Victor.Villagomez

• Not clear ROI given my criteria bulletin points below
• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

This proposal does pass my filters below which prioritize adoption.

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Not clear ROI given my criteria bulletin points below
• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Not clear ROI given my criteria bulletin points below
• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Wasn't clear to me why for profit hardware wallet companies rely on ADA treasury for maintenance.
• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

I typically vote No on treasury withdrawals to protect the shrinking runway (~1.51–1.62B ADA left, with the 350M NCL risking a ~21% drawdown). However, this Hydra proposal is a clear exception. Hydra is Cardano’s flagship Layer 2 solution and one of the most important pieces for real scalability and adoption. Strong L2 support will drive significantly higher transaction volume, which directly increases protocol fees and brings meaningful long-term revenue back into the treasury. Unlike many general infrastructure asks, this directly addresses a core bottleneck (throughput and low-cost execution) while positioning Cardano for revenue-generating use cases. Given Hydra’s proven progress and its potential to multiply on-chain activity, I’m supporting this targeted investment.

Read an argument from a fellow Drep that sway me against this change:
"RCADA also remains cautious about voting dynamics at a smaller committee size. Under the current two-thirds threshold, a seven-member committee requires 5 constitutional votes to approve, while a five-member committee requires 4. At five members, inactivity or opposition from a small number of members can have a larger effect on whether governance actions progress."

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. 1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. 1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. 1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives — especially RWAs and revenue-generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. 1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives — especially RWAs and revenue-generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. 1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives with clear milestones, revenue/ADA return mechanisms, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. 1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% treasury drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives with clear milestones, revenue/ADA return mechanisms, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

This proposal funds critical forward-looking research across three balanced pillars: human centered design, scalability, and post-quantum security. While I remain cautious on broad treasury spending and believe quantum threats are still 8–15+ years away, proactive work on post-quantum primitives and Ouroboros migration is prudent long-term insurance for a chain built to last decades. The scalability and developer experience components directly tackle real adoption bottlenecks like usability, throughput, and friction that go beyond generic infrastructure. At ~₳33M this is a significant but contained allocation for a full-year program with clear deliverables (papers, prototypes, and CIPs). IO Research has a proven track record on foundational work. This is an exception to my usual fiscal discipline stance because it strengthens Cardano’s core competitiveness and future-proofing.

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. 1.51 - 1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% treasury drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives with clear milestones, revenue/ADA return mechanisms, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

• Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. 1.51–1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% treasury drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
• Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
• Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
• Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives with clear milestones, revenue/ADA return mechanisms, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.

This year we have spent too much from the treasury already and ADA's constant weakness against USD is not helping. 1 ADA = 0.22 USD at the time of writing. We must protect the treasury until situation is more favorable.

This year we have spent too much from the treasury already and ADA's constant weakness against USD is not helping. 1 ADA = 0.22 USD at the time of writing. We must protect the treasury until situation is more favorable.

This year we have spent too much from the treasury already and ADA's constant weakness against USD is not helping. 1 ADA = 0.22 USD at the time of writing. We must protect the treasury until situation is more favorable.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳13 M) is important Treasury related improvement work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure.
To be clear, I do support this initiative, just not right now.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳3.6 M) is important SDK improvement work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on most treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳27.7M) is a clear exception. It directly funds production hardening of Leios and shared L2 infrastructure which is exactly the type of high-priority critical scaling work I support.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential infrastructure like IO Hydra L2, Leios, or deliverables required to advance key partnerships such as Midnight.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳62 M) is important infrastructure work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on most treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳10.4M) is a clear exception. It directly funds production hardening of Hydra, the mainnet launch of Midgard, and shared L2 infrastructure which is exactly the type of high-priority critical scaling work I support.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential infrastructure like IO Hydra L2 or deliverables required to advance key partnerships such as Midnight.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳13 M) is important infrastructure work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳11.8M) is important infrastructure work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳7.9M) is important infrastructure work, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.
I will continue voting YES only on the highest-priority items that directly strengthen essential scaling and partnership infrastructure.

I'm increasingly concerned about Cardano's overall treasury spend rate, especially following the recent approval of the Draper/Dragon Orion Fund. To provide a necessary counter-balance, I am defaulting to NO on treasury withdrawals at this time.
This proposal (₳12.29M for Bitcoin DeFi credit market, yield platform, and bridge) is interesting and aligns with growth ambitions, but it does not meet my strict criteria for approval right now. It is not core/critical infrastructure such as IO Hydra L2 production hardening or deliverables directly required to advance the Midnight partnership.

I'm starting to get really concerned about our spend rate. Especially after the Draper deal. So I'm starting to vote no on withdrawals just on principle in order to provide a counter weight (as small as my vote might be). I will only vote yes on withdrawals that are very high priority.

First and foremost, I want to make it absolutely clear that this vote is not a reflection on the Harmonic Laboratories (HLabs) team or their capabilities. I respect their significant contributions to the Cardano ecosystem, particularly the TypeScript tooling that many developers rely on daily, and their ongoing work toward greater decentralization in application development.

The technical value of a production-ready TypeScript light node (Gerolamo) and a new imperative smart contract language (Pebble), along with hard-fork maintenance, is clear in principle and could support long-term client diversity and developer accessibility.

However, at this moment in Cardano’s lifecycle, I believe we are effectively in survival mode. The network continues to face pressing challenges around adoption, treasury sustainability, fierce competition from better-funded chains, real-world utility scaling, and risks to decentralization and growth. In my view, treasury funds should be reserved almost exclusively for proposals that directly address life-or-death priorities for Cardano. These include critical security fixes, consensus upgrades for scalability and security, immediate adoption drivers, DeFi liquidity incentives that strengthen on-chain activity, regulatory and compliance tooling, or defenses against centralization threats.

While Gerolamo and Pebble represent valuable R&D for node and language diversity, I do not see funding 12 months of this work (at over ₳8 million) as a current survival priority. We already have multiple node efforts underway, and with the treasury trending toward depletion, we must be extremely disciplined in how we allocate scarce resources.

Transferring stewardship from IOG to the CF will help ensure continuity and long-term sustainability of community funding. Lately, the Cardano Foundation has delivered several clear wins for the community including strong governance progress, successful startup accelerator partnerships supporting 70+ projects, new developer tools and challenges, cross-chain liquidity improvements (such as USDCx), and effective enterprise adoption initiatives. I believe they are well-positioned to run Catalyst efficiently going forward.

I largely agree with the thoughtful concerns raised by ArmyofSpies in his earlier vote rationale (https://x.com/ArmyofSpies/status/1977565495302996409). Additionally, the IOG-led Pentad is already executing a more coordinated and promising set of initiatives to boost liquidity and DeFi infrastructure on Cardano, most notably through the Critical Integrations Budget, which has successfully delivered USDCx and related stablecoin infrastructure. We should focus our limited resources on supporting and scaling these existing efforts rather than creating parallel structures with extra overhead.

While structured coordination has merits, it risks tilting power toward organized actors and reducing the natural friction that protects against capture in decentralized systems.

First and foremost, I want to make it absolutely clear that this vote is not a reflection on the Amaru team or their capabilities. I have full respect for their track record in the ecosystem, their contributions to open-source tools, and pushing for node diversity are valuable and well regarded. The long term benefits of a modular, fully interoperable, block-producing node in Rust with lower hardware requirements, better accessibility for SPOs/developers, and enhanced network robustness is not in doubt here. The team has strong credentials, and their work deserves support in principle. However, at this moment in Cardano's lifecycle, I believe we are effectively in survival mode. The network faces ongoing challenges around adoption, treasury sustainability, competition from VC backed chains, real-world utility scaling, and existential risks to decentralization and growth. In my view, treasury funds should be reserved almost exclusively for proposals that directly address life-or-death priorities for Cardano. Examples of what I consider life-or-death priorities include: critical security fixes, consensus upgrades for scalability/security (e.g., Leios integration), immediate adoption drivers, DeFi liquidity incentives, regulatory/compliance tooling, or defenses against centralization threats.

First and foremost, I want to make it absolutely clear that this vote is not a reflection on the Blink Labs team or their capabilities. I have full respect for their track record in the ecosystem, their contributions to open-source tools, and pushing for client/language diversity are valuable and well-regarded. The technical quality and potential long-term benefits of a mature Go-based node are not in doubt here. The team has strong credentials, and their work deserves support in principle. However, at this moment in Cardano's lifecycle, I believe we are effectively in survival mode. The network faces ongoing challenges around adoption, treasury sustainability, competition from VC-Eipstein cabal chains, real-world utility scaling, and existential risks to decentralization and growth. In my view, treasury funds should be reserved almost exclusively for proposals that directly address life-or-death priorities for Cardano. Examples of what I consider life-or-death priorities include: critical security fixes, consensus upgrades for scalability/security, immediate adoption drivers, DeFi liquidity incentives, regulatory/compliance tooling, or defenses against centralization threats.

These are tough times and sadly do require austerity measures. I agree with the logic of staying below previous year inflows. Stay strong, we'll be the ecosystem that survives!

While the DeltaDeFi team is competent and Hydra development is valuable for Cardano, the treasury should not subsidize operational costs or scaling for a single commercial DEX at this scale, especially amid ongoing treasury depletion, low inflows, and ADA price pressures. Direct funding risks picking winners in a competitive market (e.g., vs. Minswap) and lacks clear strategies for attracting liquidity/users/market makers, which are outside the team's control. Projects like this should pursue Project Catalyst, private loans or even treasury loans (as seen with SNEK). Reserve treasury resources for neutral public goods, protocol-level infrastructure, and critical ecosystem needs. Let's prioritize fiscal discipline now to protect long-term sustainability.

The proposed cap allows excessive treasury spend velocity over the next ~16–17 months, especially with current ADA price action making large withdrawals riskier in terms of market impact, sell pressure narrative, and long-term sustainability. We must prioritize fiscal discipline and conserve funds during this transitional phase. I advocate for a reduced 200–250M ADA limit to enforce better prioritization and alignment with conservative inflow projections. That said, I'm optimistic: Midnight's privacy features and potential Clarity Act passage in the US could drive real adoption, higher fees, and treasury growth soon. Let's position ourselves strongly for that turnaround by protecting reserves now.

Seems like an excellent way to honor the legacy of steemed Cardano community member.

Cardano's DeFi and dApp ecosystem needs room to grow, current Plutus memory limits can bottleneck complex smart contracts and innovative development. This modest, tested increase reduces friction for builders, improves UX, and unlocks more scalable applications without significant performance risks (validated on testnets, recommended by Parameter Committee & Intersect TSC). Initial conservative settings make this a logical, reversible step forward. Let's empower developers!

While I support enhancing Cardano DeFi and stablecoin liquidity long-term, this initial spend on setup (including Cayman legal entity costs) is premature. With the U.S. Clarity Act markup actively underway, debating critical rules on stablecoin yields, DeFi interfaces, and asset certification that could directly impact Cardano's ecosystem, we should conserve treasury funds for targeted regulatory advocacy, legal defenses, or compliance initiatives if/when needed. Let's hold off until regulatory clarity emerges and revisit with stronger safeguards. This is consistent with my previous No vote on the respective budget proposal.

These changes represent sensible housekeeping and improvements that make the Constitution clearer, more consistent, and easier to interpret without altering its core principles or weakening protections. Removing redundant mechanisms like the Budget Info Action reduces complexity in governance workflows, while directly embedding audit and transparency requirements into treasury actions maintains (and arguably strengthens) accountability.
Reverting the three contested wordings to accommodate EMURGO's concerns is a pragmatic step toward unity.

I endorse the Cardano 2030 Vision and Strategy. This community-led framework, developed through an extensive and repeatable process involving over 700 participants, provides a clear shared direction for Cardano's future. Most importantly for my role, the defined Strategic Pillars and associated KPIs offer an essential measuring stick and guidance, enabling DReps like myself to more effectively evaluate proposals, allocate treasury resources, and ensure initiatives align with our long-term goal of becoming the most secure, reliable, and censorship-resistant blockchain for mission-critical applications. This non-binding strategic tool will empower better-informed governance decisions without imposing restrictions, fostering focused and coherent ecosystem growth.

I support this community-initiated Update Committee action to add an additional Constitutional Committee member because it strengthens governance resilience by keeping the committee size above the minimum threshold of 7. This provides essential redundancy, reducing the risk of ratification delays or governance paralysis if a member resigns or retires mid-term. It is a prudent, low-risk measure that enhances operational continuity within Cardano's permissionless framework, balances representation between individuals and councils, and safeguards smooth on-chain governance without overriding prior community decisions.

My previous YES vote on the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget highlighted the unprecedented alignment of the five core entities and the essential role of critical infrastructure (stablecoins, custody/wallets, analytics, bridges, and oracles) in driving Cardano's growth. This withdrawal simply releases the ₳70M funding already approved by the community. It's the logical and necessary follow-through.

I vote yes with the following understanding:

• Maintains continuity in treasury operations without increasing the overall spending cap—all prior withdrawals continue to count against the original 350M ADA limit.
• Preserves the community-agreed guardrails under Article IV of the Cardano Constitution, ensuring fiscal responsibility and sustainability.
• Provides a brief bridge period while the community prepares and socializes a new Net Change Limit for 2026, avoiding any unnecessary governance vacuum.

This proposal represents a historic and unmissable opportunity for Cardano: for the first time ever, all five founding and core entities: Input | Output Global, Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Midnight Foundation, and Intersect are actively aligned and working together on a single, high-impact initiative, with representatives from each forming a neutral Steering Committee.

Stablecoins, Institutional Digital Asset Custodies and Wallet Infrastructures, On-chain Analytics Platforms, Cross-Chain Bridges, Pricing Oracle Infrastructures: These are not “nice-to-haves” but are the essential public utilities that every successful Layer-1 ecosystem needs. Without them, Cardano remains isolated and under-utilized despite its world-class technology and governance.

Reasons I voted Yes
Moral: Punishing the first governance pioneer for a node bug feels not good for Karma.
Precedent: Sounds like BigPey and Atrium ran into similar issue and they got refunded.
Cost: 103k ADA = 0.0003% of the treasury. Rounding error.
Signal: Cardano keeps promises and fixes its own mistakes.

As a DRep who voted YES on the original Snek budget proposal, I reaffirm my support for this treasury loan. That vote backed a bold, self-funded push to list Cardano-native tokens on Tier 1 exchanges—this follow-up executes that vision with a repayable structure I respect. It’s not a grant, it’s a loan with 2.44% interest, staking-aligned and accountability-driven. I stand by my stance: meme coin culture is toxic, but SNEK earns its exception as a grassroots, non-VC project that channels hype into real ecosystem growth. This proposal honors that ethos and sets a precedent for treasury loans over handouts. Let’s keep building Cardano with skin in the game.

I support this proposal because securing the .ada and .cardano gTLDs represents a strategic opportunity to strengthen Cardano’s digital identity and bridge Web2 and Web3. It’s especially encouraging that the Cardano Foundation is funding this initiative entirely from its own resources, minimizing financial risk to the community. The commitment to transparency and community guidance through an advisory group further reinforces trust in the proposal’s long-term value.

I vote NO. CC must prove value first. DReps serve unpaid — lead by example. At least not now. Lets reconsider next year.

Voting yes understanding that v2.3 turns treasury requests from a two-step, process into a single vote. Vote less. Trust more. Govern better.

Overall, this is a solid, forward-thinking blueprint that evolves Cardano from "research lab" to "global infrastructure powerhouse" without abandoning its ethos.

I voted YES on the Budget Info Action because I believe GovTool is essential for Cardano’s decentralized governance, enabling ADA holders like me to engage as DReps with accessible, open-source tools. My YES vote for this Treasury Withdrawal of ₳1.15M follows through on that commitment. GovTool’s 50k+ users, global reach, and integrations (e.g., 1694.io, tempo.vote) prove its value, and the community-driven roadmap—addressing DRep coalitions, voting history, and API expansions—strengthens Voltaire’s vision. The budget is lean (~₳96k/month), with smart contract oversight and unused funds returning to the Treasury. As GovTool onboarded me as a DRep, I trust this funding will sustain and enhance its role as a public good for Cardano.

I vote No on the "Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget" proposal (50M ADA). I fully support the urgent need to boost Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem, where stablecoin liquidity lags competitors like Ethereum and Solana. Deeper liquidity would reduce slippage, strengthen on/off-ramps, and attract developers/market makers, aligning with the Cardano Foundation’s 2025 roadmap. However, critical flaws in execution, scale, and governance compel my rejection of this proposal in its current form.
My concerns are:

• Conflict of Interest (COI) Risks: The interim committee includes members with ties to specific protocols (e.g., Minswap, Snek). Without mandatory COI disclosures or recusal rules, protocol selection (max 2 per category) risks favoritism, potentially marginalizing smaller DEXs like CSWAP.
• Excessive Withdrawal Size: At 50M ADA (~14% of treasury), the scale is disproportionate for a pilot, especially given the ~350M ADA Net Commitment Limit. A smaller 25M ADA fund would better test viability while preserving treasury flexibility.
• Unclear Execution Plan: The proposal lacks a clear plan to manage risks (e.g., stablecoin depegs or protocol hacks) and doesn’t explain how protocols will be fairly chosen. Reporting is vague, and the 2-protocol limit could unfairly favor certain projects without proper testing.

I advocate for a revised proposal at ~25M ADA, incorporating mandatory COI disclosures, a clear risk management plan, and transparent protocol selection criteria. This would balance bold action with accountability. I encourage dReps to propose info actions refining these elements for a stronger v2, ensuring Cardano’s DeFi growth without undue risk.

While regional expansion is valuable, the proposal feels very vague overall, with no breakdown of the 778k ADA budget and an emphasis on events/marketing over core tech. This raises concerns amid 2025's heavy treasury spends (e.g., 263M ADA ecosystem budget). More concreteness in details would be appreciated. Prioritize protocol upgrades; request more financial transparency before approval

As a DRep dedicated to Cardano's decentralized governance, I vote YES on this 5,000,000 ADA loan from the Snek Foundation. This was a tough call—I despise meme coin culture for its speculative hype and pump-and-dump toxicity, which erodes Web3's innovative potential. Yet SNEK gets a pass as Cardano's grassroots meme coin, fully community-driven without VC involvement—a funding model I loathe for its centralized control and value extraction. SNEK's self-funded $4.5M investment in listings and tools embodies Cardano's ethos.

SNEK's track record seals it: It onboards users to the ecosystem, driving transactions when 98% of ADA idles in staking. Via snek.fun and CEX-DEX bridges, it funnels retail into DEXs, DeFi, and governance, powering up to 30% of trading volume. This sparks real growth in our low-fee chain.

I support SNEK to champion non-VC projects, proving VCs are Web3 relics amid new paths like loans and DAOs. I favor this innovative loan structure—with 2.44% interest (staking rate + premium)—over grants, as it ensures accountability.

Primarily, this YES sets a precedent: Encourage loans over "free money" requests, with risk-based interest to promote skin in the game and filter weak proposals. It advances Voltaire's vision of mature, self-sustaining governance.

I hope SNEK repays fully within 3-5 years via audits and Intersect oversight—failure would piss me off and discredit the model. But their history inspires optimism for strong returns. Let's advance Cardano responsibly.

The removal of the Budget Info Action Requirement reduces a layer of transparency and strategic alignment, raising valid concerns about potential misuse, favoritism, and governance overload. While safeguards like voting and smart contracts remain, the change shifts more responsibility to the community to vet each withdrawal, which could be challenging given current participation levels. Because I'm concerned about these risks, take my "nay" vote as a push for more consultation or alternative safeguards.

While SNEK has driven community engagement and secured notable exchange listings, its memecoin-driven approach risks prioritizing speculative hype over sustainable ecosystem growth. Cardano’s treasury should fund serious proposals with broader ROI—such as developer tooling, real-world adoption, or infrastructure scaling—that deliver long-term value to all projects, not just a single token. Allocating 5M ADA to a memecoin, even one as prominent as SNEK, may replicate volatile ‘casino’ culture seen elsewhere, diverting resources from initiatives that strengthen Cardano’s fundamentals and global competitiveness.

While SNEK has driven community engagement and secured notable exchange listings, its memecoin-driven approach risks prioritizing speculative hype over sustainable ecosystem growth. Cardano’s treasury should fund serious proposals with broader ROI—such as developer tooling, real-world adoption, or infrastructure scaling—that deliver long-term value to all projects, not just a single token. Allocating 5M ADA to a memecoin, even one as prominent as SNEK, may replicate volatile ‘casino’ culture seen elsewhere, diverting resources from initiatives that strengthen Cardano’s fundamentals and global competitiveness.

While increasing Cardano's visibility is important, this proposal risks duplicating existing treasury-funded efforts, such as the Cardano Summit 2025 (part of the broader 275M ADA ecosystem budget for events and marketing), regional tech events, and the Growth & Marketing Committee's allocations for similar outreach. It also overlaps with community hub initiatives and partnerships like Rare Evo's collaborations on side events and media for the Summit. These redundancies could lead to inefficient fund allocation—let's prioritize unique, high-impact projects over fragmented marketing spends.

Respectfully, while the intent to boost CNT liquidity and top-tier listings is understandable, I'm skeptical of prioritizing CNTs given the Solana-like 'casino gambling' culture they've enabled elsewhere—memecoin rugs, predatory pumps, and degen speculation that extract value from retail without sustainable utility. Cardano should focus on real-world adoption, not subsidizing volatile tokens that could tarnish our ecosystem. Additionally, the proposal's complexity—with layered smart contracts, off-chain legal agreements, multi-party oversight, and phased disbursements—raises risks of administrative bloat, delays, or opaque fund allocation, even with audits. Let's allocate treasury funds to simpler, less speculative initiatives that build long-term value.

The proposal to replace the Interim Constitutional Committee (ICC) with the newly elected Constitutional Committee (CC) appears to be a routine and essential step in Cardano's governance evolution, aligning with the Constitution's requirements for staggered terms and continuity.

While stablecoin infrastructure is critical for Cardano’s DeFi growth, the proposal lacks specific milestones, timelines, or technical plans to ensure delivery of complex integrations like custodian support and exchange listings. At 4M withdrawal request the bar is high. I recommend deferring this initiative until clearer deliverables and sustainability plans are provided, ensuring accountability and alignment with Cardano’s immediate needs.

Misaligned priorities and private venture subsidy: While NFTCDN aims to simplify native asset display, its focus on NFTs risks steering Cardano toward a speculative, Solana-like ecosystem, prioritizing niche use cases over robust, mission-critical applications like DeFi or scaling solutions. The Cardano ecosystem, post-Voltaire and amidst upgrades like Hydra and Leios, needs consolidation to stabilize core infrastructure before investing in supplementary tools.Moreover, NFTCDN, a private venture with a proven paid model since 2022, should seek private investment rather than public treasury funds. The proposal lacks clarity on sustainability post-18 months and fails to demonstrate broad community benefits beyond NFT-focused projects, which may not align with Cardano’s 2025 roadmap priorities of scalability and governance. With 39 competing proposals, resources should prioritize initiatives with clear, ecosystem-wide impact. I recommend deferring this until Cardano’s core systems are further solidified.

I could see myself supporting this next year but right now it feels like bad timing. While PyCardano’s goal of enabling Python developers to interact with Cardano is promising, the ecosystem is currently navigating significant governance and scaling upgrades, including the Chang and Plomin hard forks, Ouroboros Leios, and Midnight integration. With 39 proposals vying for treasury funds, Cardano needs to consolidate existing tools like Plutus and prioritize core infrastructure before investing in additional developer libraries. Deferring this initiative until the ecosystem stabilizes would ensure resources are allocated to immediate priorities, enhancing long-term stability and adoption.

I vote “Nay” on this initiative due to its untimely implementation. While enhancing Cardano’s governance is valuable, the ecosystem, fresh from the Voltaire phase, needs time to consolidate existing mechanisms like CIP-1694 and the Constitution. Launching an evaluation process with workshops and reports now risks diverting resources from stabilizing current governance structures. I recommend deferring this initiative until the ecosystem has matured further.

Respectfully, while the intent to streamline DApp development and attract Web2 developers is noted, I believe this initiative does not align with the Cardano ecosystem’s current priorities and represents an inefficient use of resources. The allocation of 650,000 ADA is substantial, particularly for a platform built on Scala, a niche programming language with limited adoption compared to more established alternatives like Haskell or even Python. Scala’s relatively small developer base and perceived complexity may not justify the investment, especially when Cardano’s existing tools, such as Plutus, already provide robust, battle-tested solutions for smart contract development. Lowering the technical barrier to attract web developers risks diluting the ecosystem’s focus on high-quality, secure, and specialized development practices, which are critical for Cardano’s mission-critical applications.

I respectfully vote "Nay" on the proposed treasury withdrawal to fund the Cardano Product Committee’s community-driven 2030 Cardano Vision and 2026 roadmap insights collection. While the goal of fostering a community-led vision through workshops and structured research is commendable, I believe the Cardano ecosystem is currently managing a high volume of initiatives, which demands focus and consolidation rather than additional undertakings.The proposal’s emphasis on workshops and broad consultation, while valuable in principle, risks diverting resources and attention from critical ongoing projects. With 39 proposals already under consideration as part of the approved budget, the ecosystem’s capacity to execute effectively could be strained by adding further activities such as in-person and remote workshops. These efforts, though potentially beneficial, are not an immediate priority and could be deferred to 2026 when the ecosystem may be better positioned to absorb additional community-driven initiatives.To ensure efficient resource allocation and maintain momentum on existing priorities, I recommend postponing this initiative until the ecosystem has greater bandwidth. For these reasons, I cannot support this treasury withdrawal at this time.

While I acknowledge the potential of OpShin to broaden developer accessibility by leveraging Python’s popularity and ease of use, I believe the Cardano ecosystem should prioritize maintaining a high technical standard for smart contract development.Cardano’s strength lies in its robust, secure, and formally verified smart contract framework, primarily built on Haskell and Plutus. These tools, though challenging to learn, ensure a level of rigor and reliability critical for decentralized applications handling significant financial and operational responsibilities. Lowering the technical barrier through Python-based solutions like OpShin risks diluting this standard by attracting developers who may lack the depth of expertise required to build secure and efficient smart contracts.While Python’s accessibility could onboard more developers, the proposal does not sufficiently address how OpShin will maintain the same level of security and performance as PlutusTx, beyond general claims of efficiency and type erasure. The Cardano ecosystem benefits most from developers who are willing to meet its high technical demands, ensuring the integrity and scalability of the network. Prioritizing accessibility over technical excellence may compromise the long-term quality of the ecosystem.

While the project’s goal of integrating real-world assets (RWAs) into Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem is promising, I believe treasury funds should prioritize core protocol development, security, and governance enhancements over commercial ventures. Haus’s experienced team and $4.1B waitlist demonstrate strong potential, but the project’s commercial nature suggests it could attract private funding, reducing the need for treasury support. Additionally, regulatory and technical risks in transitioning to Cardano, combined with the opportunity cost of diverting 3M ADA from broader ecosystem initiatives, warrant caution. I recommend exploring alternative funding models to ensure treasury resources are used for maximum community benefit.

My primary concern is that funding marketing initiatives through the treasury is an inappropriate use of community resources. The treasury should prioritize core protocol development, infrastructure, and research to ensure Cardano’s long-term sustainability and technical excellence, rather than marketing efforts that could be funded through private entities like Emurgo or external partnerships.Additionally, I am skeptical of the proposed hackathon and event-focused strategy. Hackathons often produce short-term buzz but lack sustained outcomes, and the proposed events risk diluting focus without clear metrics for success. Given the significant 6M ADA allocation, I believe more rigorous justification and alternative funding sources should be explored before committing treasury funds.

. While the projects aim to enhance Cardano’s scalability, performance, and developer tools, the 11-project scope is too complex and convoluted, lacking clear prioritization and cost breakdowns. The 11M ADA request is excessive, especially given potential overlap with IOG’s protocol upgrades and existing treasury resources. I support TWEAG’s expertise but urge a smaller, focused proposal (e.g., 2-3M ADA for Plutus and Genesis projects) to ensure feasible execution and stronger ROI. Intersect’s governance is robust, but clarity and restraint are needed for community trust.

While supporting live dApps is valuable, Cardano’s $659M treasury and Project Catalyst already provide robust funding for ecosystem growth. The 12M ADA request is substantial, and potential overlap with existing mechanisms like Catalyst or other proposals risks redundancy. I urge clearer justification on why current resources can’t support these projects and stronger evidence of execution feasibility to ensure ROI. Intersect’s governance is strong, but the scale of this proposal warrants further scrutiny.

Eternl is a trusted, community-driven wallet serving ~100,000 Cardano users with secure, multi-platform access to DeFi, staking, and governance. Its €30,000/month maintenance ensures reliability, complementing Lace’s IOG-funded model. While Lace leverages IOG’s resources, Eternl’s independent status necessitates treasury support to cover operational costs, sustaining ecosystem diversity and user choice. With Intersect’s transparent oversight, this investment drives adoption and dApp innovation, offering strong ROI for Cardano.

Plutarch is a cornerstone of Cardano’s smart contract ecosystem, enabling efficient, high-performance dApps. MLabs’ proven expertise in Haskell and Cardano infrastructure, demonstrated through Cardano.nix and Plutarch’s ongoing development, ensures reliable delivery. This modest investment will boost developer productivity, maintain compatibility with hard forks, and drive DeFi growth, offering strong ROI for the ecosystem.

Maestro’s technical capabilities are well-suited to deliver the proposed Bitcoin-Cardano integration. Their expertise in UTXO blockchains, proven Bitcoin DeFi infrastructure (e.g., ICP indexer, Saturn DEX), and extensive Cardano contributions (e.g., DEX aggregator, ISPO Marketplace) demonstrate their ability to execute the proposal’s objectives. Their enterprise-grade tools, strategic partnerships, and open-source commitment ensure reliability and scalability. The governance structure via Intersect, with audited smart contracts and third-party oversight, further mitigates risks.Based on this evidence, Maestro is technically capable of developing the proposed infrastructure, justifying a “yay” vote.

As an ADA holder and a C/C++ developer working on complex real time systems I say this: While a TypeScript-based Cardano node could attract new developers and enable decentralized dApps, I believe lowering the technical barrier risks inviting low-quality contributions that could harm Cardano’s ecosystem. High barriers, like those in Cardano’s Haskell-based node, ensure rigor and security, critical for a blockchain. The proposal’s benefits are undermined by HarmonicLabs’ unproven track record in Cardano, the technical challenges of a browser-based node, and the high cost compared to other priorities. I understand the ivory tower criticism but we are running a decentralized blockhain here, serious stuff. Not a simple web2.0 website.

With 50,000+ monthly users and robust tools for transactions, stake pools, and governance, Cexplorer.io enhances Cardano’s transparency and dApp ecosystem, justifying this investment. The team’s proven track record, delivering reliable performance since 2020 and nearing completion of Cexplorer 2.0. However, this is a one-time YES vote. I expect the vendor to pursue self-sustainability (e.g., user fees or partnerships) for future funding, as Cardano’s treasury should not repeatedly subsidize private vendors.

While I strongly support improving Cardano’s ecosystem and recognize the need for a better Ledger App user experience, I have concerns about using public treasury funds to support a project tied to Ledger, a private company. The Cardano treasury should prioritize initiatives that avoid subsidizing private entities unless there’s clear evidence of shared financial responsibility. Without transparency on Ledger’s contribution (e.g., co-funding or technical support), this proposal risks placing an undue burden on Cardano’s community resources.That said, I commend Vacuumlabs for their stellar track record in the Cardano ecosystem. Their work on AdaLite, Yoroi, WingRiders, and hardware wallet integrations demonstrates their expertise and commitment to Cardano’s success. My NAY vote is not a reflection on Vacuumlabs’ capabilities but a call for greater accountability from private-sector partners like Ledger. I encourage the community to seek clarity on Ledger’s role and resubmit this proposal with a more balanced funding model.

I vote in favor of the Dolos proposal, despite viewing it as a niche use case, as it addresses a critical need for lightweight ledger access among Cardano dApp developers. While its specialized focus on efficient data queries may not benefit all projects, Dolos’s open-source model and growing adoption (366 commits, 21 contributors) align with Cardano’s push for developer accessibility and scalability. TxPipe’s proven track record and the modest funding request for 0.625 FTE roles mitigate concerns about its narrow scope. Supporting Dolos ensures a robust tool for dApps, but clearer adoption metrics would strengthen its case for broader ecosystem impact.

I vote in favor of Intersect’s 15 million ADA proposal, though my support is on the margins due to valid community concerns about its high cost and potential overlap with efforts by IOG, Emurgo, and the Cardano Foundation. Intersect’s proven role in coordinating the Chang and Plomin hard forks and facilitating over 30 working groups demonstrates its value in enabling Cardano’s Voltaire-era decentralized governance. The transparent treasury management and third-party oversight further justify funding. However, the lack of a detailed budget breakdown and clarity on differentiation from existing entities raises questions. My support hinges on Intersect addressing these concerns through clearer communication and streamlined operations to ensure efficient use of funds for ecosystem stability and growth.

I vote against the ZK Bridge proposal requesting 700,000 ADA due to significant overlap with Input Output Global’s (IOG) ongoing ZK bridge development for Midnight, Cardano’s privacy-focused partner chain, set for mainnet launch in early 2025. While Eryx’s expertise and the proposal’s focus on a modular, open-source toolkit are commendable, funding a parallel effort risks redundancy and inefficient resource allocation. Without clear differentiation or a detailed plan to complement IOG’s work, the Cardano ecosystem would benefit more from consolidating efforts to enhance existing interoperability solutions.

• Need for Self-Sustainability: While AdaStat.net is a valuable blockchain explorer enhancing transparency and usability, I believe such projects should pursue self-sustaining funding models (e.g., premium features, API subscriptions, or community donations). Relying on treasury funds risks long-term strain on Cardano’s finite resources, especially when viable monetization paths exist.
• Ecosystem Competition: Cardano supports multiple blockchain explorers (e.g., CardanoScan, CExplorer), some of which operate without treasury funding. Allocating funds to AdaStat.net may favor one project over others, potentially undermining competition and decentralization in the explorer ecosystem.
• Opportunity Cost: The treasury’s 275,269,340 ADA budget funds 39 proposals, and resources allocated to AdaStat.net could be better directed toward critical protocol development or scalability solutions. Without a specified ADA amount, it’s challenging to assess the proposal’s cost-effectiveness relative to other priorities.
• Encouraging Innovation: Denying treasury funding encourages the AdaStat.net team to explore innovative revenue models, setting a precedent for other infrastructure projects to achieve financial independence. This aligns with Cardano’s goal of a sustainable, decentralized ecosystem.
• Governance Responsibility: While AdaStat.net’s contributions since 2019 are commendable, the community’s recent scrutiny of large treasury withdrawals (e.g., the 140M ADA stablecoin proposal) underscores the need for fiscal discipline. Voting "nay" prioritizes projects with clear treasury dependency and maximizes long-term ecosystem value.

I support the Lucid Evolution Maintenance proposal mainly for the following reasons:

• Alignment with Ecosystem Goals: The proposal directly supports Cardano’s developer ecosystem by maintaining Lucid Evolution, a critical open-source library for off-chain smart contract interactions.
• Essential for Network Stability: Lucid Evolution’s maintenance ensures compatibility with network upgrades, such as the Chang hard fork, preventing disruptions to major protocols like Mynth, Pondora, and Genius Yield. This strengthens Cardano’s DeFi and dApp ecosystem, a priority for our community.
• Community Approval via Governance: The proposal’s inclusion in the approved 275,269,340 ADA treasury withdrawal, validated through Cardano’s on-chain governance, reflects community consensus on its importance. The rigorous process involving DReps, SPOs, and the Oversight Committee underscores its legitimacy.
• Proven Vendor Credibility: Anastasia Labs, with over two years of contributions to Cardano’s core dApps and 50+ open-source libraries, has a strong track record. Their commitment to resolving GitHub issues, enhancing features, and improving documentation ensures reliable delivery.

The Paid Open Source Model proposal is a strategic investment to strengthen Cardano’s open-source ecosystem, addressing critical challenges that could otherwise limit growth and adoption. While the 6 million ADA request is significant, its potential to fund 50+ projects, enhance security, retain developers, and incubate new initiatives offers substantial value. The proposal’s alignment with Cardano’s Voltaire goals and robust governance mechanisms support its credibility. However, to address community concerns, the OSC should provide a clearer budget breakdown and prioritize high-impact projects. Voting “yay” as its systemic benefits outweigh the costs, provided Intersect and the OSC deliver transparent reporting and measurable outcomes. This investment could significantly boost Cardano’s developer ecosystem and long-term competitiveness.

The BloxBean Java Tools proposal offers excellent ROI due to its low cost (99,000 ADA ≈ $44,550) and high potential to enhance Cardano’s developer ecosystem. The tools (CCL, Yaci, Yaci Store, Yaci DevKit) are critical for Java, Scala, and Kotlin developers, directly supporting Android DApp development by enabling transaction handling, blockchain data retrieval, indexing, and local testing. These capabilities make it easier to build mobile wallets, DeFi apps, or NFT platforms on Android, tapping into a vast developer community. The proposal’s alignment with Cardano’s goals, BloxBean’s credibility, and robust governance via Intersect justify a “yay” vote. My hope is that this proposal provides cost-effective, high-impact support for developers, particularly for Android DApps, fostering ecosystem growth and innovation.

The UTxO RPC proposal is a reasonable and high-value investment for Cardano’s ecosystem. Its focus on simplifying developer interactions, enhancing interoperability, and supporting key projects like Lace, Mesh, and Amaru makes it a critical infrastructure component. The modest budget of 200k ADA, combined with TxPipe’s proven expertise and transparent governance processes, justifies a “yay” vote. By supporting UTxO RPC, I hope this translates to lower barriers for Cardano developers, accelerate DApp development, and strengthen its position as a scalable, developer-friendly blockchain.

zkFold ZK Rollup, while very promising, should demonstrate mainnet readiness or secure smaller funding (e.g., via Catalyst) before requesting significant treasury funds. I encourage refining the proposal with a detailed budget and clearer milestones to address its prematurity.

While the Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal aims to decentralize a key Cardano API through the Icebreakers program, I’m voting "nay" due to concerns about its necessity, unclear financials, and competing priorities. Moreover, I believe the Cardano treasury should prioritize projects with transparent budgets, immediate ecosystem impact, or support for existing decentralized alternatives like Koios. I encourage refining the proposal with a clear budget, evidence of SPO commitment, and a stronger case for why Blockfrost’s API is essential over alternatives.

While the Midgard project presents an ambitious vision for scaling Cardano through optimistic rollups, I have several concerns that lead me to vote "nay" on the proposed ~2 million ADA treasury withdrawal:

• Lack of Detailed Budget Breakdown: The proposal does not provide a clear allocation of the ~2 million ADA, making it difficult to assess whether the funds are justified or efficiently used. Without transparency on costs for development, marketing, or third-party assurance, it’s challenging to evaluate the project’s value for money.
• Development Risks and Ambitious Timeline: Midgard is still in development, and the goal of mainnet readiness by year-end is ambitious. Given the complexity of building a first-of-its-kind permissionless rollup solution, unforeseen technical challenges or delays could jeopardize delivery, potentially wasting treasury funds.
• Opportunity Cost: The ~2 million ADA is a significant portion of the treasury. Other Cardano projects, such as dApps, marketing initiatives, or infrastructure improvements, might offer more immediate or tangible benefits to the ecosystem. Prioritizing Midgard over these alternatives requires stronger evidence of its near-term impact.

I believe the Cardano treasury should prioritize projects with clearer cost breakdowns and more immediate ecosystem benefits. I encourage further refinement of the Midgard proposal, including detailed milestones and community engagement, before reconsidering funding.

I plan to vote Yay on the Cardano.nix treasury withdrawal proposal for ₳45,217 because it supports a tool critical for maintaining reliable infrastructure used by key ecosystem components, including the Daedalus Wallet, which I personally rely on. The modest funding amount is reasonable for ensuring compatibility with Cardano node updates, fixing bugs, and enhancing usability for stake pool operators (SPOs), developers, and enterprises like IOG. This aligns with Cardano’s goal of robust infrastructure, as emphasized in the Cardano Foundation’s 2023 Financial Insights Report. However, I have caveats: the proposal lacks clear data on Cardano.nix’s user base or adoption beyond niche users like IOG and Daedalus, making it hard to gauge its broader ecosystem impact. Additionally, Nix’s specialized nature may limit its appeal, and the proposal could benefit from metrics demonstrating its necessity. Despite these concerns, the low cost and direct benefit to tools I use justify my support, though I encourage more transparency on usage in future proposals.

While I think the amount seems excessive and would prefer these events been funded out of ticket sales and donations going forward, 2025 is a year of momentum and I agree this can help further boost the momentum. If it wasn't for the momentum that Cardano has picked up recently I would have voted no as I would have preferred the 6,000,000 ADA going towards technological investments rather than marketing ones.

While the Extended Quadratic Funding proposal aims to address challenges in Cardano’s Project Catalyst, I’m inclined to vote Nay because the identified problems lack clarity and urgency. The five challenges—concentrated voter power, treasury limitations, impact reporting, uncertain ROI, and milestone management—are broadly stated but not convincingly demonstrated as pressing issues requiring immediate action. For instance, Project Catalyst has already funded over 2,100 projects, suggesting the current system is functional, and there’s insufficient evidence that these issues are significantly hindering progress today. The proposed solution, while innovative, introduces complex mechanisms like quadratic voting and reputation scores that may overcomplicate the funding process without clear demand from the community. Additionally, the reliance on external donations and speculative 5% ROI projections feels optimistic and unproven, raising concerns about feasibility. Given the Cardano treasury’s finite resources, I believe funding should prioritize more immediate, well-defined needs over this experimental model, which lacks a compelling case for urgent implementation. I have nothing against the development team as they seem to be smart competent team but can't get behind this proposal. Maybe I'll support a different proposal in the future.

This maintenance work is justifiable and the amount seems reasonable for the scope of the work. Looking forward to seeing quality work come out of this workstream.

While the Pallas project offers Rust-native building blocks for Cardano, I believe this treasury withdrawal proposal does not merit funding at this time. My primary concerns stem from skepticism about Rust’s role in the Cardano ecosystem. Rust, despite its vocal proponents, has a relatively niche adoption rate compared to other programming languages, and its complexity may limit its appeal to a broader developer base. Pallas, while open-source and collaborative, primarily serves a subset of projects (e.g., Aiken, Lucid, Mithril), and the demand for Rust-based tooling does not yet justify the proposed allocation of resources for a 0.5 FTE blockchain developer and 0.125 FTE tech lead. Given the Cardano treasury’s finite resources, I believe funding should prioritize initiatives with wider adoption and broader ecosystem impact over specialized tools like Pallas that cater to a narrower, Rust-focused audience.

If someone can deliver quality research, it is The Input Output Research (IOR) arm. This seems like a good investment.

The Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output appears well-aligned with Cardano’s goals of decentralization, innovation, and community engagement. With a budget of ₳69,459,000, it supports critical initiatives like improved interfaces, decentralized infrastructure, and funding for 500-700 projects across three rounds. Given the transparent process, community feedback opportunities, and alignment with ecosystem needs, voting yes seems reasonable.

This is must have core development that will bring a return on investment for the ecosystem, end users, developers, dApp builders and stake pool operators. Input Output is no doubt the best development arm to be tackling this technological advancements and their proposal serves as a reference for the community on the level of detail that is to be expected for Treasury Withdrawals proposals.

The 380,000 ADA seems to be reasonable for a service that supports the ecosystem’s governance backbone. As a user of their platform, I'm aware this is a tool that keeps Cardano’s decentralized vision alive. Running an independent node and indexer isn’t cheap, and developing new features takes resources too. While we don’t have a detailed cost breakdown, their estimates seem plausible for the scope of work. And given that I am here today voting using their tech, I'm willing to give them a chance given their good track record so far building Cardano voting tools.

By voting "yay" I am supporting the allocation of ADA from the Treasury to fund GovTool’s development and maintenance for the next 12 months. This investment ensures that Cardano’s governance infrastructure remains robust and accessible, which is vital for the ecosystem’s success. The requested ₳1,050,500 seems reasonable given the proven track record of what they have delivered so far. If it wasn't for GovTools I wouldn't be here voting today as that's how I got onboarded as a DRep.

The Amaru Treasury Withdrawal 2025 proposal is a strategic and well-supported initiative that advances Cardano's decentralization, resilience, and growth. With endorsements from key stakeholders, a focus on transparency, and alignment with the network's core objectives, voting "yay"

Its a balancing act. We don't want deficit spending but we need to make sure to set a budget aside to fund future growth. I think this 200M limit to start off sounds more reasonable than the previous 350M proposal. My understanding is that the 350M is dangerously closer to a deficit spending path.
One of the main reasons I chose to be a Drep is to help fight the Keynesian mind virus. We can do better!

I'm hereby voting to ratify the Cardano Constitution. A lot of work by the Cardano Community precedes this moment: CIP-1694, Chang Hard Fork, Plomin Hard Fork and all of the CRWG group efforts.

Its my understanding that the Cardano Constitution offers:

• Clarity and Stability: It provides clear guidelines for governance actions, reducing ambiguity and potential for misuse of authority.
• Community Empowerment: It strengthens the role of ADA holders, DReps, and Stake Pool Operators in decision-making processes, promoting a truly decentralized governance model.
• Adaptability: The constitution allows for amendments, ensuring that governance can evolve with the ecosystem's needs and feedback from the community.

Our time is now to lead by example so voting yes for ratification.

My understanding of this governance action is as follows
"Cardano's "Ikigai". This governance action is a gesture of celebration and does not seek to make changes to the Cardano ecosystem, whether on-chain or off-chain, directly or indirectly. DReps and SPOs are encouraged to vote "YES" if they resonate with this sentiment, "NO" if they do not, or abstain if they are unsure."

I resonate with the collective wisdom, passion, and energy of the Cardano community.