Rod G.

I am voting yes because Blockfrost has become one of the most important pieces of public infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem. It serves as the primary access layer for a large portion of developers, wallets, and decentralized applications, dramatically lowering the barrier to building on Cardano. Preserving that accessibility is essential to maintaining developer momentum and ecosystem growth.

What makes this proposal particularly compelling is that it is not simply requesting operational funding. It fundamentally changes Blockfrost's governance model by transitioning it from a commercially owned service into a community-governed, not-for-profit public good. The transfer of its intellectual property, open governance through an elected board, transparent reporting, and a clear path toward long-term sustainability all align with Cardano's principles of decentralization and community stewardship.

I recognize that this is a significant Treasury request and that Blockfrost has previously received ecosystem funding. However, I believe maintaining critical developer infrastructure while reducing long-term dependence on a private entity represents a worthwhile investment. Strong public infrastructure benefits every wallet, dApp, developer, and user building on Cardano, making this an investment in the ecosystem as a whole rather than any single application or company.

I am voting "abstain" on this proposal because I support the long-term vision of expanding Cardano's role in real-world payments, but I remain unconvinced that this represents the highest-priority Treasury investment at the present time.

Wirex is an established payments company with a strong track record, existing Cardano integrations, and significant experience operating at scale. I recognize the value of improving open-source payment infrastructure, Visa connectivity, and on-chain settlement, and I believe these capabilities will become increasingly important as Cardano's ecosystem grows. However, I am not yet persuaded that payment infrastructure is the primary constraint on adoption today.

My hesitation is one of timing and prioritization, not opposition. Cardano already has an initial foothold in payment infrastructure, and I would have preferred stronger evidence that existing capabilities have reached meaningful adoption limits before expanding them further through Treasury funding. In my view, growing the user base, increasing real-world applications, and driving broader ecosystem adoption remain the more immediate priorities. As those efforts mature, demand for expanded payment rails may become substantially clearer.

For these reasons, I am abstaining. I support the direction of the proposal and believe payment infrastructure will play an important role in Cardano's future, but I am not sufficiently convinced that this is the highest-leverage investment for the ecosystem at this stage.

I am voting yes because this proposal represents the kind of real-world adoption I believe Cardano should actively pursue. Rather than funding a concept or prototype, it builds upon a production system that is already live on Cardano and expands an existing business with an established user base. Bringing enterprise ticketing onto Cardano has the potential to generate sustained on-chain activity while introducing thousands of users to the ecosystem through a familiar consumer experience.

What I find especially compelling is that this proposal leverages blockchain where it offers clear advantages: verifiable ownership, programmable royalties, transparent secondary markets, anti-scalping mechanisms, and digital identity—all while abstracting away much of the blockchain complexity from end users. If executed well, it demonstrates how Cardano can solve real business problems rather than simply serving as financial infrastructure for crypto-native users.

I also appreciate that the proposal builds upon existing investment, includes milestone-based oversight, commits to an independent security audit, and introduces a revenue-sharing mechanism intended to repay the Treasury over time. While the projected adoption targets should be evaluated carefully and execution will ultimately determine success, I believe supporting enterprise integrations that create recurring utility and expand Cardano's presence in established industries is a worthwhile investment in the ecosystem's long-term growth.

I am voting yes because Daedalus remains a foundational piece of Cardano's infrastructure. As the ecosystem's only full-node wallet, it provides users with a uniquely self-sovereign experience by validating the blockchain directly, without relying on third-party APIs or backend infrastructure. Maintaining that option strengthens Cardano's resilience, decentralization, and client diversity as the network continues to evolve.

This proposal aligns with my broader support for maintaining critical ecosystem infrastructure. As major protocol upgrades such as Leios, Peras, and future hard forks are introduced, ensuring that Daedalus remains secure, compatible, and fully operational is essential for the users who depend on it. I also support expanding hardware wallet compatibility, implementing CIP-30 to enable dApp interactions for full-node users, and continuing support for global communities through localization and ongoing maintenance.

While Daedalus serves a smaller user base than light wallets, its value cannot be measured solely by user count. It represents an important public good for the Cardano ecosystem: open-source, independently auditable infrastructure that advances decentralization and preserves user choice. For these reasons, I believe continued maintenance and improvement of Daedalus is a worthwhile investment in Cardano's long-term health and resilience.

This is a re-vote. I am still voting yes because... Eternl has become one of the most important pieces of user-facing infrastructure in the Cardano ecosystem. For many ADA holders, delegators, DReps, and DeFi participants, Eternl serves as a primary gateway to staking, governance, payments, and decentralized applications. Maintaining reliable wallet infrastructure is just as important as funding protocol upgrades, because users ultimately interact with Cardano through tools like Eternl.\n\nI appreciate that this proposal is focused on sustainability rather than indefinite dependence. The team is introducing paid subscription plans, establishing a path toward self-sufficiency, committing to transparency around revenue, and outlining mechanisms to repay treasury funds if adoption meets expectations. The request is designed to bridge operations while that transition occurs, helping preserve a wallet that supports governance participation, hardware wallet integrations, DApp connectivity, and ongoing protocol upgrades.\n\nI recognize concerns surrounding treasury funding for products that are not fully open source and the fact that Eternl has previously received ecosystem funding. However, I believe the wallet's demonstrated adoption, broad ecosystem integration, governance tooling, and long track record of reliability justify continued support during this transition period. Cardano benefits from having strong, independent wallet providers, and maintaining that diversity strengthens the resilience of the ecosystem as a whole.

I am voting yes because this proposal represents one of the strongest examples of real-world adoption currently presented to governance. Rather than asking Cardano to solve a hypothetical future problem, it builds upon an existing operational deployment and seeks to expand a trust layer that is already onboarding farmers, farms, and agricultural data onto Cardano.

What I find most compelling is the proposal's focus on creating shared infrastructure rather than a single-purpose application. By combining decentralized identity, verifiable agricultural records, satellite data, credentialing, traceability, and financial access, the project creates a foundation that multiple organizations and future applications can build upon. The principle of "verify once, use many times" has the potential to reduce duplication, lower onboarding costs, and create meaningful network effects across agricultural ecosystems.

I also appreciate that this proposal is rooted in existing partnerships and operational experience. The project is already active on Cardano Mainnet, has demonstrated field deployment, and includes clearly identified implementation partners across identity, traceability, certification, and finance. This gives me greater confidence than proposals built primarily on future assumptions.

The budget request is significant and should be held to a high standard of accountability. I will expect transparent reporting, milestone verification, and evidence that the proposed scale targets are being achieved. However, if Cardano's long-term vision includes onboarding millions of users through practical, economically meaningful applications, then initiatives that connect blockchain infrastructure to real-world industries deserve serious support.

For these reasons, I believe this proposal represents a meaningful investment in adoption, utility, and the expansion of Cardano's ecosystem beyond traditional crypto audiences.

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.

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 I view this proposal as addressing both developer accessibility and ecosystem continuity, rather than solely introducing another tooling initiative.

I recognize concerns around increasing the number of smart contract languages and the potential for fragmentation across developer tooling. I also remain mindful of overlap with other proposals focused on developer experience, language improvements, and infrastructure. However, I believe this proposal distinguishes itself through its dual emphasis: lowering onboarding barriers for developers already familiar with TypeScript and maintaining critical TypeScript-based infrastructure that production projects across the ecosystem currently depend upon.

The effort to provide an imperative, TypeScript-shaped path into Cardano development may reduce friction for a significantly larger pool of builders, particularly those coming from Web2 and EVM ecosystems. Lowering migration barriers while preserving performance is a worthwhile experiment in broadening Cardano’s developer funnel.

Equally important is the maintenance component. Supporting ecosystem-critical libraries through protocol upgrades and hard forks helps reduce fragmentation, preserve compatibility, and ensure continuity for downstream applications already operating on Cardano.

I also value the proposal’s relatively concrete milestones, measurable deliverables, and independent oversight structure, which provide clearer accountability than many ecosystem initiatives.

My support reflects the belief that improving developer access while sustaining foundational tooling are both practical investments in ecosystem resilience and long-term adoption.

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.

I am voting yes on this proposal because I view maintenance as foundational infrastructure rather than optional development work. Every upgrade, scaling initiative, security improvement, governance enhancement, and developer tool introduced into the ecosystem ultimately depends on continued maintenance, monitoring, testing, incident response, documentation, and release management to remain stable and trustworthy over time.

I recognize the significant Treasury ask and believe proposals of this scale warrant heightened scrutiny, transparency, and accountability. The breadth of the work — spanning bug fixes, DevOps, quality assurance, performance optimization, security reviews, release management, monitoring, and component maintenance — also makes measuring impact more difficult than feature-based proposals. Success in maintenance is often invisible: stability, uptime, and resilience frequently appear as the absence of failure rather than the presence of a new capability.

Despite these concerns, I believe the timing matters. Cardano is entering a phase defined by expanding capabilities, increasing complexity, and additional maintenance burdens introduced by scaling initiatives, governance evolution, and future protocol upgrades. As new systems are introduced, ensuring operational continuity and reliability becomes increasingly important.

My support should not be interpreted as unconditional endorsement of rising operational costs. Rather, it reflects the belief that sustained infrastructure requires sustained stewardship, and that maintenance funding — when paired with oversight, transparent reporting, and measurable accountability — is necessary to support a production-grade ecosystem over the long term.

I support continued scrutiny regarding efficiency, cost distribution, and decentralization of maintenance responsibilities across the ecosystem. However, at this stage, I believe maintaining the reliability, security, and operational resilience of Cardano is a necessary investment as the ecosystem enters its next cycle of growth and complexity.

I am voting to abstain on this one. I acknowledge the importance of improving Plutus performance, lowering execution costs, strengthening formal correctness, enhancing conformance testing, and reducing friction in the developer experience. These are worthwhile goals that align with Cardano’s long-term emphasis on resilience, security, and high-assurance infrastructure.

However, after supporting proposals focused on scaling (Leios), user and ecosystem usability (Babel Fees/CIP-159), and formal verification and high-assurance tooling, I remain uncertain about the degree to which this proposal delivers distinct incremental value relative to adjacent investments already receiving support.

My hesitation is not opposition to the objectives (hence abstaining vs voting "No") but uncertainty around prioritization, overlap, and opportunity cost. Multiple initiatives now seek to improve developer experience, security, correctness, and onboarding. I would like stronger evidence demonstrating how these investments differentiate from one another and which bottlenecks they most directly address in accelerating ecosystem growth and adoption.

I view this proposal as potentially valuable, but I am not sufficiently persuaded at this time to support additional Treasury allocation in this category, nor do I believe the proposal’s merits warrant outright rejection.

This abstention reflects a preference for continued scrutiny around sequencing and cumulative investment across overlapping infrastructure initiatives, while recognizing the importance of maintaining Cardano’s strengths in security and technical rigor.

I’m voting yes because I believe Cardano’s emphasis on security and high assurance is one of its strongest differentiators. Making formal verification and advanced tooling more accessible lowers barriers for developers while strengthening ecosystem trust. While adoption is not guaranteed, investing in secure, usable infrastructure aligns with a long-term vision of building resilient systems rather than chasing short-term growth.

It's true that the ecosystem needs more users, apps, and liquidity—not additional specialized tooling for already-technical developers, but Cardano should double down on what makes it different: correctness, formal methods, and secure infrastructure. High assurance is a long-term competitive advantage.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.