Kinson

Liquidity is the most important for any blockchain ecosystem. Cardano is suffering from this. While other stablecoin issuers were sidelined with heavily invested ecosystems, this proposal became one of the keys to improving DeFi usage by reducing slippage and provide a better trading experience.

I am voting no on this governance action. However, I want to make it clear that I support the general direction and intent behind the proposal.

Cardano needs adoption. We also need to focus on business development, stronger visibility in the real world, and structured regional outreach. From that perspective, this proposal is a good step in the right direction.

That said, I have concerns about the current scope of the proposal. It attempts to cover many areas simultaneously — business development, incubation, community mapping, event sponsorship, content creation, and more. This broad approach risks diluting focus and making it harder to deliver measurable outcomes.

Business Development
The business development track needs further detail. For example:

• How will the team select individuals for training and advocacy?
• What specific industries or partnerships will be targeted?
• What outcomes or success metrics are being pursued?

At the moment, these details are not clearly laid out.

Target Audience and Justification
There is a lack of data and rationale around who the proposal is trying to reach. What does the target audience look like? Why are they the right group to engage for this stage of Cardano adoption? How will they be reached, and why is Oceania the right place to begin?

This type of information would improve the clarity and value proposition of the proposal.

Events and Partnerships
In terms of expos and local events, I recommend the team consider aligning with established ecosystem efforts such as Cardano Summit, Token2049, or Consensus. These platforms can provide more exposure and improve the cost-effectiveness of participation.

Final Thoughts

To summarise, I believe this is a meaningful proposal and a strong initiative in principle. However, the scope is too broad at this stage, and several components lack the detail needed for effective execution. A smaller, more focused proposal would increase the chances of success and provide a clear proof of concept for future scaling.

For these reasons, I am voting "no" on this proposal, with the hope that a refined version will return with a sharper focus and more defined execution plan.