drep1y20fpc0f6qjl4...

I'm voting 'yes' on this budget. The developers that will be funded from the treasury withdrawal after the possible approval of this budget are well known, highly capible, and accountable. The proposal iteslf is something that the Cardano community has desired for quite sometime. It offers node diversity, by creating a much needed alternative to the Haskell node. I also believe this is how a budget should be approved, it should be smaller items, and not a large budget that included a huge amount of unrelated proposals. When you vote 'yes' on this budget, and the treasury withdraw you are not required to fund other proposals that you don't find as valuable. I also hope to see this node require less resources so that it's easier for people to run cardano-node. The resource consumption on the node has been gradually increasing year after year, and it's not slowing down anytime soon.

I'm voting no on this proposal due to fact that all of these proposals are being included in one budget. There are valuable proposals included in this budget that would benefit Cardano, however I believe it's a disservice to the proposers, and the Cardano community by putting these proposals all together in one budget. As mentioned in previous rationale, I believe it's important that we limit treasury spending. It's obvious to me that by including all of these proposals together, there's a direct incentivize to fund proposals that may not be as valuable as other proposals. This incentive comes from the fact that there is valuable proposals in the budget, and the community wants to see them funded. I believe this is the worst option for a budget approval. I believe submitting different governance actions for each type of proposal is better than submitting one budget. This would give dReps the ability to approve a budget for market, or a different budget for development. I understand these proposals will still have to pass a treasury withdrawal request, with that being said, passing a budget for all proposals sets a bad precedent.