Reshma_Mohan

I vote YES on this governance action.

This proposal increases Plutus memory limits per transaction and per block in a careful, step-by-step manner. It helps developers build more capable smart contracts without constantly adjusting scripts to fit tight limits. This improves usability for both builders and users and supports ecosystem growth.

Technical evaluations and benchmarking indicate that the network has sufficient performance headroom. Security, block propagation time, and node stability are expected to remain within safe bounds. The change has also been deployed on testnets, which reduces uncertainty.

The update follows all constitutional guardrails, respects parameter limits, and is introduced gradually rather than as a sudden large increase. This balanced approach lowers risk while still unlocking meaningful scalability benefits.

Overall, this is a well-tested and proportionate improvement that strengthens developer experience and network capacity without compromising decentralization or stability.

Based on the content of v2.4, there’s nothing here that weakens governance or shifts power in a risky way. The changes mostly clean up the Constitution so that it behaves like an actual constitutional document, not a mix of law, guidance, and good intentions. By removing non-binding expectations, simplifying the governance flow, enforcing immutability of proposal documents, and carrying forward treasury audit and accountability safeguards into actual withdrawal actions, this version improves clarity, enforceability, and trust without reducing oversight. The revisions also reflect ecosystem feedback, including from EMURGO, which supports practical consensus. I vote Yes.

I’m voting YES on this proposal because it targets concrete gaps in Cardano’s ecosystem that have been holding back real adoption. This is not a generic ecosystem spend. It focuses on critical integrations that other mature ecosystems already treat as basic infrastructure, and Cardano needs them in place to compete in the next phase.

The proposal prioritises stablecoin infrastructure, pricing oracles, analytics, institutional custody, and secure cross-chain bridges. These are foundational pieces. Without reliable stablecoins and oracles, DeFi depth remains limited. Without analytics, transparency and risk assessment suffer. Without custody and compliance-ready tooling, institutional participation stays out of reach. This proposal addresses those blockers directly instead of spreading funds thinly across loosely defined initiatives.

I’m also comfortable with Intersect administering the funds. Intersect has been set up specifically to represent ecosystem stakeholders and to operate with clear governance processes, reporting, and accountability. As an Intersect OSC committee member, I’ve seen the level of scrutiny applied to budgeting, delivery tracking, and transparency, and that gives me confidence that funds will be managed responsibly and in line with community expectations.

The coordinated structure here is important. Rather than multiple teams duplicating work or competing for the same integrations, this approach aligns delivery under a single framework with oversight. That reduces execution risk and increases the chance that these integrations are delivered in a usable, production-ready form.

At this stage, Cardano’s constraints are no longer at the protocol level but at the integration and ecosystem layer. Approving this proposal accelerates readiness for DeFi growth, real-world asset use cases, and institutional engagement. I don’t see anything concerning in the scope or intent of the proposal, and for these reasons, I’m confident voting YES.

I am voting YES after reviewing the full 2030 Vision, Strategy and KPI framework in detail. This proposal is not vague direction setting; it clearly defines what success means for Cardano by tying long-term goals to concrete metrics such as network reliability targets, active usage, governance participation, treasury sustainability and real-world adoption. What matters to me is that it prioritises protocol robustness, multi-client resilience, scalable UX and economic self-sufficiency before chasing growth numbers. As an Intersect OSC committee member, I have seen the depth of work, consultation and iteration that has gone into this strategy, and I am confident in Intersect’s ability to steward this framework responsibly with community oversight. This Info Action gives the ecosystem a shared reference point to make better funding, governance and product decisions over the coming years, without prematurely locking the protocol into rigid commitments.

Why I am voting Yes
GovTool has already proven itself - over 50,000 people across 170+ countries are actively using it. It works, people rely on it, and it's completely open-source. Without funding, we risk losing this to proprietary alternatives that could fragment the community or put governance behind paywalls.
The Money Makes Sense
The team isn't asking for blind trust. There's proper oversight with multiple independent organizations checking the work, public dashboards showing where every ada goes, and they're even promising to return unused funds. That's the kind of accountability we should expect.
It's Actually Community-Driven
The roadmap is based on what the community has been asking for. Things like making it easier for smaller DReps to team up, better voting history so we can see what our DReps actually do, and lowering the barriers for anyone to submit proposals. Plus they're setting aside ₳250,000 to reward contributors and support other governance tools.
Sets a Good Standard
This proposal has detailed contracts, milestone-based payments, third-party verification. If we want future treasury withdrawals to be handled professionally, this is the kind of proposal we should be supporting.
Bottom line:- GovTool is already essential infrastructure that's working well. This keeps it running, makes it better, and does it all transparently.

I am voting yes.
The changes make the Constitution clearer.
Outdated rules are removed.
Safeguards are stronger for treasury funds. Treasury use will be more transparent.
It will be easier to follow and trust.

Overall Rationale for Voting on Treasury Withdrawals

As a DRep participating in on-chain governance under the Voltaire framework, I have reviewed each of the 39 treasury withdrawal proposals currently up for vote.

This document outlines my generic voting rationale. My vote on each individual proposal—whether Yes, No, or Abstain—has been guided by the following considerations:

When I Voted Yes

I have supported proposals that clearly satisfy all of the following:

1. Relevance
   The proposal addresses a clear and meaningful need in the Cardano ecosystem—whether it is developer tooling, community infrastructure, governance, or research.

2. Reasonableness of Budget
   The requested amount is proportional to the scope and deliverables. Proposals that show cost breakdowns and attempt to maximise value for money are given priority.

3. Credibility of the Team
   Preference is given to teams with a proven history of delivery in the Cardano ecosystem, open-source contributions, or community engagement. In case of newer teams, supporting references or associations are considered.

4. Alignment with Voltaire Governance Goals
   In the Voltaire era, legitimate, transparent use of the treasury is essential. I support proposals that help establish or strengthen governance processes and infrastructure.

When I Voted No or did not vote

I have voted No where one or more of the above criteria are not met, such as:

• Lack of clarity or relevance to Cardano’s needs
• Justification regarding budgets
• Weak or unknown team background
• Vague deliverables or lack of public transparency

In some cases, proposals may be promising but are premature or underdeveloped at this stage.

When I Abstained

I have chosen to Abstain when:

• The proposal shows potential but lacks enough information for a confident decision
• There are mixed signals—e.g., a good idea but poor planning, or credible team but vague milestones
• There may be overlap with other initiatives already underway

Summary

This is a generic decision-making framework I have followed across all 39 proposals. Votes are cast independently for each proposal, and the default is not Yes. Instead, each proposal must make a clear case on its own merits.

I remain open to feedback and discussion from delegators or community members regarding any specific vote.

List of Proposals and My Vote

MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix - 45,217 ADA - Yes
Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by Intersect - 2,162,096 ADA - Yes
2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal - 96,817,080 ADA - Yes
Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal - 1,300,000 ADA - Yes
Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by Intersect - 424,800 ADA - Yes
Pallas: Sustaining Critical Rust Tooling for Cardano - 220,914 ADA - Yes
UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain Integration - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Lucid Evolution Maintenance administered by Intersect - 130,903 ADA - Yes
zkFold ZK Rollup administered by Intersect - 1,161,000 ADA - Yes
Dolos: Sustaining a Lightweight Cardano Data Node - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Ledger App Rewrite administered by Intersect - 300,000 ADA - Yes
Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart contract layer for Bitcoin - 600,000 ADA - No
OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development - Not specified - Yes
Gerolamo - Cardano node in typescript - 578,571 ADA - Abstain
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Plutarch - 243,478 ADA - Abstain
TWEAG's Proposals for multiple core budget project... - 11,070,323 ADA - No
Cexplorer.io -- Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer... - 266,667 ADA - Yes
A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers - 605,000 ADA - Yes
AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer - 212,000 ADA - Yes
A MBO for the Cardano ecosystem: Intersect - 15,750,000 ADA - Yes
Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire - Not specified - Yes
Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output - 69,459,000 ADA - Yes
Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor... - 26,840,000 ADA - Yes
BloxBean Java Tools Maintenance and Enhancement - 99,600 ADA - Yes
Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Cardano... - 750,000 ADA - Yes

Overall Rationale for Voting on Treasury Withdrawals

As a DRep participating in on-chain governance under the Voltaire framework, I have reviewed each of the 39 treasury withdrawal proposals currently up for vote.

This document outlines my generic voting rationale. My vote on each individual proposal—whether Yes, No, or Abstain—has been guided by the following considerations:

When I Voted Yes

I have supported proposals that clearly satisfy all of the following:

1. Relevance
   The proposal addresses a clear and meaningful need in the Cardano ecosystem—whether it is developer tooling, community infrastructure, governance, or research.

2. Reasonableness of Budget
   The requested amount is proportional to the scope and deliverables. Proposals that show cost breakdowns and attempt to maximise value for money are given priority.

3. Credibility of the Team
   Preference is given to teams with a proven history of delivery in the Cardano ecosystem, open-source contributions, or community engagement. In case of newer teams, supporting references or associations are considered.

4. Alignment with Voltaire Governance Goals
   In the Voltaire era, legitimate, transparent use of the treasury is essential. I support proposals that help establish or strengthen governance processes and infrastructure.

When I Voted No or did not vote

I have voted No where one or more of the above criteria are not met, such as:

• Lack of clarity or relevance to Cardano’s needs
• Justification regarding budgets
• Weak or unknown team background
• Vague deliverables or lack of public transparency

In some cases, proposals may be promising but are premature or underdeveloped at this stage.

When I Abstained

I have chosen to Abstain when:

• The proposal shows potential but lacks enough information for a confident decision
• There are mixed signals—e.g., a good idea but poor planning, or credible team but vague milestones
• There may be overlap with other initiatives already underway

Summary

This is a generic decision-making framework I have followed across all 39 proposals. Votes are cast independently for each proposal, and the default is not Yes. Instead, each proposal must make a clear case on its own merits.

I remain open to feedback and discussion from delegators or community members regarding any specific vote.

List of Proposals and My Vote

MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix - 45,217 ADA - Yes
Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by Intersect - 2,162,096 ADA - Yes
2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal - 96,817,080 ADA - Yes
Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal - 1,300,000 ADA - Yes
Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by Intersect - 424,800 ADA - Yes
Pallas: Sustaining Critical Rust Tooling for Cardano - 220,914 ADA - Yes
UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain Integration - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Lucid Evolution Maintenance administered by Intersect - 130,903 ADA - Yes
zkFold ZK Rollup administered by Intersect - 1,161,000 ADA - Yes
Dolos: Sustaining a Lightweight Cardano Data Node - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Ledger App Rewrite administered by Intersect - 300,000 ADA - Yes
Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart contract layer for Bitcoin - 600,000 ADA - No
OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development - Not specified - Yes
Gerolamo - Cardano node in typescript - 578,571 ADA - Abstain
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Plutarch - 243,478 ADA - Abstain
TWEAG's Proposals for multiple core budget project... - 11,070,323 ADA - No
Cexplorer.io -- Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer... - 266,667 ADA - Yes
A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers - 605,000 ADA - Yes
AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer - 212,000 ADA - Yes
A MBO for the Cardano ecosystem: Intersect - 15,750,000 ADA - Yes
Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire - Not specified - Yes
Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output - 69,459,000 ADA - Yes
Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor... - 26,840,000 ADA - Yes
BloxBean Java Tools Maintenance and Enhancement - 99,600 ADA - Yes
Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Cardano... - 750,000 ADA - Yes

Overall Rationale for Voting on Treasury Withdrawals

As a DRep participating in on-chain governance under the Voltaire framework, I have reviewed each of the 39 treasury withdrawal proposals currently up for vote.

This document outlines my generic voting rationale. My vote on each individual proposal—whether Yes, No, or Abstain—has been guided by the following considerations:

When I Voted Yes

I have supported proposals that clearly satisfy all of the following:

1. Relevance
   The proposal addresses a clear and meaningful need in the Cardano ecosystem—whether it is developer tooling, community infrastructure, governance, or research.

2. Reasonableness of Budget
   The requested amount is proportional to the scope and deliverables. Proposals that show cost breakdowns and attempt to maximise value for money are given priority.

3. Credibility of the Team
   Preference is given to teams with a proven history of delivery in the Cardano ecosystem, open-source contributions, or community engagement. In case of newer teams, supporting references or associations are considered.

4. Alignment with Voltaire Governance Goals
   In the Voltaire era, legitimate, transparent use of the treasury is essential. I support proposals that help establish or strengthen governance processes and infrastructure.

When I Voted No or did not vote

I have voted No where one or more of the above criteria are not met, such as:

• Lack of clarity or relevance to Cardano’s needs
• Justification regarding budgets
• Weak or unknown team background
• Vague deliverables or lack of public transparency

In some cases, proposals may be promising but are premature or underdeveloped at this stage.

When I Abstained

I have chosen to Abstain when:

• The proposal shows potential but lacks enough information for a confident decision
• There are mixed signals—e.g., a good idea but poor planning, or credible team but vague milestones
• There may be overlap with other initiatives already underway

Summary

This is a generic decision-making framework I have followed across all 39 proposals. Votes are cast independently for each proposal, and the default is not Yes. Instead, each proposal must make a clear case on its own merits.

I remain open to feedback and discussion from delegators or community members regarding any specific vote.

List of Proposals and My Vote

MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix - 45,217 ADA - Yes
Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by Intersect - 2,162,096 ADA - Yes
2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal - 96,817,080 ADA - Yes
Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal - 1,300,000 ADA - Yes
Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by Intersect - 424,800 ADA - Yes
Pallas: Sustaining Critical Rust Tooling for Cardano - 220,914 ADA - Yes
UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain Integration - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Lucid Evolution Maintenance administered by Intersect - 130,903 ADA - Yes
zkFold ZK Rollup administered by Intersect - 1,161,000 ADA - Yes
Dolos: Sustaining a Lightweight Cardano Data Node - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Ledger App Rewrite administered by Intersect - 300,000 ADA - Yes
Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart contract layer for Bitcoin - 600,000 ADA - No
OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development - Not specified - Yes
Gerolamo - Cardano node in typescript - 578,571 ADA - Abstain
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Plutarch - 243,478 ADA - Abstain
TWEAG's Proposals for multiple core budget project... - 11,070,323 ADA - No
Cexplorer.io -- Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer... - 266,667 ADA - Yes
A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers - 605,000 ADA - Yes
AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer - 212,000 ADA - Yes
A MBO for the Cardano ecosystem: Intersect - 15,750,000 ADA - Yes
Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire - Not specified - Yes
Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output - 69,459,000 ADA - Yes
Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor... - 26,840,000 ADA - Yes
BloxBean Java Tools Maintenance and Enhancement - 99,600 ADA - Yes
Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Cardano... - 750,000 ADA - Yes

I am voting YES because this proposal strengthens an already functional and essential governance platform—GovTool—through clear, community-led improvements.

It enhances user experience and reliability based on real feedback, and introduces dedicated development across key governance areas: proposals, delegation, voting, outcomes, and budget discussions. It also adds full end-to-end testing and continues to follow an open, transparent development model.

GovTool is vital for inclusive governance—without it, participation risks becoming fragmented or limited to closed systems. This proposal ensures continued access, usability, and clarity for all Ada holders.

The platform’s open-source nature offers ecosystem-wide benefits. Its code and APIs are already used by other tools, and ₳250k is earmarked to support external contributors and open governance tools building on it.

Funding is structured through tiered levels and smart contracts, ensuring transparency, cost-efficiency (nearly 50% lower than earlier proposals), and responsible allocation. Unused funds will return to the Treasury.

For these reasons—continued platform improvement, increased governance efficiency, and ecosystem-wide open-source value—I strongly support this proposal and vote YES.

Justification for Voting Yes

As a DRep, I am voting 'Yes' on this governance action to set a Net Change Limit (NCL) of 200M ADA for the rest of 2025. This is a required step before any treasury funds can be used, as outlined in the Cardano Constitution.

The 200M ADA limit is a conservative and responsible choice. It allows the community to start funding important work—like maintaining and improving the network—while we are still learning how to manage budgets and track spending. Since this is the first time the community is fully in charge of treasury use, it makes sense to start with a lower limit and increase it later if needed. This approach protects the treasury while giving us time to improve our governance and funding processes.

As a Drep, I believe this Cardano Constitution is an important step for the network's governance, but I approach it with some caution. I recognise the effort that went into drafting this document, including the global workshops and feedback from many community members. However, there are some aspects of the process and the constitution itself that remain controversial. There are concerns about whether the process was truly inclusive and if all voices were heard. Even though most delegates have approved it, I feel there are still areas that could be improved.

That said, I understand that no governance system is perfect right from the start, and the constitution allows for future amendments. I see this as a necessary step in the evolution of Cardano's governance and as an important move towards empowering all ada holders. My vote reflects confidence in the ongoing process to improve governance, but I also recognise that this is just one part of a much longer journey.

We are venturing into uncharted waters. Let’s face the waves with our sails set high, embracing the wind and tide as they carry us toward new shores and discoveries.

The proposal to rename the “Second Chang Hard Fork” (Chang 2) to the Plomin Hard Fork, in memory of Cardano community contributor Matthew Plomin, aligns perfectly with the ethos of the Cardano ecosystem. I am confident that my appreciation mirrors the sentiments of the community, as we pay our respects to Matthew Plomin through this governance action.