The Dutch Drep

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire, administered by Intersect. DISCLAIMER: Dutch DRep members may be contracted to perform work for this proposal and as such benefit from its passing. Our affirmative vote is based on the current state of governance requiring ongoing improvement, with a focus on increasing decentralization, further streamlining processes and constitutional definitions.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Scalus - DApps Development Platform administered by Intersect. Scala is a popular functional and object-oriented language with proven capabilities, and Scalus offers a comprehensive, practical approach that could lower barriers for developers by enabling them to use Scala across the entire Cardano stack. However, we have questions about the project’s unknown aspects, its adoption, and why developers would choose it over existing alternatives, which warrant further clarification.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix, administered by Intersect. Our affirmative vote is based on MLabs important technical contributions and use by Cardano stakeholder such as SPOs and a favorable cost-benefit ratio for thhe Cardano.nix support. These were major factors in our decision to support this proposal.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Midgard - Optimistic Rollups, administered by Intersect. Our affirmative vote is based on the long term technological implications of integrating optimistic rollups for scaling and layer 2 ecosystems. Given the need for changes to the Cardano ledger for Optimistic Rollups to succeed, we expect detailed account by the project team on what ledger changes are required and the broader implication of such ledger changes. We expect with Intersect's administration such reseach will be part of the delivery milestones. These were major factors in our decision to support this proposal.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Input Output Research (IOR), administered via intersect. This proposal is substancial yet research is a key backbone for Cardano development, future-proofing and adoption of community builders with long term development vision. The project leads and intersect are encouraged to make clear and transparently verifiable milestones that demonstrate value-ad to the Cardano ecosystem for example: number of research papers released, citations, university partnerships, support to formal methods and integration teams, research lead by new professors from leading fields, and publications in journals.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for 2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal, administered by Intersect. DISCLAIMER: Dutch Drep members may be contracted to perfom work for this proposal and as such benefit from its passing. Our affirmative vote is based on IO and IOE representing significant capability needed for Cardano to progress to the next stage. Although IO's proposal can be argued to be somewhat lacking in detail, this must be weighed together with the undeniable track record of IO and broader mission focus. The size of this proposal is substancial however we expect that the positive externalities to far outweigh the costs to the Cardano Ecosystem given IO's open source and collaborative DNA. Additionally we see no other party being able to coordinate with the relevant parties needed to deliver the scope of work as described at this time. These were major factors in our decision to support this proposal.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire, administered by Intersect. DISCLAIMER: Dutch DRep members may be contracted to perform work for this proposal and as such benefit from its passing. Our affirmative vote is based on the current state of governance requiring ongoing improvement, with a focus on increasing decentralization, further streamlining processes and constitutional definitions.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output: Advancing Decentralised Community Innovation Funding & Infrastructure, administered via intersect. It is crucial for smaller development teams—especially those excluded by current thresholds—to be able to contribute to and grow with Cardano, as this grassroots onboarding drives innovation and problem-solving that fuels the ecosystem’s broader growth.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for TWEAGs Proposals for multiple core budget projects for Cardano 2025, administered by Intersect. This proposal focuses on enhancing core tooling for Cardano that is not covered under the IO (Input Output) budget, emphasizing the importance of maintaining and extending the core infrastructure for Cardanos future. Tweags ongoing contributions to the Cardano community, including improvements in smart contract tooling and automation, demonstrate their strong track record and capacity to support the ecosystem's evolution beyond what IO handles directly. These were major factors in our decision to support this proposal.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Expanding Stablecoin / Cardano Native Asset Support, administered via Intersect. Supporting stablecoins and native asset support are controvercial and yet critical subjects. The project leads and Intersect are ecouraged to make clear and transparently verifiable milestones that demonstrate value-ad to the Cardano ecosystem.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Cardano Builder DAO, administered via Intersect. It is important to keep ecosystem talent active however we advise Intersect to showcase the milestones that show increased transaction volume or other value ads attributable to the individual members of the builder DAO.

We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal, administered by Intersect. Our affirmative vote is based on the fact many projects depend on blockfrost API and blockfrost delivering significant impact for the Cardano ecosystem. These were major factors in our decision to support this proposal.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote No on this Budget Info Action.

While we appreciate the early contributions of the Tempo.Vote team—especially during a time when governance tooling on Cardano was still nascent—we believe this proposal does not meet the standards now expected for public funding.

The quality of the current tooling remains limited, and there is no commitment to open-source the platform. In a decentralized ecosystem, transparency and composability are critical—especially for infrastructure intended to serve the governance process. Closed-source tools create silos and limit community trust, innovation, and auditability.

Furthermore, the gap Tempo.Vote initially helped fill has now been addressed by other governance tooling efforts. Proposals such as the gov.tool Info Action and the AdaStat/Cexplorer Treasury Withdrawal present more robust, transparent, and collaborative pathways for advancing Cardano governance infrastructure. These initiatives are better aligned with the community’s evolving standards for openness and usability.

We recommend that Tempo.Vote consider submitting a proposal for Project Catalyst, with a focus on improving its open-source approach to better align with community values and expectations.

We believe the Treasury should prioritize open, auditable, and broadly integrated tooling. As such, we cannot support this proposal in its current form.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote YES on the Govtool budget proposal by the Govtool consortium.

Transparency Disclosure: One of our Dutch DReps represents Dquadrant, a Govtool consortium member, in community forums. While this relationship informs our understanding, we believe the proposal stands on its own merits and advances Cardano’s governance goals.

The Govtool consortium—coordinated through Intersect and backed by trusted community teams—has a proven track record of delivering accessible, constitutionally sound governance tools since CIP‑1694. Their proposal is transparent, well‑structured, and firmly rooted in Cardano’s principles of accountability and community‑driven decision‑making.

Govtool’s planned enhancements will:

Guarantee open access for all ADA holders, lowering barriers to participation.

Foster community ownership through open‑source code and public APIs, enabling developers to build complementary governance solutions.

Support a distributed development model by funding multiple teams and encouraging community contributions.

Ensure the roadmap remains responsive to ADA holders’ needs via transparent, community‑driven prioritization.

Together, these improvements will strengthen Cardano’s decentralized governance, boost transparency and efficiency, and align with our long‑term vision of inclusivity and innovation.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote Yes on the Amaru proposal.

The team behind Amaru consists of trusted and experienced contributors with a strong track record of delivering critical infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem. Their proposal is clear, transparent, and constitutionally sound, demonstrating a high standard of governance and accountability.

We believe the development of a Rust-based node brings meaningful benefits to Cardano. It strengthens decentralization, enhances interoperability, and broadens the developer base. Crucially, it also provides an independent implementation that can act as a constant cross-check of the existing Haskell node—serving as a form of ongoing audit that improves the security and correctness of both.

In our view, Amaru is a strategically valuable project that aligns well with Cardano’s long-term goals.

We, the Dutch Drep, vote "Yes" on this proposal. The context in which this proposal finds itself is an important determinant of this decision.

Primary Supporting Arguments

Contextual Necessity: The proposal is situated within a context that demands progress. The current stage of development and the needs of the ecosystem make it important to move forward with the budgetary process. Productive community builders find themselves lacking funds.

Need for Budgetary Progress: It is widely recognized that advancing the budgetary process is essential. Delays or stagnation would hinder the growth and effectiveness of the Cardano ecosystem.

Strong Community Participation: There has been substantial participation from the active voting stake. This high level of engagement demonstrates broad community interest and legitimacy in the decision-making process.

Primary Concerns

Script Witnesses Not Included: The off-chain voting process did not include script witnesses, which impacts a measure of the true will of the community (the Dutch Drep was not able to participate in the Ekklesia vote).

Administrator Role Lacks Context: The administrator role, as currently defined, does not have sufficient context or clarity, which could lead to challenges in effective oversight and governance.

Risk of Aggregating with 'low-impact' Projects: By aggregating proposals, there is a risk of including projects that may fall under fraud, waste, or abuse. Although not directly visible, such a "poison pill" effect is a serious concern, as it could undermine the integrity of the funding process.

Recommendation

Include Script witnesses capability for off-chain voting.

Improve the administrator oversight transparency including how milestones shall be assessed and by which persons, teams, committees, or subcontractors.

The risk of low-impact proposals bundled with effective proposals is significant, and may require additional time, effort and loss of funds from the teams involved. Collaboration and transparency can help mitigate this issue, teams are encouraged to assess with prudent risk management with whom they submit proposals and verify with experts before entering into such bundled constructs.

Conclusion

On balance, the need for progress and the strong community participation outweigh the identified risks. We are voting "Yes" on this proposal, with the expectation that the community and administrators will work together to resolve outstanding concerns.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote No on this budget Info Action.

While we support funding for community-driven initiatives, we have strong reservations about including proposals that introduce protocol-level changes—specifically zkFold and Starstream.

Both propose ambitious technologies that would require significant modifications to Cardano’s ledger and core protocol. These kinds of changes demand deep coordination with the broader development community and should not be funded without clear technical alignment, ecosystem consensus, and process transparency. Yet, neither proposal provides sufficient clarity on integration challenges, dependencies, or risk factors—and neither team has meaningfully engaged in Cardano’s open CIP process.

As a constructive path forward, we strongly encourage both teams to initiate a CIP (Cardano Improvement Proposal) and, where appropriate, a CPS (Cardano Problem Statement) that formally outlines their proposed changes. A clear example to follow would be the approach taken by the Leios and Alba proposals, which have demonstrated how protocol innovations can be transparently introduced and evaluated within the community.

We would also recommend this path for proposals like Midgard, which touches on optimistic rollup design and may similarly intersect with future ledger evolution. Proposals of this scope should first be explored through the CIP/CPS process before treasury funding is considered.

We also invite fellow DReps to demand greater technical rigor and transparency from high-impact proposals. When millions of dollars in treasury funds are at stake, big claims—especially those involving protocol changes—should not be taken at face value. They must be supported by clearly articulated implementation paths, risk analysis, and evidence of engagement with Cardano’s open governance and development processes.

Our stance is not a rejection of the innovation of zkFold and Starstream. Rather, we believe treasury support for protocol-level initiatives should be contingent on demonstrated ecosystem alignment and technical diligence. In contrast, other proposals included in this budget—such as Blockfrost and the Ledger/hardware wallet initiatives—are narrower in scope, do not require consensus-layer changes, and are much better suited for direct funding at this stage.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote No on this proposal.

We are aligned with the existing Net Change Limit (NCL) proposed by Intersect for the 2026 period. Introducing an alternative NCL at this stage creates unnecessary confusion and risks fragmenting consensus around treasury planning.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote No on this proposal due to a mismatch between the provided hash and the referenced document. This makes the proposal unverifiable.

We believe the integrity of the process matters, and setting a precedent where incorrect hashes are accepted would weaken trust in on-chain governance. The hash should match.

We encourage resubmission with the correct hash.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote Yes on the Amaru proposal.

The team behind Amaru consists of trusted and experienced contributors with a strong track record of delivering critical infrastructure within the Cardano ecosystem. Their proposal is clear, transparent, and constitutionally sound, demonstrating a high standard of governance and accountability.

We believe the development of a Rust-based node brings meaningful benefits to Cardano. It strengthens decentralization, enhances interoperability, and broadens the developer base. Crucially, it also provides an independent implementation that can act as a constant cross-check of the existing Haskell node—serving as a form of ongoing audit that improves the security and correctness of both.

In our view, Amaru is a strategically valuable project that aligns well with Cardano’s long-term goals.

We, The Dutch DRep, vote Yes on the proposed 200M ADA Net Change Limit (NCL) for 2025.

While we previously supported the 350M ADA NCL to prevent further delays in the governance process, our support for this new 200M ADA NCL reflects updated insights gained from the first draft budget. We believe this lower NCL provides essential guardrails for Cardano’s first-ever on-chain budget process.

Initial budget proposals have demonstrated a tendency to overestimate expenses. A more conservative NCL will encourage proposers to prioritize what is truly essential for the ecosystem's growth and maintenance, rather than submitting inflated or "nice-to-have" budgets. As is often the case in both public and private sectors, a larger budget invites unnecessary spending.

This 200M ADA limit preserves treasury sustainability while giving the community space to refine budgeting processes, improve proposal quality, and learn from this foundational year. A lower NCL is not a ceiling on ambition, but a framework for responsible stewardship and long-term planning.

Additionally, we want to signal our concern regarding the bundling of multiple treasury requests into large lump sums. We fear this practice risks the approval of weaker or unjustified proposals solely because they are packaged alongside more compelling ones. We encourage future budget submissions to separate proposals clearly, so each can be evaluated and voted on according to its individual merit.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote "Yes" on this governance action proposal 2025 Net Change Limit.

While we did not reach consensus within our group, the majority of members expressed the desire to approve this Net Change Limit, as the result of not approving this NCL would have undesirable consequences and even further delay an already overdue Cardano budget.

We would also like to express a desire for a more structured and streamlined process for the 2026 NCL and want to emphasize that this is a spending limit, and not an amount of spending to strive for.

We, the Dutch DRep, vote “No” on this proposal to reduce the Cardano treasury cut from 20% to 10%. We would like to thank Andrew Westberg for his effort and for initiating this important discussion. Our reasons for voting “No” are as follows:

1. While the proposal aims to improve economic incentives, the evidence presented is not sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate its long-term impact. The rationale appears somewhat one-sided and lacks robust data to support such a significant change.

2. We also disagree with the method by which this proposal was put forth, moving straight to an on-chain governance action without a more thorough off-chain review. We believe major economic parameter changes should follow a careful, well-structured, and transparent deliberation process.

3. A recent video titled “Cardano: NerdOut – Let’s Have a TEA Party” frames a ‘No’ vote as an endorsement of the current 20% tax. We do not share that perspective. Our ‘No’ vote pertains strictly to this immediate request to lower the parameter to 10%. We believe a more comprehensive analysis and community-driven consensus should guide any revision of the treasury cut.

For these reasons, we cast our vote as “No” and invite further evidence-based discussion and inclusive engagement to reach a sustainable decision on treasury parameters.

We, the Dutch DRep, commend the thorough and community-driven process that led to this proposed Cardano Constitution. The extensive workshops, global participation, and meaningful dialogue demonstrate the collaborative spirit that defines the Cardano ecosystem.

Following careful deliberation with our delegates, we recognize:

1. Commitment to Continued Development
   The Cardano Constitution is designed to be a “living document”, with Article VIII providing clear methods for updates. We understand that many key community members, workshop leaders, founding entities, and Charles Hoskinson himself are committed to holding a second Constitutional Convention within five years of this Constitution’s ratification. This future convention will address lessons learned, resolve identified gaps or inconsistencies, propose updated texts, and test the effectiveness of the update process detailed in Article VIII. We support this Constitution with the understanding that ongoing refinement is both expected and necessary.

2. Forward Momentum
   While the Constitution may not be perfect, its establishment is crucial for guiding the community’s progress. Without it, we risk stagnation and the possible loss of a shared vision. In our view, the negative consequences of failing to pass the Constitution outweigh the drawbacks of adopting an “imperfect” version. Cardano’s governance now requires real-world experience and empirical data to evolve effectively.

3. Consensus through Compromise
   The “minimal viable governance” approach reflects the need to balance various perspectives. Some level of discomfort among all stakeholders is a natural sign of a fair compromise.
   In light of these factors, we, the Dutch DRep, endorse and vote “Yes” on this governance action. By adopting the Constitution now, while committing to continue refining it, we strike the right balance between addressing immediate governance needs and preserving the pathway for future improvements.

To mark this historic governance action, we wish to share this quote with the Cardano community:

"Als je een stem in je hoort zeggen 'je kan niet schilderen', schilder dan vooral en die stem zal het zwijgen opgelegd worden." - Vincent Willem Van Gogh

We, the Dutch DRep, vote "Yes" on this information action, as we align with the sentiment expressed in the proposal. This action is a heartfelt recognition of the foundational work that brought Cardano to where it stands today. It embodies the essence of community-driven progress and reflects the spirit of collective purpose that has always been central to the Cardano ethos.

By supporting this proposal, we reaffirm our commitment to guiding this blockchain in the decentralized ecosystem that has emerged, ensuring that the principles of dedication, vision, and collaboration continue to thrive. We look forward to playing our part in fostering the ethos established at the foundation of Cardano and advancing it through a decentralized, community-driven future.

Our vote is a celebration of shared values and a promise to uphold these principles as we collectively shape the path ahead.

We, the Dutch DRep, extend our gratitude to Adam Dean for submitting the first governance action, sparking the exercise of our voting rights. While this proposal is lighthearted in nature, it provides an important opportunity for the community to engage in governance.

However, after careful consideration, the Dutch DRep will vote "No" on this information action for two main reasons:

1) Neutrality of Naming: We believe that "HOSKY" does not represent the neutrality that should be associated with a hard fork event. A neutral name ensures inclusivity and professional communication within the broader ecosystem.

2) Clarity and Continuity: The name "Chang 2" is a logical continuation of "Chang 1," maintaining consistency in ongoing communications. A name change at this stage could create confusion, undermining the clarity and transparency of messaging that has already reached users and the media.

In conclusion, while this proposal offers a creative approach, we prioritize neutrality and consistency in our decision-making.