No stress

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Go for it!

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

This is reasonable spend for an important technical function

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

keep up the great work eternl team

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Lets goooooo

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Why is this so difficult?!! lets refund them already. this is a no-brainer.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.

eternl you my boy blue!

if you use this and want it DM me

had me at quantum

=/

im out

gold is maybe good enough but ill abstain

gold is maybe good enough but ill abstain

thanks for revising

I don't like the flood of maintenance proposals but this is necessary

devs must be happy to stick around

let's get our scalability efforts over the line

yes please

Good idea

Send it!

Cant stop wont stop

No pogun for you

I like blockfrost but not sure about the 'pay for everyone to do maintenance' plan

I would prefer these two get separated so I can vote individually.

This helps realize our previous vision for light nodes - the browser is the easiest entry point. I think this is a valuable add.

CF has agreed to take this on and it is certainly my opinion that Catalyst needs a bit of a rework. I look forward to new ways of driving innovation in a sustainable manner.

I'd like to see the multi block production vision realized. I'd like to start with 3 node types supported by the treasury and no more.

I am voting yes on good faith that efforts will be made to make things as sustainable as possible. We can't have unbridled spending and wasting of peoples time just to collect some ADA. I'd like to see less ada spent monthly on operations. I will give on the location of the registration which comes with high cost already, but we cant simply add costs beyond what is required by our registration.

Go forth and conquer team Dragon

sounds stressful

LFG already!

Nice. I think these are sustainable numbers or at least much closer to it.

We have to tune the parameters. Keeping them stagnant helps no one. This particular parameter will enable more storage for more complex use cases. If you want Cardano to be competitive this is a no brainer.

I think we need to be more careful to keep cost low. I won't stand in the way of this (already approved the previous) but the released costs are very high for annual expense and startup cost.

<3

I prefer we whack it in half, but the timeline extension to 17 months kind of gets at that concern. I am always worried about sustainability and our treasury revenue is in the 300M range so as long as we dont go higher we should be good (to not destroy the treasury).

I am not sure this makes sense for treasury funds, would like to see this in catalyst.

Appreciate the efforts to streamline the proposal process. I was no on the first couple versions but we have refined the changes down and I like where this is at now.

Abstain for now. I am just not sure about the effectiveness of this. Companies can barely maintain a roadmap for 6 months before upheaving things for new ideas. If this can just get rolled over then I am not sure we will get the coordinated effort we are hoping for.

I voteth Yes simply as a political favor to Christina. I shall hold this over her head until the moment of capitalization.

Having worked with her on Cardano Over Coffee, I'm positive she would be a great addition to the CC. But 8 is a weird number and I would prefer 9 or 11 or 13 or 15 or 17.

However, I must re-iterate, this is a political favor. This has nothing to do with qualifications.

voting like I did on the info action. same rationale.

duh

I do not agree with setting a precedent that we will just change the financial calendar any time we want to squeeze money out of the NCL. The world will not end if this goes through in Jan/Feb. Also market wise, we may get better prices in a bear market. Delaying may get us better deals. These acrobatics are too stressful.

I am torn on this. I think this will pass no matter what but I think in terms of proposal standards we usually want to see more transparency and line item costs. I understand we are still in negotiations (unedrstandable) and the FEs will be matching funds (great to see). Its clear the community wants to go fast on these items so I don't want to stand in the way. For these reasons I will be abstaining. The idea is no stress.

We have been arguing about listing problems for a long time. Im not sure if this will work well but its worth the experiment to finally figure out what it will take for CNTs to move.

It would be travesty not to reimburse them.

Uneducated rationale: This is an absurd amount of money for this.
My new rationale: 1 Million for (7*5) 35 people, 200k per consortium, is reasonable for a critical role in our governance process.
I think many dreps mis-understood this proposals, phil is not taking 200k.
We dont want to cripple our governance in the NCL budgeting time. Sure we can find ways of providing more tooling to this role

Thanks for footing the bill CF! Let's gooooo.

Glad to see the minor version updates. It is important we improve our constitution especially given how quickly we got it approved initially.

Unfortunately I approved this in my budget already so have a yes but I swear to god if you fund a dashboard with this it will be my last approval. Performant functionality is all I want!

It is time to deepen liquidity. I could push back on bits and piece but ultimately this is the closest team to addressing this issue and I want them to have their chance. I was against at higher amounts bc I want them to prove themselves. At 50m, this is a reasonable toe-dip in the broader problem of stablecoin liquidity. I prefer to plan in a crawl - walk - run capacity and this is a crawl. I want to see us work with the top DEXes and top lending and borrowing platforms. Specifically I like Minswap, Liqwid to be involved in this effort.

I don't want to pick favorites. We are well beyond where I was comfortable with annual spend so I think try again next year and find a way to blend efforts across more regions so it feels fair.

I've been convinced over the last few days of discussion. The Snek team is clearly working with the community and has made some strides on our behalf. I want to see what this team can do.

There are some good elements here like streamlining the process but there are many changes in scope that makes me uncomfortable. I think a smaller change set would pass.

You'll get em next time

I have some room left in the 150M cap I had set out to hit and this proposal will help bring the community voice to the roadmap in a grass roots way.

I have some room left in the 150M cap I had set out to hit and this proposal will help builders survive which is a group we need to maintain to be relevant.

This is a small cost for an open-source project and I have confirmed it will help Mesh with their UTxo RPC provider.

This is a large ask for a private company. I realize this is not Emurgo anymore so they dont have the genesis ada bank at their disposal. With USDA and USDM at basically the same market cap it seems unfair to pick a single winner at this time. If we could instead invest in both with liquidity and not private funds I would get behind that. The Treasury is supposed to fund public goods.

This will help us move toward light weight client and further supports node diversity. Typescript has grown to be incredibly popular from a dev perspective so this helps us target more developers and make low-lift tooling for devs who dont want to roll with haskell and dbsync.

Lets gooo! We have a good squad coming up lets send them!

We have a ton of people working on the effectiveness of governance. We have all these governance days and workshops all over the world. We are going to do this in a decentralized way whether or not this gets funded.

This is a large amount of money and based on minimum viable governance, I am not sure this fits it. We wasted significant time going back and forth with intersect on the buckets and proposal set and all we needed was to put the burden on the projects requesting and allow dreps to parse through and vote. We are ready for full on governance with the fewest number of middle players as possible.

Product works well and the community makes good usage of this. The cost is reasonable enough

We already funded sundial and IOG who are both working on this type of work. I am hesitant to put more money when we already have 2 teams working on this that are being paid. This first funding round is about minimum viable.

Fuck it. Let's give the little guy a chance.

As a dev, I selfishly want this.

I dont like this precedent of having the treasury cover everyone's maintenance fees. Businesses should be sustainable. I happily pay my Eternl trx fees. I am an avid Eternl user and I provide it as a wallet connect option on our site. As such, I will abstain as a middle ground.

I thought the IOG proposal was the basics of what is needed and they will work with TWEAG on whatever is needed. If I am wrong please add color and I can consider a vote change.

I dont like setting the precedent that we need to constantly spend 10s of millions on research. There are some costs that companies should bear themselves. If tech companies want to stay in business they will do their own research regardless of whether this gets funded. I think abstaining is a good middle ground.

It is important to support the basic elements of crypto UX. Hardware wallet support must be a priority.

The last thing we need is some bridge exploit. I might think differently about this in the 2026 budget but for right now I am focused on minimum viable governance + important ecosystem efforts. Bridging out doesnt make my budget cut unfortunately though I love the technology.

We have already paid MLabs a fair amount and I am weary of this concept that everyone's maintenance fees should be covered by the community. That doesn't happen for SPOs.

I am changing from No to Yes on this proposal. I have realized that I was biasing toward proposals (tech proposals) that I understood. Being no marketer myself, I have decided to trust in the people closest to this. I think this proposal will create some consistency from event to event and further drive a strong Cardano brand. I appreciate all the professional discussions on X to understand this proposal better. Now, let's get to work.

Ledger is a provider that cuts across chains and this is a good investment.

We have too many middle men on trying to support builders. We have dreps ready to vote at all times, I see no reason to prop up another DAO. Go to catalyst as well. This is just not needed for minimum viable governance.

If someone has an idea take it to a treasury withdrawal or catalyst. This is another abstraction that is not needed for minimum viable governance.

We are focusing on rust support for node diversity and this is a reasonable spend to push this forward.

IOG has delivered the tech we needed to get this far and I think funding them in this first round is absolutely worth it. Given the .50 price, I will certainly be looking forward to a smaller amount in the next year. However, there is no reason to slow things down at this time.

Scala based smart contract and dapp development. I have run scala engineering teams. However, it is still a relatively small community. For minimum viable governance this does not attract many new devs. Aiken has the lions share of usage and for this first run I dont see this being worth it. Perhaps try catalyst or the next governance round.

Love this research but this is not a part of minimum viable governance. Please continue on your own or go to catalyst.

We have lost many hours banging our heads against the lucid wall. We have switched to Mesh who has polished docs and supports governance transactions. If we are paying maintenance I expect it to work and be well documented and supported.

Quadratic voting and funding is certainly an interesting topic but I do not see the need for the treasury to pay 1.5M ada for this experiment. Most holders are here to profit and so the community of people with appetite beyond Catalyst is very small. This would be spending treasury funds on a microcommunity. Technically interested but not broadly valuable.

This proposal not only gives us the Summit but also regional events with 800,000 ADA allocated to each of the four regions (WADA, RareEvo, Emurgo, ADA Solar). This will help us continue to have valuable IRL events. Doing these events require advanced planning, deposits, and constant collaboration. It is critical that we pass this and keep our flagship events moving forward.

Getting into tokenized real estate comes with legal and regulatory challenges. Homes are things people stake their lives on and in the quickly moving blockchain space, any sort of hack or exploit could be detrimental to families. We should approach with caution and wait for further clarity and robust infrastructure. There are also challenges regarding transparency of the homes state, valuations in the bubbling housing market, and more. I am not against this idea in general, but it is too early to bet 3M on something that only a small fraction would even consider.

As I mentioned in the midgard vote, we need both optimistic rollups and ZK rollups to compete against other chains. We need to continue and deliver on these efforts. This sort of functionality encourages developers to build here.

Blockfrost is one of the few APIs we have in the ecosystem and it is still lacking in a few areas. We need more data accessible. I often run into issues where certain epochs do not return data. The support process has been clunky and appears to be more of a blackhole. Please use these funds to step it up.

This is a lot of ADA for a community focused innovation effort. I'd prefer to see less than 20 million per round and less than 3 rounds per year. Also 10 million to run this is rather significant for a <20 person team.

Optimistic rollups and ZK rollups are both important for our technology to be as robust as our competitors and at this point it makes sense to invest in both.

YES BUILD IT ALREADY MY GOD LETS GO FASTER

YES BUILD - THAT LOADING SCREEN IS AWFUL

YES BUILD

This has no chance of passing in current form sadly. Let's figure it out!

Yall are getting paid?

We need more granularity to ensure proper financial oversight. Each multi-million dollar proposal should stand on its own.

I would like to see 150-250 as anything higher does not fully ensure the treasury will continue to grow.

I think this is a well detailed proposal and the cost is reasonable for the value.

I have been saying from the beginning that I wanted to see an NCL in the 150-250 range. This is bc that within this range we can ensure the treasury will continue to grow. The higher we go the closer we get to our treasury getting depleted YoY.

Tao was set to .2 in order to bootstrap the treasury. With over 1.67 BILLION accumulated, the bootstrap phase should be considered complete. We still have work to do in developing better projections for committees so we can get a good understanding of our run rate. Until there is a clear reason to have a tax rate higher than the initially researched 5%, I will be in favor of reducing tao anywhere between 5 and 20.

For less stress, I am voting yes. Can you imagine the shitstorm if this doesn't pass? I also respect the efforts of my fellow community members who have provided excellent rationale in their yes votes.