Varavas

I will support all TxPipe proposals that have emerged from Intersect’s Ekklisia process. Although I do not have the technical expertise to fully evaluate the costs of these initiatives, I recognize the importance of the work and TxPipe’s strong track record in the Cardano ecosystem.
I also trust the judgment of my fellow DReps who participated in the Ekklisia process and brought these proposals forward.
Therefore, I will support them.

I will support all TxPipe proposals that have emerged from Intersect’s Ekklisia process. Although I do not have the technical expertise to fully evaluate the costs of these initiatives, I recognize the importance of the work and TxPipe’s strong track record in the Cardano ecosystem.
I also trust the judgment of my fellow DReps who participated in the Ekklisia process and brought these proposals forward.
Therefore, I will support them.

I will support all TxPipe proposals that have emerged from Intersect’s Ekklisia process. Although I do not have the technical expertise to fully evaluate the costs of these initiatives, I recognize the importance of the work and TxPipe’s strong track record in the Cardano ecosystem.
I also trust the judgment of my fellow DReps who participated in the Ekklisia process and brought these proposals forward.
Therefore, I will support them.

I will support all TxPipe proposals that have emerged from Intersect’s Ekklisia process. Although I do not have the technical expertise to fully evaluate the costs of these initiatives, I recognize the importance of the work and TxPipe’s strong track record in the Cardano ecosystem.
I also trust the judgment of my fellow DReps who participated in the Ekklisia process and brought these proposals forward.
Therefore, I will support them.

I will support all TxPipe proposals that have emerged from Intersect’s Ekklisia process. Although I do not have the technical expertise to fully evaluate the costs of these initiatives, I recognize the importance of the work and TxPipe’s strong track record in the Cardano ecosystem.
I also trust the judgment of my fellow DReps who participated in the Ekklisia process and brought these proposals forward.
Therefore, I will support them.

Since the Pogun proposal (which included a direct return to the Cardano treasury) was rejected, I see no reason to support other initiatives that do not generate revenue for the treasury.
Although this proposal comes from one of the most respected teams in the ecosystem, it follows the usual pattern: it highlights the potential benefits of a large BTC liquidity injection, but fails to clearly explain how it will attract users in the competitive Bitcoin DeFi space.
Cardano is not the only player in this area. Also many Cardano teams are currently competing for the same opportunities. Without a concrete and differentiated plan to stand out from the competition, I cannot justify supporting this proposal.

Although I am not a fan of a low NCL and would gladly support removing it entirely in the future, I currently believe it serves an important protective function. Our governance is still relatively immature, and the limit helps safeguard the treasury from excessive spending.

If we require additional funds later in this funding season, we can address it at that time.

I do not have the technical expertise to properly evaluate the specific amount of ADA requested for hardware wallet maintenance. However, since security is a critical priority for our ecosystem, I will trust the judgment of my fellow DReps who participated in the Ekklisia voting process and brought this proposal forward.

I am generally opposed to using treasury funds to pay private companies to integrate our technology. If these companies genuinely see value in the Cardano ecosystem and it can generate sustainable revenue for them, they should fund the integration themselves.

Allocating 4 million ADA at the current ALT of the cycle for a centralized payment solution involving Wirex, Visa and similar partners feels like a significant step backward rather than forward.
I believe we are starting to lose sight of what Cardano’s original mission really is.

This is a promising idea that would undoubtedly benefit the ecosystem. However, I do not believe it should be a priority at this stage, especially while ADA is trading at the cycle’s ATL and the annual NCL is close to being fully depleted. We need to remain highly selective with treasury spending right now.

I respect the team behind this initiative.
However, with ADA currently at the all-time low of this market cycle, the annual NCL nearly depleted, and no clear results yet from the previous 11 million ADA allocation, requesting another 20 million ADA feels excessive at this time.
Furthermore, a pilot round of Catalyst has been announced, which appears to be a more structured process.
I am also looking forward to Charles’ upcoming initiative, which similarly seeks to define a shared vision for Cardano’s future.
For these reasons, I must vote NO on this governance action.

We absolutely need ongoing maintenance for Cardano’s only full node, and the team behind it has an excellent track record.

Changing my vote to YES (previous rational below). The team, after multiple spaces and Q&As, has convinced me that it is a good investment for our ecosystem, at least theoretically. I sincerely hope that the proposal passes and the team delivers.

===========================================================

(My previous NO vote)
I am not convinced by this proposal. The supply chain elements described have already received substantial community funding through Catalyst or token sales from various Cardano projects. Moreover, one related Catalyst roadmap remains unfinished after 1.5 years and has delivered less than 50% of its promised milestones.
I do not feel comfortable supporting this governance action, particularly without any meaningful additional return to the treasury beyond the projected increase in onchain Cardano transactions.

Although I love Eternl and use it almost daily, I find this proposal highly problematic.

(The justification for voting on their own proposal previously, was insufficient. Thank you for deciding to abstain now.)

The Pro plan should have been introduced years ago, before the Catalyst, Intersect, and last year’s funding rounds. Even now, we still lack clarity on what specific Pro features will be offered. Projecting that 4% of users will subscribe monthly without knowing the details does not make sense.

I suggest the team return to the drawing board and develop a truly sustainable business model.

I am abstaining on this governance structure proposal.
I am neither opposed to nor in favor of it, but I do not believe it delivers the process reforms we actually need.
That said, I will not stand in the way of the community’s final decision, which is why I am choosing to abstain.

Hydra is currently in a strong state, and this is not the time to slow our momentum.
This is a well crafted proposal regarding the future of Hydra and I fully support it.

While I would prefer maintaining the minimum of 7 Constitutional Committee members, it appears there is insufficient uncompensated participation in our ecosystem to sustain the required workload.
Therefore, I support measures that prevent operational disruptions in the event of another resignation.
We may revisit this parameter in the future should circumstances change.

I support the revised proposal for implementing faster finality through Peras. Go team!

I have supported Rare Evo multiple times in the past.
However, this is not the right time for this type of treasury spending.

Although I am not deeply familiar with Cardano’s technical stack, I trust the experts responsible for these parameter changes, who are also actively monitoring potential security risks. I have no intention of standing in the way of this progress, so I will vote Yes and fully support the proposed parameter updates in anticipation of the next hard fork.

We need the Pentad united and working together to tackle the challenges our ecosystem faces today and in the years ahead. I fully support this initiative and will monitor their performance closely. While they have not delivered 100% on all previous funding commitments, I am satisfied with the results achieved so far and remain optimistic about the future, especially now that they appear to have found an effective way to collaborate.

Although I love Eternl and use it almost daily, I find this proposal highly problematic.

The justification for voting on their own proposal is insufficient. While Eternl’s delegators (like all Cardano users) would love to see the wallet succeed, this should not come through repeated treasury funding, especially at the proposed price tag.

Furthermore, the Pro plan should have been introduced years ago, before the Catalyst, Intersect, and last year’s funding rounds. Even now, we still lack clarity on what specific Pro features will be offered. Projecting that 4% of users will subscribe monthly without knowing the details does not make sense.

I suggest the team return to the drawing board and develop a truly sustainable business model, rather than relying on their voting power (which is particularly questionable for wallets) to continually draw funds from the Cardano treasury.

I will abstain from proposals that are nice to have but not true priorities at this stage.

Adding support for yet another language on top of those we already have falls squarely into this category, especially in the current AI era, where developers routinely leverage powerful AI tools to work across languages efficiently.

Given the network’s current priorities, I will vote no on further additions to our governance structures, as I believe we already have sufficient mechanisms in place.
This proposal falls squarely into that category, requesting a commitment of 4 million ADA per year for the next three years.

All the work packages, as described, are crucial for the continued evolution of our ecosystem. Cardano has been built on formal methods, rigorous research papers, and the dedicated efforts of competent teams over many years. We must maintain this commitment, and therefore I fully support IOG’s proposal.

After careful consideration, although I supported the previous bundled proposal, I have decided to abstain from both the Pebble and Gerolamo proposals. While both initiatives are valuable additions, they are not critical at this stage, especially given the high volume of treasury proposals and the urgent need to identify and focus on our top priorities. Although I respect the team, these projects do not rank among our highest priorities right now. At the same time, I do not wish to obstruct other DReps, particularly those with greater technical expertise, if they believe the proposals should move forward.
For this reason, I will abstain from the voting process.

==============================

PS (for all future governance actions): I will not respond to any direct messages attempting to persuade me to change my vote. Please respect my decision, as none of these choices are made lightly.

After careful consideration, although I supported the previous bundled proposal, I have decided to abstain from both the Pebble and Gerolamo proposals. While both initiatives are valuable additions, they are not critical at this stage, especially given the high volume of treasury proposals and the urgent need to identify and focus on our top priorities. Although I respect the team, these projects do not rank among our highest priorities right now. At the same time, I do not wish to obstruct other DReps, particularly those with greater technical expertise, if they believe the proposals should move forward.
For this reason, I will abstain from the voting process.

==============================

PS (for all future governance actions): I will not respond to any direct messages attempting to persuade me to change my vote. Please respect my decision, as none of these choices are made lightly.

I appreciate the decision to decouple this proposal from Token2049. Having rejected EMURGO’s initiative, I will support the Cardano Foundation’s Cardano Summit in Singapore. I believe it delivers greater value between the two events and fully endorse the significant cost reduction.

I have supported EMURGO for years and consistently voted in favor of their Catalyst initiatives. However, I have now lost faith in this founding entity for reasons that extend beyond the scope of this particular vote.
While I believe it is important for Cardano to maintain a presence at Token2049, I do not trust EMURGO to manage these funds responsibly. The requested amount remains excessive, especially given current market conditions and the price of ADA.
Before seeking additional treasury resources for events and travel, EMURGO should first demonstrate their value by putting their own genesis ADA to productive use. If they have not done so already, there is little reason to believe they will begin now.

I have supported EMURGO for years and consistently voted in favor of their Catalyst initiatives. However, I have now lost faith in this founding entity for reasons that extend beyond the scope of this particular vote.
While I believe it is important for Cardano to maintain a presence at Token2049, I do not trust EMURGO to manage these funds responsibly. The requested amount remains excessive, especially given current market conditions and the price of ADA.
Before seeking additional treasury resources for events and travel, EMURGO should first demonstrate their value by putting their own genesis ADA to productive use. If they have not done so already, there is little reason to believe they will begin now.

This proposal for Peras is very expensive and features a long term delivery timeline. It is also unclear whether there is any overlap with IOG’s core developments that have already been submitted. At a minimum, the team should disclose any collaboration with Cardano’s founding entities or confirm whether they have their support.

This proposal is better suited for Project Catalyst rather than a direct treasury withdrawal through a governance action. Having supported all IOG proposals, I will now apply strict scrutiny to any initiatives that do not focus on core Cardano infrastructure.

Cardano has established itself as one of the most secure blockchains in the industry and we must keep it that way. Formal methods and the proposed tooling are essential as we enter the AI era, where discovering system vulnerabilities becomes accessible to a much wider audience. This is a smart and necessary investment to ensure our ecosystem remains strong and resilient.

==========================================

In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano.

I approve IOG’s proposal for the ongoing maintenance of Cardano Core, in collaboration with Ensurable Systems. Cardano has successfully withstood numerous attacks in the past, demonstrating strong resilience and we must continue investing in its security to ensure it remains robust and unhackable in the face of evolving threats.

==========================================

In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano.

My only objection to this proposal concerns the current state of Midgard. The project has already received substantial funding in the past through treasury withdrawals and Catalyst, yet we have seen very limited updates from the development team and significant delays. In particular, it is claimed that all Catalyst milestones have been delivered, but without officially submitting the SoM completion. Over the coming days, I will closely monitor the explanations provided by the team, as requested by many DReps. Should any concerning issues arise, I will not hesitate to change my vote to No (although I do not expect that to be necessary).

==========================================

In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano.

I support the three proposed workstreams, as they are essential for enhancing Plutus capabilities, strengthening its security and developing the new compiler.
I also endorse IOG’s joint venture with VacuumLabs.

==========================================

In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano.

I appreciate the design and security model proposed by Pogun. The experienced individuals named to the product committee and advisory board further increase my confidence in the project’s potential for success.
Most importantly, I am particularly encouraged by their commitment to consistently returning revenue to the treasury.

We cannot afford for our primary service provider to underperform. Through this funding, we recognize Blockfrost’s invaluable contribution in providing free API services to developers for years and fully support its continued evolution to meet the demands of the next phase, particularly with the upcoming Leios upgrade.

==========================================

In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano.

Leios is absolutely essential for Cardano’s long term scalability. I strongly support every effort to bring it to production as quickly as possible. It represents the final missing piece needed to fully resolve the blockchain trilemma and equip our ecosystem to meet the demanding requirements of the coming era of large scale commercial blockchain infrastructure.

==========================================

In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos, and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano.

The three proposed workstreams, as detailed and analyzed in this proposal, appear essential for multiple critical components of the Cardano ecosystem. It is clear to me that we need all three, as the strong justifications explained.

==========================================

In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos, and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano.

I support IOG’s initiative to consolidate and advance developer tooling and documentation. This is a well structured plan for something critically important to the ecosystem and I believe IOG can deliver far more than the projected 30% increase in growth rate.

==========================================

In general (and this applies to all IOG proposals), I firmly believe Charles is the most capable leader to guide Cardano into its next phase. With his experience, resources, technical knowledge, his army of developers, researchers and strong personal incentive for Cardano’s long term success, I will vote in favor of everything his company proposes. I wish we had even better alternatives, but we don't, cause there aren't any.
Since I am not a technical expert (particularly in this AI driven era), I will not pretend to fully evaluate the cost of these initiatives. That said, for a blockchain with a $10 billion market cap, an annual investment of approximately $40 million in core development does not seem excessive, especially in such a fast moving and highly competitive industry. Ultimately, this level of funding only makes sense if one trusts the incentives and capabilities of the person responsible for managing these resources.
I have also carefully reviewed the arguments circulating on X against funding IOG and find them unconvincing, as they never offer any viable alternative path forward. This includes the so called “conflict of interest” concerns regarding Midnight Ambassadors who are also DReps.
For transparency, I maintain close and regular communication with my 240 delegators through our Greek DAO Discord channel and update them via YouTube videos. They fully understand and expect me to ignore the social media noise, chaos, and paranoia, and instead follow common sense and what is genuinely best for Cardano.

Both the Cardano Summit and our presence at Token2049 are important and strategically well-placed, especially with the Summit being held in Singapore.
However, given the significant amount of treasury funds involved (and particularly since the Summit allocation is double last year’s projection) I do not understand why these are bundled into a single governance action rather than presented separately. This proposal comes at a sensitive time when the community is exercising heightened scrutiny over treasury spending, amid ongoing mistrust toward the founding entities regarding multiple DRep accounts and the use of genesis ADA as voting power. I would like to see both events take place, but the current timing for committing treasury funds to support them is not ideal.

Node diversity, light wallet infrastructure and an easy & efficient smart contract programming language. It's a YES from me!

The Cardano Foundation's info action seeking community approval for transitioning the Catalyst processes demonstrates genuine respect for the community. I strongly approve this step forward for our ecosystem's most vital funding mechanism. I also recognize the numerous challenges and shortcomings in the current Catalyst model. At the same time, I have observed the Catalyst team's consistent efforts over the years to iterate, refine, and improve the system.
I hold high hopes for this evolution and place my trust in the Cardano Foundation to execute the transition thoughtfully and effectively, in the best interest of the entire ecosystem.

I appreciate the structure and concept of this proposal, especially since it is presented by the Cardano Foundation in collaboration with Draper University. It is time to launch this initiative. We will monitor their activities and evaluate their efforts through our votes on future treasury withdrawal requests. I understand those who oppose this proposal, but I would like to hear viable alternatives for addressing this critical aspect of our ecosystem.

Having previously voted in favor of the initiative to utilize treasury funds for boosting our ecosystem's liquidity, I support this first stage, which encompasses establishing all necessary legal and technical infrastructure at a reasonable cost of 800,000 ADA.
Let's proceed!

Blink Labs is undoubtedly an excellent team, and node diversity remains a crucial element for Cardano’s long term security and resilience. Given the current stall in Catalyst funding and the importance of prioritizing core Cardano development over scattered projects, I believe this proposal represents a strong and strategic use of treasury resources. I support it as a worthwhile investment in the ecosystem’s foundational infrastructure.

I appreciate this info action, as it signals the maturation of our ecosystem and the evolution of Intersect as its administrative arm, now streamlining governance processes more effectively. The proposed budget framework and staging approach, as outlined, are logical and well considered. I will support it.
While its true effectiveness will only become clear once implemented in practice, this represents a meaningful step forward in reducing spam and achieving more professional, structured execution of our governance processes.

I support the Amaru project, as node diversity is essential for maintaining a resilient and robust ecosystem.

I support maintaining the current minimum of 7 Constitutional Committee members. Reducing this number to five, is both risky and unnecessary.

I support the allocation of 300 million ADA for a 100 epoch NCL, but I will be highly selective regarding actual treasury withdrawals. As this is essentially the second year of our on chain governance, we have gained substantial insights, leaving no excuses for misallocating community funds.

Given that two Intersect committees agree that this parameter change will benefit the Cardano ecosystem, particularly DApp development and since it has been thoroughly tested, I trust and support their decision to increase the memory limit.

I appreciate the legal and governance structure of the stablecoin initiative. Since I already voted positively on the previous info action, I will support this first treasury withdrawal.

I never met Max, but I do appreciate all his work and love for the Cardano ecosystem

I agree to the initial allocation of 350 million ADA for 500 days, as our new NCL. As always, this does not mean we will necessarily expend the full amount.
I will evaluate and vote on future treasury withdrawals on a case by case basis with careful consideration. This is a pivotal year, during which DReps (and the Cardano community supporting them) have gained substantial experience in governance processes and prioritizing genuine ecosystem needs. I am highly optimistic about Cardano's growth, particularly as this is only the second year of our governance system.

This proposal is better suited for a Catalyst submission rather than a direct treasury withdrawal. While I admire the DeltaFi team, the requested amount seems excessive at this time, especially since numerous teams have already received substantial ADA funding for Hydra implementations, and we are still awaiting tangible results from them.

I support the proposed changes to the Constitution and concur with Emurgo's objections regarding the wording used in the previous version.

Intersect's Product Committee has done exceptional work in defining our strategic, unified vision for Cardano. I am very optimistic and excited about the future of our ecosystem!

The rules for CC member voting did not specify a runner up position. However, I am always in favor of improvising, to safeguard against future delays and bureaucratic hurdles. Maintaining the minimum number of CC members means stalling all governance processes and repeated elections if another member retires. Additionally, Christina gathered more individual votes, despite lower overall voting power. After careful consideration, I support the initiative to add her to the Constitutional Committee.

The Cardano community decided for the new CC member through a fair process.

Our interests are aligned and I definitely trust the entities involved. Absolutely YES, and Good Luck!

I will support the initiative from the founding entities and await the official treasury withdrawal governance action for more details, as indicated in this info action.
Notably, Tether, Circle, and Chainlink are not mentioned by name, and no costs for these integrations are provided. I believe the entities may have a strategic plan they prefer not to reveal publicly just yet.
Ultimately, it is a matter of trust at this stage, and I do trust all of them.

I want no part in this approach.
There are far better ways to promote the Snek IP than paying exchanges to list it closer to absent retail. I will abstain from voting, as my delegators are divided and it’s impossible to satisfy everyone. For the record, I strongly disapprove of the Snek community’s threats toward DReps and manipulative tactics to secure votes. This is not what I signed up for. Let’s hope everything resolves well. While I respect Snek’s success, it’s unfortunate that a meme coin holds the highest market valuation in our ecosystem. True success lies in building transformative solutions to replace the current system.

Thank you for your work in the early stages and regarding the lost funds, I hope the community will unite in agreeing to facilitate the refund.

While I appreciate the time and effort required to serve as a CC member, the proposed 200,000 ADA compensation for five members/entities, with no allocation for the other two individuals, is excessive. I would support a maximum of 20,000 ADA per year per entity, contingent on unanimous agreement among all CC members. I believe Phil and KtorZ should have the option to donate their share to charity if they choose, but their agreement on this matter is essential, as it sets a precedent for future compensation discussions, such as those involving DReps.

I support the Cardano Foundation's initiative to register and utilize the two gTLDs, particularly since the Foundation will fund and manage the costs using its own ADA holdings. My sole concern is the absence of details on average domain pricing for potential buyers compared to existing market rates. Nevertheless, I have faith that all aspects will be executed in the collective interest of the Cardano ecosystem.

I extend my sincere thanks to those responsible for updating the constitution. Each new version marks another step in the right direction. Thank you all for your dedicated efforts.

GovTools is an essential community tool, so I must support the treasury withdrawal.
I hope the fund administrator will ensure no community funds are wasted and will also extend support to similar community tools, such as the Tempo app.

The informational action, likely submitted by a member of Intersect's product committee, enables DReps to provide feedback on chain. I appreciate the general concept, as it theoretically represents the appropriate path forward. However, it holds no real value unless executed effectively in practice, which is the hard part.
Regarding the text, I would prefer greater emphasis on the needs of the average person, along with guiding principles such as personal data protection (via Midnight) and transforming the current status quo. While partnerships with enterprises, KPIs, and similar elements are valid, Cardano is fundamentally a tool for the people, yet the text lacks sufficient focus on this human centered aspect.

I strongly support this initiative, as it aligns with the direction our ecosystem needs. With less than 35 million ADA to be converted into stables, this represents a bold and essential first step. We must lead in investing in our DeFi platforms and stablecoins, rather than lagging behind. I also endorse the 9 person committee structure, the process for selecting the DeFi protocol, the monthly revenue returns to the treasury, the involvement of DReps, and the composition of the interim committee!
Overall, a thoughtfully designed proposal.

That said, a few aspects warrant clarification from the team.
I am dissatisfied with the rationale for prioritizing fiat backed stablecoins. The explanation that "it made more sense" lacks sufficient depth, particularly amid concerns raised by other DReps about potential conflicts of interest. I would like a clearer justification for not opting to mint assets like $DJED and $SHEN, for instance. Additionally, I have questions about the legal structures required for a decentralized protocol's token within a decentralized DeFi platform. I anticipate the committee will provide more detailed information in their next governance action.

With that in mind, I will vote YES on this initial informational action, in eager anticipation of the subsequent steps.

While I admire the team behind this proposal, I will not support additional treasury withdrawals this year unless they offer truly innovative contributions. Unfortunately, additional workshops, events, town halls, and hackathons do not qualify. I believe this proposal is better suited for Catalyst.

I will support the updated version of Snek's info action. However, when the treasury withdrawal is proposed, I require more than an extended narrative praising the Snek token and its community. We all recognize Snek's strong community and their incentives to repay the loan. The key question is: How will they generate revenue? Vague references to "Snek product revenues and business ventures" are insufficient. We need detailed information to assess the loan's viability. I remind everyone that the loan is denominated in ADA, which could equate to $15 – $20 million at ATH, for eg. Finally, I would like to understand why the team is not utilizing one of our lending platforms for this loan, as that would directly contribute to the Cardano ecosystem.

I support the removal of the Budget Info Action requirement. We have multiple protecting mechanisms, but this was less helpful and more time consuming.

While I am not entirely opposed to funding exchanges to list a specific coin, the Snek proposal lacks transparency, accountability, and a clear strategic plan beyond paid advisors. Additionally, I am concerned by the Snek community's tactics, which appear to pressure DReps with their collective voting power, contradicting their claim that the proposal benefits the entire Cardano ecosystem and not only the Snek project. Moreover, as the proposal is unconstitutional, further in depth analysis is unnecessary.

While I am not entirely opposed to funding exchanges to list a specific coin, the Snek proposal lacks transparency, accountability, and a clear strategic plan beyond paid advisors. Additionally, I am concerned by the Snek community's tactics, which appear to pressure DReps with their collective voting power, contradicting their claim that the proposal benefits the entire Cardano ecosystem and not only the Snek project. Moreover, as the proposal is unconstitutional, further in depth analysis is unnecessary.

I am unfamiliar with the vendor, and the proposal for $900,000 to fund Cardano pavilions lacks sufficient detail. Given the current focus on core technology development, I cannot support this withdrawal. I would reconsider if the vendor submitted a detailed proposal through Catalyst with clear objectives and justifications.

I will not support funding exchanges to list Cardano Native Tokens (CNTs). While it might be reasonable if technical challenges were present, CNTs operate similarly to ADA, making their integration into exchanges straightforward and negating the need for such payments.

Our governance system undoubtedly requires continuous research and improvement, and I believe IO's Voltaire team is the ideal vendor for this task. I fully support their efforts to enhance Cardano's governance framework.

I have chosen to support core Cardano technology developed by established teams and community members who have consistently demonstrated their dedication and expertise, particularly through the bear market. However, while the Haus team's project shows significant promise, their requested funding amount is excessive. I believe their proposal would be better suited for consideration among the upcoming Catalyst proposals in Fund 14.

I am disappointed by the vendor's concerns about Cardano's low branding visibility and lack of strategic partnerships, as they, as two thirds of the founding entities, share responsibility for these shortcomings. Nevertheless, I will support their efforts but will closely monitor their projected outcomes to ensure accountability.

Python's popularity and significance make a lightweight library solution for Python developers highly valuable. I support this proposal to enhance Cardano's accessibility for Python developers.

Python's widespread use and importance justify supporting smart contract tooling for Python developers. I endorse this proposal to enhance Cardano's accessibility and functionality for the Python developer community.

Though the requested amount is substantial, I acknowledge the need to bolster our stablecoins and enhance on- and off-ramp tooling. Considering the projected cost-effectiveness and the team's expertise, I will support the withdrawal.

Intersect's product committee, composed of elected members with business and market expertise, is well positioned to drive Cardano's roadmap research. I support their efforts to advance the ecosystem.

Scala is a vital language in the financial sector, and the vendor's tooling will enable Web 2 developers to seamlessly build on Cardano. Additionally, Oleksandr's extensive expertise and proven track record in the field inspire confidence in the proposal's potential for success.

Eternl has proven to be a reliable wallet over the years, and its contributions to the Cardano ecosystem are undeniable. However, allocating such a substantial amount to a single wallet seems disproportionate when our ecosystem benefits from a diverse range of wallets. I would prefer supporting a more balanced distribution of ADA across the top 5-10 wallets, for instance. Additionally, before endorsing this proposal, I would require further clarification, such as details on any revenue generated by the app that could offset the proposed 30k ADA monthly cost.

The 11 million ADA proposal from a team I am less familiar with lacks sufficient detail on how the funds will be allocated across the 11 proposed bullet points. As a DRep, I find it challenging to evaluate the total cost without deeper technical expertise, and I believe many DReps share this concern. I would support reviewing each of the 11 points individually to ensure transparency and justify the substantial funding request.

Maestro's advanced tooling, including its high performance UTXO indexing APIs and managed smart contract solutions, will significantly enhance Bitcoin DeFi and smart contract capabilities while strengthening the Cardano Layer 2 ecosystem (Midgard, etc).

The Builder DAO initiative is a promising endeavor to unite our ecosystem's brightest minds and streamline bureaucracy in the Voltaire era. The team's thoughtful response to Cardano Yoda's insightful and constructive criticism has convinced me of their dedication and aligned incentives, earning my support.

This proposal offers a valuable open-source, lightweight data node developed by a skilled team, enabling diverse applications for developers within the Cardano ecosystem. I support it for its potential to enhance accessibility and efficiency.

I will support all proposals from Anastasia Labs, including this one, as they provide, maintain, and update a valuable open-source library.

The proposed amount is significant, and I would not support the withdrawal without a detailed budget for each outcome. However, as Intersect is the vendor, we must trust them for now and assess their performance later.

I support Ada Stat, a valuable tool with an excellent interface. The proposed budget is reasonable, especially considering it covers a two-year period.

I endorse the SDKs developed by TxPipe, a reliable and trusted contributor to the Cardano ecosystem.

The TxPipe team has consistently demonstrated reliability over the years, and I trust them to deliver high-quality Rust tooling for the Cardano ecosystem.

The proposed budget for the Cardano Summit appears excessive, as ticket sales and sponsorships should offset most costs in a European city. Furthermore, the lack of financial transparency for the "regional tech events" raises concerns. While I recognize the value of an annual Cardano event, I cannot support this withdrawal.

The proposed amount is substantial, and I would not support such a withdrawal without clearly defined outcomes. However, as Intersect is the vendor, we must place trust in them for now and evaluate their performance later.

BloxBean has demonstrated expertise in developing Java tooling for the Cardano ecosystem, and their proposal appears well-justified and cost-effective. Therefore, I will support their proposal.

MLabs is an exceptional team that actively supports and contributes to Cardano's core infrastructure. I will support all their proposals.

Node diversification is not a top priority but remains a valuable feature. Implementing TypeScript will enhance the network's reliability, resilience, and manageability for new developers entering the ecosystem.

Allocating 300,000 ADA for UI improvements to the Ledger app is an excessive amount.

Blockfrost delivers a secure and reliable API infrastructure and deserves support.

IOG possesses the skilled engineers, expertise, experience and commitment to further enhance our capabilities.

Researching alternative voting mechanisms is essential not only for Catalyst but also for the wider blockchain ecosystem.

I endorse all proposals incorporating zero-knowledge solutions and technologies.

I endorse all proposals incorporating zero-knowledge solutions and technologies.

I support the IOG team's expertise to advance the Cardano roadmap through their proposed research initiatives.

Midgard is an essential piece for L2s, higher throughput and advanced decentralized applications

Catalyst is a great community tool, there is a dedicated team behind it and should be supported!