LallyMcClay

As an employee of Intersect, I recognise that some people may expect me to abstain from voting on this proposal due to a perceived conflict of interest.
After careful consideration, I have chosen not to abstain and I am voting Yes.
Three main reasons for that are
First, my professional experience gives me a unique view of the work Intersect undertakes on behalf of the Cardano ecosystem every day. Much of it is operational, technical, and largely invisible to the wider community, yet underpins many of the governance and ecosystem processes people rely upon. Having seen the work first-hand, I believe the organisation has demonstrated its value and has presented a more focused, streamlined and community-aligned plan for the coming year.
Second, I don't believe abstaining simply because I work for Intersect would accurately reflect my genuine assessment of the proposal. Transparency matters, which is why I am declaring my position openly. I also believe DReps should vote according to their judgement, and this is mine.
Finally, I am also voting on behalf of delegated voting power entrusted to me by others. My delegates have expressed support for this proposal, and the proposal itself received support during the Hydra voting phase. I believe it would be wrong to abstain where doing so would not reflect the wishes of those who have trusted me with that responsibility.
My vote is therefore based on both my own assessment of Intersect's contribution to Cardano and my responsibility to represent my delegates faithfully.
Why I believe Intersect remains essential
As mentioned, much of Intersect's work is only seen when something goes wrong, or when nobody else is there to do it. Some of the criticism aimed at Intersect is, imho, unjustified through lack of understanding and awareness. Is often a mis-representation of the facts, or begins with a negative bias that does not allow anything other than negativity to be remarked upon, often for engagement, often wrong, and often causing unjustified reputational damage where incorrect.
The organisation coordinates functions that are open for anyone to perform, but which often have no obvious owner. In a decentralised ecosystem, permissionless does not automatically mean someone steps forward.
Intersect has now coordinated three major hard fork programmes and soon comes Dijkstra/Leios, one of the biggest architectural changes to Cardano since Shelley, and will be the first of this kind in the governance era.. Delivering that upgrade will require coordination across SPOs, exchanges, wallets, infrastructure providers, developers, governance bodies and the wider community on a scale we have not seen before.
Across the last three hard forks, Intersect has built the relationships, processes, communication channels and operational experience needed to coordinate this work effectively. Losing that capability now would mean losing years of experience immediately before the ecosystem enters perhaps its most ambitious upgrade yet.
Governance operations
When the Constitutional Committee risked falling below committeeMinSize, Cardano faced a genuine governance risk. Had that threshold not been restored in time, governance actions could have stalled.
What many people never saw were the countless hours of work that happened behind the scenes which included mobilising stakeholders during Cardano Summit 2025, standing up a dedicated voting platform, ensuring election legitimacy, hosting candidate Spaces, running a snap election, commissioning independent audits, drafting governance metadata, submitting governance actions on-chain and communicating throughout the entire process.
None of this was guaranteed to happen. Anyone could theoretically have taken it on, but there was no certainty that someone would, or that multiple competing efforts wouldn't have delayed a resolution at a critical point for governance. But Intersect did do it, and things were restored.
Technical stewardship
Another area is stewardship of Cardano's core technical infrastructure.
As Input Output continues decentralising responsibility for core repositories, more of that stewardship is moving into the wider ecosystem.
This includes repositories such as Cardano Node, interim stewardship of critical infrastructure like Ogmios and Kupo, as well as governance artefacts including the Constitution and governance action infrastructure.
These projects are open source, yes, again, anyone is free to contribute but that doesn't guarantee sustainable ownership.Somebody still needs to coordinate releases, maintain repositories, respond to incidents, oversee security processes and provide continuity. Right now, Intersect is carrying a significant part of that responsibility.
The same applies to ecosystem resilience.
Intersect coordinates incident response, works alongside the Security Council, supports disaster recovery exercises, helps prepare the ecosystem for upgrades and communicates during critical events. These are the kinds of activities that rarely attract attention when everything is running smoothly, but they become incredibly important when problems arise.
Some people argue that none of these functions belong exclusively to Intersect.
And I do agree, but the question has never been whether somebody else could do them but whether somebody will do them consistently, transparently, neutraly and with enough coordination to keep the ecosystem moving forward.
Cardano is still evolving. Until these responsibilities are naturally distributed across the ecosystem, I believe Intersect is a critical role in providing that coordination.
For those reasons, I believe this proposal is an investment in the governance, technical stewardship and operational coordination that keeps Cardano moving forward & I am voting Yes.

I am voting Yes on this proposal based on the operational resilience it provides to Cardano's governance system rather than any desire to reduce the size or importance of the Constitutional Committee.

The CC currently consists of seven members and I believe maintaining a seven-member committee should remain the objective. A diverse, capable, and fully populated Committee strengthens governance and ensures constitutionality is maintained, with CC oversight ensuring things are done in the way intended. Continued effort should, in my opinion be made to attract, support, and retain qualified Constitutional Committee members going forward.

The current situation creates unnecessary operational risk. With the committeeMinSize parameter also set to seven, a single resignation, vacancy, or period of unavailability could place governance processes at risk of disruption. This proposal introduces a buffer that allows governance to continue functioning while the community takes the necessary steps to restore the Committee to its intended size in the event of an unexpected loss of just one member.

Importantly, this proposal does not reduce the Constitutional Committee to five members, nor does it change its constitutional role. It simply reduces the minimum number of active members required for governance operations to continue. The expectation remains that the Committee should operate with seven members wherever possible.

In my view, reducing the risk of governance paralysis while preserving constitutional safeguards is a reasonable and proportionate change.

I am voting YES supporting the Info Action to appoint the Cardano Foundation as the new managing entity for Project Catalyst.
my support for this proposal is based on the need to ensure continuity for existing grantees, milestone reviews, and outstanding obligations linked to Funds 10–14.

Without a new managing entity in place, theres a risk of disruption to operations, delays to reviews, payments, etc and uncertainty for teams that have already been actively delivering work. Regardless of different views on Catalyst’s future, I believe there is value in ensuring that commitments already made to funded teams are managed responsibly and brought to an orderly conclusion, and want to signal my strong support for CF to handle this.

I vote NO on this Treasury Withdrawal because the proposed costs feel too high relative to the immediate value being delivered. Most of the requested funding is allocated to legal setup and administration before any meaningful liquidity is deployed.
I understand the need for structure and oversight, but dont think the proposal provides enough detail to justify these upfront costs or demonstrate clearly how they will translate into measurable ecosystem benefit.

The proposal has made improvements, but the high overheads and limited evidence of delivery, I am taking a cautious approach and do not feel comfortable supporting a YES vote.

I vote YES on this proposal as i believe it to support greater client diversity and resilience within the Cardano ecosystem. Recent events have highlighted the risks of relying too heavily on a single implementation, and funding alternative node clients strengthens decentralization and reduces operational risk.

The proposing team also has an established track record of delivering open source tooling within Cardano, which gives confidence that this is more than a speculative or experimental effort

I vote YES on the proposal to increase Transaction and Block Memory Units.

The proposal is constitutionally compliant, has been introduced via a phased rollout on Preview and PreProd testnets, and includes a reversion plan, as required by the Constitution. I am satisfied that the proposal meets the required standards of correctness, evidence, and risk management, and therefore support it.

I vote to ABSTAIN on the Treasury Withdrawal proposal for “Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget Withdrawal 1” due to constitutional non-compliance following the enactment of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4.
Article II, Section 6(1) now requires that governance actions include a URL to immutable supporting documentation, with content that is identical to the on-chain submission. While supporting materials are provided using GitHub permalinks, the primary rationale metadata is linked via a standard GitHub URL, which does not meet the new constitutional requirement for immutability.
This represents a material change from previous practice, where immutable metadata was encouraged but not mandatory. As submitted, the proposal does not fully align with the newly enacted constitutional standards and would require resubmission to be compliant. My vote reflects this ongoing risk where proposals rely on constitutional references without proper coordination after constitutional changes have taken effect rather than a position on the substance of the proposal itself.

I vote to ABSTAIN on this proposal to set a new NCL(epoch 613-713) due to constitutional inconsistencies in the proposal text following the enactment of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution V2.4.
Under "application and compliance" the proposal states the NCL shall be applied to ensure compliance with Article IV of the constitution, and therefore references an outdated constittutional structure and requires amendment to remain accurate. My vote is a highlight of an ongoing risk where proposals rely on on constitutional references without proper coordination after constitutional changes have taken effect.

Vote: NO

While I initially tried to be pragmatic in changing my vote to YES, further conversations today reinforced that my earlier concerns about the process needed more consideration than a simple “yes, but we should continue to develop a process going forward.”

Although I support the intent to simplify the Constitution, I am uncomfortable with repeated bulk amendments to a Constitution only a year old, and in the absence of an established and accessible Constitutional Amendment Process.

I also remain concerned by the limited visibility of collaborative input and attribution within this proposal, along with the concerns raised regarding the addition of unenforceable elements within a Constitution.

There are parts I like very much, so this has been a difficult decision.

For these reasons, on balance my vote reflects a procedural objection, and I look forward to supporting constitutional updates once there is a fully iterative, inclusive community-driven amendment process in place.

I fully support this proposal - RIP dear friend.

I vote yes to support this Info Action as a constructive step toward providing long-term strategic direction for Cardano. In my opinion the proposal is a shared vision, mission, and strategic framework that helps align large initiatives without being prescriptive of outcomes or excluding future ideas.

I think in the context of being understood as a starting point, not a finished plan, the framework itself is intentionally high-level and will require ongoing refinement, community interpretation, and the development of tactical layers to become actionable over time.

I welcome the stated intent to iterate on this work through future tactics, KPIs, and review cycles, allowing the strategy to evolve as new data and community input emerge. Overall, I think there is value to establishing a common direction , and improving proposer agency across the ecosystem.

I am voting YES to this critical governance action to add a member to CC, following the election off chain of the candidate from those who put themselves forward. It is essential to restore committee member size to 7 following the resignation of one member in order to meet the mincommitteesize7 parameter..

YES vote on the 2025 NCL Extension. Rationale: To protect continuity in the governance system and prevent a constitutional committee "no" vote.

This action doesn’t change the Net Change Limit, raise the cap, or replace the existing NCL.
It just extends the time window by 8 epochs so that Treasury Withdrawal Actions can still be lawfully enacted under Article IV.

Without this extension, the current NCL expires before key actions, including the Critical Infrastructure action, can be enacted. Even if DReps overwhelmingly support those actions, they would almost certainly be deemed unconstitutional at enactment because the NCL window would have closed therefore i deem this action to be necessary.

I am voting YES on the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget as I think this proposal addresses one of the clearest and most persistent blockers to Cardano’s growth, the absence of several ecosystem-critical integrations that other chains treat as baseline infrastructure. I believe this budget enables Cardano to close gaps responsibly, transparently, and within constitutional guardrails, and also supports long-term ecosystem health.

specifically :
As someone deeply involved in governance health and adoption conversations, I see a consistent theme being discussed, of "Cardano cannot move into its next phase without stable liquidity, robust data, and interoperability".
It supports Cardano's ability or condidtions needed to generate fees
The safeguards, oversight assurance , and alignment are strong and project a positive sentiment.

Points to raise:
Timing - This proposal has arrived now when negotiations with integration partners are underway, but The Net Change Limit expires on 4 January 2026
If the community wants these integrations within the current constitutional cycle, this is the only feasible window. Waiting would reset negotiations, delay deployments, and risks losing partners already prepared to integrate.

"Yes" vote: I support the information action “Securing Generic Top-Level Domains for the Cardano Ecosystem.” I see this as a rare window of opportunity, and ensuring gTLDs like .ada or .cardano are reserved for our ecosystem helps protect Cardano’s identity, reduces future brand and security risks, and positions us alongside major crypto networks pursuing the same. This proposal is funded by the Cardano Foundation, and community sentiment gathered here strengthens the application. Securing our namespace now is a proactive step for Cardano’s long-term growth and recognition.

I am voting yes for this as per support for Budget info action

a cautious conditional YES on the SNEK loan

We won’t know if Treasury backed, repayable finance can accelerate growth unless we try it. BUT. I’m not 100% convinced the return is worth the risk as presented, if this proceeds to a Treasury Withdrawal Action (TWA) the scrutiny will (and should) be intense. I implore the SNEK team to ensure all benefit claims are realistic and to weigh the reputational downside if outcomes miss. In this ecosystem, failure is as plausible as success.

I also want to acknowledge the social context: loud community hostility can damage SNEK’s brand before it gets off the ground. Although I fully understand the challenges, and not every voice represents the team, I'd like to see Snek leadership make it clear that personal attacks on DReps (or anyone) are unacceptable. We can disagree on risk and still act like one community trying to make Cardano better.

We need to test structured, repayable Treasury instruments under real conditions to learn, set precedents, and improve safeguards for future proposals.

That said, comparable cases suggest CEX listings dont automatically translate into sustained on-chain growth. The upside is uncertain; the downside (brand damage+ precedent) is real. My support is really a measured experiment.

This would be what I'd like to see to support at TWA stage:
Clear, public KPIs linking CEX listings to Cardano benefit (new wallets, on-chain tx/users), with baselines, targets, and monthly reporting.

.Financial verification & liability (verify, don’t trust): Provide product-level profitability (not turnover), cash reserves, and 12–24 mo forecasts for Snek.fun, SNEKbot, SnekX, SecurityBot. If these sit in separate legal entities, specify how they’re liable in a default (e.g., owner/intercompany guarantees, pledged IP, assignment of receivables). Publish the escrow % of gross receipts and the repayment waterfall.

Repayment & default plan: schedule, interest, cure periods, remedies; if no collateral, then stronger covenants (escrow step-ups, revenue-share escalation) to protect the Treasury.

Entity clarity & conflicts: name the borrowing legal entity, signatories, and advisor roles; publish any recusals.

Community conduct: SNEK leadership to state clearly that personal attacks on DReps are unacceptable, and lead by example. we can disagree on risk without discrediting people doing a hard job in uncertainty.

I’m voting NO on this proposal. While I recognize the effort and intent behind Constitution 2.0, I believe that any update to the Cardano Constitution should emerge through a broad, inclusive process with deep community input and not be authored and advanced by a small group alone.

The Constitution is foundational to Cardano’s governance future. Even if the proposed changes are well-meaning and appear minor, this process must set a precedent for legitimacy, transparency, and participation. Rushing this step could undermine trust in the very framework we're trying to strengthen.

I fully respect the time and care put into this draft, and I’m confident a more participatory path will be taken moving forward, but for now, I believe we must pause and develop a process that truly reflects the decentralized values of the ecosystem.

I’m voting NO on this proposal. My decision is not a reflection on the Snek project’s past contributions or its place in the ecosystem, but rather on the handling and quality of these specific submissions.

I’m voting YES on this proposal as it supports a more community-led approach to shaping Cardano’s long-term direction.

While not a core infrastructure proposal, I see value in enabling clearer collective priorities, and I believe the requested funding is reasonable given the scope. With appropriate oversight through Intersect and the Product Committee, I’m willing to support this as part of broader efforts to mature Cardano’s governance and planning processes.

I am voting no on this proposal as it does not seem ready, or fully thought through as yet.

While I appreciate interest in building a tokenized real estate platform on Cardano, I believe this type of initiative is better suited to Project Catalyst, where ecosystem-facing applications can be assessed alongside other growth-oriented proposals.

At this time, I’m reserving support for direct treasury funding for projects that are core to Cardano’s infrastructure, tooling, or governance. The proposal’s high funding request and focus on a specific business vertical do not meet that threshold for me, despite the project's potential.

That said, I welcome continued interest from teams like Haus in building on Cardano and would encourage them to explore other community funding pathways.

I’m voting YES on this proposal as it reflects my commitment to sustainable innovation, improved funding mechanisms, and long-term value creation within the Cardano ecosystem.

Introducing an extended quadratic funding model alongside Catalyst creates opportunities for more inclusive, community-driven funding while encouraging co-funding and better impact measurement. It addresses known challenges in treasury allocation and supports more scalable, transparent approaches to resource distribution.

With experienced delivery partners and oversight through Intersect, this proposal presents a well-structured experiment in funding evolution which I believe aligns with Cardano’s governance principles and is worth supporting at this stage.

I’m voting YES on this proposal as it aligns with my principles of supporting sustainable development, ecosystem visibility, and inclusive growth within Cardano.

The creation of shared Cardano Ecosystem Pavilions at global exhibitions lowers the barrier for participation by smaller projects, enabling broader representation and helping to showcase the diversity and innovation within the ecosystem. By reducing costs and increasing exposure, this initiative supports developer onboarding, public education, and greater global reach.

The proposal includes clear intent and purpose, and with treasury oversight administered by Intersect, I’m confident the funds can be managed responsibly to deliver ecosystem-wide value.

I’m voting YES on this proposal as it aligns with my principles of supporting sustainable development, ecosystem resilience, and community-driven innovation within Cardano. The proposal presents a clear rationale, contributes meaningfully to the network’s growth, and includes oversight mechanisms that help ensure responsible use of treasury funds.

Where appropriate, I support moving forward with funding that strengthens Cardano’s long-term foundations and reflects the community’s shared goals.

I’m voting YES on this proposal as it aligns with my principles of supporting sustainable development, ecosystem resilience, and community-driven innovation within Cardano. The proposal presents a clear rationale, contributes meaningfully to the network’s growth, and includes oversight mechanisms that help ensure responsible use of treasury funds.

I support moving forward with funding that strengthens Cardano’s long-term foundations and reflects the community’s shared goals.

I’m voting NO on this proposal. While improving liquidity and exchange access for Cardano-native tokens is a valid goal, this proposal lacks the level of detail and structure needed to responsibly and confidently allocate such a significant amount of treasury funds.

There is not a clear enough process for how decisions on token or exchange selection would be made, how listing costs would be determined, on how fairness and accountability would be ensured. This opens the door to potential manipulation and inequitable outcomes that do not necessarily align with Cardano’s culture of decentralization and community-driven growth.

As it stands, this feels more like an early-stage idea than a fully developed, executable plan. Without stronger justification, transparency, and safeguards, I cannot support this high funding request.

I would like to see this proposal return with a clearer plan to ensure demonstrable inclusion, fairness and strategy, rationale for returns to cardano eco system that are in line with the amount asked

I’m voting YES to support the Paid Open Source Model proposal. Open source is fundamental to Cardano’s identity and long-term success, our ecosystem’s sustainability, security, and ability to innovate all depend on strong, well-supported maintainers and infrastructure and concerned that dependence on voluntary efforts is not enough to meet future needs.

This proposal introduces a structured and transparent approach to funding, retaining skilled contributors, maintaining critical repositories, and improving security through dedicated programs. With the administrative processes and oversight mechanisms in place to manage these funds responsibly, I believe this initiative strengthens Cardano’s foundations and aligns with my commitment to sustainable growth, responsible stewardship, and empowers open, community driven innovation.

I’m voting YES to fund Dolos. This lightweight data node is important infrastructure for dApps, providing efficient access to Cardano ledger data with minimal resource requirements.

Supporting this proposal aligns with my DRep principles of sustaining essential tooling, enabling long-term ecosystem growth, and ensuring developers have reliable, optimized infrastructure to build scalable applications on Cardano.

I’m voting YES to fund the maintenance and enhancement of Cardano.nix as important for reproducible infrastructure deployment and reliable node operations, meaning its a foundational component of Cardano’s technical ecosystem. Ongoing maintenance ensures stability, compatibility, and resilience for developers and enterprises building on the network.

While this request is relatively small and future maintenance of this type may be better suited to Catalyst or bundled into larger, long-term funding mechanisms, I believe it’s important to support this proposal now. Doing so sustains essential infrastructure while giving us time to evolve treasury processes that keep the community actively involved in shaping and maintaining foundational tools.

This decision reflects my DRep principles of supporting sustainable infrastructure, ensuring long-term ecosystem health, and enabling proven contributors to continue delivering value to Cardano.

I’m voting YES to fund the Pallas Rust tooling proposal as I believe it provides essential elements that underpin critical Cardano projects including Aiken, Lucid, and Mithril, Sustains this opensource library and ensures developers can continue building reliable explorers, Smart contracts and wallets, strengthening ecosystem’s resilience and attracting a wider developer community outside of Haskell.

TxPipe team have a strong track record of delivering opensource solutions for Cardano over a few years. The requested funding is modest relative to its ecosystem impact and supports ongoing maintenance, bug fixes, and enhancements. This investment helps prevent stagnation of a foundational toolset and supports long-term innovation.

While smaller requests like this might, in future, be better suited for Catalyst or bundled under broader initiatives, this round is an opportunity to learn and refine the treasury withdrawal process. It’s important not to hold up positive votes on essential infrastructure that has already been reviewed and approved in earlier stages.

This aligns with my priorities as a DRep: sustainable infrastructure, long-term strategic thinking, support for proven open-source contributors, and enabling a healthy, diverse developer ecosystem for Cardano.

I’m voting YES to fund the development of a ZK Bridge for Cardano. This proposal lays the groundwork for a secure, trustless bridge that can strengthen interoperability and open new opportunities for Cardano to connect with other ecosystems.

This vote reflects my intention to move forward with previous budget approvals and voting rounds, respecting the community consensus achieved through all stages of the process. While some smaller-scale initiatives may, in future, be better suited for Catalyst or delivered as part of bundled funding, I believe it’s important at this stage to support essential infrastructure proposals like this one. Strong oversight mechanisms including audited smart contracts, multi-party governance, milestone disbursements, and transparency give me confidence that the funds will be responsibly managed.

This aligns with my DRep principles of fostering sustainable innovation and strengthening the long-term foundations of the Cardano ecosystem.

I’m voting YES to fund zkFold’s ZK Rollup development. This initiative delivers a general-purpose, zero-knowledge rollup solution that will significantly enhance Cardano’s scalability, reduce transaction costs, and enable broader ecosystem adoption while maintaining security.

This vote reflects my intention to execute the already-approved budget without unnecessary delays and uphold the community consensus reached through the Intersect-administered budget process. I believe it’s important to disperse funding now to enable critical infrastructure development rather than risk underfunding ecosystem progress when treasury reserves allow for sustainable investment.

While I will not typically support future individual treasury withdrawal requests under 1.5M ADA, preferring these to be managed via Catalyst or bundled entities, I will for this round due to oversight mechanisms (audited smart contracts, multi-party governance, milestones disbursement, and transparency) that should provide confidence that funds will be responsibly managed.

This aligns with my DRep principles of supporting sustainable, long-term innovation, enabling scalable infrastructure, and respecting collective decisions that strengthen Cardano’s governance and ecosystem health.

I’m voting YES to fund the Cardano Vision 2025. This initiative advances long-term research in scalability, sustainability, and interoperability, providing technical recommendations and prototypes critical for Cardano’s future.

This is consistent with my previous vote signaled on Ekklesia and supports strategic, research-driven innovation for ecosystem growth.

I’m voting YES to fund AdaStat.net. It’s a long standing, trusted blockchain explorer providing essential real-time data and governance support for the Cardano ecosystem. Funding ensures its continued reliability, open-source development, and independence as critical infrastructure.

I share the view that AdaStat should move toward self-sustainability over time. However, at this stage, continued treasury support is necessary to maintain ecosystem resilience and avoid risking loss of a key tool relied upon by SPOs, DReps, and developers. Future proposals should demonstrate progress toward reducing reliance on direct treasury funding.

I’m voting YES to fund Cexplorer.io, a widely used, developer-focused blockchain explorer that provides valuable insights and tooling for the Cardano ecosystem. This funding supports critical infrastructure maintenance, bug fixes, and feature development to sustain long-term usability.

While the proposal indicates plans to open-source the platform, it is not yet fully open-source. I expect to see clear progress toward open-sourcing reflected in milestones. If future proposals from this team do not demonstrate meaningful movement in this area, I will not continue to support further funding requests.

This vote aligns with my DRep priorities of supporting strong, sustainable infrastructure while promoting openness and community-driven development.

I’m voting YES to fund UTxO RPC’s ongoing development. This project provides a standardized interface crucial for interoperability and performance across Cardano’s developer ecosystem. It’s already widely adopted by key projects, and sustaining its maintenance ensures long term reliability and evolution of core blockchain integration tools.

This aligns with my DRep priorities of supporting strong infrastructure, long-term sustainability, and tools that enable ecosystem wide growth.

I’m voting YES to fund the Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal. This initiative supports decentralization of a critical API service through the Icebreakers program, empowering SPOs and node operators to deliver Cardano data in a more distributed, resilient way.

This aligns with my priorities as a DRep: strengthening open-source infrastructure, reducing centralization risks, and supporting long-term sustainability for developers building on Cardano.

I’m voting YES to fund the Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output. This initiative strengthens decentralized innovation funding, improves Catalyst infrastructure, and ensures three robust funding rounds (F14–F16) to support long-term ecosystem sustainability.

My position is consistent with my earlier vote in Ekklesia and this proposal has undergone extensive prior scrutiny. While I’ve highlighted risks of strong projects being overlooked due to complexity and visibility challenges, this particular proposal comes from a proven contributor with a track record of delivering critical infrastructure for Cardano’s growth.

Supporting this aligns with my principles of responsible stewardship, long-term strategic investment, and enabling the community to thrive through sustainable, decentralized funding mechanisms.

This proposal finalizes Cardano’s transition from a temporary, interim Constitutional Committee (ICC) to the fully elected, community-backed Constitutional Committee (CC).

The ICC was always intended as a stopgap measure. An election process has taken place to select the seven members to carry this responsibility with staggered terms for long-term stability.

Approving this update ensures: Continuity, Legitimacy & Functionality and maintains the checks and balances needed for treasury withdrawals, gov actions and other key decisions to proceed without disruption.

Midgard offers a Cardano-native approach to optimistic rollups, built specifically for the EUTxO model without relying on centralized sequencers or multisigs. It keeps ADA at the heart of L2 activity and feeds value back into Layer 1.

The modular, tokenless design is forward-thinking and technically aligned with Cardano’s values of decentralization and permissionless participation. With clear milestones, third-party oversight, and strong governance checks in place, I believe this is a smart, scalable investment in the ecosystem’s future.

YES Vote

In my opinion, this proposal funds critical core infrastructure work that supports Cardano’s continued growth, security, and decentralization. Key upgrades include Ouroboros Leios, Hydra, Mithril, and Acropolis, each essential for improving scalability, node architecture, and smart contract tooling.

While the cost is substantial, the proposal aligns with the approved 2025 budget and is subject to milestone-based funding, third-party audits, and oversight mechanisms managed by Intersect. These controls help ensure accountability and transparency.

Given IO’s track record in delivering foundational Cardano components, and the urgent need to advance L1/L2 capabilities, I believe this represents a strategic and necessary investment in the network’s future.

I'm voting Yes to support this proposal because I believe maintaining and developing open governance tools like GovTool is essential for Cardano’s ecosystem.

This proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Constitution, including Article III Section 4, which connects to the ecosystem budget, and Article IV Section 1, which supports tools that maintain and grow the blockchain ecosystem. It also contributes directly to participatory and decentralized governance, which is at the heart of Article III overall.

GovTool is a public good. It’s not owned by a company, it’s not commercial, and it exists to make Cardano governance accessible and fair for everyone. It’s open source, built with input from the community, and designed to be reused and built upon. That approach takes more time and coordination, but it's the right one for a decentralized ecosystem.

The proposal includes a clear breakdown of costs, covering 12 months of work across all environments (Dev, QA, Preview, PreProd, Mainnet). It also explains how funds are allocated and provides historical cost data for transparency. Most of the real effort sits in the backend and infrastructure that powers not just GovTool’s interface, but many other governance tools in the ecosystem too.

This funding will help ensure that GovTool remains a reliable, community-owned platform for participation.

I also note that any unused funds will be returned to the treasury, which shows good practice.

For all these reasons, I believe this is a fair and necessary proposal that strengthens Cardano’s ability to govern itself.

I am voting no on this governance action due to concerns about mismatched data and missing key details. Accurate and complete information is essential for informed decision-making, especially when governance actions can have significant implications for the ecosystem. In this case, the discrepancies between data sources and the absence of critical contextual information prevent a clear understanding of the proposal’s feasibility and impact.

I vote no on the proposal requesting 7.5 million ADA for Community Builders initiative. While I strongly support efforts to grow and strengthen Cardano’s community, I find this particular proposal flawed on several critical fronts.

First, it lacks transparency and professionalism. It references a number of projects including at least one that has not requested to be administered by Intersect yet here citing Intersect as administrator. I do not see evidence of coordination or consent from those initiatives. This raises concerns about how accurately the proposal reflects the intentions and needs of the named contributors.

Second, the grouping of disparate initiatives into a single budget request without clear governance, delivery mechanisms, or accountability structures diminishes confidence in the proposal’s ability to deliver on its goals effectively and responsibly.

In its current form, I do not believe this is a credible or well-structured funding request. I encourage future proposals in this space to prioritize consultation, coordination, and clarity in their design, our community deserves nothing less.

I have chosen to vote no on the proposal to set the NCL at 300 million ADA. While this figure is not inherently unreasonable, I believe it is insufficient to ensure the robustness and flexibility needed for effective treasury management.

A higher NCL would not imply immediate or full expenditure of those funds. Rather, it would provide contingency capacity, enabling the ecosystem to respond to unforeseen circumstances, critical opportunities, or systemic risks that may arise.

By setting the threshold too low, I believe we risk introducing constraints that could hinder our ability to act decisively in moments that demand it. This could result in delays or missed opportunities at key junctures in Cardano’s growth and governance evolution.

In my view, a more prudent approach would be to maintain a higher NCL, offering necessary headroom without obligating use, thereby strengthening our preparedness for an uncertain future.

I am voting yes on this Budget Info Action because it is a critical step toward maintaining momentum, enabling delivery, and securing the foundational infrastructure that Cardano’s decentralized future depends on.

This proposal is not just about funding, it is about accountability, structure, and continuity. It’s the result of months of community engagement, open submission, and live stake signalling, culminating in a transparent and inclusive budget coordination process. Over 70% of actively delegated stake participated. That is a clear and legitimate signal of community priorities.

Key reasons for my support:
Core ecosystem stability: This aggregate budget includes essential proposals for core development, research, infrastructure, and governance. Theese are all necessary for Cardano to keep operational and evolving.

Community-led coordination: Every proposal included here received support from over 50% of participating DReps and requested Intersect as Administrator, providing both grassroots validation and a clear administrative pathway.

Pragmatic safeguards: Funds will only be disbursed upon milestone completion, KYC/KYB verification, and within an approved Net Change Limit, with smart contract oversight and multi-signature security wherever applicable.

Momentum and continuity: Delaying or fragmenting this process now risks stalling critical development work, damaging trust, and eroding the coordinated structure we’ve built. This is our chance to prove the system works — responsibly, visibly, and fairly.

This is not a perfect process yet but by voting yes, I’m supporting a balanced and collaborative budget, with built-in oversight and community alignment, so that builders across the ecosystem can move forward with clarity and purpose.

In my view, the 2025 Vision & Roadmap for Cardano is a well-rounded strategy that balances immediate improvements & long-term development goals.
Key areas like scalability improvements, the modular design, and functionalities informed my yes vote rationale balance, detailed below:

Points in Favour
Scalability Focus:
I appreciate that the roadmap has an emphasis on scaling solutions for both Layer 1 and Layer 2. In my view, this approach is good for handling increased demand and supporting real-world applications.
Modularity, Flexibility:
The modular design is a positive for me because it supports future integrations (like ZK proofs for Bitcoin DeFi, enhanced privacy features) and a range of use cases - important for maintaining a competitive edge.
Community and Governance Alignment:
The roadmap was developed through consultations with stakeholders and includes mechanisms for ongoing feedback from DReps. This transparency and community involvement ensure a collective voice gets heard and that development stays aligned with the Constitution.

Strategic Budget Alignment:
In my view, supporting this document helps ensure resources be directed towards initiatives with high impact, so supports efficient and effective development.

Considerations for Improvement
Clarity in Timelines and Deliverables:
Some initiatives could benefit from clearer, more tangible milestones. Breaking down the phases could improve transparency and set clearer expectations.

Ambition v Focus:
The roadmap proposes a wide range of scalability initiatives, & I do have some concerns about spreading resources thinly or, intentions versus reality. Focusing on a couple of key priorities now might enable more immediate and less vague or perceived benefits, while planning for additional functionalities later.

Cost and Delivery Estimates:
Including more detailed approximations regarding timelines and costs would provide a better picture of the required resource commitment. I understand these details may evolve, but a rough estimate would certainly add to the document's clarity and community confidence.

Conclusion
Overall, I believe that despite some areas where additional specificity would be beneficial, the roadmap is a robust and inclusive plan for advancing Cardano’s ecosystem. Its focus on scalability, modular design, and community-driven governance aligns well with the vision for Cardano’s long-term success. For these reasons, I support a yes vote.

Rationale for "No" vote for the GA proposal to reduce the treasury cut from 20% to 10%.

TLDR: While you could argue this proposal may offer short-term benefits for stakers, on balance I feel the risk of undermining long-term sustainability and resilience of Cardano’s ecosystem is greater. I also believe economic parameters shouldn't be considered or changed in isolation. My line of reasoning supports a cautious approach that prioritises the long term stability and strategic capacity of the treasury over a possible modest increases in staking rewards.

Long-Term Stability Over Short-Term Gains:
Yes - boosting staking rewards is an attractive prospect, but the treasury's robust funding is crucial to maintain long-term ecosystem health and resilience especially if we have market downturns, unforeseen challenges or "Black Swan" events .
I do not believe that there would be a significant staking reward increase, and the relatively small increase in rewards doesn't, in my view, justify the risk of depleting funds needed for future developments, and could leave the network vulnerable to unforeseen events.

Speculative Compensation Assumption:
I feel this proposal is made with an assumption or expectation that Ada’s price will consistently appreciate to make up for the reduced treasury inflows, which cannot be certain.

Maintaining a Strategic Reserve:
The treasury also acts as a financial safety net. This supports Cardano's long-term innovation and security and is referred to in the Constitution. Reducing its funding could limit the network's ability in responding appropriately to needs and opportunities.