Long Hồ

YES. I support continued investment in Hydra due to its strategic importance and current level of maturity. I expect future milestones to include measurable minimum KPI commitments and transparent public reporting to ensure accountability to the community.

UTxO RPC is a vital tool that simplifies interaction with UTxO-based blockchains, enabling key apps like Lace, Mesh, and Amaru. Its continued development ensures stability and accessibility for Cardano projects. With a clear plan, developer support, and open-source transparency, this proposal strengthens core infrastructure.

As a DRep and a developer, I vote Yes because Pallas is a core open-source library essential for Rust development on Cardano. It has been and continues to be widely used in several prominent projects such as Aiken, Lucid, Amaru, and Mithril.

As a DRep, I vote Yes. I personally run a Cardano pool and am also participating in Blockfrost’s Icebreaker program. I support their decentralization efforts, vision, and the way they are executing it.

Tempo brings users convenience, simplification, and an improved user experience. In addition, governance tools should offer more options rather than being limited to just one.

As a DRep, I vote Yes. Cardano.nix simplifies node deployment with Nix, ensuring reproducible setups and fewer errors for SPOs and developers. Already used by IOG and Daedalus, it’s a proven tool. Led by the experienced MLabs team, this focused proposal promises high impact.

I DO NOT support this proposal because it lumps everything into one single package. Personally, I believe it should be split into separate proposals corresponding to specific buckets with clear priorities. As a large entity, Intersect should consider this carefully — it shouldn’t cram everything into a single shot.

I vote YES for this proposal because Amaru is a strategically important, ongoing project that directly contributes to the decentralization, performance, and sustainability of the Cardano ecosystem. The team has already invested resources and delivered tangible progress, and their transparent governance model, modular design, and commitment to open development make this a high-impact initiative worthy of further funding.

The current proposal for a 'Net Change Limit' on the Cardano blockchain is premature and potentially detrimental due to the absence of robust constitutional safeguards against mismanagement of the treasury.

Firstly, the existing Cardano Constitution lacks sufficiently effective mechanisms to prevent poor budgetary oversight and potential misuse of funds. Implementing a 'Net Change Limit' without these fundamental protections in place exposes the treasury to risks associated with inadequate governance and accountability.

Secondly, the present distribution of influence among Decentralized Representatives (DReps) exhibits a concentration at the top. This centralization of power creates a potential vulnerability to manipulation or collusion among leading DReps, which could lead to decisions that are not in the best interest of the Cardano ecosystem and its treasury. The risk of such undue influence is amplified in the absence of strong constitutional checks and balances.

Therefore, it is imperative to prioritize an update and strengthening of the Cardano Constitution to include effective measures for safeguarding the treasury against mismanagement. This should be addressed before the implementation of any proposals such as the 'Net Change Limit' that could have significant financial implications for the blockchain. Delaying the 'Net Change Limit' until adequate constitutional protections are in place is a prudent approach to ensure the long-term security and sustainability of the Cardano treasury.

As a DRep, I vote 'NO' because there is no transparency for this proposal. Metadata should be immutable and stored instead of using web2, as it can be easily altered at any time. I am more than willing to vote 'YES' when everything is transparent, especially for proposals that are positive and contribute to the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem.

As a DRep, I vote YES for this GA, and my rationale is as follows:

1. Strategic Direction and Long-Term Vision:

The 2025 and Beyond Roadmap lays a robust foundation for Cardano's future, focusing on key elements like scalability, modularity, interoperability, and governance improvements.
It aligns with Cardano's long-term mission of financial inclusion, decentralization, and technological excellence.

1. Focus on Scalability:

Prioritizes Layer 1 and Layer 2 scaling solutions (Ouroboros Leios, Hydra, Midgard) to support mass adoption.
A multi-faceted approach to ensure Cardano remains at the forefront of blockchain technology.

1. Enhancing Modularity and Network Resilience:

Modular design improves upgradeability, enhances decentralization, and strengthens security.
Reduces reliance on a single entity through multiple client implementations.

1. Expanding the Ecosystem and Real-World Applications:

Integrates programmable assets, stablecoins (USDC, USDT), and zero-knowledge proofs to expand DeFi capabilities and real-world applications.
Strengthens interoperability with other blockchains (Bitcoin).
Soul-bound tokens for verification and identity applications.

1. Improving Governance and Economics:

Addresses issues related to staking rewards (min-margin parameter, pledge-benefit curve modifications) and governance efficiency.
Ensures the community has an active role in decision-making.
The development roadmap is updated based on community feedback.
Aims for efficient and transparent budget allocation.

1. Strengthening Cardano's Competitive Position:

Invests in research and development to ensure security and interoperability.
Balances infrastructure development with user experience improvement.
Ensures continuous innovation and development to maintain a leading position.

1. Transparency and Community Participation:

The roadmap is built through consultation with stakeholders and includes feedback mechanisms from DReps.
Ensures that collective voices are heard and that development aligns with the Constitution.

As a DRep, I support and vote Yes for this proposal because:
1. Reducing the treasury tax from 20% to 10% will enhance staking incentives and participation, ensuring the stability and security of the network.
2. This adjustment does not immediately impact the treasury or the ecosystem negatively; on the contrary, it has immediate positive effects.
3. We can always reverse this decision if we determine that the treasury needs more funds by introducing a new governance proposal. This approach is highly flexible and can be executed whenever necessary, with the decision resting in the hands of the community.

As a DRep I vote YES because:

1. Completion of Minimum Viable Governance (CIP-1694)
   • CIP-1694 is a crucial step toward true decentralized governance, enabling all ADA holders to participate in decision-making.
   • This proposal finalizes the transition from the Interim Constitution to an official governance framework.

2. Transparent and Inclusive Development Process
   • The Constitution was shaped through 63 global workshops with over 1,400 participants from the Cardano community.
   • It was refined based on extensive community feedback and approved at the Constitutional Convention by a 95% majority.

3. Meets All Requirements of the Interim Constitution
   • Key criteria, such as holding global workshops, electing delegates, organizing the Constitutional Convention, and approving the final version, have all been met.

4. Ensures Continued Governance Progress
   • Once ratified, the Constitution enables the election of a new Constitutional Committee in September 2025.
   • It also includes an amendment process, allowing future improvements based on community feedback.

5. Establishes a Strong Foundation for Cardano’s Future
   • A formal Constitution provides clear governance rules, shared values, and long-term guiding principles.
   • It ensures security, stability, and transparency for the blockchain.

Continuing the tradition of naming hard forks after historical figures or individuals with significant contributions to the ecosystem, the proposal to rename Chang 2 to Plomin is entirely appropriate for several reasons clearly outlined in the proposal. Personally, I support this and will vote YES.

The proposal is merely suggestive of whether or not to proceed, lacking real clarity. The evidence provided is unconvincing and appears promotional. If possible, please provide more compelling evidence and reasoning for future proposals.