Goofycrisp

Same rationale as the one presented for the Intersect budget.

I am abstaining because this proposal falls outside my area of expertise. I do not feel I have enough technical knowledge to make a fully informed decision for or against it.

I am voting YES because this proposal is structured as a productive treasury deployment rather than a traditional grant or expense. While there are risks, I believe they should be compared fairly against the execution risks of other treasury proposals, many of which are 100% expenses with no direct return mechanism.

In this case, the Treasury retains ownership of the deployed capital, the structure includes potential yield, reporting, oversight, and a defined return of funds. Strike also has a proven track record of delivering high-quality products and has already demonstrated strong organic traction.

I believe deeper liquidity on Strike can directly benefit the Cardano ecosystem by attracting more users and increasing on-chain activity.

Same rationale as the previous Eternl proposal.

I am voting YES because Hydra is critical infrastructure for Cardano scaling, and this proposal helps harden it for real production use while improving performance, reliability, and developer experience.

I am abstaining because this proposal falls outside my area of expertise. I do not feel I have enough technical knowledge to make a fully informed decision for or against it.

After further consideration, I am changing my vote from NO to ABSTAIN.

My original concern remains: for a Treasury request of this size, especially one connected to future commercial revenue and institutional growth, I believe there should ideally be a clearer value-return mechanism for the Cardano Treasury, such as repayment, revenue sharing, equity, or another enforceable structure.

That said, I also recognize the strong engagement this proposal has generated across the community, the team’s visible effort to communicate and respond to feedback, and the broad acknowledgment from many community members regarding the potential benefits of the project.

Given how closely divided the vote is, I do not want to dismiss the community’s support or the potential strategic value of the proposal. At the same time, I am not fully comfortable voting YES without a more direct Treasury return structure.

For these reasons, I believe ABSTAIN is the most appropriate position.

This proposal is a necessary technical update to support the upcoming Plutus improvements after the van Rossem hard fork. It enables new primitives, expands compatibility across Plutus V1, V2, and V3, and updates cost model settings based on benchmarking data.

These changes help keep Cardano’s smart contract platform efficient, consistent, and ready for future development. For that reason, I will vote YES.

Given the technical nature of this proposal, I don’t feel I have enough expertise to make a fully informed decision. For that reason, I believe abstaining is the most responsible choice.

Given the technical nature of this proposal, I don’t feel I have enough expertise to make a fully informed decision. For that reason, I believe abstaining is the most responsible choice.

Keeping Eternl secure, compatible, stable, and available as Cardano keeps evolving should be a priority. We cannot afford to lose a top wallet like Eternl like we lost a top analytic platform like Taptools. I also think the amount requested is fair and I do like the possible repayment to the treasury.

I've been a fervent defender of the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget (“CCI V1”), which included the integration of Circle (USDCx), LayerZero, Pyth Price Feeds, Dune Analytics, and Fireblocks. I still think this remains one of the most important ideas to support.

While I don’t particularly like that we need an additional maintenance budget for these integrations in 2026, I do think not continuing in that direction is not an option. This year has been rough, and the price of ADA surely didn’t help with the management of those integrations, so this situation is understandable this time.

However, I hope this doesn’t become a maintenance budget that needs to be funded by the treasury every year. For the future, critical integration budgets like this should be treated as one-time payments, with revenue sources in place so they can at least pay for themselves.

We are at a critical time, and Cardano must continue to separate itself from the rest of crypto through its greatest long-term strength: research and technology.

While this remains a large request, it is aimed at ecosystem growth, enterprise adoption, builders, and institutional engagement, with more concrete targets. I appreciate CF’s effort to reduce the requested amount and increase their internal resource contributions. This is now a stronger proposal.

Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano could become a major strategic narrative, and the proposal has potential upside, especially if revenue can return to the treasury. However, there are also valid concerns about overlap with existing ecosystem builders already working in this area and whether this is the highest-priority use of treasury funds right now. I support the direction in principle, but I am not fully convinced this specific allocation should be approved at this stage.

Blockfrost has clearly provided useful infrastructure and value to the Cardano ecosystem. However, there are fair concerns about using treasury funds to subsidize infrastructure that also has commercial users and paid services, especially when alternatives exist. I recognize the importance of reliable indexing and developer infrastructure, but I am not fully convinced this is the right treasury allocation at this stage.

Plutus and smart contract capabilities are central to Cardano’s developer ecosystem. While the technical details are difficult for non-developers to fully assess, this proposal appears to improve not only Plutus but also the broader smart contract environment, including other languages and tooling. In a highly competitive industry where chains are fighting for builders and users, improving Cardano’s smart contract stack is important enough to support.

High assurance and formal methods are part of what makes Cardano distinct. This proposal supports stronger security, correctness, and engineering standards, which are essential for serious long-term adoption. Tools that can help prove smart contracts are safe before deployment are especially valuable in an environment where exploits and AI-assisted vulnerabilities are becoming more common. This reinforces Cardano’s credibility and differentiation.

Cardano’s core maintenance is foundational to the stability, security, and continuity of the network. While ongoing maintenance funding should be watched carefully as more node teams come online, IO currently remains essential to this work. Given the importance of maintaining the core infrastructure that the ecosystem depends on, I believe this proposal should be supported.

Scaling is one of Cardano’s most important priorities, and supporting multiple paths for growth is strategically important. This proposal carries execution risk, but it is led by highly respected builders and presents a differentiated approach to L2 development that could strengthen Cardano without simply copying the more extractive L2 models seen elsewhere. I believe this is worth supporting.

This is a relatively modest and well-targeted proposal addressing a real bottleneck for Cardano: developer onboarding, tooling, and usability. Improving the builder experience can create compounding benefits across the ecosystem by making it easier for new developers and teams to build, launch, and contribute. The scope is concrete, the ask is reasonable, and I believe this is a valuable investment in Cardano’s long-term growth.

Consensus research and scalability are critical to Cardano’s future. While the request is large and the work is highly technical, Leios remains one of the most important scaling paths for the ecosystem. There are valid concerns around continued funding needs and delivery expectations, but the strategic importance of this work is significant enough to justify support.

This proposal supports important protocol and ecosystem improvements that can strengthen Cardano’s long-term competitiveness. Features such as better account support, Babel fees, and a multi-asset treasury have clear strategic value and can improve accessibility, usability, and future flexibility. These are forward-looking infrastructure upgrades that are reasonable to support if Cardano wants to keep evolving.

I previously abstained on the larger bundled events proposal because the total ask was too high. This revised baseline proposal is more focused and more reasonable to assess on its own merits. From personal experience, TOKEN2049 was a real success for Cardano last year. It is one of the biggest crypto conferences in the world, and I believe maintaining Cardano’s presence there matters. Cardano and Snek were both well represented, and despite the current ADA price, I think it is still worth the investment to return this year. It is also a great opportunity to attract people from outside the ecosystem to Cardano and broaden awareness beyond the existing community. Showing up in the current market environment is also positive for the ecosystem’s image. I also appreciate the commitment that if ADA appreciates materially between submission and execution, any resulting surplus will be returned to the Cardano Treasury.

With the treasury depleting quickly due to proposals being repriced around $0.25 ADA, I believe we need to be more cautious with spending. I’ve been vocal about the importance of building Cardano nodes and have already approved two other budget requests related to this area. I also think the amount requested per full-time equivalent (FTE), at $225k per year plus a 25% contingency, is too high. Therefore, I am abstaining from this vote.

While I support this proposal because Cardano needs stronger marketing and visibility, I find the withdrawal amount to be too much. Perhaps we should divide this proposal into 2 withdrawals. A presence at Token2049 Singapore is a necessity and will help attract users, partners, and opportunities, while ensuring Cardano stays relevant and competitive in the broader crypto space. With the low value of ADA, we could think of something more cost effective for the Summit.

Same rationale as the Amaru proposal. Having multiple cardano nodes is a security need and should be funded for the greater good of the blockchain.

Same rationale as the Info Action. We need to deploy capital towards Cardano DeFi as soon as possible.

Node diversification is critical to the long-term resilience and decentralization of Cardano. Relying on a single dominant node implementation creates systemic risk, where bugs, performance limits, or security vulnerabilities can impact the entire network. By supporting alternative implementations like Amaru, the ecosystem reduces single points of failure while encouraging innovation in performance, usability, and developer experience.

As a builder, I believe continued funding for new initiatives on Cardano is essential, and CF should restart the program.

Establishing a non-binding strategic framework that helps DReps assess impact, prioritize funding, and align decisions with long-term network resilience and growth is an important first step and should be supported.

Same rationale as previous iteration.

Same rationale as the Budget Info Action.

Same rationale as the "Cardano Critical Integrations Budget" proposal.

I have been battling for these things since I started working on Snek, and I couldn’t be happier to finally see the founding entities organized to make it happen. If they achieve everything outlined in this proposal, the impact on Cardano will be unquantifiable.

Stablecoins, institutional custody infrastructure, analytics platforms, bridges, and oracles are all fundamental pieces needed to unlock Cardano’s potential within the wider crypto space. These components are crucial to opening the liquidity gates. We have everything to gain and we need to act fast.

This is the biggest “yes” I’ve ever given — and probably ever will.

I support this proposal because it represents a major step forward in how the Cardano Treasury can sustainably support ecosystem growth. Having listened to DReps and community feedback, the proposal has been significantly improved since the Budget Info Action. It now includes a public legal contract, clear success metrics, and stronger oversight through Intersect and other parties.

Snek has already demonstrated its ability to expand Cardano’s visibility through Tier 1 listings, with over $5M invested to date. It has also proven its capacity to generate revenue to repay the Treasury over time through multiple streams — including Web2 and Web3 products (SnekFun, SNEKbot, SnekX, Snek Energy, Snek Figures), IP revenues , its treasury, potential capital raises, and other sources leveraging SNEK trading volume, liquidity and large community. This proposal amplifies CNT reach, deepens liquidity, and creates a repeatable path for others, directly helping address a key barrier to mainstream adoption.

I believe the Treasury should operate more like a sovereign wealth fund, not a charity, with strategic funding initiatives that grow the ecosystem and replenish it over time. Supporting this proposal means endorsing a sustainable and pioneering model that strengthens Cardano for the long term. I’m proud that Snek is leading the way.

I support the new Cardano Constitution because it creates a clear, transparent, and accountable governance framework. It defines the roles of DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee while embedding guardrails that protect the Treasury and align governance with long-term sustainability.

I also support the removal of non-binding expectations like the Budget Info Action, as it simplifies the proposal process. This change lowers friction and encourages more agile, community-driven initiatives which decentralized governance should enable.

I am voting YES on the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget proposal because it directly addresses one of the most critical issues in the Cardano ecosystem: the lack of deep and reliable stablecoin liquidity.

Right now, when an ADA or CNT holder tries to swap to stablecoins, they face high slippage and significant value loss due to insufficient liquidity. This makes it expensive and unattractive to use Cardano stablecoins, creating a negative cycle where liquidity cannot deepen because it’s too costly to use in the first place.

The current USD-based stablecoin market cap on Cardano is around 48M ADA (≈ $0.034B), with only 16M ADA deployed on DEXs. The rest is either deployed on other DeFi protocols or held privately. Compared to other top layer-1 blockchains, Cardano is far behind: Ethereum has a stablecoin market cap of $161B, Solana has $16B, BNB Smart Chain has $14B, and Tron has $78B. In other words, the ratio of stablecoins to protocol market cap is roughly 15–30% for Solana and Ethereum, but less than 0.2% on Cardano — nearly 100x lower.

By deploying 50 million ADA to improve Cardano’s stablecoin liquidity, this proposal would effectively double the current stablecoin market cap. This will help reduce slippage, make trading cheaper and more secure, and incentivize more liquidity providers to deposit tokens. It will also unlock new use cases for DeFi users and builders who currently have to rely on other chains for proper treasury management.

It’s important to note that doubling the stablecoin market cap on Cardano is only a first step toward building truly deep liquidity markets. Much more will still be needed over time.

I’m also supporting this proposal because it’s an investment in our own ecosystem. The fund will remain on-chain, generate yield, and return 15% of earnings to the Treasury monthly. If managed correctly, it will strengthen the DeFi economy while growing the Treasury’s long-term value — similar to the Snek Loan proposal.

This is exactly the kind of strategic capital deployment the Treasury should be used for: supporting critical infrastructure, improving user experience, and generating sustainable returns.