HeptaSean

Abstaining on this one. I don't want and participate in off-chain elections. I very much think that they are the wrong way and show that we have an immature and incomplete on-chain governance system, should be ashamed of that, and fix that as soon as possible instead of working with these ridiculous Intersect shenanigans.

MinPoolCost always was a bad idea. It gives small pools a relevant competitive disadvantage because it gives an overproportional share of the rewards to the pool operator when the pool only produces one or two blocks in an epoch leaving a very suboptimal return on stake for the delegators. This parameter should go down asap. A replacement by MinMargin in one of the upcoming protocol upgrades would be good, but letting MinPoolCost go down further is a good step independent of that.

For the increase of memory limits, I trust the judgement of the committee.

Much too large. Too much focus on “numbers go up” which is – in my opinion – not what the treasury is for. The treasury is for basic infrastructure that can hardly be built and financed on the market.

Much too centralised on only one person. Promised committees are only advisory. Possibility to abort or replace operator by Info action is non-binding and depends on trusting the operator to be replaced. Promised legal entity does not change this control over the money. Not even a simple multi-sign with trusted people from the community is done.

As far as I can tell, this is a technically sound proposal by well-known developers in Cardano.

Most importantly, it aims to create an actually decentralised technology that is neither dependent on being operated by the proposers nor funnels profits to them.

So, it is a good example of the foundational infrastructure I want to see funded by the treasury exclusively.

I didn't want this off-chain bureaucracy – constitution, Intersect committees, net change limits, … – at all.

Now, that we have it, I don't think, we should start spending more than the inflow of the treasury now. (We will have to early enough, since inflow will become less and less with the reserve being depleted, inflation going down.)

As far as I can see, the 500 million proposed here are still around the inflow for one and a half years. (I would welcome if proposers of net change limits could include a comparison to the inflow – historic and/or projected – especially if the period is such an arbitrary value as in this case.)

Since dReps keep wasting ADA on huge proposals by the powers that be, I vote Yes on this net change limit to have a chance left to fund smaller actors, to actually decentralise Cardano.

Daedalus is just not worth it.

There are enough better wallet apps. A full-node wallet doesn't make much sense anymore with the ever-increasing size of the chain. And it doesn't provide any relevant advantages for average users.

Power users can just run a node and do not need the subpar wallet interface of Daedalus.

The work by fallen-icarus is one of the few that actually uses the specific advantages of UTxOs. The DeFi Kernel could provide unique use cases that are only possible on Cardano, that are much more decentralised and, hence, in a way better than similar services on other chains, while most DeFi Cardano has up to now are copies of concepts that were developed for account-based chains and that work much worse on Cardano.

Moreover, this very much is basic infrastructure that can be used by many projects in the future and, hence, a good example of what should be financed by the treasury.

Basic infrastructure for many projects should be funded by the treasury to stay not-for-profit and openly available.

MLabs is among the companies that in my opinion have extracted more than enough profits from the Cardano ecosystem and shouldn't be funded anymore.

Even after years, Mithril still only provides snapshots for bootstrapping nodes. That is okayish, but not impressive enough to justify wasting that many ADA on it.

Intersect should be abolished, not funded!

Intersect should be abolished, not funded!

Hardware wallet support is a basic infrastructure requirement for the Cardano ecosystem. And it is hard to do in a for-profit way. So, this is a prime example of what the treasury is for.

Not-for-profit basic infrastructure is what the treasury should be for in my opinion.

This proposal is on the rather expensive side, but still a "Yes" from me.

I would welcome if Koios as a competitor in the same segment would also seek and get funding by the treasury.

My strong opinion is that treasury ADA should be exclusively used to fund basic technical infrastructure that is available to all people in the Cardano ecosystem.

The Cardano Builder DAO focuses too much on “numbers go up” for my taste. That should be the purpose of for-profit businesses that build on the basic community-funded infrastructure. But those businesses should not be community-funded themselves, but rather be funded by people who want to risk their venture capital in them.

My strong opinion is that treasury ADA should be exclusively used to fund basic technical infrastructure that is available to all people in the Cardano ecosystem.

Providing funding to single for-profit businesses shall in my opinion not be done from the treasury.

My strong opinion is that treasury ADA should be exclusively used to fund basic technical infrastructure that is available to all people in the Cardano ecosystem.

Providing funding to single for-profit businesses shall in my opinion not be done from the treasury.

TxPipe is among the companies that in my opinion have extracted more than enough profits from the Cardano ecosystem and shouldn't be funded anymore.

Power to the edges!

TxPipe is among the companies that in my opinion have extracted more than enough profits from the Cardano ecosystem and shouldn't be funded anymore.

Power to the edges!

TxPipe is among the companies that in my opinion have extracted more than enough profits from the Cardano ecosystem and shouldn't be funded anymore.

Power to the edges!

TxPipe is among the companies that in my opinion have extracted more than enough profits from the Cardano ecosystem and shouldn't be funded anymore.

Power to the edges!

TxPipe is among the companies that in my opinion have extracted more than enough profits from the Cardano ecosystem and shouldn't be funded anymore.

Power to the edges!

My strong opinion is that treasury ADA should be exclusively used to fund basic technical infrastructure that is available to all people in the Cardano ecosystem.

Providing funding to single for-profit businesses shall in my opinion not be done from the treasury.

My strong opinion is that treasury ADA should be exclusively used to fund basic technical infrastructure that is available to all people in the Cardano ecosystem.

Providing liquidity to one competitor in the ecosystem – granting them an advantage over the others – is not what the treasury should do.

Moreover, I find rather questionable if this loan is really as risk-reduced as the proposal claims.

Yes! Tempo has proven to deliver a governance portal that is in many ways even better than GovTool purely as a passion project. They should get the funds to sustain these developments. The funding request is much more reasonable and motivated well.

No! This budget is much too large for the little that has been delivered so far and especially in comparison to other tools that provide the same, often even better functionality in governance portals as well as just as additional functionality of wallet apps. It's just not worth it. This is an example of a project that has grown way out of reasonable proportion when everything was centralised at IOG and Intersect. Let's scratch that!

Yes! As I already voted Yes on their budget proposal since the development of an additional node is one of the most crucial projects for Cardano to become truly decentralised and not be dependent on a single development team anymore. The Amaru team is highly qualified to realise this and the budget not being administrated by Intersect is a massive advantage.

I'm voting No on the Intersect budget because it includes a lot of proposals that I don't want to be funded. I don't think that they are worth our ADA and greenlighting that budget that combines a lot of different proposals could (and I fear will) be seen as a precedence that they then also have the 'right' to get those ADA in later treasury withdrawals. Large omnibus budgets were a phenomenally bad idea and the 'budget committee' was not open to change paths at all. Moreover, I believe that Intersect is not a competent budget administrator and should not be chosen for that role at all.

I'm voting No on the 'community builder' budget because I don't want part of the included projects – Midgard, Starstream, zkFold – to be funded. I don't think that they are worth our ADA and greenlighting that budget that combines a lot of different proposals could (and I fear will) be seen as a precedence that they then also have the 'right' to get those ADA in later treasury withdrawals. Large omnibus budgets were a phenomenally bad idea and the 'budget committee' was not open to change paths at all.

I'm voting Yes on the budget for Amaru since the development of an additional node is one of the most crucial projects for Cardano to become truly decentralised and not be dependent on a single development team anymore. The Amaru team is highly qualified to realise this and the budget not being administrated by Intersect is a massive advantage. Moreover, a detailed budget proposal for one and only one project is exactly how I want treasury to be handled.

I'm voting Yes on a treasury net change limit of 300 million ADA for the coming 12 months. This is a conservative maximum that only allows to spend what the treasury will probably earn in that time according to my predictions in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-net-change-limit-2. Also, extending the validity of the net change limit into 2026 makes a lot of sense since we have already wasted so much time on this mindless budget bureaucracy.

I'm voting No on this governance action because it was submitted with invalid metadata and the proposers already said that they are planning to submit another action with correct metadata. If the proposal would have been technically correct, I would have tended to vote Yes since providing liquidity for stablecoins seems to be one of the less wasteful uses of treasury ADA to me and the proposers are qualified to execute that plan in my opinion.

I'm voting Yes on a treasury net change limit of 200 million ADA for 2025. As argued in previous net change limit proposals and in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519, I am very unsatisfied with how the budget process was handled by the 'budget committee' and the proposals we see so far contain much too much empty promises and grifts. A change limit that is as low as possible will at least reduce the sell pressure that is generated by these low quality wastes of ADA.

I'm voting No on the net change limit of 350 million ADA as proposed by the 'budget committee'. As discussed in detail in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-net-change-limit-2, the treasury will almost certainly only grow by roughly 300 million ADA in 2025 and I don't want to start spending from the treasury stock yet. It is true that the methodology employed by the 'budget committee' now after a lot of questions would prevent unlimited spending – it will go down to this year's earnings next year if they continue to use that methodology. But the genesis of this proposal sets a bad precedent on how to go about such matters.

I'm voting Yes on a treasury net change limit of 300 million ADA for 2025 and 250 million ADA for 2026. This is a conservative maximum that only allows to spend what the treasury will earn in these years according to my predictions in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-net-change-limit-2 (which are even cited in the proposal).

I'm voting 'No' on 'Defining the Cardano Vision and Roadmap for 2025 and beyond' for several reasons. 1. Formal: The Info action references a mutable document that may change at any time. This is not how on-chain voting should work. 2. Method: The action states that it wants to gather feedback by iterating during the lifetime of the action. This didn't happen and it also seems like a rather chaotic plan. 3. Content: It is unclear to me if a Yes would mean that everything on the roadmap and nothing that is not on the roadmap will be done. That would be too strict for my taste. I think some of the things on it are not that interesting and some are missing. But just a 'more or less okay' would not need a governance action. Hence: No.

I'm voting Yes on the reduction of the 'treasury tax' treasuryCut to 10%, because I do not believe in the effective management of the treasury by the currently developed process anymore. A reduction in the funds this process can access seems prudent and at the same time delays the necessity to find other solutions for the rewards for pool operators and their delegators getting dangerously low.

I'm voting No on the constitution, because I am very dissatisfied with the whole process how this constitution was pushed through. There were a lot of proposals for a leaner and less ambiguous constitution. Although there were a lot of workshops and the constitutional convention, they side-lined all requests for larger changes and only allowed minor corrections. This was all just done for the marketing, not to actually come up with a good constitution. No to this!

The action is poorly written and supporting links leave impression of pure promotion stunt without profound rationale.

I don't believe that changing stakePoolTargetNum ("k") would help small stake pools much. The stake that will have to move due to this is limited and often managed by entities that can just open additional pools.

Moreover, I am not sure if Cardano can even sustain 500 pools, let alone 1000.

Finally, I believe we need a totally different, better reward sharing scheme.

This info action unconditionally thanks the founding entities and Hoskinson personally. I cannot agree on that as stated in more detail elsewhere.

Moreover, it affirms that Cardano wants to be more than “just” a blockchain, wants to somehow contribute to the “greater good” as nebulously hinted at in Hoskinson's “whiteboard video”.

I believe that such pipe dreams are overpromising what a cryptocurrency can do and can, in fact, be dangerous. I don't want to be part of that.