Patrick_Tobler

I am thankful to Michele & the Hlabs team for splitting this proposal into two. I will be upvoting Pebble, because I believe it has a big chance of helping developer adoption of Cardano and will be downvoting Geralomo because I think its currently not necessary to fund another node after Amaru, Haskell Node, Dingo, C# Node, even if it is Typescript & can run in the browser. I would like the Hlabs team to focus their efforts on Pebble & other projects such as Gravity DEX which I believe could bring substantial traffic to Cardano and help in positioning it as a true DeFi chain.

I am thankful to Michele & the Hlabs team for splitting this proposal into two. I will be upvoting Pebble, because I believe it has a big chance of helping developer adoption of Cardano and will be downvoting Geralomo because I think its currently not necessary to fund another node after Amaru, Haskell Node, Dingo, C# Node, even if it is Typescript & can run in the browser. I would like the Hlabs team to focus their efforts on Pebble & other projects such as Gravity DEX which I believe could bring substantial traffic to Cardano and help in positioning it as a true DeFi chain.

As much as we need faster finality on chain, this proposal is too expensive, planning for a too long time horizon and simply not what Cardano currently needs.

While I absolutely see the value of this proposal & the community collaborators are strong, I believe this to be more of a "nice to have" than what we currently require for this ecosystem to succeed.

I feel unable to assess this proposal fairly. The amount is very high and seems unreasonable. But it seems to me that it's necessary so that development on Cardano doesn't halt completely.

I believe this is a strong proposal and I'm a strong supporter of the Bitcoin DeFI Narrative on Cardano. The team seems strong and there is a very clear path towards a payback to the Cardano Treasury outlined, which is fantastic and exactly what we want to see.

I would've prefered this to be an equity component instead of a revenue share though, so that the project has a chance at future fundraising and hyperscaling.

Due to my close affiliation with the Blockfrost Team I'm abstaining from this vote.

I believe this is a strong proposal. My only concern is that I do not understand from the provided documentation if this would then also be introduced to Cardano as an upgrade or if the funding of "IO & Ensurable Systems: Cardano Maintenance Initiative" is necessary for that.

Hydra and Midgard are both quite valuable and important for this ecosystem, I also respect the project lead Sharan a lot. Masumi will be a user of Hydra. But it's disappointing that Midgard has no reported completed Milestones submitted for the last proposals - that being said, based on Phils statements the work has been done. I urge you to submit milestones though - doing the work is important but talking about work is also important.

Not a fan of this Babel Fee implementation because we already have at least 2 competing babel fee solutions live on Cardano. But the Account Address Enhancement & Cardano Multi-Asset Treasury are big improvements.

That being said it's extremely overpriced. Still voting yes because we should implement these improvements.

Leios is very important to Cardano. That being said, the costs are very intransparent and by my estimates much over the typical 30% profit a software development agency would charge. That being said there's not really a choice here, we have to get Leios.

I don't think this proposal is necessary at this time. And even if it was the costs are too high. Hire two good devrels for a year for 100k each and let them build a developer hub -> 250k USD.

While the price is high, this is a good proposal and I do think the combination of Summit + Token2049 is a strong one.

I believe this is good for Node Diversity even though I am wondering what will happen now that the ADA price is way below the conversion rate in the proposal.

Necessary to not interrupt existing funded proposals.

I am changing my vote because I just realized the 350million proposal didn't go through & we are delaying the budget process a lot.

It's quite a high ask but I believe Amaru to be very critical & the team has shown in the past that they react to rising ADA prices in the right way - by sending ADA back to the Treasury.

Since the budget proposal has already been approved, the withdrawal should also be approved.

This proposal delivers a low-risk, well-benchmarked increase to Plutus memory limits that eases DApp development and improves on-chain throughput without changing cost models, security, or consensus guarantees. It stays fully within constitutional guardrails, has been validated on testnets, and represents a prudent, incremental step toward better scalability for Cardano.

Unfortunately due to low ADA prices I believe this limit is high but adequate. We need to spend to accelerate, otherwise ADA price will continue to drop & we will run out of options in the future.

While I do believe this is a good proposal by a very strong team, I want to encourage teams to figure out a way for treasury withdrawals like this to give some allocation of Tokens, Tokenized Equity or Revenue Share of the project to the Treasury. By approving this proposal, we'd set a bad precedent for allowing treasury withdrawals without expecting these kinds of commitments by the project.

The proposal has multiple good points & same bad ones too. First of all, I appreciate the effort of trying to "unify" the community behind one vision. The reality is that Cardano lacks this kind of vision. Realistically speaking there was a time when Cardanos traffic was mostly due to NFTs but focus was not shared by the founding entities & supported by most of the community. I believe if we would've a more joint vision back then, it would've helped Cardano a lot.

I also appreciate all the interviews that have been undertaking by the Product Committee, I went through the Gitbook to look at the companies and was pleasantly surprised to see names such as Maerki Baumann on there.

A point I definitely support is: "Actively manage the treasury & network economics actively: evolve from a passive pool to a yield-generating, multi-asset treasury, ensure L2s return value to L1, and SPOs are economically incentivised to secure the network over the long term."

Now what I don't like about this proposal is the relative lack of clarity. While yes, there are some focus points, it's still quite a wide range which almost makes it pointless.

In my opinion to really have a strong vision, we need a very simple and quick statement of a trend that Cardano is actually following that everyone can rally behind. Something like "Bitcoin L2" or "RWA Chain" or "Serious AI Chain".

That leads me two my second main critique point. Quote: "2. Create robust on-chain demand: focus on DeFi, RWA, supply chain, and payments, while making Cardano usage “invisible” for users and enterprises."

Focusing Cardano on RWA's does not make any sense. It's a lost battle. Yes, there can be RWA projects on Cardano but as of today there is almost none. All the big RWA players are on other chains. Why run after a trend we can not win?!

The same with Supply Chain. What Supply Chain projects does Cardano have? Almost none.

Another point: I see no mention of NFTs or AI in this proposal, rendering both of my main projects as outside the scope of the official Cardano Vision if the proposal gets passed. Yes, the time for NFTs might be over but still many of the biggest projects on Cardano that lead most of the transactions are/were NFT projects. Additionally, the only large Enterprise deploying Millions of Capital on Cardano right now does so for an AI project, which also is out of scope for this vision.

Now to the KPIs. The KPIs themselves are good, onyl 3 main KPIs, very clear & very focused. But the KPI goals are a bit strange. No idea where these numbers are coming from but I think the proposal would've benefitted more from focusing on tracking these KPIs, not on setitng random goals.

KPI targets without an owner are useless in my opinion.

Everything else is fine. But because I personally don't think this vision supports my own projects & what I'm focused on as a builder, I can not vote yes.

Christina seems to be experienced and I trust she will be a good constitutional committee member.

Urgent addition & followed a good process by INTERSECT. Definitely a yes from me.

Even though I wish these costs were covered more by Emurgo & the CF, I do believe its an important proposal that should be passed urgently.

It's required for the critical 70 million withdrawal.

I would love to see some additional funds committed to this by the founding entities (mainly Emurgo & CF; not IO) but in general this is a good & important proposal that absolutely has to go through.

This should be a no brainer.

As an advisor on this, my vote is yes.

I believe overall this is a net positive for Cardano. The SNEK team has learned from past proposals and improved the proposal positively. The structure as a loan makes a lot of sense.

I would like to see an exact amount of TX fees associated with SNEK transactions. All DEX transactions where SNEK is sold or bought added together basically.

After understanding that this proposal is from Discover Cardano (which was sadly not part of the metadata), I'm changing my vote to Yes.

While this is a good proposal, I know very few projects are currently using the CDN so I don't think this is worth getting funded at this point in time. I hope this will change in the future.

At first I was sceptical of this proposal but after further reading, I have to say i'm impressed by the very clear definitions of eligible Tokens & Exchanges + budget outlines. Even though my own project is not part of it, I still believe this can be a great net positive for Cardano as a whole.

While I have a lot of respect for the vendors of this proposal, I'd like to prevent spending more money and energy on governance-focused initiatives like this for now and focus on adoption & applications instead.

While I would like to see Emurgo pay for this themselves, I still believe this will overall positively impact Cardano and thus I'm voting yes.

Maestro is a well known Cardano infrastructure project with a good track record, enabling them to create better Tooling for Cardano/Bitcoin interactions would be a net benefit to Cardano.

After speaking with the team myself I think this is a net positive for Cardano.

Scalus is good tooling that is currently underused by devs in Cardano. I would like to see it keep getting developed.

Good development tooling in a more accessible programming language.

This should be voted for via the next Catalyst round and has no immediate need that would warrant me voting otherwise.

An alternative programming language for Cardano Smart Contracts that I have had good experience with.

Eternl is an integral part of this ecosystem and one of the most used wallets, this is an very important withdrawal.

This is a good marketing proposal by multiple reputable entities but the amount of ADA requested is calculated at a very low ADA price. If funded the entities should return the additional ADA if price continuies to stay higher than the calculated price.

Very important tooling that absolutely needs to get funded!

A reasonable ask for an important ecosystem project used by thousands of people.

A reasonable ask for important tooling.

This is a net positive for Cardano with a reasonable ask.

This is a worthy endeavour, even though the ask is quite high.

A very reasonable ask for an alternative Cardano Node implementation.

I believe this is a worthy endeavour, should be funded by Catalyst instead though.

While I believe this could lead to a positive outcome for Cardano, I don't see it as urgently required at this moment.

While its a very big ask, this is an important step to continue Cardano core development.

This should be a Catalyst Proposal instead or at least be grouped under another proposal such as e.g. the Builders DAO.

A reasonable ask for important tooling.

This request goes directly to active reputable startups in the space based on criteria that bring transactions to Cardano and fill blockspace. I do not understand why this is being administered by Intersect but hopefully next time this will be run by another Administrator.

While I appreciate the work that has been done by Intersect, the requested amount is much too high for a new MBO, especially when Cardano already already has 3 established large founding entities that could work as Administrators as well. This amount of funding is much more than most Cardano Startups have ever received and put into the wrong place in my opinion. I would like to see Intersect restructure this and come back with a more reasonable ask.

Also: What happens to all the 38 other proposals if this one does not get funded? I hope another founding entity will step in as Administrator.

Normally this proposal should've been the first to be submitted before Intersect commits to being an Administrator.

Important tooling for hardware wallets.

A reasonable ask for good tooling.

A reasonable ask for good tooling.

I believe this is a fantastic & important withdrawal to keep Cardano Open Source tooling growing.

This is a very fair ask and worth the money.

The Summit is an outstanding event and important for bringing Enterprises to Cardano. But I do believe that the Cardano Foundation should fund it themselves. I would hate to see us miss out on having a summit because the board of the CF is not willing to do so though, that's why I'm voting yes and I sincerely hope the CF will reconsider their choice to fund it themselves next year!

Funding diverse scaling & privacy solutions is important for the future of Cardano.

Decentralising Blockfrost is an important and good step for the whole Cardano ecosystem.

While I believe the ask amount is high, research is what made Cardano and should not be halted because of lack of funding.

Project Catalyst has been one of the pillars of community funding. Important yes.

While I believe its an unreasonably high ask, it's extremely important to fund this to not halt any further Cardano development.

One of the most important scaling solutions in development, clear yes.

Valid and important toolset that deserves to be funded.

The amount is fair & the proposal specifies an Administrator. So it's a yes from me, for the "tempo"-check. Looking forward to more details in the actual proposal.

I believe the requested funds are too high.