Rudianos

Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.

These are good priorities and a good team to action them. I am in favor.

Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.

Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.

Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.

Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.

Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.

Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.

I am voting no on this proposal. While I can appreciate the proposal's potential upside for the ecosystem, I do not think this is an appropriate use of treasury funds. My main concern is that other teams are also trying to bring Bitcoin DeFi to Cardano. Even with the proposal including a revenue-sharing aspect, this would still be outside of what I believe direct treasury funding should be used for. If the treasury is used for this type of proposal, it should be done through a funded incubator like Catalyst.

I am voting to approve the L2 Scalability Initiative. While I have significant reservations regarding the administrative bundling of these projects and the clarity of past milestones, the strategic importance of Hydra and Midgard to Cardano’s scaling roadmap outweighs these procedural concerns at this time.
While I would have preferred to vote on these as individual, transparent budget items, delaying this funding would pose a greater risk to the ecosystem’s growth than accepting the bundled format.
My support is largely rooted in the credibility of the teams involved. Both IO and Midgard Labs have demonstrated the deep technical expertise required to handle the complexities of the EUTXO model. I am betting on their ability to deliver these critical L2 pathways.
Use cases requiring sub-second finality and permissionless rollups are high-priority needs for current developers. To remain competitive with other networks we need to fund these advances.
I note that the scope and outcomes of previous funding rounds, which I voted in favor of for these initiatives, are not yet fully transparent. My "Yes" vote is a show of good faith, but I expect future proposals to include more granular reporting on historical milestones and specific deliverables achieved before additional funds are requested.
I am voting in favor to ensure that Cardano’s scaling infrastructure moves forward without delay. However, I call on the proposers to provide greater administrative clarity and more robust milestone reporting in all subsequent requests.

I am voting in favor of the Cardano Maintenance Initiative. While the funding request is substantial, this is a "keep the lights on" type of proposal, and I have little doubt that IO is the most qualified entity to do this work. The funding ask is hard for a non-expert to justify, as it seems very high, but without a competing bid, this is not really a negotiable initiative. If you need to maintain your roof and there's only one roofer, you pay the roofer.
I am voting in favor because core infrastructure maintenance is the highest-priority use of treasury funds. Protecting the integrity and uptime of the Cardano blockchain is essential for institutional trust and long-term ecosystem sustainability.

I am voting in favor of the IO: Consensus Initiative. Transitioning Cardano to the Ouroboros Leios consensus protocol is a vital evolution for the network.
Cardano must move beyond its current block-production limits. I don't think anyone reading this rationale really needs a detailed primer on why this is important. Suffice to say that this initiative is a necessary and vital investment in Cardano’s future. I approve of this funding to ensure that our infrastructure can meet the demands of a global-scale economy without sacrificing our core principles of decentralization and security.

I am voting in favor of the Cardano Upgrades proposal. These upgrades represent essential technical advancements—including Babel Fees, Account Address Upgrades, and a Multi-asset Treasury—that are vital for Cardano's long-term viability.
Babel Fees will significantly reduces onboarding friction for new users and increases the utility of all tokens within the ecosystem. We are also doing a big push towards working well in a multi-chain environment and this will be a significant asset for that goal.
By modernizing account addresses and treasury mechanics, the network becomes better equipped to handle the increased transaction throughput expected from the upcoming Leios consensus upgrade.
Although the budget is large, it must be viewed in the context of the 50% total funding cut IO has already implemented for the 2026 cycle as it transitions toward a self-sustaining model. Funding these core upgrades now ensures the network remains robust as this transition continues.

I am voting against the Developer Experience Initiative at this time. While developer onboarding is important, Cardano is currently in a critical infrastructure growth phase where resources must be prioritized toward the features that make our network distinct: high assurance, formal verification, and high security.
Advanced builders and enterprise partners are more concerned with throughput, security guarantees, and uptime than they are with simplified UI/UX tools.
I believe this initiative is mistimed. The treasury should remain focused on the vital technical upgrades required to scale the network and prove its security guarantees.

I am voting in favor of the Cardano High Assurance Technical Collaboration. This proposal ensures that the network continues to double down on the security guarantees and I believe this is the right focus for our community to maintain.
By funding this collaboration, we are protecting one of Cardano's most valuable asset—its reputation for being the top prospect of high-assurance engineering.
Also I believe that as the ecosystem expands into complex DeFi, identity systems, and enterprise solutions, the cost of a single major exploit would far outweigh the cost of this proposal.
Security is an ongoing process and we should keep funding it and keep the experts in the community working on it. This proposal is a strategic investment in one of the main features that makes Cardano unique.

I am voting in support of the IO & VacuumLabs: Enhancing Plutus proposal. Enhancing the performance and usability of Plutus is a fundamental requirement for the long-term scalability and competitiveness of the Cardano network.
The core of Cardano’s value proposition lies in its smart contract capabilities. Improving Plutus is not just a maintenance task; it is a critical progression that enables more complex dApps and higher transaction throughput, directly supporting the network's evolution.
The partnership between IO and VacuumLabs brings together deeply experienced teams with a proven history of contributing to Cardano's core infrastructure. Funding this collaboration ensures that these essential technical upgrades are handled by experts who understand the nuances of the EUTXO model.
Improvements to Plutus performance directly translate to more efficient on-chain operations and lower resource consumption. Investing in "correctness" now prevents costly vulnerabilities later, ensuring that Cardano remains the gold standard for high-assurance blockchain development.
I approve of this proposal as it represents a necessary and high-impact investment in our core infrastructure.

I am voting in favor of the Blockfrost: Maintenance and Next Generation Indexing proposal.
While Cardano is a maturing network, it is not yet a fully self-sustaining market economy. Hundreds of developers and dApps currently rely on Blockfrost’s free tier for daily operations. Forcing a sudden shift to paid models or alternative providers during a critical growth phase would introduce unnecessary friction and potentially stifle current ecosystem activity.
Unlike unvetted actors, Blockfrost has a long-standing history of delivering high-availability infrastructure for Cardano since 2020. Their technical competence provides a high degree of confidence that the treasury funds will result in tangible deliverables, particularly the next-generation indexing service.
This is also not a permanent operational subsidy but a bridge to the Cayley open-source initiative. By funding this transition, the treasury is effectively purchasing the decentralization of critical data infrastructure, moving the ecosystem away from the current centralized API bottleneck and toward a more resilient, community-centric model.
Supporting this proposal is an investment in operational resilience. It protects the current developer experience and when the market economy on Cardano is more evolved we will have an open source option. I think that's a good use of funds.

I am voting against this proposal. My primary objection is two-fold: fiscal responsibility and the lack of a measurable framework to assess impact. As this proposal is essentially a marketing initiative, I believe it should be evaluated within the context of a dedicated marketing budget rather than as a standalone treasury withdrawal.

To clarify my position, I have recently supported several proposals that presented clear, quantifiable outcomes or addressed critical infrastructure needs. For instance, I strongly support initiatives to increase node diversity, as this is a tangible security requirement. In such cases, I am prepared to vote in favor of credible teams working toward that specific goal until a sufficient threshold is met. These are strategic imperatives that do not require an overarching budget to justify.

Conversely, treating marketing initiatives as ad-hoc, standalone proposals is inefficient. We should have a comprehensive strategy that outlines our total marketing spend and community priorities before approving individual, fragmented requests. While I acknowledge the proposal’s rationale for bypassing the Intersect budget process, I cannot justify a 'Yes' vote based on a time constraint alone. We need a more structured approach to capital allocation for marketing efforts.

I am voting in favor of this proposal. The proposal directly supports the Cardano 2030: Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework by investing in the critical infrastructure and developer resources required for long-term ecosystem health.
It also aims to provide both innovation and essential upkeep of existing infrastructure. Funding the maintenance of tooling and libraries is vital for ecosystem continuity, reducing the operational burden on developers and ensuring the stability of the applications built upon them. Supporting alternative node implementations and new programming environments broadens the ecosystem’s reach, making Cardano more accessible to a wider range of developers while enhancing the security and decentralization of the network. This is really all essential work.
The budget and administration plans presented are reasonable, transparent, and well-structured. The costs reflect a realistic understanding of the resources needed to sustain development and technical support over the coming year. This is also a well known team that has executed in the past and there are no concerns from me regarding the ability to undertake the work responsibly.

I am in favor of this proposal. There are several advantages to having the CF be the administrator for catalyst. This type of project is much more in scope for them than IOG. All major parties agree that this is the best course of action and we should move to get funds returned to the treasury.

I am voting in favor of the Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund because in my view it represents a necessary shift in how our Treasury manages capital. As the ecosystem scales, we need to move beyond one-time grants toward investment-based models that have the potential to return value to the Treasury. While I would normally be very much against VC involvement in our ecosystem, this proposal is structured in a way that is interestingly different than anything I have seen in other ecosystems. It offers a framework for professional management while maintaining the community oversight that defines Cardano. While I remain cautiously optimistic about the outcomes, the model itself is more sustainable for the long-term health of the ADA holder base. It creates a mechanism where the growth of Cardano projects can directly replenish the funds used in their growth.
My support is based largely on the structure of the proposal rather than personal familiarity with the team. The document appears to be well-constructed, with clear legal definitions and no obvious loopholes that I can see that would allow for the misuse of Treasury funds. Most importantly, the fund is released in tranches. This means the team must return to the community for future approvals to continue operations. If the fund fails to meet performance expectations or diverges from our values, the community retains the power to vote "No" on subsequent funding. This built-in accountability mitigates the risks typically associated with external venture capital.
I also strongly believe that at this point we need the operational efficiency. We cannot expect DReps to vote on every individual project or micro-allocation of funds; doing so is too slow and risks a governance quagmire that could leave Cardano behind. By approving this fund, we are delegating the specialized task of due diligence and deal-sourcing to professional managers. This type of broader proposal is actually a great example of what I think Dreps should be voting for. This allows focus on high-level strategic decisions rather than getting bogged down in hundreds of smaller votes that a direct democracy (even a liquid one) is ill-equipped to handle efficiently.
It is noteworthy that a venture firm is even willing to operate under these specific decentralized constraints. Relying on a recurring public vote for future tranches introduces a level of uncertainty that many traditional funds would find unacceptable. Their willingness to work within this paradigm suggests a functional respect for our governance model. I believe this is a pragmatic opportunity to gain professional management and networking reach on terms that still prioritize community sovereignty. I also don’t believe this is the type of opportunity that is likely to present itself again anytime soon. For these reason I am voting “Yes” on this proposal.

I am in favor of this treasury withdrawal request. I have already voted in favor of the budget info action and gave my rationale for that on the info action vote metadata. This action is about ensuring that the team is handling the funds in a responsible way, and I believe that they are. I am satisfied with the proposed process that this well known and respected team is putting forward to handle the funds. There is some risk involved but I am also satisfied that the plan proposed mitigates the risk as much as is reasonable to expect.

The primary driver for my yes vote on this proposal is the critical need for client diversity. Relying on a single client implementation creates a single point of failure and while the ecosystem is currently developing a Rust node, having only two implementations remains a precarious position. Creating a Go-based block producer would bring our total to three distinct clients and, in my view, this is the absolute bare minimum for a resilient, high-security chain. We saw the necessity of this first-hand during the November 2025 chain split incident, where a bug in a single implementation caused significant network disruption. A mature ecosystem with three independent, production-grade clients would be far more resilient, as a consensus bug in one codebase is unlikely to be mirrored in the others.
Blink Labs is a respected team with a proven track record of delivery. Their technical competence is evident in the proposal’s depth. While the funding request is substantial, the costing is realistic given the specialized engineering skillset required to build a performant node. This is a high-value infrastructure investment.
I do have reservations regarding the timing of this request, though these are structural concerns rather than a critique of Blink Labs. Under our current governance framework, we are voting on this significant withdrawal before seeing the broader context, specifically upcoming budget proposals from Intersect and other major entities.
Without a side-by-side comparison of all competing priorities, it is difficult to assess the opportunity cost. For example, a DRep focused more heavily on DeFi liquidity might hesitate to commit funds so early in the cycle. However, this is a flaw in our current governance process and not something the proposer is doing wrong.
Despite the lack of a bigger budget view, I believe node diversity is too important an infrastructure requirement to pass up on. The risk of another chain disruption outweighs the benefit of waiting for a more organized budgetary timeline. Blink Labs is using the system as intended, and the technical necessity of their work justifies the investment

I am voting to support this info action. My rationale for this is based on the following:
Without a budget process, treasury withdrawals risk becoming a game of social engineering. Projects currently rely on being a big-name to secure funding. This framework introduces a layer of sifting and analysis, with the idea that projects are evaluated based on their strategic merit and technical necessity rather than their ability to generate hype.
Voting "Yes" on the Intersect framework does not imply that I agree with every granular detail of its current development. However, the ecosystem cannot afford to wait for a perfect solution while treasury management remains unstructured. It is an iterative step and the process can and should be refined as we gather data on its effectiveness.
For anyone not intimately aware of how projects get funded, every specific treasury withdrawal will still require a formal vote by DReps. This framework simply organizes the information and prioritizes requests so that DReps can make more informed decisions.
While Intersect is facilitating this framework, my support is also a signal that Cardano needs structured budget proposals. In the future, I hope to see multiple entities, not just Intersect, putting forward competing or ideally complementary budget frameworks.

I am voting yes for this proposal, which I believe is an important step in the continued decentralization of Cardano.
An aspect that makes it easier support this proposal is the team’s status as a well-known and established fixture within the ecosystem. This is not an unproven group, they possess a track record of technical excellence and financial transparency. Their previous behavior establishes a high level of trust, proving that they prioritize the network’s long-term health over short-term capital acquisition.
While the current Amaru project is ambitious, the team’s technical pedigree suggests they are well equipped to handle its complexity. Their proposal outlines a high degree of rigorous planning, with clear milestones and a realistic assessment of the resources required. I believe that what Amaru is proposing is both achievable and necessary for the evolution of our infrastructure.
Allocating treasury funds to a team that has already proven its ability to deliver and act as a responsible steward of community resources is a sound investment. I believe this proposal represents a high-impact use of ADA that will yield significant dividends for the ecosystem’s growth and technical resilience. For these reasons, I fully endorse this proposal.

I am in support of this NCL. It falls within a reasonable range for our treasury while still allowing for meaningful spending.
I also appreciate the 18-month timeframe. Getting everyone to think long-term and avoid overspending in the first six months will certainly be a challenge, but in my view, that's all part of the governance experiment. As I have said for some time now, I hope we eventually move toward a more formal budget process. Simply setting an NCL and vetting proposals as they come in until the money runs out lacks operational directionality. That said, for the time being, this proposal makes sense.

I am in favor of this change. The current min size of 7 paired with an actual committee size of 7 creates an inflexible point of failure for Cardano governance. The departure or resignation of a single member immediately pauses our ability to pass important actions. This operational fragility could force the community into rushed elections, which compromises candidate vetting.
In my view the community has a choice between two reasonable paths: maintaining a min size of 7 with an actual committee size of 9, or reducing the minimum to 5 while maintaining the committee size of 7, as is suggested by this proposal. Either would work but I prefer the latter. Seven members to me is optimal and the risk of temporarily operating with 5 or 6 members is negligible compared to the very real risk of governance paralysis or the poor decision-making that stems from emergency appointments. Either way the main risk I see here is failure to move off of the 7 and 7 scenario we are currently in. If this action does not pass I would gladly support a change to a min size of 7 and a committee size of 9.

I am in favor of this treasury withdrawal request. I have already voted in favor of the budget info action and gave my rationale for that on the info action vote metadata. This action is about ensuring that the team is handling the funds in a responsible way, and I believe that they are. I am satisfied with the proposed process that this well known and respected team is putting forward to handle the funds. It should also be noted that, at current market rates, I wonder if there will still be enough funds to do everything that is being put forward, but that certainly does not mean that I think we should not give this team a chance to work that out.
On a separate note, I acknowledge that this withdrawal action is likely unconstitutional under the new constitution. This is, however, not the role of DReps to assess, and I believe all the rules as intended have been adhered to, between the withdrawl and budget info action. The choice to grandfather this will be up to the constitutional committees.

I am in favor of this proposed parameter change. The stated reasons for the change are well explained in the proposal and would benefit the ecosystem in providing technological improvements. The drawbacks appear minor and should not significantly impact the chain. The experts at the Parameters Committee and Technical Steering Committee are qualified to assess the claims here and know as well as anyone could if the claims are sound. They have approved, and this is documented in their internal minutes.

This does not require an extensive rationale. Thank you to Intersect for putting forward the name of a valued community member for this, and I certainly support this governance action.

The net change limit in this proposal is reasonable for a 100 epoch period and is roughly equivalent to what was approved in the past. There is a lot of important work that needs to be funded, as Cardano is still in a position where significant growth is required, and this cap will allow for that. I also agree with the decision to move the next required NCL vote to a more appropriate time for the community by submitting an 18 month period rather than 12 months.
Overall this is a well thought out proposal for this administrative step required for our community to continue making important funding decisions. I am therefore voting in favor of this proposal.

I am not in favor of this proposal. While I appreciate the value that a group like DeltaDeFi brings to the ecosystem, I do not agree with using the treasury as an accelerator fund for private projects. Although the proposal is written in a way to highlight the benefits to the ecosystem, it is still in essence funding a private project, not public infrastructure. I could be persuaded to change my mind under certain conditions. There would need to be a focus on a set of protocols being built that would be tailored to solve a general problem instead of a use case of one project. A case would then need to be made that these protocols could solve other issues for the wider ecosystem and be made open source. There would also need to be a very clear return on investment, which I don't see as being obvious in this case. Therefore, in its current format, I cannot support this initiative.

I am voting in favor of this proposal and have been in agreement with the proposed changes to the constitution since version 2.3. The changes from 2.3 to 2.4 are, in my opinion, an improvement to the language and clarity of our constitution, and therefore I maintain my support.

I am voting in favor of this info action. The overall goal of the info action is a good one. In general a vision document is valuable to have to focus efforts towards a common goal, and I believe this should be supported. The vision outlined is also well thought through and aligns with my view of where Cardano should move towards in the future. The pillars identified are all important but are not assigned a particular order of priority. This does make the vision slightly less focused but is reasonable since there would be significant disagreement on that front. I do appreciate, however, that the main focus is on branding Cardano as a mission-critical, high-assurance protocol, and this focuses on its legitimate strengths. This is a good decision in my view, as we need to stop comparing all blockchains using the same metrics. Cardano's focus should be on decentralized stability and security. All the pillars in the action support that goal. The KPIs are an interesting component. I don't actually think that KPIs are required for this type of vision document, and I can't say I fully agree with the KPIs listed. I only say this in the context that this space moves so quickly that I don't think KPIs can stay relevant for a 5 year period. That said, I don't see anything that is incorrect in terms of focus and the KPIs can always change in the future if they become irrelevant and the community agrees to change the focus. Overall a solid proposal that I am happy to support.

After careful review, I have decided to vote in favor of this action. The increase in committee size has a real benefit to the overall robustness of governance on Cardano, and Christina would be a worthy addition to the CC, in my opinion. I do have some slight concerns about leaving the CC size at 8 members, given the threshold of 2/3. This is relatively minor in the larger picture, but I would prefer to increase it to 9 if we are going to increase it; however, this action does not in any way stop this from being discussed by the community at a later date. The benefits of having a one member buffer above the committee min size and bringing on board a capable new CC member certainly outweighs my minor concerns in this case.

I am in favor of this treasury withdrawal action. This is a needed step to address some deficiencies in the ecosystem, and as I have stated in the info action vote, I believe that the Cardano community is getting very good value for money given the intended goals of the withdrawal. There is one important aspect of this withdrawal that will likely shape how the ecosystem moves forward with similar withdrawals. This is the fact that the details of the proposed various actions are not explicitly stated in the withdrawal. Instead, the proposal gives high-level goals and asks that we put the individual decisions in the hands of Intersect and the steering committee as the administrator. Intersect and the steering committee would serve as an executive function within the existing governance structure. DReps approve the budget and the main scope, while Intersect approves the details of individual allocations. I think this is a perfectly acceptable way of moving forward. In this way, DReps remain in charge of the big picture while also allowing for a more agile group to take care of the day-to-day decisions. At the very least I believe that we could not ask for a better group of proposers or a better administrator to try this way of doing things. As such, I approve of this action, and if approved, I will keep a close eye on how the administration of the budget unfolds over time.

This action does not require a very in depth rationale. This is a straightforward yes since we need to add the extra member of the CC on order to proceed with governance.

I am in favor this proposal. This extension to the NCL is a relatively small change that is required to maintain the constitutionality of the integrations budget proposal. Although changing the length of something like an NCL should never be done without serious consideration, in this case the affected proposal warrants the change in my view. It would be detrimental to the community to have this budget fail and be delayed due to a constitutional technicality. Thank you to those who identified this issue and acted quickly to rectify it.

I am voting in favor of this info action. This budget info action gives exceptional value to the community based on the funds requested judged against the stated goals. I would have expected this proposal to be far more expensive than what is being requested, and I strongly believe we are only being given this value proposition due to the entities involved. This makes this an easy decision from that perspective. I would have liked to have seen better metrics for evaluating KPIs; however, given who is making this proposal, there is very little risk, and I am confident that we will see thorough reporting even if this info action does not specifically require it. Overall this is an obvious voting decision, and I hope it gets the required support quickly so that the withdrawal can be submitted without delay.

I am voting in favor of this info action. I appreciate the fact that the Cardano foundation has decided to consult with the community before making this decision. I have reservations about the impact of this action but one thing I am sure of is that the blockchain space has a serious image problem with regular people. Having our own domain names is a small but positive step to improve the image of our particular corner of the space and I think it would be worth doing.

I am voting in favor of this proposal. I am generally not fond of spending money on listings or market issues in general as this does not correspond with my views on why we are building this space but I am also not blind to the benefits in terms of adoption. The reason for my yes vote is primarily because the risk is very low. This is a loan to a well known team that has executed for the community in the past. I do have concerns that this loan is ultimately unenforceable on chain and I hope future iterations come with a smart contract collateral guarantee but despite that risk this is still worth it.

I am reluctantly voting against this proposal. I am very much in favor of compensation for the activities of the constitutional committees however the amount of compensation matters and needs to be better examined. This proposal does not explain what the community is paying for in essence. Why was the amount of 200,000 Ada chosen? Why would the amount not be dependent on the number of actions examined by the committees? At this stage in Cardano's development I don't see how this function could be considered full time employment so why a set rate? Perhaps a set rate per proposal examined and a max cap of 200,000 Ada would work. I believe more work is needed before I can vote in favor of this proposal.

This action really doesn't require extensive rationale. This is the right thing to do as this was never the treasury's funds and was transferred in error. The funds should be returned. I am in favor of this proposal.

The changes to the constitution being made by this proposal are well thought through and there has been extensive community input. The result I believe is a better, more concise document. The most important change is the removal of the info action requirement for budget withdrawals. I believe this to be a good change to try and make the governance process less onerous on both DReps and proposers. It's important to note that some of the requirements that were part of the info action process still exist but are now part of the withdrawal request process. This should maintain the safety of the system while improving its agility. I find the changes here to be positive and therefore I am voting in favor of this proposal. Thank you to everyone who has put in extensive effort into this action.

I am in favor of approving this funding request. The amount requested is significant and I believe that GOV TOOL in general has quite a few improvements to make, however it has one important reason why we absolutely should fun it: It is community managed and open source. It is great to have multiple tools from multiple teams out there to handle governance but we also must maintain enough tools that are in the control of the community if we want to remain fully decentralized. Community managed projects come with a certain set of difficulties and are generally a little more expensive but that is certainly worth the cost.

I understand the value of this sort of goal orientation but I simply don't think it fits well with our current ecosystem. There are so many projects moving in so many different directions that setting a priority list for the entire ecosystem doesn't make sense. This would be a better fit for an organization or DAO in my opinion. As such I am voting no on this proposal.

I am voting to approve this proposal. The reasons for my vote are that this is not a spending request but an investment request that also has a benefit to the ecosystem through stablecoin liquidity. As such nothing is being lost since the funds remain in the ecosystem and can be returned to the treasury through a smart contract if the DReps choose to do so. The details of how the administration of this project will work will be important, but that is outside the scope of this info action. As an info action I approve of this request and look forward to seeing the treasury withdrawal request details.

I have decided to vote to approve this request for a loan from the treasury. This is an interesting proposal since it is the first request for a loan from the treasury. I do have some concerns regarding the how well structured the actual repayment structure is and the details surrounding that, but since this is a first of it's kind request that is to be expected. The team making the request have a lot of social capital in the ecosystem and I have no doubt that this will be repaid and therefore the risk here is very low. It should be noted for anyone that would like to also ask for this type of loan that without the high social capital of this team I would be voting against due to the unclear nature of the repayment structure. I am also generally not a huge fan of promoting products like meme coins however I do acknowledge the impact they can have on the general economy of a blockchain and again the risk here is very low in my opinion. Thank you to the SNEK team for putting forward this first of it's kind proposal.

After careful review of this governance action, I have decided to vote no on this proposal.
I will start by saying that I like almost the entirety of this proposal, and there are many excellent changes. I would like to commend the work that was done to clean up the constitution, add definitions etc. While most issues are positive, there remains some issues around enforceability of some clauses. Requirements to disclose compensation and SPO/DREP overlap are simply not enforceable and should not be in the constitution. It's one thing if people would like to make it part of the social contract and simply advise against delegation to people who fail to provide these things but enshrining this in the constitution is fundamentally foolish without enforcement and against principles of freedom and inclusivity that I would hope are core to any blockchain community. That said I recognize that this is already an issue of the constitution in it's current form and if it was only this then I could look past it.
The main red line for me as to why I cannot vote for this proposal is the removal of the budget info actions. I believe the community made a fundamental error in how we handled our very first budget, which caused us to make the budget info action redundant. The budget info action was meant to separate funding into tranches, and then those tranches would be administered by groups chosen by the voters through that same budget info action. We failed to utilize it as intended and instead crammed proposals into the budget info action then voted again for the same proposals. We also voted to increase granular control of DReps in approving individual proposals which was ill-advised. The fact that we failed to utilize the budget info action properly does not mean it should be removed. Without a budget info action we will simply be conducting a "catalyst version" project run on funds as soon as a net change limit is approved. For various reasons, this is not an outcome that I feel will improve the ecosystem at all.
I would very much recommend that this proposal be resubmitted with the important but less contentious improvements only and that more contentious elements like removing the budget info action done individually for a full and fair discussion on each.

I am not in favor of this proposal at this time. There are several factors that inform my decision but overall I am not a believer that traditional financial rails on CEXs should be a primary concern for the Cardano community. I prefer that we focus on value creation rather than market exposure. That being said, if there was a very clearly presented ROI including specific tasks being funded and how much those expect to return then this could be re-evaluated. I don't feel that this proposal has enough of this information listed to approve it.

I am not in favor of this proposal at this time. There are several factors that inform my decision but overall I am not a believer that traditional financial rails on CEXs should be a primary concern for the Cardano community. I prefer that we focus on value creation rather than market exposure. That being said, if there was a very clearly presented ROI including specific tasks being funded and how much those expect to return then this could be re-evaluated. I don't feel that this proposal has enough of this information listed to approve it.

I am in favor of this action as this is a required administrative step in order to ensure we have an active CC.

Although I appreciate the utility that Tempo brings to the Cardano governance space, I am unable to vote in favor of this proposal because there is insufficient information provided in the proposal. To feel comfortable voting in favor of this proposal, I would like to see how Tempo is positioning itself as a public good accountable to the community. As it stands, this tool is a private venture from what I can tell, and there is no information showing otherwise in the proposal. I do find that Tempo brings utility, and I believe that with a reformulation of the proposal, I would likely vote in favor in the future.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process.

I am voting in favor of approving this proposal. At first glance the budget seems high, but it is significantly lower than the initial proposal, which was made during the intersect proposal process. Additionally, there are good explanations with this proposal on why the funds requested are required, and this comes from a significant amount of community interaction, which answers most open questions not answered by the first proposal. For anyone interested, check the full long-form proposal, as it has many additional details that helped me make an informed decision. The most important consideration for me, however, is simply one of protecting the integrity of the Cardano voting system. There are no monetary incentives at this stage for anyone to build governance tools. Therefore, having a treasury funded, community based, open source system is very important. It may be that as time goes on this need will no longer be there, but for now this is the prudent option, and I believe it is well worth the costs outlined.

I am voting in favor of approving this treasury withdrawal request. I have also voted in favor of accepting the proposal in the previous info action. This vote is therefore primarily to confirm that I still support the project, as detailed in the info action, and approve of the outlined mechanism to distribute the treasury funds. Since this is the first treasury withdrawal request in the Voltaire era, the process is unchartered territory. However the process here looks good, and I can think of no better set of builders on Cardano to make this a success. I thank them for their work.

I have decided to vote in favor of the intersect budget proposal. I believe that we need to fund many of the ecosystem priorities that came out of the proposal review phase and this budget will facilitate that. Important caveat here is that I do not support every proposal that was included in this budget and voting in favor of the budget does not mean I will vote in favor of all proposals when it come to approving treasury withdrawl requests. The way intersect structures said requests will be part of that consideration when the time comes.

I have decided to vote in favor of this proposed budget. There is no limitation on the amount of budgets that can be approved and since this budget is simply looking to fund projects that have high community support and are already part of the intersect budget proposal there is no added cost to the ecosystem. I see this proposed budget mostly as a failsafe to approve high support proposals in the event that intersect fails to get an approved budget or bundles spending proposals in a way that the community does not support. In the event of that happening this is a good backup option.

I have decided to vote in favor of this proposal. I believe that a 300 million ADA NCL is appropriate for the time period listed and I prefer it to the current 350 million NCL. Additionally the setting of a roughly one year period (ending epoch 562) to fund projects and work out the general budget implementation, is an improvement on the current approved NCL which would end too soon (Dec 2025) to properly fund the projects that have put forward proposals.

I have decided to vote against this proposal for the simple reason that I believe the funding requirement at this early stage is too high. Since this is the first budget round on Cardano many critical funding requirements are being funded and this will absorb most of the funds that I feel we should realistically be spending in one budget cycle. Additionally there seems to be an error with the proposal metadata and the proposal will likely need to be resubmitted regardless. I would suggest for the team to look at resubmitting this proposal for the Q3 2026 budget.

I have decided to vote in favor of this proposal. Node diversity is an important part of securing the network and this team is very well suited to complete the work described in the proposal. I also appreciate that Amaru will be acting as an administrator for this budget. Having groups step up to be administrators like this is also valuable for the ecosystem. For these reasons I believe the costs here are justified.

I have decided to vote against the proposed treasury spending limit of 200 million ADA, as I believe this amount is lower than what is optimal. Spending limits need to be a balance between financial responsibility, required spending, and growth spending. With this NCL I do not believe there would be any room for growth spending and I do not agree with not spending at all in this regard.

This is an addendum to my previous voting rationale. I have decided to change my vote to support this proposal due to the first NCL proposal not being ratified. The reason for this change is explained in the original rationale which I have included here:
I have decided to vote against the proposed treasury spending limit of 350 million ADA, as I believe this amount exceeds what is necessary. While I recognize that this figure serves as an upper spending limit, I also know that reducing such limits will become increasingly challenging over time, especially as various priorities become reliant on treasury funds. Furthermore, I plan to support the first, lower spending limit proposal currently under consideration. However, I understand that there is a possibility this proposal may not pass or could be deemed unconstitutional. If the first proposal is not ratified, I will change my vote to support this proposal. It remains critical to avoid a situation where no spending limit is approved, as this could result in delays and uncertainty in finalizing the budget.

I have decided to vote in support of this proposal. I believe that the spending limit set here is higher than what is required, but I am cognizant that this is only an upper limit and that all funding needs to be approved by the community regardless. There are also too many important priorities that require funding to not approve a limit at all or to wait for another NCL proposal. Although I am not in favor of choosing an NCL for 2026 at this time, this is not a decisive factor for me. If the community finds that the 2026 NCL listed here is not appropriate, then a new NCL can be proposed and would replace it. What we need to ensure does not happen is not approving an NCL in a timely manner, which would delay and create uncertainty around passing a budget. With this in mind and the fact that this proposal is not too far off from where I think we need to be on an upper spending limit, I choose to support it.

After reviewing the proposed info action roadmap, I have decided to vote Yes. To me, the most crucial aspect of a document like this is its overall direction. While an info action isn’t strictly enforceable, its general direction carries significant weight from a governance perspective, and I’m pleased with the trajectory this document lays out.
The roadmap’s primary focus on core infrastructure is spot-on. To keep Cardano at the forefront of the blockchain space, we must prioritize scalability and interoperability. I’m encouraged to see key infrastructure projects like Leios, Mithril, Hydra, Midgard, and Peras highlighted, alongside a clear direction for other improvements to the chain’s foundation.
Another positive is the commitment to updating priorities based on community feedback, which is emphasized right at the start. This roadmap is designed as a short-term guide, and priorities will naturally shift as the community evolves. Acknowledging this shows that the authors understand the importance of adaptability and are dedicated to staying aligned with community needs.
I’m also happy to see SPO rewards included as a focus area. The community has long recognized the need for updates here, and prioritizing this in the roadmap is a meaningful step forward.
My only reservation is that governance isn’t highlighted as a near-term focus. I believe getting governance right is vital for Cardano’s long-term health, and I would have liked to see it addressed more prominently. That said, this omission isn’t enough to sway my vote. The roadmap remains well-oriented and forward-thinking overall.

My vote against this proposal stems from the belief that it is premature. While I agree that there's a clear need to enhance reward conditions for SPOs and increase delegation rewards, the current lack of clarity around the treasury's future investment strategy and fund allocation prevents a well-informed decision on halving treasury deposits. Before proceeding, I would at least want to observe initial budget approvals, which ideally would include discussions on treasury investment strategies. Once we have a better grasp of the treasury's long-term sustainability, revisiting this proposal will be a priority for me, as it touches on a fundamental aspect of decentralization. I also want to reassure anyone reading this that I will keep this proposal in mind when evaluating upcoming budget proposals since keeping the government lean by cutting and redistributing taxes is generally something I support. Despite my 'no' vote, I appreciate the proposers for highlighting this crucial matter.

This is a good and necessary first step to governance and provides what it sets out to provide; a foundational pillar for minimum viable governance. The journey to improve the governance will of course be an ongoing process but I am very much in favor of taking this step and thank all who collaborated to present this document to the community.