This Corrosion

Changing my vote to yes. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and I think this is good. We need more adoption.

Voting yes again.

This is the single most important event to showcase the Cardano Ecosystem. There is no better way for projects and businesses to get direct exposure to the customer and the ecosystem at the same time.
Amplify and Catalyst have NOT yet paid for past events yet.
Rare Evo 2026 is happening. As of now, what has been cut is everything other than the convention. No Poker Tournament, No opening party, no close out party, no free coffee, cut the live stream of main stage (brings no revenue and was a luxury for those that cant make it), cut down on stage size and design, Dev / Gov day will be severely cut to just some breakout room space if even possible at all. (There is a sponsor looking at the opening party, but not sold yet)

The only paid Cardano booths this year are Hosky who has always supported the event & Bank / BetFi Casino.

The rest of the spots have already started to be given away for free to Cardano community so they can be present at the event. That after all, is the whole point of this.

Now, GA tickets are free.

When new innovations are developed, it is difficult to know how to properly document for future utility. Some things you think are important end up being obvious, while others are not. I understand that this feels like a self inflicted problem, however it represents a growing pain rather than negligence.

Proposal and methods seem to be sound. I support continued ecosystem improvements

Blockfrost is a critical piece of architecture for the cardano ecosystem

Midgard is still necessary, regardless. Several businesses are waiting on it.

Another much needed upgrade

Excellent improvements. Lets get them done

No, not again. You have had a whole year to figure out how to pay for this.

I support node diversity. The reward is the mitigation of risk and benefits the ecosystem

After much thought and discussion with tech minded individuals, I have decided to support this as the reward is high vs. the risk, I think it will be a positive for the ecosystem.

New manager, new ideas. Seems good.

I believe that a comprehensive approach to liquidity is necessary rather than an individual approach.
In other words, rather than betting on one horse, I want to own the racetrack. For this reason, every liquidity/Sovereign wealth type strategy should be used in order to mitigate risk and diversify opportunity for growth.

While there are downside risks, no investment is risk free and we need to get the blood pumping.

Given current uncertainty I am changing my vote to NO for the sake of stability.

This is a good solid strategic level framework. Strategic level plans should not include too many specifics as that ultimately ends up interfering at the operational planning level and I believe this strikes the appropriate balance on the strategic description/prescription spectrum.

The 'big 6' have promised to accomplish all stated objectives and cover all cost overruns from the entity reserve funds. As this is highly likely to involve cost overruns, this is and extremely good deal for the community and ecosystem. Long term, accomplishing the outlined objective will pay exponential returns.

The proposal as outlined has are no terms, no promissory, no collateral, no redress and remedy; basically, it's not a loan as written. There are social rumors of an actual loan, but it is not presented. “Trust us bro” is not going to work for me.
Additionally, Rapha @golden_Rapha, the CEO of Snek Foundation sits on the CSFW Treasury Management Committee, a clear conflict of interest and fiduciary violation.
Further Drep @goofy_crisp is schilling and gathering voting power for this proposal which he should be abstaining from, as this is a clear conflict of interest and blatant fiduciary violation.
The team has made it crystal clear that ‘Our goal with this proposal is to set a precedent...’ This is not a precedent that should be created for future governance.

I am frustrated by the price tag on this proposal since it went from "I'll fund it myself if I have to" to 97 mil or GTFO. That alone is in extremely poor taste. As promised to my delegators, I am supporting this because I consider it critically important for the future of the chain and expect this to be the last real year for relevancy if we upgrade now. That said. I expect results and the proposal does not give me a warm fussy on deliverables. So I vote yes, with the warning that it better produce results.

I think this is a great idea. I think it needs greater legal review before I am willing to support it. I hope that it tightens up and tries in a catalyst proposal or some other funding round.

I have become convinced this product is mor in demand for tooling than I initially thought. I will therefore support it.

Scaling also should include lateral diversity even if the current usage is small. It will never grow if we do not scale diverse accessibility as well, so I am supporting this.

While this is likely to pass, I will not vote for a proposal that i believe contains wasteful spending. Governance should be laser focused on scaling right now.