Marco Gonvil

I'm genuinely in favor of what this does — it helps small pool operators stay viable and gives developers more room to actually build things on-chain. Both of those matter to me.

I wanted to hear directly from the people this affects most before voting on their economics, so I went and read what pool operators are actually saying to each other about it. It's a real debate — some want the flexibility to price lower and compete, others worry about a race to the bottom on quality. Nobody's ignoring this, they're just split, which is different from what I was worried about.

What settles it for me: this doesn't force anyone's hand. It just lowers the floor — pools that want to keep charging what they charge today can keep doing exactly that. And the problem it's solving is real and getting worse on a clock, not hypothetical. This went through the proper process too, not a side deal.

Voting yes.

I like what this program is trying to do — Cardano's DeFi liquidity has been shrinking for months, and this actually goes after that with real structure: milestones, an audit, ways to pull the money back if it's not working out. That part is solid.

The thing that was holding me back was the treasury math — this ask is close to a third of everything we're allowed to spend this whole period, and the proposal itself said that room wasn't confirmed yet. I went and checked. There was actually a separate vote to raise that treasury limit, and it failed a week ago — which settles it: the original limit stands, and there's still around 314M ADA of room left under it. This ask fits comfortably. The fee split I was also unsure about — turns out the bigger chunk only gets paid if the TVL growth is real and verified, not just handed over. That's a fair structure.

What's left is the normal risk of funding a first-time recipient at this size, and I think the controls here — the audit, the milestone gates, the six ways unused money comes back — are exactly what you want to see for that. Support's moved a lot the last two days too, which tells me I'm not alone in reading it this way.

Voting yes.

This one isn't really a decision in the usual sense. Someone who put years into this ecosystem — ran a pool, was an ambassador, was known and respected on the forum — passed away this year, and the community wants his name on the next hard fork.

There's nothing to weigh here financially or technically, because there isn't anything at stake like that. It's just about whether we think that's worth doing. I think it is.

Voting yes.

This one's straightforward for me. The election was public, it was audited, everything's on-chain and checkable. Two of the four people are already on the committee doing the work, and the other two bring something new without anyone grabbing extra power.

The committee needs to be full to function, and this fills it the right way. I don't see anything here that gives me pause.

Voting yes.