Kevin G Mohr

Not going to pass, abstain.

Not going to pass, abstain.

Not going to pass, abstain.

Nope, defund intersect. They failed.

Fix the title before I even read this shit.

I don't want BTC on Cardano

Don't price the ADA at 0.19/A.

Learn how to spell and write first.

No, need actual products before we deploy liquidity that goes nowhere.

Wont pass but yes

Obviously no.

This is fine. Yes.

Yes, good real world use case.

Yes, these things are being delivered on. This can pass.

Yes, I need eternl for governance. Kind of have to fund at this point.

This doesn't look like it is going to pass.

Yes. Good governance bill.

HLabs has delivered on proposals in the past. I vote yes.

This is a good real world use case. Yes.

No, BTC is past its prime and garbage. Just make Cardano the product. Make Cardano so good people actually want to use it.

No, fix the ecosystem before going off and partying.

No, fix the ecosystem before you go party.

This makes more sense. This will actually help devs.

It will fail if done with Intersect. No.

Yes, Blockfrost is very necessary. It needs to transition to a profitable business model but the API keys are essential. I will only vote for this once more. Blockfrost shouldn't just get free money.

Yes, this has been talked about extensively. This has been needed for a long time. Yes.

Big fan of babble fees and removing the minimum deposit. Yes.

Need to improve the ecosystem before partying.

Let's have a successful year for once before we party. Let's get some more RWA's going and actual business on the blockchain before we celebrate again.

No author, no vote. IDK who the fuck 'WE' is.

This should have been done years ago. If anything, Catalyst needs to be dissolved. Hopefully this change will actually spark something worthwhile.

I vote yes to this proposal. Draper University and UCLA (My undergrad institution) have partnered in the past and have done good and proven work. This is an actual way to do venture startups unlike Catalyst. They should take over Catalyst instead of trying to work with them.

Blink labs is trusted. I vote yes.

Let people propose their budgets on gov.tools. Don't do this. Remove the 100k ADA barrier.

Probably not going to pass so I abstain on this one.

Yes, this one is fine. No need to give an explanation. Same self explanatory Yes vote as last year.

This should have been done originally.

Yes, all requirements have been met that I specified I needed for withdrawals. See the original IOG 'temperature check' proposal.

Self explanatory!

Need an NCL but don't expect me to vote yes for garbage with no return on investment again.

The administration committee makes no sense. Use Intersect as your administrator.

This wasn't approved through a proper election. No.

This is horrible. This doesn't make any fucking sense. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of law would realize how bizarre and warped this is. This does nothing to build out the constitution. It makes things less clear, removes more power from the constitution as a document itself and thus the community. Yuta and the stupid fucks at Emurgo should go ask someone who understands legal concepts to build out and create guidance via the constitution. Not gut it and add in retarded shit that does not matter. What the God Damn fuck is this. Just stop wasting everyone's time and admit y'all are out of your league and need to step down. This is embarrassing.

The proposal wants more bullshit workshops which Intersect has failed to run well over the last two years. You look at the vision creation process, no retail involvement and more BS humanitarian aid stuff. This isn't going to bring any success to Cardano and is a waste of everyone's time. Get actual people with business experience into Cardano. I vote no due to a lack of faith, results, direction, and general competency that Intersect has show.

"Multiple partners are already at an executable stage, but with sensitive commercial negotiations underway, vendor identities and line item costs remain confidential. Vendor identities can only be disclosed once integrations are completed."

I voted yes conditionally to the info action with the assumption that this information would be made available. It has not been made available so I will now vote no to the treasury withdrawal.

This is unnecessary now that the CC has 7 members.

I conditionally cote yes to this info action based on this line being fulfilled before the treasury withdrawl takes place. "The acceptance criteria will vary between vendors, but will be made public once commercial terms and contracting has been agreed between the vendor, Intersect and the Steering Committee. "

Sure, they can go ahead and try.

Yes, it's unfair they lost their money just because the system was flawed.

I am now involved with this so I Abstain.

Constitution only guarantees administratice costs to be covered. The volume of work is too little for financial compensation. Furthermore, at this time, the CC should be a volunteer position.

Nothing makes sense

The current budget is about 150k overestimated as the current price of ADA is estimated at 0.67 and thus, the amount asked for is about 770k, not 920k. Though there is no breakdown about how this money will be spent over the next 12 months besides a vague description, gov.tools is an essential tool to make ADA a decentralized government. I vote for this proposal out of necessity.

I believe the gov.tools team is most likely irresponsible with the money the community entrusts to them and lacks transparency and can't adequately demonstrate their worth, but we have no other option at this time.

It is pathetic we as a community are being held hostage by such a proposal. Tempo.vote should have been afforded more care by Catalyst at the very least and Intersect should learn what it means to have multiple overlapping forms of governance as well as historical precedent. However, we all know that Intersect, using the same leadership that failed in CCV's, is simply a joke at this time.

The word constitution isn't even in this doc. We need to revise the constitution before we do something like this.

This proposal has a trusted group of creators behind it and it is reasonable. Really, I would ask for 100M ADA at the very least for a stable coin.

Although I disagree with the need to socialize the community when it comes to proposals,precedent is already set. Can't just throw up multiple proposals and hope something works. This is why time limits should be placed on repeat proposals and those proposals should be deemed automatically unconstitutional rather than a 100k barrier to participation.

I voted no to this info action because 1/3rd of the budget goes to in person community events which is not growth and not what we need at this time. Furthermore, it is ridiculously hard to figure out who is behind the selfdriven people or whatever.

I really trust Peter Bui and Jo allum to carry this project. If the budget is adjusted to have more of a certain unifying project such as using cardanopress to unite the oceania community, then I could support that but I expect more development from projects at this time.

I am voting no because this constitution weakens the power to resolve disputes, compensates CC members, is poor legal writing, is unenforceable, and is generally worse than the previous constitution.

Min would be the only thing I want on an exchange at this time. Also, it would take more than 1.5M ADA to get these things listed. Let these individual coins submit proposals to get on exchanges.

For NFT people like me, this helps a lot and it is inexpensive. Yes.

Same as my other SNEK rational.

If you don't have this: 'Haus will develop a regulatory-compliant framework for issuing and trading tokenized real estate in the U.S., EU and international markets.' already then there is no point in funding this.

HELOC's are not this simple. How will someone buy their HELOC back? The whole point of a HELOC is that you can buy it back for a reasonable amount. How do you guarantee someone will be able to buy this back?

Present your framework before asking for money.

I do not like Catalyst and I do not want to see it funeded. I want an alternative to Catalyst. I do not want something complimentary to the existing system.

I don't need to provide rationale for this one.

No. We need actual businesses. Emurgo has been doing marketing for like 8 years when they could have helped us build. You can't sell potential forever. We need actual business at this time to sell and market. No thanks.

Clarity is the one and only successful DAO on Cardano to date. They may have this funding.

I am sorry but we need better businesses building on ADA before we go to exhibitions. We have little to show off at these exhibitions. This is putting the cart before the horse.

I do not know enough about Snek to vote yes to this nor do I traditionally support meme coins. Furthermore, there is controversy around how this proposal was submitted. It seems as if this proposal did not follow established precedent and as a result has garnered a significant amoutn of no votes already. This precedent being related to the socialization of the proposal. For all these reasons I will abstain.

Harmonic Labs should be given the opportunity to prove themselves to the ecosystem. They have had very little funding via Catalyst. https://projectcatalyst.io/proposers/harmoniclabs

This project will make or break my trust in them. This is also a very useful project if they are able to complete it. However, it is a bit repetative with the work gamechanger has done.

Provide more information on the budget breakdown next time.

Anastasia Labs has 1.8M in outstanding Catalyst Funding. They don't need more money. They need to do the things they have promised: https://projectcatalyst.io/proposers/anastasia.labs

Cexplorer has consistently provided a good service over the years. It is a public good that should be funded.

MLabs can do the research they want to do even though this makes no sense to me. They are trusted.

MLabs has proven to use their funds responsibly and they have been closing out their Catalyst proposals. https://projectcatalyst.io/proposers/lpmaho

Again, TxPipe has only like a 50% completion rate via Catalyst proposals. They should fix those things before doing something like this.

Intersect hasn't done much for the ecosystem and hasn't contributed enough to justify its continued existance. No funding for Intersect committees.

No, BTC is not the future. This proposal is unnecessary. Just make ADA the go to crypto by providing value.

No, TxPipe has way too many projects still open on Catalyst that are not completed.

"Currently it is not known which features in Cardano Roadmap will affect hardware wallets integrations."

Then send me the bill after you fix the problems. No thanks.

Blockfrost is essential for the ecosystem and is owned and operated by IOG. I have faith that the money for this project will be spent wisely.

MLabs has closed out and completed more proposals since my last criticism of them. Many very useful projects have been completed by them. They can have some funding. https://projectcatalyst.io/proposers/lpmaho

I have personally met with members of tempo.vote and I have full confidence in their ability to create a second voting platform (alternate to gov.tools) that will provide redundancy in our government. This redundancy will strengthen our ecosystem by providing alternate options for voting and therefore layers of security. Security steming from not relying on one single point of possible failure.

The process in which CC candidates were chosen violates Article III section 3 of the constitution. "All owners of ada shall have the right to propose changes to the governance structure of the Cardano Blockchain ecosystem in accordance with the Guardrails."

The current structure does not allow all ada holders to propose changes. It allows only DReps to propose changes. All ada holders must be able to vote on who their CC members should be during any combined socialization and proposal generating phase intended for a final on-chain vote. Not all ada holders were able to do this due to limitations inherint to Ekklesia.

I will not vote for anything that will fund Catalyst in its current state.

I want the 100k ADA requirment removed. We don't need some external system like this to do that.

Voting no because I want a lower NCL so we are forced to reform Catalyst or get rid of it.

The net change limit is too high for each year defined in this governance action. I will be voting no.

I believe the proposed roadmap is very vague and there is nothing wrong with this. I approve of the roadmap but not necessarily what will come after this. I would like follow up votes and future votes on big or important proposals.

Reducing the treasury cut from 20% to 10% directly benefits Cardano’s staking ecosystem by increasing staking rewards by approximately 12.5%. This increase enhances the attractiveness of staking and actually makes staking a worthwhile economic model for small projects trying to get off the ground in Cardano. This in turn could help many projects struggling right now sustain themselves.

One of the biggest flaws with Catalyst right now is projects have to continually propose stuff to get money from them to sustain their businesses. We need an alternative to Catalyst and this proposal is a first step towards doing such a thing. The "Send to the treasury, withdraw from Catalyst lottery" does not work and is not good for long term sustainability.

I believe the proposal is constitutional and in line with the spirit of decentralization. I also will vote yes to this proposal in protest against the arbitrary requirements set forth in the Cardano Constitution.