Nimuë Lady of the Lake Pool

I agree that Ikigai should be reimbursed for the mistake they made, as the tooling at the time did not prevent this user error as it should have.

This TWGA withdraws to the same stake address that was used as the receiving address for the deposit of the original governance action, which is an important requirement for me. That address was also registered only a few weeks ago, indicating that Ikigai still had access to it at that time (assuming the private key has not been compromised). However, I believe it would have been preferable to include this address as a required signer to the TWGA, as that would have demonstrated both Ikigai's support for the reimbursement and continued control of the key at the time of signing.

I will vote NO, however, because this TWGA also includes an additional 3,000 ada for "lost staking rewards". I do not believe the treasury should cover this amount because: (1) ada held in the treasury is not staked, and (2) while the reimbursement itself is justified, the loss ultimately resulted from user error rather than from a bug or issue that could not have been avoided.

I would prefer a CC composed of more individual members rather than consortiums as a solution to the problem this parameter change is trying to address. However, I recognize that this is not what the majority of the community appears to want, and we cannot risk CC fatigue leading to a governance shutdown.

I also believe that lowering this minimum will eventually result in the effective number of CC members falling to this level. In that scenario, assuming there are no abstentions, the effective approval threshold would become 80%, which I consider too high.

Given these conflicting considerations, I will vote ABSTAIN.

I appreciate the effort of the proposer, but I believe reforms of this nature should first be discussed and socialized within the Cardano community before being brought on-chain for endorsement.

I approved the original combined Hydra/Midgard proposal, so I am voting YES on this proposal as well.

I voted NO on the original proposal mainly because of the two-year budget. Now that the proposal has been changed to a one-year budget, and because I believe Cardano will benefit from the further development of Peras, I am voting YES.

The project is already operating on Cardano, addresses a real-world problem at significant scale, and has a clear path to bringing new users and activity to the ecosystem. In addition, the people behind the proposal are already deeply involved in the Cardano ecosystem, and I have confidence in their ability to deliver on their commitments. Therefore, I am voting YES.

I attended both Rare Evo and the Dev&Gov Day in 2025 and greatly enjoyed both events, so this was not an easy vote for me. After careful consideration, however, I have decided to vote NO.

If this proposal were solely for Dev&Gov Day, I would approve it without hesitation. I consider it a highly valuable event that directly benefits the Cardano ecosystem and is well worth funding.

As for Rare Evo, it positions itself as a multi-chain event, so I do not believe it should be funded as a Cardano event. At the same time, as a multi-chain event, I do not believe it is of sufficient scale to justify a standalone treasury proposal, unlike events such as TOKEN2049. Last year, we funded a Unified Events proposal, and I believe it would make more sense for Rare Evo to be considered alongside other events within such a proposal, with attendance decisions made according to the available budget and expected value.
I am also concerned that treasury funding is being used to compensate for the loss of sponsors that previously supported the event. While I understand the challenge, I do not believe the treasury should be expected to fill that gap.

Regarding the requested deposit for Dev&Gov Day 2027, I am not convinced it is necessary to commit funds more than a year in advance. The event attracts only a few hundred attendees, which does not seem to warrant such an early commitment, especially before the next edition has even taken place.
We already had a Dev&Gov Day in Las Vegas in 2025 and may have another one there in 2026. We also had a similar event, Day 0, before the Cardano Summit in Berlin in 2025. In the future, we may want to hold such an event in a different part of the world, giving other members of the community a better opportunity to attend.

I agree with the additional funding required for the Fireblocks native integration and for maintaining the integrations already delivered under Cardano Critical Integrations V1. I acknowledge that V1 already included the Fireblocks integration, but the reality is that the value of ada declined significantly between the submission of the V1 proposal and its execution.

I do think the maintenance request comes too early, however, as the oldest integrations were completed less than six months ago. In my view, funding for ongoing maintenance should be requested only after a few more months, under an updated NCL if necessary. Therefore, I will abstain on this proposal.

I am an active user of Eternl and greatly value it as a powerful and versatile wallet, particularly for its advanced functionality.
That said, I find it difficult to justify treasury funding for the continued development of these features while users are required to pay to access that advanced functionality.

I am voting NO on this proposal because, given the limited treasury resources and competing priorities, I do not believe the requested amount of 8.5 million ada represents a justified use of treasury funds at this time.

After careful consideration, spending less than 10% of the available NCL on research doesn't seem all that extraordinary for a research-driven blockchain like Cardano. Therefore, I'm changing my vote from ABSTAIN to YES.

I initially voted NO on this proposal because choices needed to be made due to the NCL, but given the high level of support for this proposal, I changed my vote to YES.

Open-source sustainability is important, but this type of initiative should be managed by a broader group of established Cardano ecosystem participants from the start, not primarily centered around a single operator and structures that still need to be created.
Additionally, given the available NCL and the large number of competing treasury proposals, I do not believe there is room for a multi-year commitment.

In my rationale for the first treasury withdrawal for these items, which I approved, I stated that I believe this node implementation will play an important role in Cardano’s decentralization, as it enables dApps and light wallets to directly verify data instead of relying on APIs. I also stated that I believe the Pebble smart contract language can become a valuable alternative to existing ones.

However, I am generally reluctant to approve proposals that include a contingency buffer while the current NCL concept is in place, as this limits the funding available to other proposals, even if unused funds would later be returned.

That said, I also believe the current threshold for approving treasury withdrawals is too high, especially since only a few larger DReps can block a proposal. As the first proposal only narrowly failed, I consider it as good as approved. Combined with the fact that the contingency buffer is not excessive, I will approve these proposals as well.

In my rationale for the first treasury withdrawal for these items, which I approved, I stated that I believe this node implementation will play an important role in Cardano’s decentralization, as it enables dApps and light wallets to directly verify data instead of relying on APIs. I also stated that I believe the Pebble smart contract language can become a valuable alternative to existing ones.

However, I am generally reluctant to approve proposals that include a contingency buffer while the current NCL concept is in place, as this limits the funding available to other proposals, even if unused funds would later be returned.

That said, I also believe the current threshold for approving treasury withdrawals is too high, especially since only a few larger DReps can block a proposal. As the first proposal only narrowly failed, I consider it as good as approved. Combined with the fact that the contingency buffer is not excessive, I will approve these proposals as well.

There is no room for these kind of proposals atm.

It is important that Cardano has a strong presence at TOKEN2049, arguably the largest crypto event in the world, if we want to be taken seriously.
While I still consider the ask for the Platinum sponsorship proposal to be high, there are no alternative proposals, and time is pressing to secure a meaningful presence at the event. I also appreciate EMURGO listening to DReps and providing options. For these reasons, I will approve the base proposal.
While I recognize the potential benefits of a Title sponsorship, I am not convinced that the additional exposure justifies the extra cost. Therefore, I will abstain from the top-up proposal for now.

While I understand the importance of delivering Peras, I cannot support this proposal for the following two reasons:

• Requesting a two-year budget upfront seems either out of touch with reality or even somewhat inappropriate. Given the NCL, projects are already competing for one-year funding, let alone two years.
• It is difficult to justify that IOG has submitted multiple proposals totaling 162M ada, already collaborating with various other companies, while a subcontractor involved in the same work submits a separate proposal.

It is important that Cardano has a strong presence at TOKEN2049, arguably the largest crypto event in the world, if we want to be taken seriously.
While I still consider the ask for the Platinum sponsorship proposal to be high, there are no alternative proposals, and time is pressing to secure a meaningful presence at the event. I also appreciate EMURGO listening to DReps and providing options. For these reasons, I will approve the base proposal.
While I recognize the potential benefits of a Title sponsorship, I am not convinced that the additional exposure justifies the extra cost. Therefore, I will abstain from the top-up proposal for now.

IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.

✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.

✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.

✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.

✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).

❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.

✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.

✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.

➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.

➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain.

IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.

✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.

✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.

✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.

✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).

❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.

✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.

✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.

➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.

➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain.

IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.

✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.

✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.

✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.

✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).

❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.

✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.

✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.

➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.

➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain.

IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.

✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.

✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.

✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.

✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).

❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.

✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.

✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.

➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.

➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain.

IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.

✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.

✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.

✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.

✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).

❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.

✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.

✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.

➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.

➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain.

IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.

✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.

✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.

✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.

✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).

❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.

✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.

✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.

➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.

➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain.

IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.

✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.

✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.

✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.

✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).

❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.

✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.

✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.

➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.

➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain.

IOG certainly asks for a lot, although some of the proposals are collaborations with other companies. I will go over the different proposals separately.

✅ Developer Experience
It’s important that developers who want to build on Cardano can do so as easily as possible. While I think this proposal could be done more cheaply, not getting it done would be much worse.

✅ Cardano Upgrades
These upgrades will be beneficial for Cardano.

✅ Consensus
Implementing Leios is important to handle the transaction volume we’ll have once Cardano is used for many use cases. I would have preferred to see Simple Leios implemented directly (with a longer time frame), though, rather than first spending time and resources on Linear Leios.

✅ L2 Scalability
We need solid L2 solutions for high transaction volume applications that would be too expensive on L1 (in terms of resources and fees).

❌ Cardano High Assurance
I like this proposal, but unfortunately, under the current available NCL and taking other proposals into account, difficult choices need to be made. I will approve this proposal if it is resubmitted under a new NCL.

✅ Cardano Maintenance
This proposal is too expensive for what it delivers, but alternative nodes are not yet mature enough to risk stalling the development of cardano-node.

✅ Plutus
Further improvements and extensions of smart contract capabilities are important.

➖ Blockfrost
I think the free tier should be subsidized by the revenue Blockfrost generates from its paid tiers, like any other company using a freemium model. I do recognize the decentralization efforts made, although funding for this was already received in the past; hence I will abstain.

➖ Pogun
There are multiple alternatives for Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano being developed, and it remains to be seen which one will perform best and attract the most users. The treasury should not provide a grant for this, but since the earnings would be used to repay the funds, it is essentially a loan. Given that additional revenue would later be shared with the treasury, it could even be considered an investment. However, I am not sure whether the current NCL allows for this kind of investment at the moment. If a higher NCL becomes available, I would vote in favor of this proposal, but for now I will abstain.

I appreciate the CF listening to the community by making this a separate proposal from the TOKEN2049 one, making adjustments, and even slightly increasing their own contribution. That said, I still think the CF should contribute more from their own allocated funds. I would also have liked to see some cooperation with Midnight to do something together and reduce costs.
Even so, I acknowledge the importance of having a Cardano Summit, and I’m still convinced that holding it in Singapore right before TOKEN2049 makes sense, especially this year. The time is now to put Cardano in the spotlight, because we have a lot to make up for.
While I still have reservations about the size of the requested amount and would have preferred a larger CF contribution, I believe the strategic value of holding the Summit in Singapore right before TOKEN2049 outweighs those concerns. I also appreciate the CF addressing the issue raised by one of the CC members regarding Tenet 8 in this revised proposal. For these reasons, I approve this proposal.

While I'm disappointed that the CF didn't communicate about the Cardano Summit's funding from the start and refuses to cover a bigger chunk of the cost themselves, I think the positive effect of having a Summit is too important to ignore. I also think organizing the Cardano Summit right before TOKEN2049 in Singapore is a very good idea; I even proposed this in the past myself. Having a strong Cardano presence at TOKEN2049 is also important. For all these reasons, I vote, with mild reluctance, YES on this proposal.

If this proposal doesn't get passed, I hope an alternative can be worked out, because we can't NOT be present at TOKEN2049. Maybe a combined Cardano/Midnight Summit on the planned days of the Cardano Summit could be an alternative, as costs can be split.

I believe this node implementation will play an important role in the decentralization of Cardano, because it enables dApps and light wallets to directly verify stuff instead of relying on APIs. It adds to the diverse node landscape (I previously stated that I think 3–5 different node implementations would be ideal, so this would be the 4th I support).
I think the Pebble smart contract language will also be a good alternative to existing ones.

Changing my vote from ABSTAIN to YES now, as my questions were answered. Not necessarily agree with all aspects and details, but the overall framework is good enough to go through with it, and blocking or delaying the budget process will do more harm.

I’ve always considered the Cardano Foundation the most appropriate entity to manage Project Catalyst, so I support this proposal.
This support does not extend to unconditional approval of treasury withdrawals for Catalyst however. The program has identifiable shortcomings that require improvement, and I will assess those when the time comes.

Node diversity will be good for the Cardano ecosystem; if not for the software itself, then certainly for enabling multiple actors to develop and maintain the Cardano protocol. This improves decentralization, as we no longer rely on a single company that might have too much power, resulting in a more secure network.
Ideally, the treasury could/should (partly) fund 3 to 5 different node implementations in my view.
The Dingo team already has a proven track record, work has already been done with Catalyst funding, and the requested amount seems reasonable.
That’s why I’m voting YES on this proposal.

This gov action was a very tough one for me to decide on. I’ve generally been a proponent of the proposal and even stated after the invalid one that I intended to approve it.
However, things have changed since the budget info action back in September, so after careful consideration I’ve decided to vote NO on this one.

There are two main reasons:

1/ Originally, the treasury withdrawals for this proposal were meant to happen under last year’s NCL. Due to delays, they would now take place under a new NCL term. Approving this proposal could leave too little room for other proposals I want to support this year. While the NCL could be increased, that’s not guaranteed.
This also highlights a flaw in the current NCL concept: the timing of proposals can influence approval decisions, which ideally shouldn’t be the case.

2/ Given the current ada price, the impact of this proposal may be limited, making the conversion of ada to stablecoins less efficient. There may be more effective ways to boost stablecoin liquidity, such as incentivizing third-party liquidity providers via smart contracts, which could deliver more volume per ada spent with lower overhead.
Additionally, the introduction of USDCx on Cardano changes the landscape and may naturally improve liquidity over time.

While some aspects of the proposal remain unclear at this stage, I appreciate its overall concept and believe it has strong potential to benefit the Cardano ecosystem. The involvement of the Cardano Foundation adds credibility, and the inclusion of third-party capital alongside treasury funds is something I like too. Based on these considerations, I have decided to vote YES on this proposal.

First had some questions about what would happen with remaining funds in the case of ada price appreciation, but answers from the team made it clear that those would be paid back to the treasury.
As for the budget itself, seems reasonable, hence voting ✅ YES.

🙏

Approved the budget, so will approve the withdrawals too.

Disclaimer: As a DRep, I do not perform an exhaustive check on whether a treasury withdrawal is executed by the correct parties, sent to the correct address, or correctly linked to its preceding budget. I place this responsibility with the CC, as the withdrawal would be unconstitutional if any of these requirements were violated.

I support this proposal. For now I think it's a good idea to stick to a 350M yearly NCL. I also like the fact that it's set for 18 months for now, relieving the pressure to get a new one voted in and eliminating the need for extending the current one after a year.
I do think we could get rid of the NCL altogether btw or, if not, making it a protocol parameter indifferent to a set period (where each treasury withdrawal also changes the parameter).

Go to Catalyst or get voted in a consolidated budget pls.

Although I would like to see the need for a separate budget info action removed, not a single one of my concerns with the previous version has been handled. Hence I have no choice to vote ❌ NO on this version either.

I can find myself in most of the points; however:
1/ I don’t consider a gap of more than five minutes in block production to be an outage. While the chance of having no blocks assigned for such a period is indeed extremely low, given the level of decentralization we have, we can and should account for some missed blocks, hence we indeed see some of those. I still see Cardano as having 100% uptime.
2/ Total Value Locked is a stupid metric.

As I stated in my rationale for my vote on the gov action to add Cardano Curia, that I would rather have seen both them and Christina added to the CC, it is a given that I vote ✅ YES on this one too.

Given that the outcome of the Ekklesia vote is somewhat split between two candidates and a large portion of DReps/stake didn’t vote, I would rather have seen either a gov action that adds them both (we would also be better off with a CC consisting of more members than the minimum), or multiple simultaneous gov actions where we would have the choice between adding them both or only one of them, essentially holding a “2nd round” on-chain.
That said, I think it’s more important that other proposals aren’t blocked due to a governance shutdown. Hence, I’m voting ✅ YES on this proposal, although with minor aversion (to be clear, I want both candidates to be added to the CC).

Who am I to say no to this?

I will also vote ❌ NO on this new proposal to replace the constitution, mainly because some important points raised in my rationale of the previous proposal are still unaccounted for.

I will briefly repeat them; see my previous rationale for more details.
1/ I thought the idea was to combine budget and treasury withdrawal, not to never speak of a budget again…
2/ This version still removes power from the CC. With the current constitution, they can deem a budget unconstitutional if they think the contents of it is unconstitutional. With this version, they have no way to do that anymore.
3/ I still think this version was constructed without enough community input like we had with the current constitution.

I would also like to see the following points changed, but these are not blocking for me:
a/ Most definitions now present in the guardrails belong in the 'Defined Terms' section at the beginning.
b/ Add the term "permissionless" to the definition of the Cardano Blockchain.
c/ I still think the definition of the NCL is somewhat ambiguous, although it has been improved.
d/ Use the exact wording from the Shelley Design Specification for the definition of 'Active Block Production Stake'. Instead of "…that is actively delegated to Stake Pools…" it should say "…that is correctly delegated to non-retired Stake Pools…".

To end on a positive note, I'm happy to see that TREASURY-04a (x) got removed.

While I'm in favor of CC compensation, the amount asked (200k ada per CC member for 1 year) is just too much, imho, especially without any cost breakdown whatsoever included in the proposal. I acknowledge most CC members are groups consisting of multiple individual members, but this should not be at the cost of the treasury, imho. Those groups are free to have multiple members, but this is at their own discretion.
Because this is the first time CC members will be compensated, we should be more conservative, and I'll approve a budget of up to 100k ada per CC member for 1 year. For the next year, we could revisit that amount if necessary (if members show their actual cost breakdown).
If this budget gets approved, I might reconsider my decision for the actual treasury withdrawal, but only if it contains a more detailed cost breakdown.

Approved the budget action, hence I'll approve the withdrawal itself too.

I'm not against a reimbursement of the lost funds, because those went to the treasury anyway, but the treasury shouldn't pay for lost staking rewards or airdrops, because those are not paid by the treasury. Only the amount of 100k should be reimbursed.
Also it's not clear who submitted this governance action. Only if they asked for a reimbursement themselves, it should be done.

I approved the budget and approve its treasury withdrawal too.

I'm voting NO on this proposal because it doesn't state who the author is and, if I've understand correct, the Product Committee will come with their own vision/roadmap in the coming weeks. So I will assess that one.

After my earlier ABSTAIN vote, I've decided to give this proposal the benefit of the doubt for now. If this budget gets passed, I'll make a more considered decision when the treasury withdrawal gov action goes on-chain.

This proposal is more appropriate for Catalyst.

I’ve decided to vote ❌ NO on this proposal to replace the Cardano Constitution. While I strongly support eliminating the budget governance action because it is redundant and unnecessary, I have several concerns with this proposal.

Firstly, this version has simply been presented for a vote without broad community input and discussion to fine-tune it, which is necessary for such an important document. We just had the governance and budget workshop in Las Vegas, where many community members reviewed the current process and raised interesting points. These points could certainly be taken into account when drafting a new version of the constitution. This current proposal feels somewhat premature.

Secondly, this version seems to have merely removed the budget info action while leaving the rest largely unchanged ( except for one small point I will return to later). Rather than only removing the budget info action, I would have preferred to see the budget incorporated into the treasury withdrawal action. This way, we still have budgets, but without the need for separate governance actions to approve them. Since there would no longer be an on-chain budget vote in advance, I believe the constitution should at least mention that an off-chain process to gather DRep sentiment before posting treasury withdrawals on-chain is preferable (like the Ekklesia vote, though no need to name a specific tool, let’s keep it general).

Thirdly, the small point I mentioned earlier: the guardrail about the budget action has suddenly been replaced by the following:

TREASURY-04a (x) A roadmap that includes the applicable period of the treasury withdrawal must be approved by the DReps via an Info Action with a threshold of greater than 50% of the active voting stake.
This introduces a new step that was not required before. While I think gathering DRep sentiment on the roadmap through an info action can be valuable (we have done this before), it should not be made mandatory. If it is to be included in the constitution, the process should be described more clearly in the main text of the constitution, not only as a brief mention in the guardrails.

Fourthly, I am concerned that the following text was removed from the constitution, as this essentially reduces the powers of the Constitutional Committee (perhaps unintentionally) compared to what they currently have:

In the case of "Info" actions that propose a Cardano Blockchain ecosystem budget, Constitutional Committee members shall record a vote on-chain that sets forth their opinion as to whether the proposed budget, if it were to be implemented in the form contained in the "Info" action, would violate this Constitution.
In the case of "Info" actions that propose a withdrawal from the Cardano Blockchain treasury pursuant to a previously approved budget, Constitutional Committee members shall record a vote on-chain that sets forth their opinion as to whether such proposed withdrawal, if made in accordance with such "Info" action, would violate this Constitution.
This text should of course be adapted to reflect a combined budget/treasury withdrawal action, but it’s an important part of the constitution imho.

Fifthly, I have some remarks about the definitions added in this version:

• The definitions are divided between the main text and the guardrails, which appears somewhat chaotic and arbitrary. It would be better to bring them together in the main text (with exceptions for definitions that are specific to the guardrails).
• I would have liked to see, already in the first constitution, a clear statement that the Cardano Blockchain is public and permissionless (as in the Cardano Foundation’s proposal). Since "public" is already present in the definition, please add "permissionless" as well, and make this the first definition for clarity and logical structure.
• The definition of the NCL remains as ambiguous as it is now. This needs to be clarified so that all confusion about its meaning is eliminated and there can be no further debate.
• For the definition of Active Block Production Stake, I believe it is better to use the same wording as in the Shelley Design Specification. So instead of "…that is actively delegated to Stake Pools…" it should say "…that is correctly delegated to non-retired Stake Pools…".

Lastly, I would like to see the NCL implemented on-chain instead of being only an info action. However, since this requires code changes, it can be left for a later update to the constitution.

The new proposed CC contains 6 of the 7 candidates I voted for in the election, so voting YES for this is quite obvious. In addition, it would be very inappropriate to vote NO or ABSTAIN on this on Mike Hornan from the Cardano Atlantic Counsel his birthday! 😜

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.

It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.

I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:

• Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
• Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
• Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
• I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.

I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:

❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.

❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...

I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.

My votes for the currently active budget governance actions are as follows:

• ✅ YES on the 275M Intersect Budget
• ✅ YES on the Amaru Node Development Budget
• ❌ NO on the 7.5M Community Builders Budget

The Intersect budget includes a broad set of proposals that are generally positive for the Cardano ecosystem. While I may have reservations about some individual proposals, approving the budget doesn't automatically release funds. I can re-evaluate specific items later when the associated treasury withdrawal actions are submitted on chain. I strongly recommend avoiding overly grouped treasury withdrawals, bundling too many proposals together can result in good initiatives being blocked due to a few contentious ones.

As for the Amaru Node Development Budget, if it had been included in the recent Ekklesia vote, it likely would have passed, and I would have supported it then as well. That's why I will support it now too. For better clarity, I recommend including the requested budget amount in the governance action title next time.

I would've preferred to vote on the Community Builders Budget after seeing the outcome of the Intersect budget. If that last one were to fail, I might have considered supporting the community one, but since it was submitted beforehand, that option is off the table now. More importantly, this budget doesn't include the proposals from founding entities and there are no separate gov actions for those. It doesn't make sense to fund only this subset of proposals in isolation imho. So for now I can only assume the Intersect one will pass, which renders this budget unnecessary. Additionally, this budget appoints Intersect as the administrator, yet includes the Starstream proposal, which will not use Intersect as an administrator. For these reasons, I cannot support the Community Builders Budget at this time.

I'm aware that some of my reasons for voting NO on the community budget could also apply, to some extent, to the Amaru budget. However, the Amaru budget doesn't overlap with another Budget.

My votes for the currently active budget governance actions are as follows:

• ✅ YES on the 275M Intersect Budget
• ✅ YES on the Amaru Node Development Budget
• ❌ NO on the 7.5M Community Builders Budget

The Intersect budget includes a broad set of proposals that are generally positive for the Cardano ecosystem. While I may have reservations about some individual proposals, approving the budget doesn't automatically release funds. I can re-evaluate specific items later when the associated treasury withdrawal actions are submitted on chain. I strongly recommend avoiding overly grouped treasury withdrawals, bundling too many proposals together can result in good initiatives being blocked due to a few contentious ones.

As for the Amaru Node Development Budget, if it had been included in the recent Ekklesia vote, it likely would have passed, and I would have supported it then as well. That's why I will support it now too. For better clarity, I recommend including the requested budget amount in the governance action title next time.

I would've preferred to vote on the Community Builders Budget after seeing the outcome of the Intersect budget. If that last one were to fail, I might have considered supporting the community one, but since it was submitted beforehand, that option is off the table now. More importantly, this budget doesn't include the proposals from founding entities and there are no separate gov actions for those. It doesn't make sense to fund only this subset of proposals in isolation imho. So for now I can only assume the Intersect one will pass, which renders this budget unnecessary. Additionally, this budget appoints Intersect as the administrator, yet includes the Starstream proposal, which will not use Intersect as an administrator. For these reasons, I cannot support the Community Builders Budget at this time.

I'm aware that some of my reasons for voting NO on the community budget could also apply, to some extent, to the Amaru budget. However, the Amaru budget doesn't overlap with another Budget.

My votes for the currently active budget governance actions are as follows:

• ✅ YES on the 275M Intersect Budget
• ✅ YES on the Amaru Node Development Budget
• ❌ NO on the 7.5M Community Builders Budget

The Intersect budget includes a broad set of proposals that are generally positive for the Cardano ecosystem. While I may have reservations about some individual proposals, approving the budget doesn't automatically release funds. I can re-evaluate specific items later when the associated treasury withdrawal actions are submitted on chain. I strongly recommend avoiding overly grouped treasury withdrawals, bundling too many proposals together can result in good initiatives being blocked due to a few contentious ones.

As for the Amaru Node Development Budget, if it had been included in the recent Ekklesia vote, it likely would have passed, and I would have supported it then as well. That's why I will support it now too. For better clarity, I recommend including the requested budget amount in the governance action title next time.

I would've preferred to vote on the Community Builders Budget after seeing the outcome of the Intersect budget. If that last one were to fail, I might have considered supporting the community one, but since it was submitted beforehand, that option is off the table now. More importantly, this budget doesn't include the proposals from founding entities and there are no separate gov actions for those. It doesn't make sense to fund only this subset of proposals in isolation imho. So for now I can only assume the Intersect one will pass, which renders this budget unnecessary. Additionally, this budget appoints Intersect as the administrator, yet includes the Starstream proposal, which will not use Intersect as an administrator. For these reasons, I cannot support the Community Builders Budget at this time.

I'm aware that some of my reasons for voting NO on the community budget could also apply, to some extent, to the Amaru budget. However, the Amaru budget doesn't overlap with another Budget.

We just have a NCL approved, no need to immediately change it. Also, the proposed amount is too restrictive and doesn't leave much room for a possible ADA depreciation.

The proposed amount strikes a good balance between enabling Cardano's continued development, growth, and a buffer for potential price depreciation on one hand, and preserving adequate treasury funds on the other. Approving this NCL is by no means a mandate to spend the entire amount. Budget proposals will only be approved if deemed appropriate, and individual treasury withdrawals will be assessed with regard to the ADA price. We should seize the time—now is the time to act; in the future, we may shift to a more conservative NCL approach.

Not entirely satisfied with the current constitution draft, but it's a solid start.
I voted YES because its flaws aren’t significant enough to halt progress.
Needed changes (non-exhaustive):

• The tenets should explicitly state that Cardano is public and permissionless, ideally as the first one.
• Definitions should be part of the constitution.
• A guardrail for hard forks should ensure the ecosystem (exchanges, dApps) is ready without strict thresholds like stake pools.