yet to be realized, and there is already plenty to deliver on that has been previously promised.

Both GAs and budgets will shape the future direction of Cardano, and this is not something that requires $750,000 ADA to decide.

That ADA could be better spent on projects that will deliver something to improve Cardano and realize the vision and promises already made to the Cardano community.

I initially voted no for this proposal during the Ekklesia voting process as I felt other proposals were more deserving of budget allocation.

Since not all of my selected proposals made it into the treasury withdrawal process, I have extra room in my personal NCL.

After further research and review of the project team and its existing legitimate work, I am convinced that this service will be a worthwhile contribution to the Cardano 2025 Budget.

I would expect that this service should be funded by EMURGO or the Cardano Foundation, as getting Cardano Native Assets listed on exchanges and with enough liquidity is essential for the continued survival of our ecosystem and falls within the roles of these entities. This is something that has been ignored by EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation, so I am happy to see someone else stepping up to fill this key role.

I have changed my vote to YES for this proposal, and it fits within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

This is a high risk proposal that is requesting community funding for a service that is for profit and should be getting funding from investment, a token sale, or from service fees instead of a community donation.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I initially voted no for this proposal during the Ekklesia voting process as I felt other proposals were more deserving of budget allocation.

Since not all of my selected proposals made it into the treasury withdrawal process, I have extra room in my personal NCL.

After further research and listening to the CBDAO Megaspace, I am convinced that this service will be a worthwhile contribution to the Cardano 2025 Budget:

https://x.com/atrium_lab/status/1950586973623599283

I have changed my vote to YES for this proposal, and it fits within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

This proposal falls into the realm of a service the Cardano Foundation should be paying for themselves instead of requesting community ADA funding.

The CF should be willing to use their genesis ADA for contributing to the growth of Cardano, like funding global marketing for Cardano.

This is a responsibility the CF has been sorely lacking in, and I am disappointed but not surprised to see the CF asking for a handout to do this work they should already be doing.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

This is a high risk proposal that is requesting community funding for a service that is for profit and should be getting funding from investment, a token sale, or from service fees instead of a community donation.

If exchange platforms wish to have community funding, then they should be also offering the community a portion of their company in exchange for the requested ADA to offset the high risk of this proposal.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I believe the Cardano Foundation should be compensated for the costs of the Cardano Summit and regional tech events.

Although this budget has been reduced from the previous requested amount of 20,000,000 ADA, I still cannot support it.

There is an overall lack of transparency regarding the final budget total and where that money is being spent.

After looking extensively on the Intersect Website, Discord, and X profile I could only find a (somewhat) detailed breakdown of the new Intersect Operational Costs hidden in one of the supporting links as a .csv file, Details of all successful proposals (CSV):

https://bafybeicwrop4q7xvnyjdd5drumbe56sqtm5lbe2ul3c262zt4hgguzdycm.ipfs.dweb.link/

This information should have been presented in the written details of the GA so everyone could see it, but since it can't be easily found, I've copied the details into a Google Doc:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLMXjqbC96aTkoCGrkHBWiLdm9vljyp8ZuGWZNDQ51w/edit?usp=sharing

My key issues:

• This budget breakdown is far less detailed than what we were initially presented with.

• Majority of operations budget is the cost of 45 people at $100,000 a person. People are the most expensive part of a business, so that makes sense, but there is no clarity on what roles these people serve (does not give us an idea if this is necessary expenditure or not).

• Board members get $35,000 compensation per director, but then Board Services cost $250,000. What are these services? Sounds like compensation for Board of Directors, but then why is it not included in that cost? Are board members compensated also as a part of the 45 people on the personnel list at $100,000 as well?

• Intersect wants to operate as an MBO with all the benefits of being an MBO (board of directors, answering only to members), but then they want to be completely community funded. You cannot have this both ways. If you are community funded, you need to be accountable to all ADA holders not members and a board.

At this point, if Intersect wants to be completely community funded, they need to cut their operations to the point where they serve as manager of the budget and point of contact for CDH only. Any additional roles are superfluous to their existence and are an unnecessary cost to ADA holders.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

The amount requested by Tempo is reasonable for the time frame and product/work to be delivered. Tempo.vote serves as a much better and more cost effective alternative to gov.tools, and the team has proven to be trustworthy. They will use community funds responsibly to deliver for Cardano.

This proposal also falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.

Gov.tools remains buggy with minimal features and poor UI/UX when compared to other community governance tools available (tempo.vote, ekklesia). Thankfully there have been some minor improvements, but the service has a long way to go.

The amount requested is extremely high when compared to the budget requested by competitor product tempo.vote . The amount asked for maintenance costs for a gov.tools service that plans to add no features for $330K / ₳412.5K is ridiculous.

I would much rather support competitor services financially when they are willing to continue to maintain their products and add new features for less than this in a 6 month period of time.

Gov.tools still does not even have a proper bug ticketing/reporting system, as there is no way to get email correspondence or follow-up for any bugs that are encountered and not resolved.

I previously voted yes for the Amaru Info Action, and am now following through with a yes for the Amaru treasury withdrawl.

This budget surpasses my personal NCL of 250M ADA. I also do not support omnibus budgets, and a significant amount of proposals that were successfully passed did not meet the on chain threshold of 2.69B ADA. Omnibus budgets are the only way skewed results like this are able to circumvent intended On-Chain guardrails and thresholds. I went through the Ekklesia budget voting process, and could not find enough worthwhile proposals to surpass my NCL of 250M ADA.

I am voting yes based on the spirit of the proposal - this segment of the GA covers a key issue of the Intersect budget proposal that has been deliberately glossed over:

A key issue in the initial budget process was the misapplication of the participation threshold. The 50% + 1 Lovelace threshold was calculated based on total ada participating in the vote, rather than the active voting stake—which significantly alters the democratic weight of participating DReps. This discrepancy risks enabling governance distortion through low-turnout manipulation, akin to gerrymandering.

To safeguard against such vulnerabilities and uphold the integrity of Cardano’s governance process, this Info Action includes only those proposals submitted by community builders (that might not have 100k ADA deposit) and met the corrected threshold of 2.69B ada, equivalent to 50% + 1 Lovelace of the active registered voting stake. This ensures that community-driven proposals with broad support are prioritized.

There is obvious overlap with Intersect, and a fund manager has not been chosen, but this is easily remedied. I would expect that this GA would take precedent over the Intersect budget, and a fund manager would be chosen prior to any distribution of ADA.

Preserving the integrity of our voting process is essential, and Intersect has deliberately sidestepped this, which needs to be remedied.

It is essential for us to have node diversity for Cardano - this is a critical piece needed for the continued decentralization of Cardano. The Amaru team is trusted and completely capable of executing this project, so I believe this is good use of ADA holder treasury funds and I support it.

This NCL surpasses my personal NCL of 250M ADA and violates my stance on fiscal responsibility. I went through the Ekklesia budget voting process, and could not find enough worthwhile proposals to surpass my NCL of 250M ADA. I am concerned that NCL will end up being a spending cap that will be filled every time, so I have to vote as such.

I don't think providing liquidity to DeFi operations should be funded from treasury ADA. DeFi operations have to be self-sustaining as they are completely a commercial product with the intent of making money from ADA holders.

I am voting yes for this NCL proposal, as it falls within my personal NCL of 200-250 Million ADA.

I think this proposed NCL is fiscally responsible based on the budget proposals we have seen from all submitting members.

I believe it is extremely important to be prudent with our spending in this first year of ADA governance, and I have not been convinced that a spend limit of more than 250 Million ADA is justified in any way.

If a NCL proposal of 250 Million ADA is at some point proposed, I will vote yes for that as well, but this proposal satisfies my desires for fiscal responsibility.

Thank you to the proposers who worked together to make this happen and were able to get a NCL that has community support submitted past the unnecessarily high submission threshold of a 100,000 ADA deposit.

A NCL of 350 Million ADA is too high to be considered fiscally responsible. Submitted budgets have not reasonably proven this amount of ADA is necessary, so I cannot in good conscience approve this level of spending.

I am willing to approve a NCL of ~200 Million ADA, and will do so if a GA is submitted to support this.

If we had community pooled GA supported tooling from Intersect / gov.tools / IOG this would be a non-issue, as average Cardano community members would have been able to submit their own GAs and this would be done already.

I'm disappointed that this necessary tooling has been withheld and was promised as part of a compromise for a 100 Million ADA deposit for GAs.

This is an overall good vision of the next stage in the Cardano roadmap.

Although the details are fairly general, this is enough to work with as a vision for the future. More specific details, like timelines and budgets should definitely be built out and supplied for the Cardano Budget, since they are not present here.

Overall, the categories present some solid goals, but I am disappointed with the SPO Improvements category.

Both suggestions presented (min margin and modified pledge-benefit for a0) have been researched and assessed by the Cardano community and IOG for a long time without any implementation or effort to be put into effect.

I would have expected new suggestions here or new ideas to present to the community, since the previous improvements were not deemed important or significant enough by IOG to implement in the past.

If we are going with this line of thinking, then adjusting the K parameter to 1000 should also be presented as an SPO Incentive Improvement.

I think what needs to be addressed is primarily the issue of large pool operations that control a significant portion of the network, reducing the effectiveness of K.

Addressing sticky stake to retired pools and providing backup pool selections on initial delegation would be some key issues to solve for which would help with SPO Incentive Improvements.

Hopefully there is much more intended work to be done in this category, as it is the one that is lacking compared to the other categories.

Cardano's tax rate of 20% was never intended to stay at 20% forever - like all parameters it needs to be adjusted over time to account for system growth.

Arbitrarily set at 20%, this tax rate helped us grow a massive treasury that can now be used to fund substantial innovation for our blockchain.

Now that we have a large reserve to work with, we need to address the issue of market competition. Cardano is not in the number 3 spot, there are many other products we are competing for in the financial market space.

When interest rates were absurdly low, an annual return of ~3% seemed very good compared to what was being offered by banks, but this is no longer the case.

Cardano is primarily an investment product - that is where the majority of its value is derived, and why people buy it and hold it long term.

Lowering the tax rate on ADA will incentivize further investment by increasing delegator rewards for everyone, especially in a market saturated with other options offering high ROI.

I am also of the mindset that higher taxation does not equal better improvements or experience for governments or blockchains.

Leaner taxation means that ADA holders (the people who the blockchain is beholden to), get to decide what they'd like to do with their ADA (instead of governments) and I believe this is the right decision for both Cardano and with fiat governments.

A lower tax rate also means that we will need to be more efficient with government spending, and more critical of what is being allocated for in each budget.

Considering the spending put forth in the budget for Cardano 2025, it is already evident that overspending is an issue that needs more oversight going forward.

Accountable spending is a challenge fiat governments cannot manage to accomplish today, and we need to solve for this on Cardano early so that we do not fall into the same trap. Lower taxation helps remedy this issue.

The current version of the Cardano Constitution is the result of efforts of a large number of Cardano community members, and is the best constitution we will get for now.

There is plenty of room for improvement, and while I may disagree with some aspects of the Cardano Constitution, it is time to move forward with what we currently have.

We will have plenty of opportunities to make improvements to the constitution in the future, and here are some areas I think merit serious attention going forward:

• The overall lack of on chain enforceability of the constitution. We have already seen in the past that social pressure is not enough, such as with the centralization of Stake Pools, leaving us with ~20% of operators controlling ~80% of all stake.

• The lack of choice for governance models other than 1 lovelace = 1 vote from the beginning. DIDs and quadratic voting would put us in a much better governance model that does not lead to centralized oligarchy or plutocracy, and we are sadly in this situation right from the start of governance, which was predetermined for CIP 1694.

• It would be smart to encourage ADA holders financially to participate in governance. Using a carrot method instead of the current stick method (can't withdraw rewards until delegating) would get better results. Having a portion of treasury rewards allocated to ADA holders who actually delegate to a DRep vs Auto Abstain, and encourage decentralization by having overall better rewards if the DRep is not in the very top rankings by stake delegated. This would encourage more active participation and movement of delegated voting power.

• Article 1, Section 1, TENET 9 and Article 2, Section 2 are already in violation by deliberately making it financially difficult to participate in governance.

DRep and Direct Voter registration fees should be lowered significantly so that meaningful participation can happen. Finances alone are not an adequate determining factor for leadership or governance capabilities of a person, especially when Cardano is global and many cannot afford a 500 ADA deposit but could offer meaningful governance contributions.

The same goes for the govDeposit amount for submitting governance actions - 100,000 ADA is set deliberately high with the reasoning that it will limit spam. DReps and ADA holders were told that we would have ADA pooling tools available to mitigate this very high barrier to entry in order for meaningful participation to still happen - we did not get these tools, and still don't have them. We cannot have a deliberately high financial barrier to governance participation if we want true decentralized governance like what is preached. So either we need govDeposit to be lowered to ~5000 ADA, or we need the tooling that was promised to be present on gov.tools

• Article 3, Section 5 has been violated by gov.tools already, so we need at least 1 alternative interface platform to gov.tools with similar functionality to ensure there is a second valid and useful option.

Whenever I experienced technical issues with gov.tools, I filled out their support form and also contacted their support email. I received no response back on multiple occasions, but the issues were eventually quietly fixed. My governance dashboard is still broken and doesn't display my previous voting history. I expect a real tech support team for any governance dashboard for Cardano - one that can be effectively contacted and replies to emails.

There is also currently no way for a competing Cardano Constitution to be submitted in time on gov.tools, as this function will not be able to be enabled in time for whatever reason. A deliberate choice that was made which leaves no possibility of alternative constitution choice. I doubt we could have a better submission in time, but I expect transparency and undue influence / manipulation to be followed if it is supposed to be enshrined in this constitution.

The data submitted for this governance action is missing. There is no external data linked, so it has either been changed since the proposal has been submitted, or is no longer available. I cannot vote yes on a governance proposal that I cannot read or that has been altered.

I am voting yes for this, as Eternl is core infrastructure for the Cardano blockchain and needs to continue to operate. Since it is not open source or a treasury-owned resource, this will be the last time I vote yes for funding Eternl. I'm also happy to see there is a sustainability and treasury repayment plan put in place. Eternl is a proven entity in the ecosystem that will follow through, so should they get funded, this will be the last time the community needs to fund them regardless.