Rod G.

I’m voting yes because I believe Cardano needs to invest in foundational infrastructure before demand arrives. If Babel Fees reduces friction at the user level, Leios reduces friction at the protocol level. Adoption without scaling becomes a bottleneck.

While I recognize the cost and execution risks, I see throughput and resilience as necessary investments toward Cardano’s long-term vision. Cardano cannot reach its long-term ambitions without major scaling, and funding consensus improvements now is necessary even if adoption comes later.

I’m voting yes because I believe Babel Fees meaningfully reduces friction for adoption by allowing users to transact with assets they already hold, rather than requiring ADA upfront. I see this as an important step toward making Cardano more accessible, improving onboarding, and supporting broader ecosystem growth.

Specifically, these goals are worthwhile:

• Removing onboarding friction: New users (BTC holders, stablecoin users) can participate immediately.
• Improving UX: Better user experience often matters more than technical elegance for adoption.
• Strengthening DeFi competitiveness: Competing ecosystems increasingly abstract away complexity.
• Potential new SPO revenue streams: Babel providers could diversify income beyond staking.
• Long-term ecosystem growth: More transactions → more activity → potentially stronger network effects.

I recognize the cost and delivery risks, but I believe reducing transaction friction through Babel Fees—and the broader infrastructure this proposal enables—is strategically important enough for Cardano’s long-term adoption to justify funding.

I am voting yes because I view developer experience as one of the most immediate barriers to Cardano’s ecosystem growth. Infrastructure and scaling investments only realize their potential if developers can efficiently build, experiment, and deploy applications.

Cardano’s fragmented tooling, scattered documentation, and steep learning curve create friction for both new and experienced builders. I support efforts that reduce these barriers through improved onboarding, standardized patterns, simplified setup, unified documentation, and reusable contract libraries.

My support is not an endorsement of every tooling initiative. I remain mindful of overlap with other proposals, but view this one differently because it focuses less on deep protocol refinement and more on practical builder accessibility.

I believe reducing time-to-first-project and improving developer retention may provide a more direct path toward ecosystem growth and adoption. While ambitious growth targets should be evaluated critically, improving the builder experience addresses a current constraint rather than a future one, making this a worthwhile investment in Cardano’s long-term utility and resilience.

I am voting abstain. I recognize the strategic importance of Layer 2 infrastructure and acknowledge the argument that Hydra, optimistic rollups, and shared L2 primitives may eventually play an important role in supporting high-throughput applications, lower-cost transactions, AI-agent economies, gaming, DeFi, and other performance-sensitive use cases. I also recognize that many mature ecosystems have adopted multi-layer scaling approaches, and that experimentation with complementary architectures can contribute to long-term resilience and ecosystem diversity.

However, I remain unconvinced regarding the urgency and sequencing of this investment relative to other scaling initiatives already underway. Cardano is entering a period in which major Layer 1 improvements — including proposals intended to significantly improve throughput and finality — have been prioritized and funded. At this stage, I would prefer to observe how these foundational L1 scaling efforts perform in practice before supporting additional Treasury investment aimed at solving similar constraints through Layer 2 infrastructure.

My hesitation should not be interpreted as opposition to L2s in principle. Rather, it reflects uncertainty around whether current ecosystem demand, builder adoption, and user activity justify the immediacy of this investment, or whether further evidence is needed to demonstrate that Layer 1 improvements alone will be insufficient to support near- to medium-term growth.

I also note that several projected benefits rely on future adoption assumptions, production uptake from early ecosystem participants, and anticipated growth in sectors such as AI agent payments and high-frequency applications. While these possibilities are compelling, I am not yet persuaded that they warrant urgent Treasury allocation at this stage relative to other priorities.

My abstention reflects a preference for measured sequencing rather than rejection: continue strengthening Cardano’s base layer, evaluate real-world outcomes, and reassess the necessity and scope of additional L2 investment as ecosystem demand evolves.

While recognizing that I’m a strong supporter of conferences, networking, and ecosystem-building events, I am voting NO on this proposal. Though I believe in their value, these efforts too often lack transparency in terms of measurable success, and this proposal does not sufficiently address that gap.

The 2025 Summit did not provide clear, verifiable evidence of developer growth or enterprise adoption, and the 2026 proposal moves further away from outcome-based evaluation by emphasizing surface-level outputs (contacts, sign-ups, impressions) without clear linkage to meaningful ecosystem impact.

From what I’ve observed at similar events, there are also valid concerns about execution at this scale, and the proposal’s focus on enterprise adoption lacks a clear structural pathway to on-chain activity.

Additionally, much of the agenda appears internally focused, which makes it difficult to justify a high-cost international event when more efficient alternatives may exist.

Ultimately, without clearer data, stronger KPIs, and demonstrated outcomes, I’m not confident this level of funding will deliver proportional value to the ecosystem.

Given the cancellation of most recent Catalyst Funds, it seems that turning management of the fund to CF is the only way forward.

This ecosystem needs what Catalyst brings, so I hope CF will revise the fund and develop new, beneficial opportunities for the ecosystem.

I am voting YES because this proposal represents a rare and strategically important moment in Cardano’s history. The founding entities—IOG, Cardano Foundation, and EMURGO—have come back together in coordinated alignment with Midnight Foundation and Intersect, forming a unified Pentad committed to delivering the core infrastructure Cardano has been missing for years.

This collaboration signals maturity, unity, and a shared commitment to Cardano’s long-term viability. The integrations in this proposal—stablecoins, custody solutions, analytics, bridges, and pricing oracles—are not optional luxuries; they are foundational requirements for any ecosystem seeking to compete at scale. Every major layer-one that has achieved meaningful adoption has these pillars in place. Cardano cannot continue to delay them. Furthermore, this new team composition can deliver them.

The proposal is also structured responsibly:

• Milestone-based funding
• Constitutional oversight
• Independent audits
• Transparent reporting
• Vendor neutrality
• Strict return of unused funds

The integrations are already in advanced stages of negotiation, and timing is critical with the current NCL window closing. Treasury funding is the appropriate path because the systems being deployed are ecosystem-wide public goods. No single team can, or should, bear these costs alone.

Cardano has talked for years about the need for stable liquidity, interoperability, institutional entry, and data transparency. This proposal finally operationalizes those needs, with the right coalition in place to deliver them.

It is time to get the ball rolling—with unified leadership, clear governance, and the critical infrastructure required for Cardano to grow from a technically excellent chain into a fully equipped, economically competitive ecosystem.

I am voting Yes because the Constitutional Committee election was conducted in clear alignment with the Cardano Constitution, open to all ADA holders, and built on transparency with verifiable on-chain results. The phased process, supported by Byron Network tools and independently audited by DQuadrant, gives me confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the outcome.

I am voting Yes because the Snek Foundation has already proven its ability to deliver Tier 1 exchange listings for Cardano, investing over $4M of its own capital to secure milestones like Kraken and Crypto.com. This proposal builds on that proven track record, asking for similar support from the treasury to expand listings, liquidity, and visibility at a scale that benefits not only SNEK but the entire Cardano ecosystem.

By funding this initiative, we support increased ADA liquidity, greater CNT discoverability, and a reusable compliance and exchange framework that future Cardano projects can leverage. With established credibility, industry-leading advisors, and a clear strategy, this proposal represents a high-impact opportunity to strengthen Cardano’s global presence and competitiveness.

Tempo.vote has provided an excellent voting tool that has fascilitated mobile voting. More, high quality tools are essential for governance to grow.

We need these governance tools and GovTool has been instrumental in this first iteration.

This is a major step towards "node diversity through the development of a modular, high-performance, and interoperable block-producing node for Cardano"

It makes Cardano more robust.

I’m voting YES on the Cardano Constitution because, while not perfect, it represents a significant step forward in decentralized governance and is good enough to move us past the Interim Constitution. Having participated in the 1694 workshops, hosted Constitutional Workshops, and actively engaged in governance discussions, I’ve seen firsthand the dedication of this community in shaping a governance framework that reflects our shared values.

I do have concerns—particularly with the section on ADA ownership, which moves away from the fundamental principle of ‘not your keys, not your crypto.’ However, governance is an ongoing process, and this document is designed to evolve. What gives me confidence is the strength of the Cardano community and the commitment we’ve shown to improving governance through open debate and collaboration. This Constitution is not the final destination, but it is the necessary next step. By ratifying it, we ensure that governance remains in the hands of ADA holders and that we can continue refining and strengthening our system over time. It’s time to move forward and build upon the work we’ve all contributed to.

I am voting yes on the van Rossem Hard Fork because it delivers meaningful improvements to Cardano's performance, developer capabilities, ledger consistency, and security while minimizing disruption through an intra-era upgrade. The addition of new Plutus primitives, expanded cryptographic functionality, unified built-ins across Plutus versions, improved data handling, and stronger ledger-level validation rules strengthen Cardano's technical foundation and expand what developers can build on-chain. Importantly, these enhancements are paired with extensive testing, security review, and ecosystem readiness requirements to support a smooth transition.

I am also pleased to support a hard fork named in honor of Max van Rossem. Having served alongside Max during the Constitutional Convention in Buenos Aires, I witnessed firsthand his passion for Cardano, governance, and the long-term success of the ecosystem. He was thoughtful, engaged, and deeply committed to building something that would outlast any one individual. Naming this upgrade after Max is a fitting tribute to someone who dedicated so much of his time and energy to Cardano's future, and a reminder that our ecosystem is ultimately built by people willing to contribute, collaborate, and serve.

I am voting yes because this proposal is fundamentally about fairness and maintaining trust in Cardano's governance process.

The original Ikigai governance action was submitted in good faith during the earliest stages of on-chain governance, shortly after the Chang hard fork. The loss of the 100,000 ADA deposit was not the result of abuse, negligence, or an attempt to circumvent governance rules, but rather a consequence of a protocol issue that allowed a governance action to be submitted in a state that ultimately prevented the deposit from being recovered.

Early participants play an important role in testing, validating, and helping improve new governance systems. When those participants incur losses due to technical shortcomings in the system itself, I believe the community has a responsibility to correct the situation when a reasonable mechanism becomes available.

This proposal does not fund a new initiative, create an ongoing obligation, or establish a recurring subsidy. It simply seeks to make whole an individual who helped pioneer Cardano governance and suffered a loss through circumstances beyond their control. The requested reimbursement, including a modest adjustment for forgone staking rewards, is reasonable and proportionate.