Wada DRep

We support the withdrawal of ₳1,162,746 to fund the continued maintenance and enhancement of Plutarch and Ply, which we consider important developer infrastructure for the Cardano ecosystem.

Our support is primarily based on the proposal addressing a genuine and ongoing ecosystem need. Plutarch and Ply are established open-source tools used by Cardano developers, and their continued maintenance is essential as the protocol, ledger and Plutus ecosystem evolve. Sustained compatibility work, bug fixes, performance improvements, documentation and developer-experience enhancements help protect existing developer investment while reducing friction for teams building and maintaining Cardano applications.

We also view the execution team's prior experience positively. MLabs has an established history of contributing to Cardano developer tooling and has previously delivered work related to Plutarch, including protocol and Conway-era compatibility improvements. This provides confidence that the proposed work is a continuation of an existing area of technical expertise rather than an untested initiative.

The proposal is also strongly aligned with Cardano's governance objectives around adoption, utility and ecosystem development. Funding foundational open-source tooling can generate benefits beyond a single project by supporting multiple developers and applications across the ecosystem. We recognize the importance of ensuring that the substantial requested budget is supported by clear milestones, measurable deliverables and transparent accountability. Nevertheless, we believe the strategic value of maintaining this infrastructure, combined with the team's relevant track record and the ecosystem need identified, provides sufficient justification for approval.

We votes yes on this governance action to support the continued development of the Mithril Protocol, a strategically important piece of Cardano infrastructure. Mithril addresses a fundamental challenge for blockchain ecosystems: enabling fast, secure, and cryptographically verifiable access to blockchain data without requiring every user, application, or infrastructure provider to independently synchronize and process the entire chain from genesis. By enabling efficient, trust-minimized access to certified Cardano data, Mithril can reduce infrastructure barriers, support faster node and application onboarding, and reduce reliance on centralized data providers.

We consider the continued development of Mithril to be strongly aligned with Cardano's long-term governance objectives, particularly decentralization, infrastructure resilience, ecosystem adoption, and the development of open-source public goods. The protocol has demonstrated meaningful technical progress and has potential utility across a broad range of ecosystem applications, including node infrastructure, wallets, light clients, bridges, sidechains, monitoring tools, and other services requiring efficient and verifiable access to Cardano state.

The proposal also benefits from strong technical continuity. The execution team has direct experience contributing to the development of Mithril and possesses valuable knowledge of the protocol's architecture and technical requirements. Continued support for an established team working on an existing strategic infrastructure layer can reduce transition risk and preserve accumulated technical expertise.

We support this proposal because it funds critical ecosystem capabilities that are essential to the continued security, resilience, and effective governance of Cardano. We understand that the requested funding would support technical stewardship of core Cardano infrastructure, incident response, release and hard-fork coordination, governance coordination, and other critical processes that require sustained expertise and operational capacity. These are ecosystem-wide public goods whose failure could have consequences far exceeding the cost of maintaining the necessary coordination and stewardship capacity.

We consider Intersect's demonstrated execution history a significant strength of this proposal. The organization has already played an important role in coordinating major protocol upgrades, supporting technical and incident-response processes, facilitating governance activities, and contributing to the stewardship of critical open-source infrastructure. This provides a meaningful basis for confidence that the requested funding is directed toward real and ongoing ecosystem needs rather than speculative future activity.

We are also encouraged by the proposal's accountability mechanisms, including milestone-based funding, evidence-backed reporting, external assurance, and structured treasury-management controls. We believe that these mechanisms provide important safeguards for the responsible use of Treasury funds and create a framework through which progress and performance can be evaluated over the funding period.

The proposal is strongly aligned with Cardano's governance objectives. It supports the continued decentralization and maturation of the governance system, strengthens the technical resilience of the protocol, helps coordinate critical ecosystem processes, and contributes to the sustainability of the open-source infrastructure on which Cardano depends.

While we recognize the importance of continued scrutiny regarding cost efficiency, scope, organizational concentration, and long-term sustainability, we believe these considerations are best addressed through ongoing transparency, milestone reporting, and governance oversight rather than by leaving critical ecosystem functions insufficiently funded.

Having previously supported this proposal through the Intersect Hydra Voting process, we are pleased to maintain a consistent position on-chain and vote yes on this governance action.

Oura has become an important piece of Cardano's open-source infrastructure, enabling developers and infrastructure providers to efficiently consume blockchain events for indexing, analytics, monitoring, and other backend services. Maintaining this shared infrastructure reduces duplicated engineering effort across the ecosystem, supports compatibility with ongoing protocol evolution, and strengthens the developer experience for both existing and future projects. As a public good that benefits a broad range of ecosystem participants, continued maintenance of Oura aligns well with the objectives of the Cardano treasury.

We continue to encourage the team to strengthen future funding requests through more explicit success metrics, regular progress reporting, and a clearly articulated long-term sustainability strategy. Nevertheless, we consider these to be governance improvements rather than reasons to withhold support.

We vote yes on this governance action, consistent with our yes vote during the Intersect Hydra budget voting process.

We believe this proposal addresses a genuine governance need by providing sustained technical coordination and independent expertise to support Cardano's evolving governance framework. As governance decisions become increasingly technical following the implementation of CIP-1694, dedicated support for protocol governance, CIP coordination, technical reviews, and community-facing technical engagement is essential to enable informed decision-making and effective protocol evolution.

While we acknowledge that the proposal could benefit from stronger outcome-based metrics, greater budget transparency, and more explicit safeguards for reviewer independence, we consider these to be implementation improvements rather than fundamental shortcomings. The proposed work packages support critical governance infrastructure that benefits the wider ecosystem, and the planned reporting, milestone-based funding, and independent assurance mechanisms provide a reasonable level of accountability.

Our support is also guided by consistency in governance. Having previously evaluated and supported this proposal through the Intersect Hydra budget process, we believe it is appropriate to maintain that position as it progresses through the on-chain treasury withdrawal process.

We vote yes on this governance action, consistent with our support during the Hydra voting process and our broader view that maintaining critical ecosystem infrastructure is essential to Cardano's long-term security and resilience.

Hardware wallet support is foundational infrastructure that enables secure self-custody and trusted participation across the ecosystem and we believe that as the Cardano protocol continues to evolve and hardware wallet vendors release firmware updates, ongoing maintenance is necessary to preserve compatibility, ensure reliable transaction signing, and support governance participation for ADA holders, DReps, SPOs, Constitutional Committee members, and institutional users. Without sustained maintenance, protocol evolution could inadvertently disrupt access to one of the ecosystem's most important security tools.

We recognize that this proposal focuses on operational continuity rather than delivering new features. While we would have welcomed more detailed service-level metrics, budget granularity, and public reporting commitments, these shortcomings do not outweigh the importance of ensuring uninterrupted hardware wallet functionality. The requested funding supports preventative maintenance that helps avoid security, usability, and governance risks that would be significantly more costly to address after failures occur.

Our support is therefore based on the proposal's strong alignment with Cardano's objectives of security, reliability, and ecosystem resilience. We encourage the execution team to complement this work with regular public progress reports, measurable maintenance KPIs, and transparent reporting on compatibility updates and issue resolution throughout the funding period. These practices will strengthen accountability for future operational funding requests while ensuring the community can clearly assess the value delivered.

Although we voted Abstain during the Hydra voting process, our position has evolved following the broader governance discussions and the extensive due diligence conducted by the DRep community. The proposal has received strong support from DReps who carefully evaluated its technical merit, ecosystem value, execution capability, and alignment with Cardano's long-term infrastructure needs. Their analyses, together with our own subsequent review, provided additional confidence in both the importance of the work and the credibility of the execution team.

After reassessing the proposal in light of this community feedback and our own analysis, we are convinced that continued funding for Dolos represents a sound investment in Cardano's shared infrastructure. Maintaining reliable, open-source developer tooling is essential to the ecosystem's continued growth, and TxPipe has demonstrated a consistent track record of delivering and maintaining critical infrastructure. Accordingly, while our initial Hydra vote reflected a more cautious position, we have decided to vote yes on this governance action, recognizing both its value to the ecosystem and the broad consensus that has emerged among informed DReps.

We vote yes on this governance action because we believe it addresses one of the most important strategic gaps in the Cardano ecosystem: enabling seamless real-world payments through robust, production-ready infrastructure. While Cardano has made significant progress in decentralization, governance, and smart contract capabilities, it is obvious that widespread consumer and merchant payment adoption remains limited. This proposal seeks to bridge that gap by developing foundational payment infrastructure that can support real-world financial applications and expand Cardano's utility beyond traditional blockchain use cases.

A key strength of this proposal is its focus on creating reusable, open-source infrastructure rather than a single proprietary application. The proposed work including payment settlement mechanisms, account abstraction, batched transactions, wallet and API infrastructure, and payment rails has the potential to serve as a foundation upon which wallets, fintech companies, merchants, and developers can build. Investments in shared infrastructure create ecosystem-wide benefits, lower barriers to entry for future innovation, and align well with the Treasury's objective of funding public goods that generate long-term value for the entire Cardano community.

We are also encouraged by the experience of the execution team. Delivering secure and compliant payment systems requires expertise that extends beyond blockchain development into regulated financial services, payment operations, and consumer-facing products. The team's established track record in operating payment infrastructure at scale provides confidence that they possess the technical and operational capability to execute a project of this complexity. Furthermore, the proposal indicates that the execution team has not received Cardano Treasury funding within the previous 24 months, making this an opportunity to bring an experienced external contributor into the ecosystem rather than repeatedly funding existing recipients.

At the same time, we recognize that the proposal would benefit from stronger public accountability mechanisms. Greater transparency around milestone definitions, detailed budget allocations, measurable adoption targets, and long-term maintenance commitments would improve the community's ability to evaluate progress and ensure effective stewardship of Treasury resources. We encourage the execution team to provide regular public reporting, maintain transparent development practices, and ensure that all funded deliverables remain openly accessible and independently verifiable.

Despite these considerations, we believe the proposal's strategic value outweighs its shortcomings. Payments remain one of the most compelling pathways for driving sustainable on-chain activity and mainstream adoption. If successfully delivered, this infrastructure could enable new commercial applications, improve the user experience for consumers and businesses, and strengthen Cardano's position as a platform for real-world financial innovation.

Our position is also consistent with our previous support for infrastructure-focused initiatives, including our support during the Hydra funding process. In both cases, we prioritize investments that strengthen Cardano's long-term capabilities, expand opportunities for ecosystem participants, and create foundational public goods that benefit the network as a whole.

Eternl has established itself as one of the most widely used wallets in the Cardano ecosystem, providing essential infrastructure for staking, governance participation, decentralized applications, and day-to-day user interactions. Maintaining this infrastructure requires continuous engineering, security updates, protocol compatibility, user support, and governance feature development. We believe that these are ongoing operational needs that directly contribute to the health and usability of the Cardano ecosystem.

We previously abstained on the earlier version of this proposal due to concerns around governance accountability, particularly the lack of clarity regarding audit and oversight mechanisms. We appreciate that the proposers have responded constructively to that feedback in this revised submission by providing additional information on audit arrangements, improving budget context, clarifying staffing assumptions, and strengthening transparency around the use of treasury funds. This demonstrates a willingness to engage with community feedback and improve the proposal.

While we acknowledge that some concerns remain—including the need for stronger measurable KPIs, more detailed budget reporting, and a clearer long-term path toward financial self-sustainability—we do not consider these shortcomings sufficient to outweigh the ecosystem benefits of ensuring the continued maintenance and development of a critical wallet relied upon by a significant portion of the Cardano community.

We encourage the team to provide regular public progress reports, publish the outcomes of independent audits, and continue strengthening accountability and sustainability throughout the funding period. These practices will help build confidence for future treasury funding requests.

Wada DRep supports the technical improvements proposed in the Protocol Version 11 ("van Rossem") Hard Fork. In our view, the Van Rossem HF introduces meaningful enhancements to the Cardano protocol, including new Plutus capabilities, ledger improvements, and refinements that strengthen the developer experience while maintaining backward compatibility. We believe these changes represent a positive step in the continued evolution of the network.

However, we are choosing to abstain on this governance action because the timing of a hard fork is fundamentally an operational readiness decision. Stake Pool Operators (SPOs), together with the broader infrastructure ecosystem, are in the best position to assess whether they have adequately tested and deployed the required node upgrades. Their technical expertise and operational responsibility make them best suited to determine when the network is ready to safely activate the new protocol version.

Our abstention should not be interpreted as opposition to the upgrade itself. Rather, it reflects our view that the decision to proceed should primarily be informed by the readiness of the operators responsible for maintaining the network's reliability and security.

We encourage all SPOs to continue preparing for Protocol Version 11, complete the necessary testing and deployment activities, and collaborate closely with the ecosystem to ensure the upgrade can be activated smoothly once the required readiness thresholds have been met. We look forward to seeing these improvements adopted successfully when the network is operationally prepared.

We recognize the innovation behind this proposal and appreciate the effort to explore productive uses of Treasury assets rather than one-time grant spending. Strengthening liquidity for Cardano-native DeFi and creating sustainable revenue streams for the Treasury are worthwhile objectives that deserve continued exploration. However, we do not believe this proposal represents a sufficiently prudent deployment of Treasury assets under the current conditions.

Our primary concern is the proposed conversion of 9 million ADA into USDM at the outset of the deployment. Treasury stewardship requires careful consideration of the timing and opportunity cost of converting one of the ecosystem's most valuable strategic assets. At current market conditions, converting such a large amount of ADA exposes the Treasury to the risk of forfeiting significant upside should ADA appreciate during the 12-month deployment period. We believe a conversion of this nature would be considerably more responsible during periods of materially higher ADA valuations (for example, when ADA is trading above approximately $1), where fewer ADA would need to be exchanged to obtain the same amount of USDM. Such an approach would better preserve the Treasury's long-term holdings while still achieving the proposal's liquidity objectives.

Beyond the timing of the conversion, we remain concerned that the proposal asks governance to assume investment risk rather than fund a public good. Although the Treasury is intended to retain ownership of the deployed capital, the assets would become exposed to multiple layers of financial and operational risk, including market volatility, stablecoin risk, smart contract risk, and execution risk. The projected returns are based on modeled assumptions rather than guaranteed outcomes, while the downside scenarios are comparatively less developed.

We also find that the proposal relies heavily on the continued stability and liquidity of USDM. Any prolonged depeg, redemption constraints, or deterioration in market liquidity could materially affect the Treasury's ability to recover value. While the proposal includes monitoring mechanisms and governance review thresholds, these measures are reactive rather than preventative and do not eliminate the underlying exposure.

In addition, the proposal requests the full deployment of the entire 9 million ADA from the beginning of the program instead of adopting a phased or pilot-based approach. Given that this represents a novel model for Treasury capital deployment, we would have preferred an incremental rollout with clearly defined performance gates before committing the full amount. This would allow governance to evaluate real-world performance while limiting downside risk.

Finally, although the proposal demonstrates transparency through reporting commitments and independent multisig oversight, we are not convinced that these governance safeguards sufficiently compensate for the financial risks being transferred to the Treasury. We believe this proposal would establish an important precedent for future Treasury investment strategies, and such a precedent should be supported only after a more conservative risk framework, stronger downside protections, and a more favorable capital deployment strategy have been demonstrated.

We acknowledge that treasury governance is a critical area of Cardano's long-term sustainability and agree that the ecosystem should continue exploring ways to improve how treasury resources are governed and allocated. The proposal identifies legitimate concerns regarding strategic coordination, long-term planning, and the current challenges surrounding treasury decision-making.

However, this governance action presents a high-level direction rather than a sufficiently defined governance framework. While it outlines the need for reform, it does not provide enough detail on the proposed governance model, institutional responsibilities, decision-making processes, accountability mechanisms, or how any new structures would interact with existing governance bodies. As a result, it is difficult to assess the potential benefits, risks, and unintended consequences of the proposed direction.

Our abstention should not be interpreted as opposition to treasury governance reform. Rather, we believe additional community discussion and more concrete proposals are needed before we can confidently support or reject a specific approach. We encourage future governance actions to provide greater clarity on governance design, transparency, conflict-of-interest management, accountability, and constitutional implications so that DReps can evaluate a well-defined framework on its merits.

We acknowledge the underlying issue described in this proposal and remain sympathetic to the request for reimbursement. If a governance participant lost a 100,000 ADA governance action deposit due to an early implementation defect rather than personal error, there is a reasonable argument that governance should consider remediation.

However, our concerns from the previous iteration of this proposal have not been sufficiently addressed.

While the proposal provides additional context regarding the loss and offers a rationale for the requested reimbursement amount, it still lacks important procedural details regarding how the reimbursement will be executed in practice. Specifically, the proposal does not clearly define the recipient verification process, the mechanism by which the treasury withdrawal will be directed to the rightful beneficiary, or the safeguards that ensure the funds are returned to the address associated with the original governance action. For treasury-funded reimbursements, these details are essential for transparency, auditability, and accountability.

We also remain unconvinced by the additional 3,000 ADA compensation component. Although the proposal now references foregone staking rewards as justification, it does not provide a sufficiently detailed methodology, timeframe, or calculation that would allow DReps and the wider community to independently verify the amount. Compensation requests should be based on transparent, reproducible assumptions rather than broad estimates.

Our vote should not be interpreted as opposition to reimbursement in principle.

We support this proposal because Hydra is one of Cardano’s most mature and strategically significant scaling solutions, with a demonstrated track record of development, testing, and real-world deployment. Unlike early-stage research initiatives, Hydra is already operational and actively being integrated by ecosystem participants. Continued investment at this stage focuses on improving performance, reliability, developer tooling, and ecosystem readiness, all of which are necessary to move from technical capability to meaningful adoption.

The proposal addresses a genuine challenge facing Cardano: the need to support applications that require high throughput, low latency, and cost-efficient transactions. As blockchain adoption expands into areas such as payments, gaming, decentralized finance, and machine-to-machine interactions, scalable infrastructure becomes increasingly important. Hydra provides a pathway for Cardano to support these use cases while preserving the security and settlement guarantees of the main chain. We believe strengthening this capability is essential to Cardano’s long-term competitiveness and growth.

We also view the proposal positively because it goes beyond protocol engineering and includes operational excellence, ecosystem support, and improvements to the developer experience. Technical infrastructure alone does not drive adoption; developers and businesses require reliable tools, documentation, support, and production-ready systems. By investing across these areas, the proposal takes a holistic approach to ecosystem enablement rather than focusing solely on feature development.

The budget appears reasonable when considered in the context of the importance of the infrastructure being developed and the potential ecosystem-wide benefits it can unlock. A significant majority of the requested funding is allocated directly to development activities, and the proposal incorporates milestone-based funding and oversight mechanisms that provide accountability for delivery. Furthermore, the Hydra team has already demonstrated its ability to execute on previous commitments, which increases confidence in the likelihood of successful implementation.

While we acknowledge that long-term success will ultimately depend on adoption by developers, businesses, and end users, we believe the ecosystem cannot expect meaningful growth without continued investment in foundational infrastructure. Hydra represents a critical component of Cardano’s scaling strategy, and this proposal advances the network’s ability to support future demand, attract new applications, and improve the overall user experience.

We support reducing the Constitutional Committee minimum size (committeeMinSize) from 7 to 5.

Recent governance experience has demonstrated that the current threshold creates unnecessary operational risk. In late 2025, a governance action to add a Constitutional Committee member explicitly stated that restoring the committee to the minimum required size would "enable on-chain governance to resume in full." This, having followed the resignation of a CC member, provided real-world evidence that governance continuity can be affected when committee membership falls below the operational threshold.

This proposal does not reduce the intended size of the Constitutional Committee. Rather, it introduces resilience against temporary vacancies, resignations, or delays in replacement elections, ensuring that governance can continue functioning while the community restores full committee membership.

While a smaller active committee slightly increases the influence of individual members, we believe the benefit of maintaining governance continuity outweighs this risk. Cardano's constitutional safeguards remain intact, and the proposal remains fully within constitutional guardrails.

Our assessment finds that this proposal addresses critical protocol-level infrastructure needs that are directly aligned with Cardano's long-term scalability, sustainability, and technical resilience objectives. The proposed work packages represent foundational improvements that we believe can generate ecosystem-wide benefits beyond any single stakeholder group.

From a value-for-money perspective, while the funding request is substantial, the proposal targets highly specialized protocol engineering work that is difficult to source and replicate. The expected outcomes, particularly improvements to transaction finality, node storage efficiency, and protocol validation infrastructure, provide long-term public goods that strengthen the Cardano ecosystem as a whole.

We also place significant weight on the demonstrated capability and track record of the Tweag team. Tweag has established itself as a trusted contributor to Cardano's core infrastructure and has consistently delivered complex technical work in areas such as protocol engineering, formal methods, testing frameworks, and consensus-related research. This execution history provides us with much confidence in the team's ability to deliver the proposed milestones.

Finally, the proposal incorporates milestone-based delivery, third-party assurance, and public reporting mechanisms which provides a reasonable level of accountability for treasury expenditure of this magnitude.

This proposal aligns strongly with our governance priorities for 2026, particularly those focused on ecosystem growth, governance participation, community coordination, developer engagement, and Cardano's external visibility. While we recognize that event sponsorship proposals can be difficult to evaluate through traditional ROI frameworks, we believe the value of established ecosystem coordination mechanisms should not be underestimated.

Rare Evo has consistently demonstrated its ability to execute large-scale events that bring together builders, governance participants, entrepreneurs, community leaders, and ecosystem stakeholders. Unlike many proposals that rely on future assumptions regarding delivery capacity, Rare Evo possesses a proven operational track record and has repeatedly shown that it can successfully organize and deliver complex, multi-day conferences that provide meaningful opportunities for collaboration, education, and ecosystem exposure.

We acknowledge several concerns raised during due diligence, including the scale of the budget, the inclusion of hospitality-related expenditures, the limited use of outcome-based performance metrics, and the presence of future-planning costs within the budget structure. These are valid considerations and should continue to inform future treasury funding standards for ecosystem events.

However, in balancing these concerns against the proposal's strengths, we place significant weight on execution certainty. The proposal is being advanced by a team with demonstrated experience, established infrastructure, existing industry relationships, and a clear history of delivering similar events. In our assessment, the risk of non-delivery is low.

We also recognize the important role that physical events continue to play in Cardano's governance and ecosystem development. Governance participation is not solely an on-chain activity; it also depends on relationship building, education, coordination, and opportunities for direct engagement among stakeholders. Rare Dev Gov Day and Rare Evo provide an established venue for these interactions at a scale that is difficult to replicate through purely digital means.

We initially voted no on this proposal because we identified several material due-diligence concerns relating to execution feasibility, operational readiness, adoption assumptions, financial risk management, data integrity, governance structure, and the credibility of the proposed impact targets. Given the ambitious nature of the proposal, we believed these concerns required clearer evidence and stronger justification before treasury funds could be responsibly allocated.

Following access to the proposer's detailed Q&A and feedback document, we undertook a further review focused specifically on the issues that formed the basis of our original position. As a result of that review, we conclude that the proposer has provided satisfactory responses to the majority of our key concerns and has materially strengthened the overall case for funding.

One of our primary concerns was the proposal's ability to onboard and support 500,000 farmers within the proposed timeframe. The additional information provided demonstrates that the initiative is not starting from concept stage, but is building upon existing deployments, active farmer registrations on Cardano, established implementation partners, and operational structures already in place. While the growth targets remain ambitious, the evidence presented provides a far more credible pathway to execution than was apparent in the original proposal.

We were also concerned about adoption and long-term participation. The Q&A clarified how agricultural entrepreneurs, supply-chain actors, compliance requirements, and access to financial services collectively create incentives for ongoing engagement rather than one-time onboarding. Although long-term retention can only be fully validated through execution, the explanation provided significantly reduced our concerns regarding sustained usage and ecosystem impact.

Our review further found that concerns relating to lending and financial infrastructure were substantially addressed. The proposer clarified that the trust layer itself serves as enabling infrastructure and that financial services are expected to operate through specialized partners rather than placing direct lending responsibilities on the project. This distinction helped reduce concerns around treasury exposure to poorly defined credit and underwriting risks.

We also found meaningful improvements in the explanation of data verification, oracle architecture, and governance processes. The proposer outlined a multi-layered approach involving satellite verification, field-level validation, and Cardano-based infrastructure, while also providing greater transparency around accountability mechanisms. Although real-world systems will always involve some degree of off-chain trust, the controls described are considerably stronger than those originally presented.

Importantly, the proposal now provides greater clarity around governance safeguards and accountability for treasury funds. Milestone-based funding, independent oversight, audit requirements, and outcome-linked disbursement mechanisms provide stronger assurances that progress can be measured and funding can be tied to delivery.

Finally, our original concerns regarding long-term projections and Vision 2030 KPIs were addressed through clarification that these figures represent aspirational long-term targets rather than contractual commitments tied to the requested funding. The proposal now more clearly distinguishes between funded deliverables and future growth projections, allowing for a more realistic assessment of expected outcomes.

While the proposal remains ambitious and execution risks remain inherent in any initiative of this scale, we believe the proposer has demonstrated a genuine commitment to transparency and has provided sufficient evidence to address the material concerns that initially informed our no vote. The additional information presented through the due-diligence process significantly improves confidence in the project's feasibility, governance, and potential value to the Cardano ecosystem.

For these reasons, and in recognition of the substantial effort made to address community concerns, we are changing our position and voting yes in support of this proposal.

Access the Q&A and Feedback document from here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1HZyOyj_jVqqV3UjHLur1ia0d_8AWYF3N

We abstain from supporting or rejecting this governance action due to unresolved structural ambiguities in program continuity, milestone accountability, and budget segmentation between the original Cardano Critical Integrations Budget (CCI V1) and the proposed CCI V2 allocation.

CCI V1 was explicitly framed as a ~24-month, ₳70M program intended to deliver a defined set of ecosystem integration outcomes. While CCI V2 is presented as a continuation or “Year 2” phase, the proposal does not provide a clearly auditable boundary between V1 and V2 in terms of time periods, deliverables, or completion criteria.

Furthermore, although the proposal references ongoing and partially completed integration work, there is insufficient independently verifiable closure reporting of CCI V1 milestones to determine whether the original funding envelope has been fully and appropriately executed prior to requesting additional treasury resources.

The definition of “Year 2” remains functionally ambiguous, being described primarily in terms of activity continuation rather than a clearly bounded fiscal or milestone-based phase. This limits the ability of Delegated Representatives to assess whether this constitutes continuation of an existing funded mandate or a new budget cycle under a different label.

While we acknowledge the importance of maintaining continuity for ecosystem-critical integrations and recognize the strategic value of the initiative, the lack of strict temporal separation, incomplete milestone closure transparency, and absence of a clearly enforced funding boundary between V1 and V2 reduces governance clarity.

Given these unresolved structural concerns, we are unable to confidently evaluate the proposal as either fully justified or clearly misaligned with treasury governance expectations.

Therefore, we abstain from this governance action pending clearer audit-grade separation of funding phases, milestone completion verification of CCI V1, and a more precise definition of the scope and temporal boundaries of “Year 2” under CCI V2.

While we acknowledge Eternl's significant contributions to the Cardano ecosystem and recognize the wallet as an important piece of user-facing infrastructure, we are unable to support this treasury withdrawal proposal in its current form.

Our decision is not based on the value of Eternl itself. Rather, it is based on concerns regarding transparency, accountability, sustainability, and the precedent that treasury-funded operational support may set for the ecosystem.

The proposal requests ₳1.68 million to fund ongoing operations and development but does not provide sufficient detail regarding how the requested funds will be allocated. We would have expected a comprehensive budget breakdown covering personnel, infrastructure, operational expenses, support costs, reserves, and other major cost centers. Without this information, it is difficult for DReps to assess whether the requested amount is proportional to the intended outcomes.

We are also concerned by the absence of clear sustainability metrics. The proposal references existing and future revenue sources, including DApp-related fees, MonsterSwap revenues, partnerships, and planned subscription offerings, yet provides little transparency regarding current revenues, projected revenues, or the timeline by which the project expects to become financially self-sustaining. Treasury funding should ideally accelerate sustainability rather than become a recurring operational dependency.

Furthermore, the proposal lacks measurable performance commitments. While it outlines valuable activities such as wallet maintenance, governance tooling improvements, hardware wallet integrations, and backend infrastructure support, it does not establish concrete KPIs, adoption targets, service-level objectives, or milestone-based reporting requirements. As treasury governance matures, funding requests of this size should include clear accountability mechanisms that allow the community to evaluate delivery against commitments.

We also note that the team has received substantial ecosystem funding through multiple Catalyst grants, an Intersect grant, and a previous treasury allocation for maintenance activities. Given this funding history, we believe additional transparency regarding outcomes achieved, lessons learned, and progress toward long-term sustainability is warranted before approving further treasury support.

Another concern relates to the proposal's sustainability model and intellectual property approach. The proposal indicates that significant portions of the wallet remain closed source while simultaneously requesting public treasury funding. We believe there should be stronger justification for treasury-funded development that does not fully contribute public goods back to the ecosystem.

Finally, we are not convinced that sufficient information has been provided to answer several critical governance questions:

1. What is the detailed composition of the annual operating budget?
2. How many contributors are being funded through this request?
3. What revenues have been generated over the previous year?
4. What revenue assumptions underpin the proposed subscription model?
5. At what point does the project become self-sustaining without treasury support?
6. Is this intended to be a one-time request or should DReps anticipate future operational funding requests?
7. What measurable outcomes will be reported to the community throughout the funding period?

We remain supportive of high-quality wallet infrastructure and recognize Eternl's role within the ecosystem. However, treasury funding requires a high standard of transparency, accountability, and demonstrated sustainability planning.

We recognize the technical competence of the Scalus team and acknowledges the importance of improving Cardano's developer experience. We agree that application development on Cardano can be complex and that reducing integration friction remains a worthwhile ecosystem objective.

However, our decision is based on four key governance questions.

1. What specifically remains unsolved, and how has this been demonstrated?

The proposal argues that developers face excessive complexity due to fragmented tooling and infrastructure. While this concern is broadly valid, we do not believe the proposal sufficiently demonstrates which specific ecosystem bottlenecks remain unresolved after years of prior investments in developer tooling, SDKs, smart contract languages, transaction builders, infrastructure services, and application frameworks. The proposal identifies a problem category but does not provide enough evidence that existing solutions are incapable of addressing the stated challenges.

1. Why is Scalus the appropriate ecosystem-wide integrator?

The proposal positions Scalus as a unifying application platform for Cardano. However, Cardano remains a diverse ecosystem with multiple actively maintained development stacks, languages, and frameworks. We are not convinced that sufficient justification has been provided for why ecosystem resources should be concentrated around a Scala/JVM-centric platform rather than continuing to support interoperability among existing tooling ecosystems. The proposal does not clearly establish why Scalus should become the preferred integration layer for the broader ecosystem.

1. What evidence justifies the scale of the funding increase?

Scalus has previously received ecosystem funding and has delivered meaningful work. Nevertheless, this proposal represents a substantial increase in requested funding relative to prior allocations. We do not find sufficient evidence of ecosystem adoption, production usage, developer growth, or demonstrated demand to justify an investment of this magnitude at this stage. Before committing treasury resources at this scale, we would expect stronger evidence that the platform has achieved adoption levels commensurate with the requested expansion.

1. How will success be objectively measured?

A significant portion of the proposal's value proposition relies on future ecosystem outcomes such as improved developer experience, increased application deployment, greater adoption, and ecosystem growth. While these are desirable objectives, the proposal does not provide sufficiently concrete, measurable, and independently verifiable success criteria that would allow DReps to assess whether the treasury investment achieved its intended impact. We believe clearer adoption metrics, utilization targets, and ecosystem outcome measurements are necessary for accountability.

We recognize the importance of sustainable open-source maintenance and agree that ecosystem resilience depends on supporting critical infrastructure and maintainers. However, this proposal combines a substantial multi-year funding request with the creation of a new organizational structure whose effectiveness and accountability mechanisms remain largely unproven at the scale proposed, hence our no vote.

We recognize the strategic importance of research in advancing Cardano's long-term goals, particularly in areas such as scalability, post-quantum security, governance infrastructure, and user experience. The proposal outlines an ambitious vision and addresses several challenges that are relevant to the ecosystem's future.

However, we are not convinced that the level of treasury expenditure requested is sufficiently justified by the certainty of outcomes. A significant portion of the proposal funds exploratory research activities whose practical implementation, adoption, and measurable ecosystem impact remain uncertain. The proposal itself acknowledges the challenges of translating research outputs into deployed solutions, and many deliverables remain several stages removed from production use.

We are also concerned about the breadth and complexity of the proposed scope, which spans multiple disciplines and workstreams. This increases execution risk and makes it difficult for governance participants to assess whether the proposed budget represents the most efficient use of treasury resources relative to alternative ecosystem investments.

While we support continued research and innovation within Cardano, we believe this proposal presents a level of financial, delivery, and implementation risk that outweighs the assurances currently provided.

We are voting no on this governance action due to concerns regarding execution and adoption risk relative to the requested treasury funding.

While we recognize the technical ambition of a browser-based Cardano node and acknowledge its potential contribution to decentralization, the proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate ecosystem demand or a clear path to widespread adoption. The projected benefits remain largely speculative, while the requested budget is substantial.

The proposal's success depends not only on technical delivery but also on meaningful integration by wallets, dApps, and end users. At present, there is insufficient evidence that these stakeholders will adopt the solution at a scale that justifies the investment. Given the combination of technical complexity, browser environment constraints, uncertain user demand, and integration dependencies, we believe the risk-adjusted value proposition is not strong enough to warrant treasury funding at this time.

We encourage the team to further validate demand, demonstrate adoption commitments, and de-risk the implementation before seeking funding of this magnitude.

While we do value projects that seek to have direct impact on local communities, we would like to refer this proposal to the Orion Fund given its details and proposed operational structure.

While long term planning and resource allocation is prudent for any organisation looking to progress immensely, we believe that given Cardano's current state, an annual budget request would be appropriate. Kindly resubmit an annual budget.

We missed the window to cast our Yes vote on the baseline proposal due to local operational holidays. We do find extensive value in having Cardano present at the Token2049 Singapore as just not baseline sponsors/partners but title partner. We believe that the benefits outlined, even though might be a bit hard to realize in short term, in a long term would be noticeable and positive towards the ecosystem growth.

We find the outputs and strategic objectives of this proposal beneficial to the Cardano ecosystem.

We acknowledge concerns regarding the size of the treasury withdrawal; however, we recognize that the revised proposal substantially reduces costs while preserving the strategic intent and operational quality of the Summit.

We believe the proposal aligns with Cardano’s broader adoption strategy by positioning the ecosystem in a major global financial and blockchain hub at a critical time for institutional engagement, interoperability, tokenization, stablecoins, AI infrastructure, and enterprise adoption.

We further appreciate:

a. the measurable KPI framework,
b. milestone-based treasury disbursement,
c. public accountability dashboards,
d. independent oversight mechanisms, and
e. the use of audited smart contract infrastructure for treasury administration.

In our assessment, the proposal represents a strategically aligned ecosystem growth initiative with sufficient transparency and accountability measures to justify treasury support.

The BitVM-powered Bitcoin bridge outlined in this proposal represents a strategic want rather than an immediate operational need. While bringing Bitcoin liquidity to Cardano is a valuable objective, alternative infrastructure solutions are already actively addressing this cross-chain capability. For instance, EMURGO's integration of the BitcoinOS Grail Bridge provides a trust-minimized framework for BTC assets on Cardano, and existing platforms like FluidTokens are developing similar cross-chain mechanisms. Allocating 51% of the requested ₳12.29M budget strictly to product engineering and R&D for a highly similar bridge implementation represents a duplication of treasury resources that the ecosystem can survive without today.

The proposed non-margin credit market and automated yield applications also fall short of satisfying an urgent, unaddressed ecosystem need. The Cardano network already features functional, oracle-free, peer-to-peer lending options through established protocols like FluidTokens and Lenfi, which allow lenders and borrowers to manually coordinate bilateral terms. While Pogun introduces specific design refinements, such as contractual term softening and the preservation of exact Bitcoin UTXO identities for tax efficiency, these are incremental optimizations for institutional users rather than entirely new foundational utilities required for immediate grassroots developer empowerment.

Finally, the financial structure of the proposal introduces long-term capital exposure for the treasury without guaranteeing immediate active user growth. The repayment commitment specifies a grace period during which no returns are due while quarterly EBITDA remains negative, leaving public funds vulnerable if the protocol faces adoption hurdles in a competitive market. With the project's milestones extending through early 2027, the ecosystem would not see timely returns or measurable transaction volume increases. Because the core technical offerings are already being effectively delivered by existing network solutions, Wada votes NO on this proposal.

Blockfrost has provided free API access to the Cardano blockchain since its first day of operation, absorbing 100% of that infrastructure cost without ever passing it on to users. Today, it serves approximately 90% of all free-tier API traffic, making it the de facto data access layer for a significant portion of our ecosystem's builders and applications. We believe this critical service cannot face sudden disruption or paywalls, which is why securing the community free tier via the requested operational subsidy is a protective necessity to keep this service running, maintained, and freely accessible while decentralized infrastructure matures.

Our support for this proposal is deeply rooted in the technical realities of Cardano's planned scalability under Project Leios. As Leios scales Cardano throughput, the raw and indexed data growth of the Cardano blockchain could swell significantly, which would make the cost of full-chain indexing increasingly prohibitive for individual developers and small-scale operators. This proposal aims to address this bottleneck directly by introducing decentralized slice indexing. We believe this approach represents exactly what the ecosystem should pursue, as it could empower SPOs and other Cardano node operators of all sizes to actively participate in data-serving infrastructure without the burden of maintaining a massive full-dataset index. By allowing operators to process optimized data slices, this initiative is projected to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastructure costs across our ecosystem, which would keep long-term decentralization economically viable at scale. Furthermore, it could open new avenues for SPOs by onboarding them as Icebreakers, giving them an opportunity for a new economically viable role as data providers.

We recognize that some viewpoints look cautiously at Milestone 5, which extends this indexing infrastructure to support Bitcoin alongside Cardano. However, we believe that Cayley's modular multi-chain architecture could be highly strategic, as it is designed to position Cardano infrastructure as a unified data layer across major blockchains. This cross-chain expansion should reduce integration time and provide a unified API across chains, which could broaden our addressable market and lower the barrier for outside developers to bring their talent and real-world utility over to the Cardano network. Over a five-year horizon, if network throughput climbs up to 350 TxkB/s , managing raw monthly growth of up to ~920 GB and indexed growth of up to ~9.20 TB should become entirely manageable through sliced indexing rather than crushing local operations under a centralizing data wall. This would directly support long-term ecosystem sustainability and should ensure our data layer could scale gracefully without sacrificing the decentralization we fundamentally stand for.

At this moment, we view this proposal as a WANT rather than a NEED for the Cardano ecosystem. While the proposal introduces technically sophisticated tooling around formal verification and developer environments, the ecosystem’s current priorities remain centered on adoption, liquidity growth, scalability execution, user activity, and strengthening competitive positioning across DeFi and real-world applications.

IO requests ₳13,078,578 from the treasury for tooling and developer infrastructure that, while valuable in principle, does not directly address the most immediate growth constraints currently facing Cardano. Our ecosystem is still actively working through challenges related to liquidity growth, user adoption, transaction demand, scalability execution, stablecoin expansion, and DApp competitiveness. At this stage of ecosystem maturity, we believe that treasury allocations should prioritize initiatives that can generate measurable near-term increases in users, transactions, developer retention, and economic activity. This proposal instead focuses primarily on advanced formal verification infrastructure whose impact remains indirect, difficult to quantify, and likely years away from meaningful ecosystem-wide realization.

The proposal’s KPI assumptions are also highly speculative. It attempts to connect formal verification tooling and developer environment improvements to increases in TVL, throughput utilization, protocol revenue, and monthly active users. However, there is limited evidence demonstrating that formal verification accessibility alone materially increases adoption or capital inflows in blockchain ecosystems. Institutional adoption depends on many factors beyond contract correctness, including liquidity depth, regulatory clarity, interoperability, user demand, and market positioning. The proposal effectively assumes that stronger tooling will naturally translate into ecosystem growth, but this relationship is neither immediate nor guaranteed.

A major concern is the mismatch between the proposal’s complexity and the current size of the active Cardano developer base that would realistically use these tools. Formal verification remains a highly specialized discipline even within mature software ecosystems. Although the proposal aims to simplify the experience through Visual Studio Code integrations and prebuilt templates, most developers in practice prioritize rapid iteration, composability, and shipping products quickly over mathematically proving correctness properties. This confirms that the proposal risks building sophisticated infrastructure for a relatively narrow subset of advanced developers rather than materially improving onboarding and retention across the broader ecosystem.

We urge the community to also consider the timing of this request in the context of already-funded Layer 1 scaling and infrastructure initiatives. Significant treasury resources have recently been allocated toward major protocol and scalability workstreams such as Leios, Peras, and other foundational capacity expansion efforts. Those initiatives are directly tied to increasing Cardano’s transaction throughput, network performance, and competitiveness. This proposal attempts to frame formal verification tooling as complementary to scalability by improving UPLC optimization efficiency, but the actual throughput gains described are marginal compared to the impact expected from already-funded protocol-level scaling initiatives.

There are also substantial execution and dependency risks embedded throughout the proposal. Several deliverables depend on coordination across multiple ecosystem partners, including TxPipe, Lantr, Harmonic Labs, Midgard Labs, and SAIB Inc. The proposal itself acknowledges that delays or underperformance from collaborators could materially impact key milestones, especially language integrations and vulnerability libraries that are critical to ecosystem-wide adoption.

Additionally, important parts of the proposal depend on other treasury initiatives being funded separately. The proposal explicitly states that portions of the onboarding and discoverability strategy rely on the Developer Experience initiative and cardano-init. If those initiatives are not approved or delayed, parts of this proposal become fragmented and less accessible, weakening the ecosystem impact used to justify the treasury ask.

Another governance concern is treasury concentration and repeated reliance on a single organization. The proposal comes from IO, which has already received substantial treasury allocations across multiple workstreams. The proposal itself notes that IO-affiliated initiatives have been allocated over ₳130 million in treasury funding to date. While IO remains a core technical contributor to Cardano, governance should be cautious about continuously approving large allocations to the same organization without stronger evidence of ecosystem diversification, independent delivery capacity, and broader decentralization of technical leadership.

The proposal also places heavy emphasis on future ecosystem positioning rather than present ecosystem needs. Many of the deliverables, including the DApp proof framework, multi-contract verification system, and advanced proof reconstruction modules, are scheduled for delivery in 2027. This means the ecosystem would be committing a significant treasury allocation today for tooling whose adoption, utility, and measurable ecosystem impact may not materialize for several years. In a treasury environment with finite resources and many competing priorities, governance should favor initiatives with clearer short- and medium-term returns.

Finally, the proposal itself acknowledges that delivery alone is insufficient to generate adoption and that dedicated outreach, education, and ecosystem visibility are required for success; yet those activities are not fully funded within the proposal scope. This creates a situation where the treasury may fund technically sophisticated infrastructure without guaranteeing the ecosystem coordination necessary to achieve the adoption metrics used to justify the request.

This proposal addresses several foundational weaknesses and long-standing friction points within the Plutus ecosystem that materially affect developer productivity, smart contract efficiency, protocol safety, and Cardano’s long-term competitiveness as a programmable blockchain platform. The identified issues around execution inefficiencies, tooling complexity, incomplete formal specification coverage, and limitations in expressiveness are legitimate technical concerns that have been acknowledged by developers and infrastructure contributors across the ecosystem. As Cardano adoption expands and smart contract usage becomes increasingly sophisticated, improving the underlying Plutus infrastructure is no longer optional but necessary to sustain growth, reliability, and developer retention.

We believe that the proposed workstreams collectively strengthen multiple layers of the smart contract stack. The implementation of new built-in functions such as CIP-0156 and CIP-0168 directly improves execution efficiency by reducing the need for expensive on-chain looping and repetitive script patterns. Improvements such as built-in casing on Data and investigations into reducing unnecessary interpreter overhead could lower execution costs, reduce script sizes, and improve throughput efficiency across decentralized applications. These are meaningful infrastructure enhancements that can benefit virtually every Plutus-based application deployed on Cardano.

The proposal also delivers important long-term ecosystem value through its emphasis on formal verification, conformance testing, and security auditing. As node diversity becomes increasingly important to Cardano’s decentralization strategy, having stronger implementation-independent specifications and property-based conformance testing becomes critical for preventing consensus inconsistencies across future node clients and evaluators. Expanding the Plutus metatheory and formalizing built-in semantics in Agda strengthens Cardano’s research-driven foundations and reinforces the network’s reputation for correctness and high assurance engineering.

Equally important are the developer experience improvements outlined within the proposal. The current onboarding and tooling experience for Plutus developers remains significantly more complex than competing ecosystems, particularly due to dependency management, compiler friction, and difficult setup requirements. Efforts to simplify installation, reduce reliance on Nix, improve compiler ergonomics, and deliver clearer source-level error messaging represent practical improvements that can lower barriers to entry and improve developer adoption over time.

The primary reason for opposing this proposal is that Cardano has not yet fully realized or demonstrated the operational capacity of its Layer 1 despite years of research, development, and substantial treasury and ecosystem investment into L1 scalability initiatives as acknowledged in the proposal. The ecosystem is still waiting for major promised upgrades such as Leios, Peras, and other throughput and finality improvements that have repeatedly been presented as foundational to Cardano’s long-term scalability strategy. These initiatives remain largely in research, prototyping, simulation, or phased engineering stages rather than fully deployed and proven in production under meaningful ecosystem load. At the same time, the treasury continues to be requested to allocate very large sums toward additional L1 scalability efforts, including a separate ₳27.7M request focused on further expanding L1 capacity by IO. Under these conditions, it is difficult to justify another major treasury allocation toward an ambitious multi-layer L2 expansion before the ecosystem has fully evaluated the real-world capabilities of the upgraded base layer that the community has already heavily funded.

This proposal also introduces a sequencing problem that has not been adequately addressed. The proposal argues simultaneously that future L1 upgrades are still coming and that those upgrades will still not be sufficient for modern applications, thereby requiring accelerated investment into Hydra, Midgard, and broader modular scaling infrastructure today. However, because the future operational limits of upgraded Cardano L1 remain unknown, the ecosystem is effectively being asked to commit treasury resources toward a long-term modular scaling architecture before determining whether the upcoming base-layer upgrades materially change Cardano’s competitiveness. This creates the risk of prematurely expanding ecosystem complexity, governance overhead, liquidity fragmentation, and operational burden before establishing whether upgraded L1 can satisfy a meaningful portion of the ecosystem’s scaling requirements.

Another major concern is the growing disconnect between infrastructure spending and measurable ecosystem outcomes. Cardano has consistently demonstrated strong research quality, sound academic foundations, and thoughtful engineering direction, but these strengths have not yet translated into the level of mainnet adoption, developer traction, liquidity growth, user activity, or application dominance necessary to justify aggressive expansion into increasingly sophisticated scaling architectures. The ecosystem today is not facing widespread congestion caused by overwhelming adoption demand. Instead, the more immediate challenge appears to be limited application growth, weak competitive positioning relative to faster-moving ecosystems, fragmented user attention, and declining market confidence in Cardano’s ability to convert long-term research into visible ecosystem execution. Under these circumstances, funding additional scalability infrastructure risks prioritizing future theoretical demand over present ecosystem realities.

The proposal also relies heavily on projected ecosystem growth that remains uncertain and largely speculative. Claims surrounding TVL growth, transaction growth, developer expansion, and ecosystem competitiveness are presented narratively rather than through concrete adoption guarantees or enforceable milestone-linked metrics. The proposal assumes that developers and applications currently building on or considering Hydra and Midgard will remain committed to Cardano and eventually generate meaningful ecosystem activity, but these assumptions are external dependencies rather than guaranteed outcomes. Treasury funding should not be based primarily on hypothetical future adoption without stronger evidence that the ecosystem is already approaching the operational limits of its current infrastructure.

Concerns surrounding execution confidence further weaken the case for support. Over multiple cycles, the ecosystem has funded foundational scalability research, engineering implementation, optimization work, and production-readiness efforts. Despite this, many of Cardano’s most important scalability promises remain future-facing rather than fully realized in production. This has contributed to growing delivery skepticism within parts of the community. The question is no longer simply whether the technical architecture is theoretically sound. The more important governance question is whether the ecosystem has sufficient evidence that previously funded scalability initiatives are translating into timely, measurable, ecosystem-wide outcomes. This proposal does not sufficiently address that confidence gap. It explains the urgency of L2 scaling, but it does not adequately explain why the treasury should believe that ambitious timelines around Hydra productionization, Midgard decentralization, and shared infrastructure deployment will succeed when prior scalability roadmaps have consistently required extended timelines to mature.

There are also significant technical and operational risks embedded in the proposal itself. Hydra remains highly specialized infrastructure with limited applicability to generalized open-participation environments, while Midgard’s path toward decentralized multi-operator coordination introduces a new and complex engineering challenge that the proposal itself acknowledges as one of its highest-risk components. Rollup ecosystems are operationally difficult even in ecosystems with significantly larger developer bases, liquidity pools, and production experience. The Cardano ecosystem has not yet demonstrated large-scale success operating these systems in production under meaningful economic pressure. Funding such infrastructure at this stage therefore carries substantial uncertainty relative to the size of the treasury request.

From a governance perspective, there is also concern about strategic overextension. The ecosystem is simultaneously being asked to continue heavily funding unfinished L1 scalability work while also financing a broad L2 expansion strategy. This creates the appearance that Cardano is attempting to solve future scaling problems before resolving current adoption and competitiveness challenges. A healthier sequencing approach would prioritize demonstrating the real-world impact of previously funded L1 scalability investments, proving stronger adoption growth, improving developer experience, increasing meaningful application deployment, and establishing measurable ecosystem momentum before committing further large-scale treasury resources toward expansive L2 infrastructure initiatives.

None of these concerns imply that L2s are inherently unnecessary or without value. Hydra, optimistic rollups, and modular execution environments which all got funded last cycle under the ₳96.8M IO proposal may eventually play an important role in Cardano’s long-term architecture. However, we believe that governance decisions must consider timing, treasury efficiency, ecosystem readiness, execution credibility, and measurable return on investment. At the present stage of ecosystem maturity, this proposal appears premature relative to Cardano’s demonstrated adoption profile and unresolved base-layer roadmap.

We recognize the strategic importance of Leios and agree that scalable consensus infrastructure is critical to Cardano’s long-term growth and 2030 ambitions. The work proposed appears technically valuable and likely necessary for the ecosystem.

However, we are unable to support this treasury withdrawal in its current form due to insufficient financial and operational transparency relative to the scale of the funding request.

The proposal allocates approximately 86% of the ₳27.7M budget to “Development,” yet provides limited detail regarding:

a. Team composition,
b. Staffing structure,
c. FTE allocation,
d. Subcontractor scope,
e. Work-package costing,
f. Milestone-linked budget mapping, or
g. Measurable cost justification.

While we acknowledge that consensus engineering is complex and can be expensive, we currently lack enough information to independently validate whether the requested amount represents an efficient and accountable use of treasury resources.

Additionally, the proposal explicitly frames success around “hard-fork readiness” rather than guaranteed mainnet activation, increasing the importance of clear milestone accountability and transparent delivery metrics.

Our decision to vote “No” should not be interpreted as opposition to Leios or Cardano scaling efforts.

We view this proposal as a strategically important investment into Cardano’s long-term infrastructure, usability, and economic sustainability. While the proposal is technically ambitious and carries execution risk, we believe it is strongly aligned with the Cardano 2030 vision and addresses several foundational limitations currently affecting ecosystem growth and user adoption.

This proposal stands out because it focuses on enabling infrastructure rather than isolated applications or short-term ecosystem initiatives. The three workstreams: CIP-159 Account Address Enhancement, Multi-Asset Treasury design, and Babel Fees; collectively target areas that are increasingly important for Cardano’s competitiveness and maturity. These include reducing onboarding friction, improving treasury resilience, enabling sustainable wallet and DeFi economics, and preparing the ecosystem for broader cross-chain participation and Layer 2 expansion.

We believe CIP-159 is one of the most strategically significant components of the proposal. The current limitations around minUTxO requirements, batching costs, and account-like functionality continue to constrain wallet monetization models, increase DeFi operational costs, and complicate reserve management for emerging Layer 2 architectures. The proposed enhancements have the potential to improve transaction efficiency, unlock micro-fee models, and provide infrastructure primitives needed for future scalability and application design. These are meaningful improvements to Cardano’s core utility and developer ecosystem.

We also support the direction of the Multi-Asset Treasury initiative. As Cardano governance matures, treasury sustainability and financial stewardship is becoming increasingly important. Allowing the Treasury to eventually hold stable-value assets and other native assets could improve budget predictability, reduce exposure to ADA volatility, and expand the financial tools available to the ecosystem. While we recognize that this area will require careful governance deliberation and broad community participation, we believe beginning the design and specification work now is appropriate and aligned with the Cardano 2030 vision.

Babel Fees is another important step toward improving user experience and onboarding. Requiring users to acquire ADA before they can interact with the network remains a friction point for Bitcoin users, stablecoin users, and first-time participants entering Cardano DeFi. Fee abstraction is becoming increasingly common across the industry, and we believe Cardano should continue evolving in this direction. Enabling users to transact using assets they already hold could significantly improve accessibility and onboarding conversion over time.

At the same time, our yes vote is not without reservations. We recognize that CIP-159 introduces nontrivial ledger-level complexity and that several workstreams depend on external prerequisites such as CIP-118 and CIP-165. We also note that some adoption projections and market assumptions appear optimistic, and that the initial Babel Fees MVP includes a partially centralized provider model. We expect ongoing transparency from the IO regarding implementation progress, dependency management, measurable outcomes, and decentralization pathways as the work evolves.

IO received substantial treasury funding in the previous funding cycle, yet many of the promised deliverables remain either incomplete, insufficiently demonstrated, or difficult for the community to independently verify. Against that backdrop, this proposal’s request for ₳62.1M purely for maintenance and operational continuity appears disproportionately expensive in our view.

While we acknowledge that maintenance of Cardano’s core infrastructure is essential, the proposal lacks the level of cost transparency and measurable accountability expected for a treasury request of this magnitude. Critical details such as team composition, resource allocation by workstream, infrastructure cost breakdowns, delivery benchmarks, and clear performance-based accountability mechanisms are too broadly defined to properly assess value for money.

Additionally, many of the proposed outcomes are framed as indirect ecosystem benefits rather than measurable deliverables with objectively verifiable success criteria. This makes it difficult for DReps and the wider community to determine whether the requested funding is justified, cost-efficient, or aligned with the ecosystem’s long-term decentralization and sustainability goals.

As Wada DRep, we recognize the importance of maintaining Cardano’s reliability, security, and operational resilience. However, given the concerns around prior delivery performance, insufficient financial granularity, and the scale of the treasury ask relative to the specificity of the proposal, we are unable to support this funding request in its current form.

As a longstanding DRep, we believe that this initiative addresses one of the most persistent structural weaknesses within the Cardano ecosystem: developer experience. While Cardano has developed strong underlying infrastructure and research foundations, onboarding friction, fragmented tooling, inconsistent documentation, and the absence of standardized development pathways have continued to slow ecosystem growth and developer retention. This proposal directly targets those bottlenecks through practical ecosystem-wide interventions including improved onboarding flows, unified documentation, reusable smart contract libraries, developer tooling, and coordination across existing contributors.

We acknowledge that some projected outcomes: particularly the targeted acceleration in developer growth; are ambitious and cannot be guaranteed within the proposed timeline. However, we view the core deliverables themselves as strategically valuable regardless of whether every ecosystem KPI is immediately achieved. Investments into developer infrastructure are long-term ecosystem multipliers whose benefits compound over time through reduced friction, faster deployment cycles, stronger standards, and improved accessibility for new builders entering Cardano.

We also recognize that the proposed budget is substantial. Nevertheless, after reviewing the funding distribution and implementation scope, we believe the allocation is largely justified by the engineering-heavy nature of the initiative and the breadth of work being undertaken. The proposal is not without execution risk, particularly around ecosystem coordination and adoption, but we believe the potential upside to Cardano’s long-term competitiveness outweighs those concerns.

As Wada DRep, we vote yes on the proposal to approve the Cardano Foundation as the new managing entity of Project Catalyst. Our support is grounded in the immediate need to ensure continuity of operations, particularly for ongoing commitments under Funds 10 - 14. At this stage, maintaining the integrity of existing grant agreements, ensuring timely milestone reviews, and preventing disruption to disbursements are critical to preserving trust in Cardano’s funding ecosystem. Given the statutory requirement for community approval to effect this transition, we consider this proposal a necessary step to avoid operational uncertainty.

We recognise the Cardano Foundation’s institutional capacity to assume this role and appreciate the intention to facilitate a smooth transition from IOG without interrupting active processes. The narrow scope of this proposal; focused purely on operational reassignment rather than expansion or additional funding, also provides clarity and reduces the risk of unintended commitments. Additionally, the stated intention to work toward returning unused allocations for Funds 15 - 16 to the treasury reflects alignment with broader ecosystem priorities around fiscal responsibility.

That said, our support should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of the current structural framing of Catalyst governance. The proposal leaves several important areas underdeveloped, particularly regarding transition execution details, accountability mechanisms, and long-term governance design. There is limited clarity on how the handover will be operationalised, what performance expectations will be placed on the new managing entity, and how the community can effectively monitor and evaluate this role over time. Furthermore, the absence of a clearly articulated framework for oversight, reporting, and potential future transition pathways introduces risks of continued centralisation under a different entity.

As Wada DRep, we vote yes on the Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget – Withdrawal 1 proposal, recognising it as a necessary and well-structured step toward operationalising a previously supported initiative in a responsible and phased manner.

Our support is grounded in the clear separation this proposal establishes between infrastructure setup (₳800,000 ADA)and the eventual liquidity deployment (₳50,000,000 ADA). This phased approach reflects strong fiscal discipline and aligns with our earlier recommendation to avoid premature exposure of large treasury funds without first validating the legal and technical foundations required for execution. By limiting the current request to preparatory components, the proposal allows governance to assess readiness before committing to full-scale capital deployment.

We also acknowledge the significant improvements made in cost transparency and structural clarity. The proposal provides a detailed breakdown of legal, audit, and setup costs, offering a level of financial visibility that supports informed decision-making. In particular, the articulation of the legal framework, including the rationale for establishing a foundation entity and the associated liabilities it seeks to mitigate, demonstrates a thoughtful approach to ensuring that treasury participation in DeFi activities is both compliant and enforceable.

Additionally, we commend the inclusion of robust fund protection mechanisms, including clearly defined refund conditions, multisig-controlled disbursement (5-of-9), and commitments to ongoing transparency through reporting. These safeguards are essential given the foundational nature of this withdrawal and the larger financial pathway it enables.

Importantly, this proposal reflects responsiveness to prior governance feedback, particularly in its emphasis on phased execution, audit provisioning, and risk mitigation. The decision to separate smart contract development from audit costs, while ensuring independent verification, is also a positive signal of capital efficiency and security awareness.

That said, we note that certain areas would benefit from further refinement in subsequent phases. These include greater clarity around governance structures; particularly the composition and evolution of the interim committee, as well as more explicit articulation of how future withdrawals will be independently evaluated on their own merits. We also encourage continued efforts to ensure cost competitiveness, particularly in legal expenditures, through benchmarking or comparative justification.

On balance, we believe this proposal provides a credible, transparent, and risk-conscious foundation for enabling Cardano’s participation in DeFi liquidity provisioning. Its successful execution would position the ecosystem to deploy capital more effectively in future phases while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

As Wada DRep, we vote yes on the Cardano Budget Process Framework proposal, recognising its importance in advancing a more structured, transparent, and scalable approach to treasury governance. The transition from ad hoc funding decisions to a coordinated, end-to-end budgeting process is both necessary and timely, particularly as the ecosystem continues to mature under CIP-1694. This framework introduces much-needed discipline in proposal standardisation, prioritisation, and execution, and represents a meaningful step toward institutionalising Cardano’s financial governance.

We appreciate the comprehensive design of the framework, including its integration with the Net Change Limit, the introduction of work package-based budgeting, and the use of structured review and prioritisation phases. These elements collectively improve the quality, comparability, and accountability of treasury-funded initiatives. Additionally, the emphasis on execution monitoring through smart contracts and reporting mechanisms strengthens confidence in how approved funds will be managed and tracked.
That said, our support is accompanied by important recommendations aimed at strengthening inclusiveness, decentralisation, and accountability within the framework.

First, we encourage the establishment of a transparent and community-aligned process for Oversight Committee composition. This could include defined selection criteria, fixed terms, rotation mechanisms, and ideally a pathway for community ratification or election. Ensuring that this body evolves over time and reflects a broad spectrum of ecosystem stakeholders will be critical to maintaining trust and legitimacy.

Second, we recommend revisiting the minimum proposal threshold of 100,000 ADA. While we understand the intent to reduce spam and low-effort submissions, introducing a more flexible or tiered threshold system could preserve quality control while still enabling smaller, high-impact proposals to participate meaningfully in the process.

Third, we suggest refining the proposal aggregation model used in treasury withdrawal actions. Where possible, mechanisms should be explored to allow more granular voting or clearer separation of bundled proposals, ensuring that DReps can evaluate and support initiatives on their individual merits without being constrained by package-level decisions.

Fourth, the framework would benefit from a more explicit failure and underperformance management structure. This should include clearly defined expectations for milestone delivery, escalation procedures for delays or non-performance, and enforceable mechanisms for fund recovery or reallocation where appropriate.

Finally, with respect to the Ekklesia participation model, we believe further thought should be given to how effective and representative engagement is achieved. While stake-weighted thresholds are consistent with broader governance principles, current participation dynamics suggest the risk of disproportionate influence by a subset of large DReps. To address this, we recommend exploring a “one DRep wallet = one vote” mechanism, at least within the off-chain prioritisation phase, as a complementary approach to encourage broader participation and balance influence across the ecosystem.

In conclusion, we view this framework as a strong foundation for Cardano’s evolving treasury governance emanating from last year's funding cycle. Our support reflects confidence in its direction and potential impact, while our recommendations aim to ensure that its implementation remains inclusive, accountable, and aligned with the decentralised ethos of the ecosystem.

As Wada DRep, we vote abstain on this proposal. Our decision is not a rejection of the underlying technical ambition, but rather a reflection of a broader and necessary governance position regarding how the Cardano ecosystem approaches client diversity and the funding of core infrastructure.

We strongly recognise and support the importance of developing alternatives to the Haskell node. Client diversity is fundamental to decentralisation, resilience, and long-term network health. Reducing reliance on a single implementation mitigates systemic risks and opens the ecosystem to a broader developer base. In this regard, initiatives such as this are directionally aligned with Cardano’s strategic objectives, and we acknowledge the value they seek to bring.

However, we are increasingly concerned about the absence of a clearly defined framework guiding how many alternative node implementations the ecosystem should support and at what cost. As it stands, each proposal is evaluated in isolation, often appearing justified on its own merits, yet collectively contributing to a growing and uncoordinated financial burden on the treasury. Without a shared understanding of the desired level of client diversity, there is a risk of overextending resources toward parallel infrastructure without clear convergence or measurable thresholds for sufficiency.

This concern is further compounded by the economic nature of node implementations as public goods. Unlike other initiatives, node infrastructure does not inherently generate revenue, yet it requires continuous maintenance, upgrades, and security oversight. Each additional implementation therefore introduces not only an upfront development cost but also an ongoing financial obligation. In the absence of a sustainable funding model beyond treasury reliance, the ecosystem risks accumulating long-term liabilities without a clear path to self-sufficiency.

In the current governance era, where treasury access has been significantly broadened, we believe it is especially important to exercise discipline and intentionality in capital allocation. The ecosystem has already committed substantial resources to core infrastructure, including the continued development and maintenance of the Haskell node. While we welcome efforts such as Amaru that are already advancing alternative implementations, we believe this is an appropriate moment to pause and assess progress rather than accelerate further parallel investments.

We therefore recommend that the ecosystem facilitate a structured and inclusive discussion around node diversity. This should aim to define a target range for viable implementations, establish funding criteria, explore sustainable maintenance models, and determine how adoption and usage should influence continued support. Such a framework would provide clarity to proposers, confidence to DReps, and ensure that treasury resources are deployed in a manner that is both strategic and sustainable.

For these reasons, we vote abstain at this time. Our position reflects a call for coordination, prioritisation, and long-term thinking in how we fund and sustain critical infrastructure, and not ignorance of the importance of the problem this proposal seeks to address.

We vote yes on the Amaru Treasury Withdrawal proposal, recognising its strong alignment with Cardano’s long-term need for resilient, decentralised, and diverse core infrastructure. As the ecosystem matures, investments that expand beyond a single implementation of critical components particularly in node infrastructure and block production become increasingly important. Amaru’s focus on building and advancing alternative infrastructure pathways contributes meaningfully to reducing systemic risk while strengthening the network’s technical robustness.

The proposal presents an opportunity to deepen Cardano’s engineering stack through the development of independent tooling and capabilities that, if successfully delivered, could enhance performance, improve redundancy, and broaden participation in core protocol development. Such outcomes are not only technically valuable but also strategically significant, as they reinforce the ecosystem’s commitment to decentralisation at both the governance and infrastructure layers.

We also appreciate the continuity reflected in this proposal, as it builds on prior engineering efforts and seeks to extend them into more mature and production-oriented outcomes. Supporting this progression ensures that previously initiated work is not fragmented, but rather evolves into deliverables that can generate tangible ecosystem-wide benefits. In this regard, Amaru represents a forward-looking investment into foundational capabilities that may serve Cardano over the long term.

While certain elements of the proposal, particularly around cost structuring and specification of some operational components could benefit from further clarity and refinement, these considerations do not outweigh the broader strategic value embedded in the initiative. Instead, they highlight areas where future iterations can improve in transparency and cost attribution, thereby strengthening confidence and accountability as the work progresses.

On balance, we believe that the successful execution of this proposal would deliver meaningful infrastructure advancements and contribute to Cardano’s trajectory toward a more resilient and scalable network. Our support reflects confidence in the importance of the problem being addressed and the potential ecosystem benefits that could be realised if the proposal achieves its intended outcomes.

As Wada DRep, we vote No on the proposed Net Change Limit of 300 Million ADA for Epochs 613–713.
Our position is not rooted in opposition to fiscal discipline. In fact, we acknowledge that anchoring the NCL to realized treasury inflows, specifically the 306,940,195 ADA recorded between Epochs 532 and 604, reflects a conservative and defensible methodology. However, we have already pledged our support to the Net Change Limit framework proposed by the Cardano Budget Committee, which we consider more structurally complete and better aligned with the operational realities of this funding cycle.

The Budget Committee’s version not only referenced realized inflows but also incorporated previously approved but undrawn allocations, most notably the 50M ADA Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget, thereby preserving continuity with prior DRep decisions. By contrast, the 300M proposal does not address these latent commitments, does not provide financial modeling artifacts, and does not include supporting data links, scenario analysis, or forward-looking projections. While numerically conservative, it lacks the fiscal architecture necessary for a high-confidence governance instrument of this magnitude.

Our preparation towards Cardano Africa Tech Summit 2026 which is scheduled for February 11th to 13th has been an all-hands-on-deck situation since the start of intensive preparations and as a committee who's been engaged heavily in organising a governance workshop at the summit, we have not had the space to carefully review this governance action.

That said, we trust that our colleague DReps would review and make accurate judgement on this governance action through their vote, hence to not be a blocker in any way, we are abstaining and we hope our delegators do bear with us in good faith.

See you in Nairobi!

Our preparation towards Cardano Africa Tech Summit 2026 which is scheduled for February 11th to 13th has been an all-hands-on-deck situation since the start of intensive preparations and as a committee who's been engaged heavily in organising a governance workshop at the summit, we have not had the space to carefully review this governance action.

That said, we trust that our colleague DReps would review and make accurate judgement on this governance action through their vote, hence to not be a blocker in any way, we are abstaining and we hope our delegators do bear with us in good faith.

See you in Nairobi!

As Wada DRep, we vote yes on the Net Change Limit (Epoch 613 to Epoch 713) governance action and wish to explicitly acknowledge the proactive and deliberate work of the Cardano Budget Committee in compiling and presenting this proposal.

We view this Net Change Limit as a necessary governance instrument that restores predictability and continuity to treasury operations during a critical phase of Cardano’s on-chain governance evolution. By clearly defining a 350 million ADA ceiling over a well-considered 16-month window, the proposal provides the structural headroom required for governance to function, while still preserving the discretion of DReps to exercise restraint and rigor when assessing individual treasury withdrawal actions.

We particularly appreciate the technical care taken in deriving the NCL figure. Anchoring the limit to approximately 115 percent of realized net inflows, rather than speculative projections, reflects a data-informed approach. Importantly, the proposal transparently accounts for approximately 50 million ADA in approved but undrawn commitments from the prior financial year, notably the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget. Recognizing this carried-forward headroom avoids retroactively constraining initiatives that were already reviewed and supported in good faith, while also clarifying the effective discretionary space available under the new NCL.

The alignment of the NCL timeline with the mid-year budget cycle is another meaningful improvement. This adjustment addresses participation challenges observed in previous cycles and allows future NCL decisions to be informed by a complete set of treasury inflow data. As governance actors, we also acknowledge our shared responsibility in learning from earlier structural oversights, and we see this proposal as a constructive correction rather than a mere continuation.

Finally, we commend the Cardano Budget Committee for approaching this task with transparency, technical discipline, and an evident awareness of governance realities. Their work provides a clearer operating framework for DReps, proposers, and the wider ecosystem, reinforcing the NCL’s role as a fiscal guardrail rather than a spending directive.

As Wada DRep, we vote no on the DeltaDeFi Hydra Trading Infrastructure proposal, not because the idea lacks merit, but because the timing and risk profile do not justify treasury support at this stage.

We acknowledge that the proposal is directionally aligned with Cardano’s long-term scaling strategy. Hydra is a critical component of the network’s future, particularly for high-throughput and low-latency use cases such as order-book trading and advanced DeFi execution. DeltaDeFi’s intent to build on Hydra reflects a correct understanding of where Cardano must eventually go, and we commend the team for engaging with this infrastructure early.

That said, Hydra adoption across the ecosystem remains nascent. While the technology is live and stable, real economic demand is still emerging and uneven. At present, there is limited evidence of sustained, organic usage that would validate significant, specialized infrastructure investment. Funding complex trading infrastructure ahead of demonstrated demand introduces a material risk that the output, though technically sound, may remain underutilized in the near to medium term.

Our position should therefore be read as a sequencing decision rather than a rejection of the concept. We would be more inclined to support an initiative like DeltaDeFi once clearer Hydra usage metrics are visible, demand from dApps or traders is demonstrated, or a smaller, milestone-gated pilot shows tangible traction. Such an approach would materially reduce adoption and execution risk while preserving alignment with Cardano’s long-term vision.

We support this proposal as a respectful and appropriate recognition of Max van Rossem’s enduring contributions to the Cardano ecosystem, particularly at a pivotal moment when governance has become central to Cardano’s identity. Max’s work across constitutional development, the Buenos Aires Constitutional Convention, Article VIII deliberations, and the Constitutional Committee Election Working Group reflects sustained, high-impact engagement that has helped shape the foundations of Cardano’s on-chain governance. His contributions were not symbolic or peripheral; they were substantive, collaborative, and ecosystem-wide.

As Wada DRep, we vote yes on this governance action because it provides a much-needed strategic anchor for Cardano at a time when governance responsibility has decisively shifted to the community. The Cardano 2030 Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework, and KPIs do not attempt to prescribe outcomes or constrain on-chain decision making. Rather, they establish a shared directional reference that helps DReps, proposers, and ecosystem actors evaluate initiatives through a long-term lens. We see this as a necessary evolution from reactive governance toward intentional stewardship, particularly as treasury decisions grow in scale and frequency.

We place significant weight on the process behind this proposal. The framework emerged from extensive community engagement led by the Intersect Product Committee, involving hundreds of contributors across workshops, surveys, and focused discussions. This breadth of participation strengthens the legitimacy of the output and reduces the risk that the strategy reflects the priorities of a narrow stakeholder group. For us, the process matters as much as the document itself, because it demonstrates a repeatable model for how complex, ecosystem-wide direction setting can be handled in a decentralised environment.

Substantively, we find the articulation of the vision and mission grounded and coherent with Cardano’s historical strengths. Positioning Cardano around security, reliability, decentralisation, and suitability for mission-critical use cases reflects what the network has already proven, rather than aspirational claims detached from reality. The strategic pillars are balanced and notably elevate governance and sustainability as first-class priorities alongside adoption and infrastructure. This is consistent with our view that Cardano’s long-term success depends not only on technical excellence, but on resilient governance systems and disciplined capital allocation.

We also welcome the inclusion of KPIs, even in their current early form. While they are not yet exhaustive, their presence introduces a culture of measurement and accountability that has often been missing from ecosystem-level strategy discussions. The explicit acknowledgement that these KPIs will evolve through future info actions is, in our view, a strength rather than a weakness. It signals humility, realism, and a commitment to iteration based on real data rather than premature certainty.

Importantly, this proposal is careful to frame the 2030 Vision and Strategy as non-binding guidance. It does not override the Constitution, diminish DRep discretion, or create implicit obligations around funding decisions. Instead, it offers a shared reference point that can help reduce fragmentation, improve comparability between proposals, and encourage proposers to think more clearly about how their work contributes to Cardano’s long-term goals. We see this as supportive of decentralisation, not contrary to it.

As Wada DRep, we vote no on this governance action, and we do so with deep respect for the candidate involved. Christina has made consistently thoughtful, principled, and high-quality contributions to Cardano governance, and our confidence in her capability and integrity is not in question. This is clearly reflected in our position during the Intersect Snap Election, where we expressed strong support for her candidacy. Our decision here should not be interpreted as a rejection of Christina’s merit or suitability for governance roles within the ecosystem.

We also recognise the underlying merit of the idea being proposed. Strengthening the resilience of the Constitutional Committee is a legitimate concern, and increasing the minimum committee size to reduce the risk of governance deadlock is, in principle, a reasonable objective. At the same time, this proposal raises unanswered questions about governance design. It is not clear why the minimum size was originally set at seven, nor what the systemic implications are of moving from an odd-numbered committee to an even-numbered one. An even-sized committee introduces the possibility of tied outcomes, which may complicate decision-making rather than strengthen it. If the ecosystem is to revisit committee sizing, we would be more comfortable supporting an increase to an odd integer, such as nine, following a deliberate and well-reasoned process.

Our no vote is ultimately grounded in respect for community processes and institutional legitimacy. Intersect utilised community resources to organise the snap election with a clear and narrow mandate: to enable the ecosystem to select a single replacement for the Cardano Atlantic Council following their resignation. We do not believe that process was skewed or designed to favour any particular candidate, and we therefore respect its outcome as an expression of the ecosystem’s will. Introducing a follow-up governance action that effectively reopens representation through an alternative pathway risks undermining the finality and trust placed in that collective decision.

If there is a broader concern about the adequacy of the current minimum committee size, we believe that issue deserves a more structured, ecosystem-wide discussion rather than being addressed through an ad hoc member addition. A principled approach to committee resilience, composition, and sizing would benefit from stewardship by an appropriate body, and we would welcome the Cardano Civics Committee taking this matter up to explore options that strengthen governance operations while setting sound precedent.

For these reasons, while we hold Christina in the highest regard and acknowledge the good intentions behind this proposal, we are not able to support it in its current form. Our position reflects a commitment to process integrity, respect for community-driven outcomes, and a belief that structural governance changes should be approached deliberately and holistically.

As Wada DRep, we vote yes on this constitutional update governance action, based on the clear progress made in addressing concerns we raised in earlier iterations and the overall improvement in clarity, structure, and intent reflected in the current version. In prior drafts, our reservations centered on the lack of sufficiently explicit amendment pathways, the risk of over-constitutionalizing operational matters, and ambiguity around how supporting governance instruments such as codes of conduct would relate to the Constitution itself. In this iteration, those concerns have been meaningfully resolved through clearer articulation of the constitutional amendment process, improved separation between constitutional guardrails and operational governance tools, and a more disciplined framing of responsibilities across governance actors. This has increased our confidence that the document is not only principled, but also workable in practice.

We are particularly satisfied that this version demonstrates a stronger respect for governance maturity. Rather than attempting to solve every governance challenge at the constitutional layer, it establishes durable foundations while leaving appropriate flexibility for future community-driven evolution. This addresses our earlier concern that premature rigidity could hinder learning, adaptation, and experimentation at a time when Cardano’s on-chain governance structures are still bedding in. The current update strikes a more balanced posture, one that protects legitimacy without constraining progress.

We also wish to commend Yuta for the resilience, patience, and good faith demonstrated throughout this process. Iterating on a constitutional document in a live, decentralised ecosystem is inherently challenging, particularly when feedback is diverse, sometimes conflicting, and publicly scrutinised. The willingness to engage constructively with critique, refine proposals, and return with improved drafts sets a strong example for governance leadership within Cardano. It is precisely this kind of stewardship that helps build long-term trust in our governance institutions.

Finally, we encourage other community members to draw inspiration from this process and participate meaningfully in Cardano governance, whether by actively delegating their stake, contributing to discussions, or supporting governance actions with thoughtful review and feedback. Sustainable governance depends not only on well-written constitutional texts, but on a community willing to engage responsibly and in good faith. On that basis, and with our earlier concerns now fairly addressed, we are comfortable lending our support to this governance action at this stage.

As Wada DRep, we recognise the intrinsic value of the end products envisioned by this proposal. After extended internal deliberation and a conscious effort to step away from the urgency and pressure surrounding this proposal, we have resolved to support it based on the substance of its intended outcomes, while clearly condemning the rushed manner in which it has been introduced to the ecosystem. Our support is not an endorsement of the process as executed, but a measured decision grounded in the long-term interests of Cardano and the material importance of what this proposal seeks to address.

At its core, the proposal targets the maintenance and continuity of critical integrations that underpin Cardano’s operational reliability, developer experience, and broader ecosystem functionality. These integrations are not experimental or speculative; they are already deeply embedded in how exchanges, wallets, developers, and infrastructure providers interact with the network. Historical evidence across Cardano’s lifecycle shows that underinvestment in maintenance layers tends to surface later as systemic friction, slowed adoption, or emergency interventions that are far more costly. In this sense, the proposal aligns with a preventative rather than reactive approach to ecosystem stewardship, which we consider a valid and timely objective.

From an external context perspective, the broader industry provides ample precedent for the importance of sustained funding for core infrastructure. Major blockchain ecosystems that failed to adequately resource maintenance and integration layers have experienced degraded reliability, fragmented tooling, and loss of developer confidence. Conversely, ecosystems that treated core integrations as shared public goods have generally demonstrated stronger long-term resilience. Cardano’s 2030 Vision explicitly emphasizes reliability, scalability, and real-world utility as foundational pillars, and this proposal contributes directly to those enabling conditions, even if it does not fully articulate that linkage itself.

That said, we are unequivocal in our concern regarding the timing and compressed review window. The proposal was introduced late in the current Net Change Limit cycle, leaving limited headroom for the depth of scrutiny that a request of this magnitude warrants. This constraint is not trivial. Large-scale treasury withdrawals require ample time for DReps, Constitutional Committee members, and the wider community to interrogate assumptions, assess alternatives, and stress-test risk. While the successful ratification of the NCL extension technically permits consideration of this proposal, procedural adequacy should not be conflated with governance best practice. On this point, we believe the proposers underestimated the importance of pacing in a maturing governance system.

Despite these process shortcomings, we are persuaded that rejecting the proposal outright would introduce its own risks. Deferring investment in critical integrations until a future cycle could expose the ecosystem to cumulative technical debt, fragmented responsibility, and increased operational fragility. Moreover, the entities positioned to execute this work possess demonstrable historical context, domain expertise, and institutional memory that would be difficult to replicate quickly through alternative arrangements. While this does not exempt them from accountability, it does materially reduce execution risk compared to a cold start with new operators.

Our support is therefore conditional in spirit, even if procedurally expressed as a “Yes” vote. We expect heightened transparency during implementation, clear reporting on how funds are allocated across integration streams, and a demonstrable effort to avoid normalising late-stage, high-magnitude treasury requests in future cycles. We also strongly recommend that similar initiatives be fielded earlier in subsequent NCL timelines, allowing for modularisation, staged funding, and deeper community alignment before decisions are required.

In conclusion, we vote to support this proposal because the outcomes it seeks to achieve are strategically important for Cardano’s stability, credibility, and long-term adoption, and because delaying action carries its own systemic costs. At the same time, we explicitly reject the rushed framing under which it has been presented. Effective governance is not only about approving the right ideas, but about introducing them in ways that respect the time, responsibility, and deliberative role of governance actors. Supporting this proposal should not be interpreted as acceptance of its process, but as a pragmatic decision to safeguard critical infrastructure while signalling the need for more disciplined governance practices going forward.

While there were valid reasons for us to consider declining this proposal, one critical factor prevented us from voting no. The governance action seeks to correct a timeline inconsistency in the original 350M ADA Net Change Limit proposal, where the stated end date did not fully align with the epoch-based mechanics of treasury withdrawals. Addressing this mismatch is necessary to ensure that previously approved spending decisions are not rendered invalid due to a procedural oversight rather than substantive governance intent.

We also acknowledge our shared responsibility in this outcome. As DReps and members of the broader governance process, including the Constitutional Committee, this discrepancy was not identified or challenged during the review of the original NCL proposal. That oversight contributed directly to the need for this corrective action. Recognising this context, we view the extension not as an expansion of authority, but as a practical adjustment to restore coherence between the original decision and how treasury governance operates in practice.

We have reviewed the Treasury Withdrawal Action requesting ₳5,000,000 as a revolving loan to support Cardano’s global listings expansion, and we are satisfied that the proposal has matured significantly since the initial Info Governance Action. At that earlier stage, we supported the strategic intent but withheld full endorsement until we could evaluate a complete loan structure. The withdrawal action now provides the clarity and accountability we asked for, and we are prepared to fully support it.

The loan terms are now defined with a 2.44% APR, a 3 – 5 year repayment period, and the option for early repayment. Treasury protection is formalized through a legally binding agreement administered by Intersect, combined with a milestone-based release of funds through both the Treasury Release Smart Contract (TRSC) and the Project-Specific Smart Contract (PSSC). The proposal also incorporates a mandatory independent audit at year 3, with a budget allocation of ₳30,000 – ₳50,000 to ensure transparency. These mechanisms provide enforceability and safeguard the treasury from mismanagement or non-performance.

We also acknowledge the justification for withholding detailed line-item costs. Because exchange listing negotiations often involve nondisclosure agreements and competitive sensitivities, publicly disclosing prices could undermine Cardano’s bargaining position. We appreciate how, the proposal compensates for this by committing to bi-annual progress reports, independent third-party milestone assurance, and the publication of outcomes through a public dashboard via cardanotreasury.fi. This combination offers a workable balance between necessary confidentiality and financial accountability.

The governance and oversight structure is also considerably stronger. A five-entity Oversight Committee comprising Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, NMKR, Xerberus, and Sundae Labs, will supervise milestone verification, dispute resolution, and the release of funds. The proposal also establishes a Board of Advisors including leaders from Cardano Foundation, Emurgo, Midnight Foundation, and Kraken, ensuring that the listing strategy remains ecosystem-aligned and guided by institutions with relevant experience. This governance upgrade responds directly to our earlier call for ecosystem-wide representation rather than project-isolated decision-making.

Repayment capacity is demonstrated with new financial transparency. The Snek Foundation highlights that Snek.fun previously generated approximately ₳100,000 per month, and that Snek’s broader ecosystem has accumulated ₳1.2 million in trading fees to date. The Foundation also maintains a ₳10 million treasury, providing a substantial financial base for loan servicing. These figures give us confidence that the repayment of ₳5,000,000 + interest is achievable and not speculative.

We are also satisfied with the commitment to broad ecosystem benefit. The proposal includes explicit plans to produce public documentation, listing playbooks, due diligence templates, and negotiation frameworks that can be reused by other Cardano-native projects. It further commits to collaboration with Cardano Foundation’s growth team, Emurgo’s business development unit, and the Midnight Foundation to ensure a shared, ecosystem-wide strategy. This addresses our original expectation that the initiative must benefit Cardano holistically, not exclusively the Snek Foundation or the SNEK token.

In our earlier review of the Info Governance Action, we requested a complete loan structure, transparent oversight, repayment assurances, audit mechanisms, and a clear ecosystem-aligned purpose. The Treasury Withdrawal Action now contains all these elements, with actual figures which we believe are right, contractual terms, independent oversight, and governance safeguards integrated throughout. Taken together, these improvements demonstrate a thoughtful and responsible response to community feedback and hence we are glad to vote yes on this treasury withdrawal action.

We have reviewed the governance action to secure the .ada and .cardano top-level domains and find it to be a strategically necessary step for the long-term health of the Cardano ecosystem. The application window for generic TLDs opens only once every decade or more, and missing it would leave these namespaces vulnerable to commercial capture, domain squatting, phishing misuse, or fragmentation across unrelated entities. Ensuring that these domains are held by an ecosystem-aligned organisation is therefore a matter of digital self-determination rather than branding convenience, and we recognise the Cardano Foundation’s intention to protect these namespaces for community use rather than any proprietary purpose.

We also recognise that this proposal does not request treasury funds. The Cardano Foundation commits to financing the ICANN application from its own resources, meaning this governance action is solely a request for ecosystem endorsement. In our view, this is an appropriate moment for such consultation because the decision carries long-term implications for public-facing identity, trust, and cohesion across Web2 and Web3 ecosystems. A lack of ecosystem backing would weaken the legitimacy of the application, while community support strengthens the case that these domains serve a public-interest function rather than a corporate one.

The extended discussion on the Cardano Forum hosted by CF provides valuable context. Stakeholders broadly support the strategic intent, while raising questions about governance, transparency, and long-term operational models. The Foundation’s responses: its commitment to establishing a Community Advisory Group, publishing operational metrics, and treating the namespace as public infrastructure, indicate a willingness to incorporate community influence into the process. These early conversations give confidence that the Foundation acknowledges the public-good nature of the TLDs and is prepared to steward them in a participatory manner.

We note that this Info Action is intentionally high-level, as many operational details cannot be defined until after ICANN approval. Choices around pricing, allocation, dispute procedures, or registrant eligibility fall naturally into the post-approval phase when the constraints and obligations of the contract are known. We expect those specifics to be co-developed with the community through the promised advisory structures and future governance actions. Given the nature of the ICANN process, seeking detailed operational plans at this early stage would be premature. What matters now is the strategic decision to secure the namespaces before the window closes.

For these reasons, we are satisfied that the idea presents a clear strategic benefit with minimal risk and aligns with the broader ecosystem’s interest in safeguarding public infrastructure. We therefore vote yes in support of this info governance action, with the expectation that the Foundation follows through on its commitment to transparent, community-guided management of the TLDs once acquired.

We have reviewed the governance action seeking to reimburse the deposit lost by the submitter of the original Ikigai Info Governance Action from September 2024. As Wada DRep, we remain fully supportive of the principle that the ecosystem must reimburse the 100,000 ADA deposit that was locked due to a protocol-level issue. This loss occurred through no fault of the proposer but resulted from a technical weakness that allowed an unregistered stake key to submit a governance action and prevented the deposit from being returned. Reimbursing this amount is not only fair but reinforces accountability and trust in Cardano’s governance infrastructure.

We also note that the Ikigai issue has been discussed at length across the ecosystem and we believe that we do not need to know the identity of the individual proposer to resolve the matter. In a decentralised environment, identity is irrelevant. The correct approach is to return the 100,000 ADA to the recipient address originally submitted with the Ikigai governance action itself, which is publicly recorded and cryptographically tied to the proposal. This protects privacy, avoids unnecessary off-chain verification processes, and cleanly resolves the issue using on-chain information alone.

However, while we support the reimbursement in principle, the current proposal is generic and lacks essential information about how the funds will be returned to the original address in practice. It does not clearly state the exact return mechanism, the treasury contract path, or any safeguards that ensure the funds are transferred precisely to the address that appeared in the original submission. Without these procedural details, the community cannot confidently execute an action of this nature.

We further note that the additional 3,000 ADA proposed as compensation appears unsubstantiated. Although we agree that the proposer may have missed out on staking rewards, airdrop eligibility, or other opportunities had the 100,000 ADA been returned in 2024, the proposal provides no model, data, or timeframe to validate 3,000 ADA as an appropriate figure. Any additional compensation should be based on measurable approximations, such as staking reward estimates for the relevant epoch range; rather than an arbitrary number. Applying a guessed figure creates the risk of setting a weak precedent for future compensation-type proposals.

Given both the historical significance of this issue and the need to resolve it correctly, we believe this matter would be best handled through the Intersect Steering Committee. They can formally reference the original Ikigai governance action, extract and verify the associated recipient address, and collaborate with the community to submit a complete and technically precise reimbursement action. Such a proposal should specify the exact address, confirm the on-chain record, define the distribution method, and present a transparent model for calculating any supplementary reward: if justified.

For the reasons elaborated above, we vote no on this governance action while encouraging Intersect to guide a complete and accurate resolution process so that the reimbursement is executed cleanly, transparently, and conclusively.

We have reviewed the proposal “Constitutional Committee Compensation Epochs 581–653” and acknowledge the critical role the Constitutional Committee (CC) continues to play in safeguarding the governance process, interpreting constitutional provisions, and ensuring procedural integrity. The proposal requests ₳1,000,000 from the treasury to compensate five of the seven currently serving CC members for their work over a 73-epoch term. The intent to formalize fair remuneration for essential governance work is understandable and, in principle, supports professional accountability and sustainability within Cardano’s evolving governance system.

However, we hold the view that governance equity must remain central to any compensation framework. Cardano’s governance ecosystem functions as an interconnected structure comprising DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee, each fulfilling distinct yet equally vital duties that sustain decision-making legitimacy. To compensate one body in isolation risks distorting that balance, particularly when the other two operate under similarly demanding workloads with significant community-level responsibility. A selective compensation model could introduce unintended behavioural biases or weaken the collaborative equilibrium among governance actors.

We therefore believe that compensation for governance roles should not be designed or approved unilaterally by any single body that stands to benefit from it. Instead, a comprehensive, community-driven compensation framework should be developed; one that establishes transparent standards, clear eligibility criteria, equitable rates, and peer-reviewed oversight for all recognized governance participants. Such a model would not only mitigate potential perceptions of privilege or self-authorization but also strengthen accountability and preserve fairness across governance layers.

Until such a unified and community-endorsed framework is introduced, we are unable to fully support isolated compensation actions. Our position is not a rejection of the Constitutional Committee’s value or effort but rather a principled call for parity, transparency, and collective design in how governance service is rewarded and we are more than happy to contribute to the development of a compensation framework that captures all governance actors. For this reason, we as Wada DRep will vote no on this proposal, while encouraging further dialogue to develop an ecosystem-wide compensation policy that treats all governance bodies with equal recognition and fairness.

We acknowledge the amount of work injected in the process to develop version 2.3 for this proposal. This is a clear indication that the author of the proposal believes in utilisation of constructive feedback and we applaud them as it is in line with our organisational principles. We have reviewed the latest version against the older versions and are impressed with the level of contextual upgrades.

It is clear that if a platform is created for community feedback, sensitive proposals like this would garner a lot of enriching context and input to solidify its position and as hinted in our previous vote, on top of the definition and clarifications, we are glad to see the essential parts of the “budget info governance action” being integrated into the “treasury withdrawal governance action” to make way for smooth removal of the budget info action step which easily leads to DRep voting fatigue, especially for individual DReps.

Despite the amazing upgrades to this version, all loopholes are not filled yet and for that matter we cannot vote yes. Notable amongst these critical loopholes are as follows:

a. The proposal author claims that the v2.3 incorporates feedback and improvements from v2.0 which received 86.23% community review from participating DReps but refuses to attach relevant supporting documentation. Albeit, we do acknowledge that there has been some level of input from DReps who voted on the previous version of the proposal but we believe that the input should not be from only DReps.

b. In our previous vote, we did recommend that the next version (this one) should explicitly include a clear, community-ratified constitution amendment process as a provision but was not effected yet.

c. While the constitution currently perceives all code of conducts as “expectations”, we believe instead of removing them, if there is the room to explore ways of having them enforceable by the constitution, we should explore. These are meant to serve as sewage for clean governance and should be strengthened instead of scrapping.

d. We note that the Cardano Civics Committee have set up a special interest group to determine an effective constitutional amendment process and we want to implore them to not act in haste but carefully accelerate the process to enable a well inclusive amendment process before 2026 budget process kicks in.

For these reasons, while we acknowledge the progress and commend the author’s diligence, unresolved issues of transparency, amendment clarity, and ethical safeguards prevent us from offering full endorsement at this time. Therefore, as Wada DRep, we vote abstain on this proposal with the expectation that these remaining gaps will be addressed in a future revision to achieve a more robust and complete constitution.

We have reviewed the proposal “Withdraw ₳1,150,000 for GovTool 12 months active maintenance and development” and find it to be a well-structured and well-justified treasury withdrawal that aligns with the previously approved Info Action and incorporates nearly all the feedback we provided at that stage. The withdrawal represents the next operational phase of GovTool’s mission to serve as the open, community-owned interface for Cardano governance. It seeks to fund twelve months of continued development, maintenance, infrastructure, and contributor engagement of https://gov.tools to ensure reliability and accessibility for all network participants.

We consider GovTool an essential public infrastructure for the current governance era as it enables ADA holders, DReps, and SPOs to participate in governance activities transparently. While we do value the existence of other governance tools like tempo.vote, gov.tools has always been our go to for voting on governance actions. The proposal’s scope maintains the five existing product pillars; voting, delegation, proposal, outcomes, and budgeting, while keeping the platform open-source for third-party developers and integrators. This ensures that community participation tools remain shared resources rather than proprietary services.

We find the ₳1.15M budget proportionate to the scope of work and matching the funding ceiling agreed upon in the Info Action. The cost allocation across labor, infrastructure, and open-source contribution incentives appears reasonable for a multi-organization consortium that includes ByronNetwork, LidoNation, WeDeliver, and Dquadrant. These teams have a verifiable track record in delivering previous phases of Cardano’s governance tooling. The inclusion of ₳250K for open-source contributors through Andamio is a positive step toward sustaining community-driven development. The commitment to return unused ADA to the treasury further reflects prudent fund management.

We acknowledge that project oversight and fund management have been strengthened with disbursements being milestone-based and automated through Intersect’s Treasury Reserve Smart Contract (TRSC) and Project-Specific Smart Contracts (PSSC), while verification responsibilities are distributed among five independent reviewers, i.e., Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, Xerberus, NMKR, and Dquadrant. The public treasury dashboard, which allows continuous community monitoring of fund usage and milestone progress would also enhance reporting and transparency.

We note a governance concern that “Dquadrant” is listed both as a development contributor and as one of the independent verifiers. This dual role presents a potential conflict of interest. To maintain procedural integrity and confidence in the verification process, we recommend a clear recusal policy where “Dquadrant” abstains from verifying milestones related to its own deliverables. The remaining verifiers; Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, Xerberus, and NMKR, should handle verification for those milestones, and Intersect should publish milestone assignments and verification reports to document this separation.

Although the proposal could further improve by publishing specific KPIs such as uptime, delivery timelines, and contributor metrics, this does not materially affect its quality but we recommend that these indicators are included in monthly progress reports and the public dashboard to strengthen accountability and community confidence.

We are convinced that the proposal demonstrates continuity, technical maturity, and sound project management. It ensures that the governance platform remains operational, transparent, and responsive to community needs. For these reasons, we vote yes on this treasury withdrawal action and support GovTool’s continued development and maintenance for the next twelve months.

If you agree with our reasoning, we’d be happy to receive your delegation and support.
Peace.

We as Wada DRep votes "yes" on this info-action as we recognize the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy as a well-structured blueprint that captures many of the principles Wada stands for as a DRep, particularly its emphasis on decentralization, culture-first engagement, education, enterprise inclusion, and financial sustainability. Each of the seven strategic imperatives directly supports Wada’s broader vision of empowering local ecosystems and ensuring that Cardano’s growth is both equitable and globally inclusive. The culture-first and localized engagement pillar mirrors our ongoing efforts across Africa to embed blockchain adoption within cultural realities, while the focus on ecosystem capacity building and developer empowerment aligns strongly with our mission to foster self-reliant, regionally skilled communities. Likewise, the commitment to enterprise adoption, SPO incentives, and sound treasury management resonates with our advocacy for transparent and sustainable infrastructure development.

However, we note that while decentralization and financial stewardship are featured, “Governance” is not explicitly included as a core strategic pillar. Given that governance underpins every facet of Cardano’s future; from constitutional oversight to participatory funding decisions, it warrants clear visibility within the strategy. We therefore recommend that a dedicated “Governance and Community Participation” imperative be incorporated in subsequent revisions of the 2030 roadmap. This should define measurable goals for voter participation, DRep diversity, delegation spread-out, transparency standards, governance education, etc. We believe that embedding governance as a strategic focus will ensure that the ecosystem’s evolution remains truly decentralized, inclusive, and accountable; principles central to both Cardano’s long-term viability and Wada’s continued advocacy within it.

We, the Wada DRep view the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget proposal as a timely strategy to deepen fiat-backed stablecoin markets on Cardano, remove slippage friction for builders and users, and create reusable public goods in governance contracts and legal scaffolding. The framing as an information action is appropriate for socialising the idea and gathering targeted feedback ahead of any request for funds.

We recognise clear strengths in the design. On-chain custody of LP tokens preserves auditability. A dRep-based oversight layer with freeze and shutdown powers embeds community control. The proposal sets concrete KPIs around slippage and yield, and phases work so a small legal and contract setup precedes any major deployment. These are reassuring features for a conservative treasury.

Our review still flags important open items that must be settled before treasury funds move. The legal structure remains a menu rather than a decision. While committee incentivisation is mentioned, time commitments, conflict disclosures, and incident response service levels are not yet defined. Price-impact controls for ADA liquidation need binding policies. The revenue model requires sensitivity analysis and clear downside responses.

Accordingly, we recommend that the forthcoming treasury withdrawal action address, as signed and verifiable artifacts, a full legal term sheet with jurisdiction, roles, liabilities, regulatory obligations, and costs. We expect audited contracts with admin and oversight keys, timelocks, emergency procedures, and proof that all LP tokens remain in the governance contract. We expect a named deployment plan per venue with allocations, venue-specific guardrails, exit criteria, and enforcement of the “max two per category” rule. We expect an execution policy for OTC and DCA, fee ladders, slippage and peg monitors, and auto-pause thresholds. We expect a reporting template and independent audit calendar published on-chain. We expect economic models with bear, base, and bull cases, treasury skim versus compounding, value-at-risk and drawdown limits, and venue caps. We expect governance details covering tDAO authorities, incident response timelines, compensation, rotations, and conflicts. We expect a one-year sunset with claw-backs and a concrete reversion plan to return remaining assets to the treasury if KPIs or risk limits are breached.

With those safeguards in place, the proposal can be assured of our yes vote on the upcoming TWA. In the meantime, because this is an information-gathering step, we vote Yes on this info-action to endorse the strategy and invite the team to integrate community feedback into a rigorous and auditable withdrawal package.

We support this Info Action because the strategic use of a loan, not a grant, signals a maturing treasury that can recycle capital while accelerating Tier-1 exchange access for Cardano-native assets. The SNEK Foundation already invested over $4.5 million of its own funds to secure Kraken, Crypto.com, and KuCoin listings, proving execution capacity and skin in the game . The strategy to repay the requested principal within five years at 2.44 % APR, indexed to the network’s staking yield and sweetened by a 0.07 % goodwill margin, ensures the treasury earns a modest return while keeping opportunity cost low. We also do find confidence in the loan management board as spelled out in the proposal.

We do, however, recognise that concentration risk, repayment enforcement and market-making cost opacity remain open issues. Before any withdrawal action, we expect an audited cash-flow model, a per-exchange cost schedule, and a binding loan contract that defines collateral, default triggers, and claw-back rights. Independent audits budgeted at 30–50 k ADA per year and a mandatory year-three loan review provide a foundation for transparency but need concrete schedules and reporting templates. Likewise, repayment must begin no later than year three and conclude by year five, with early payments encouraged.

Because this vote merely signals whether the community should pursue the loan concept, which we see as a good way of supporting projects like SNEK, we as Wada DRep would like to vote yes in support of the strategy and approach without necessarily endorsing the terms at this stage. We want to give the team the opportunity to review and integrate all necessary feedback and recommendations received from DReps and therein submit a treasury withdrawal action which after reviewing would warrant our ultimate decision.

We have reviewed “Cardano in Oceania” through the same conservative lens we apply to every governance action and find that the strategic upside comfortably outweighs the manageable risks, warranting our Yes vote. Oceania already ranks among the world’s most crypto-curious regions, about 32 percent of Australians have owned digital assets and that figure is projected to climb sharply this year. Governments and enterprises in both Australia and New Zealand are issuing policy papers and funding pilots on supply-chain traceability, digital identity and social-impact finance, creating fertile ground for Cardano solutions. The proposal’s mix of advanced markets and Pacific island communities offers a sandbox where real-world use cases can be proven locally and then exported globally, positioning the region as a bridge for wider adoption.

Execution strength is evident in a fully doxxed leadership bench. Jo Allum, Peter Bui, Peter Horsfall and Phil Lewis each bring years of Cardano community work and professional credentials in venture building, developer education, banking technology and enterprise architecture. Their visibility and prior delivery record reduce the execution-risk premium we normally attach to regional growth pilots. The Year-1 budget of 778 k ADA is tightly itemised; no single line exceeds 175 k ADA, and is phased against quarterly milestones such as convening a 100-person hackathon, publishing a map of at least 100 regional actors and securing three enterprise pilots. For less than half a percent of the treasury’s annual planning envelope, we obtain a replicable blueprint for business-development capacity, community activation and governance literacy that mirrors the programmes Wada already runs in West Africa and thus amplifies our own mission alignment.

Two weaknesses merit attention. First, Selfdriven Services is slated as sole fund manager and milestone verifier, which concentrates administrative authority and introduces key-person risk; second, 100 k ADA of the ask is earmarked to reimburse a past governance-action deposit, a use that could invite reputational scrutiny if not transparently ring-fenced. We recommend scheduling mid-year and end-year external audits to complement Selfdriven’s oversight, publishing partner letters of intent before funds are drawn, and moving the reimbursement into a separate address with a public transaction hash to keep operational optics clean.

With these safeguards in place, the phased budget, seasoned team and clearly defined KPIs give us confidence that the programme can deliver measurable ecosystem growth while preserving fiscal discipline.

We are abstaining to avoid creating procedural blockage for a largely beneficial update while signaling a clear preference for a more inclusive, better-timed, and better-communicated amendment process. Substantively, we recognize meaningful improvements in v2: clearer defined terms, simplified language, and removal of outdated provisions, alongside alignment updates such as eliminating the standing requirement to attach a Budget Info Action to treasury withdrawals. These are quality-of-life corrections that reduce ambiguity and technical debt in the text, and we acknowledge the effort behind them.

Our abstention is therefore not about content rejection; it is about process. Although we appreciate Yuta’s sincere attempts to invite participation, the practical window and venues for engagement did not, in our view, provide sufficient reach and attention for broad community input. Given the Constitution’s foundational role, we believe updates of this magnitude should be preceded by a clearly signposted and widely accessible consultation cycle (e.g., advance timeline, multilingual summaries, regional office hours, written comment periods, and transparent diff mapping). The motivation text in the v2 materials themselves underlines that the revision tackles clarity, definitions, and pruning of unused clauses, precisely the kind of changes where broad review helps catch edge cases and social implications before adoption.

We also advise that v2 explicitly include a clear, community-ratified amendment process. As it stands, the path to initiating, socializing, and finalizing constitutional edits is not sufficiently standardized, which makes inclusive participation fragile and uneven across regions and time zones. To address this, we recommend the creation of a community-mandated Constitutional Review Committee tasked to (i) monitor constitutional effectiveness in practice; (ii) steward amendment proposals end-to-end; (iii) publish consultation calendars and stakeholder engagement reports; and (iv) maintain a public change log and rationale archive.

Finally, we note one material policy shift: the removal of the Budget Info Action requirement for treasury withdrawals warrants heightened governance hygiene. We recommend that the essential parts of the budget info actions must be integrated in the treasury withdrawal actions to preserve trust and accountability while streamlining the budgetary process and reducing the burden on DReps as we transition. Our abstention keeps the door open for these procedural refinements without impeding progress on the underlying textual improvements. Should the community adopt v2, Wada stands ready to support implementation of the above process enhancements and to contribute beyond our DRep role to ensure the Constitution remains both clear and genuinely community-driven.

Wada values the energy SNEK brings to Cardano, but this proposal requests a very large treasury withdrawal without constitutional compliance, clear accountability, or measurable success indicators. We also could not support the other SNEK treasury withdrawal proposal (gov_action1r44w54hx553mz0sr4cc07f8tlxzj2sa57l2pt3l9pa2ldw42fc7sq5q3rtn), and our rationale there outlines in greater detail why we think initiatives of this kind do not align with responsible treasury stewardship.

Wada acknowledges the positive role that SNEK has played in energizing the Cardano community, expanding participation, and onboarding new members into the ecosystem. We support the project’s community value and recognize its cultural impact, particularly in how it has drawn wider attention to Cardano through community-driven initiatives. Our position is not in opposition to the growth of SNEK, but rather in alignment with maintaining the integrity and sustainability of the governance process and the treasury that serves the entire ecosystem.

After careful consideration, we will be voting no on this proposal. Our decision rests first on the matter of constitutional process. The proposal was submitted as a Treasury Withdrawal Action without the required Budget Information Governance Action that should precede such a request. This omission constitutes a procedural flaw that cannot be overlooked. While DReps are not the Constitutional Committee, we are bound to respect the framework and ensure our voting reflects adherence to the principles outlined in the constitution. Upholding this process is critical to maintaining legitimacy and confidence in Cardano’s governance.

We are also concerned with treasury stewardship. The request for ₳5 million represents a significant outlay of community funds, yet there is no mechanism for returning value to the treasury, whether through repayment, revenue sharing, or another form of accountability. This absence creates a situation where the treasury bears all the risk with no defined path for benefit or replenishment. If such a precedent were established, it could open the door for other projects to seek large sums of treasury funds for exchange listings or similar activities without providing measurable returns to the ecosystem. This risks compromising the long-term sustainability of the treasury and its ability to support a diverse range of initiatives in the future.

In addition to process and precedent, we find the proposal lacking in terms of defined metrics and accountability structures. There are no clear key performance indicators, timelines, or measurable outcomes that would allow the community to assess the effectiveness of the proposed exchange listings. While the proposal specifies which exchanges are being targeted, it fails to address what the listing fees would be or how the ₳5 million figure was calculated. Without such clarity, it becomes difficult to evaluate whether the requested funding will achieve its intended impact, leaving the use of treasury funds without adequate transparency or accountability.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have voted yes on the governance action to replace the Interim Constitutional Committee (ICC) with the newly elected Constitutional Committee (CC), in accordance with Article VII of the Cardano Constitution. This marks a pivotal and positive transition from a founding, appointed body to a community-elected institution that reflects Cardano’s commitment to decentralized governance.

Throughout the May–July 2025 election process, we evaluated each candidate and cast yes votes for several of the candidates who were ultimately elected to serve. As such, we have no hesitation endorsing this final ratification and are confident that the committee reflects a diversity of perspectives, strong governance orientation, and constitutional literacy. We see our support for this governance action as a natural extension of our earlier DRep-level endorsement of these candidates during the election phase.

We are also reassured by the transparent and inclusive design of the election, the integrity of the vote auditing process, and the use of staggered term lengths that preserve continuity while initiating rotation. The carryover of some experienced ICC members into the new CC strengthens institutional memory while reinforcing democratic legitimacy.

Importantly, this action ensures that Cardano governance proceeds without interruption or ambiguity, as the current ICC’s term ends at Epoch 580. Delaying or rejecting this transition would risk a power vacuum and undermine months of community preparation and coordination.

By voting yes, we affirm the voice of the voters, safeguard constitutional governance, and help inaugurate a long-term, accountable Constitutional Committee formed through community consensus. It is both a procedural obligation and a proud milestone in Cardano’s Voltaire era, and we wish the best of luck to the new CC.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have voted NO on the Budget Info Governance Action titled “Tempo for Cardano Governance – Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025”. While we recognise the value of alternative governance interfaces and the importance of user-friendly mobile voting experiences, we found this proposal too vague and underdeveloped to earn our support at this stage of the process.

As a Budget Info Action, this proposal serves as a signal of community support or rejection for potential future Treasury disbursement. From that lens, it is vital that proposals demonstrate a clear plan, responsible budgeting, and public accountability, none of which are sufficiently evident here. While we do support the listed upgrade features, the proposal lacks basic structural elements we believe are necessary for a credible signal to proceed, including:

1. A transparent budget breakdown with justification for the ₳380,000 request (especially ₳200,000 for infrastructure),
2. A timeline of development milestones,
3. Public details about the development team or maintainers,
4. Defined success criteria or measurable impact projections.
5. Roadmap to open-sourcing the project and updating already existing features like demographic representation, etc.

Additionally, while Selfdriven is named as the administrative entity, there is no description of how treasury funds would be governed if this Budget Info Action were to lead to a Treasury Withdrawal. This raises concerns about execution oversight and the stewardship of public funds.

Given our DRep responsibility to help shape a high-trust, effective governance funding system, we cannot support proposals that fail to meet the basic standards of clarity, feasibility, and community accountability. Although we recognise the potential of Tempo.Vote and are open to supporting its future iterations, we encourage the proposers to return with a more robust, well-documented submission that the community can confidently evaluate.

Accordingly, we have voted NO on this Budget Info Governance Action.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.

We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.

Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.

Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.

In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.

Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.

We, the Wada DRep, have voted yes on the “Cardano GovTool Budget – 12 Months Full Active Maintenance and Development” proposal. Our support for this request is based on two core principles: governance maturity and community value. This proposal represents a critical step forward in preserving open access to Cardano’s on-chain governance while also modeling how community-funded initiatives should engage, respond, and evolve based on input from stakeholders.

The GovTool team has demonstrated remarkable responsiveness to the feedback gathered from DReps, contributors, and the broader community during the 2025 budgeting process. After submitting their initial proposal, they undertook several rounds of consultations through the Governance Tool Working Group, community forums, and open development calls. As a result, the final proposal reflects thoughtful, community-aligned adjustments that meaningfully improve both its scope and its strategic value.

One of the most important improvements was the introduction of a tiered funding structure, Levels 1 through 3, which now makes the budget modular and transparent. This allows the community to understand what features and activities are funded at each level of support, from baseline infrastructure maintenance to full-featured active development and incentive programs. This structure reflects a realistic and scalable vision for public goods development under decentralized governance.

Beyond the process, the features that GovTool will deliver under this proposal stand to benefit the Cardano community in tangible, far-reaching ways.

GovTool is the primary open-source frontend for Cardano governance, already used by over 48,000 ADA holders across more than 170 countries, as hinted in the proposal. It powers vital governance actions, DRep registration, delegation, proposal creation, voting, and outcome tracking, and integrates with other public tools such as 1694.io, cardanobudget.com, and governancespace.co, etc. Continued investment in GovTool ensures that every ADA holder, not just the technically fluent, can participate meaningfully in Cardano’s governance era.

The proposal also strengthens the ecosystem by introducing and funding community incentive pools. These include ₳150K for contributors to the GovTool GitHub repository and ₳100K for developers building interoperable tools using GovTool APIs. This move expands the circle of contributors and helps grow a governance developer ecosystem that is open, competitive, and sustainable.

Moreover, the team is committed to open APIs, quality assurance (QA), user experience testing, localization efforts, and enhanced support for wallet integrations and backend reliability. These improvements directly address pain points raised during the beta testing phase and will result in a more robust and user-friendly experience for everyone participating in on-chain governance.

We are also encouraged by the team’s adherence to constitutional best practices. The proposal is administered through Intersect, using milestone-based smart contracts, and includes refund clauses for unused funds. It complies with all relevant sections of the Cardano Constitution, particularly Articles IV.1 to IV.4.

In short, this proposal reflects not just a strong technical project but a governance-aware, community-integrated initiative that has developed through delivery, transparency, and collaboration. It keeps Cardano’s governance layer accessible, protects the neutrality of core infrastructure, and empowers new contributors to build and improve on shared foundations.

For all these reasons, its strategic importance, its transparent evolution based on community feedback, and the wide set of features it will deliver for ADA holders, we have voted yes and encourage others to support this essential proposal.

As Wada DRep, we continue to support the development of a resilient and decentralized Cardano ecosystem through investments in infrastructure that embody transparency, neutrality, and technical rigor. In line with our earlier “yes” vote on the Amaru Node budget proposal, we have voted yes on the Amaru Treasury Withdrawal request for ₳1.5 million ADA, submitted under PRAGMA’s administration.

This withdrawal represents the execution phase of a community-approved budget and is entirely consistent with both the Cardano Constitution and the community’s strategic priorities. The proposal aligns with the ₳350M Net Change Limit and meets all the relevant constitutional standards for fund administration, including the use of smart contracts, milestone oversight, and metadata traceability.

What makes this request particularly strong is its granular scope-based structure, which divides the full ₳1.5M into five individually managed allocations corresponding to the core development scopes: ledger, consensus, middleware (“mercenaries”), marketing, and contingency reserve. Each scope is overseen by a designated maintainer, drawn from highly respected Cardano-aligned organizations such as Blink Labs, dcSpark, Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, and TxPipe. The presence of named scope owners managing separate on-chain treasuries, each with clearly defined FTE estimates and budgets, creates a level of accountability and transparency that far exceeds minimum expectations.

We are also encouraged by the proposal’s technically robust treasury architecture. The team has adopted a smart contract solution originally designed and audited by Sundae Labs for Intersect. While their customized extension is still under audit, they have chosen to temporarily use the fully audited base version for the initial disbursement, a responsible interim step that prioritizes security and continuity. Additionally, metadata tracking using CIP-100 and off-chain audit logs would support financial oversight and simplify third-party auditing.

Beyond the technical and procedural soundness, we believe that this proposal reflects Cardano’s values in substance. By developing a second, Rust-based block-producing node for Cardano, Amaru enhances node diversity, developer accessibility, and modular infrastructure, while lowering hardware barriers for participation. It also upholds neutrality by ensuring that contributors are not tied to any single founding entity and that the Cardano community itself becomes the project's ultimate stakeholder.

We further recognize the importance of avoiding mission drift. Amaru’s contributors are already compensated via existing funding (e.g., employment, sponsorships), and this withdrawal focuses strictly on uncovered resources, ensuring there is no duplication of funding. This level of fiscal clarity is commendable and contributes to our confidence in the withdrawal’s necessity and proportionality.

In conclusion, this treasury withdrawal exemplifies the kind of infrastructure investment that should be encouraged under Cardano’s governance model: mission-aligned, constitutionally compliant, operationally prepared, and community-accountable. For these reasons, we have voted yes on the Amaru Treasury Withdrawal request. We look forward to seeing this funding unlock the next phase of progress for one of the most strategically valuable technical initiatives in the ecosystem.

As Wada DRep, we represent a decentralized and globally connected network of Cardano community builders, innovators, and voters; many based across Africa and the diaspora. Our role in constitutional governance is to act in the best interests of the ecosystem while reflecting the priorities of our community and honoring our internal deliberative frameworks.

We have voted YES on the proposal titled “Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget – 275M ADA Administered by Intersect.” This proposal marks a historic step in Cardano’s transition to decentralized governance under the Voltaire era. It represents the culmination of months of community signaling, deliberation, and alignment, bringing together a comprehensive, community-approved set of proposals under a single, well-coordinated treasury framework.

We voted yes because this proposal honors the will of the Cardano community and adheres to the Constitution in both form and spirit. The ₳275.3M budget aggregates 39 community-vetted proposals, each of which surpassed the DRep support threshold (>50%) during the final temperature check via Ekklesia. These proposals represent a wide spectrum of Cardano’s ecosystem needs, from core development, research, and open-source tooling to governance infrastructure, community funding mechanisms, and global outreach.

Importantly, we at Wada had already reviewed and supported the majority of these proposals during our internal budget evaluation process, guided by an internal treasury ceiling of ₳280 million ADA. Supporting this unified budget is therefore not just consistent but a continuation of the signal we already gave through careful review and strategic endorsement of impactful proposals. Voting yes on this aggregate proposal aligns with our previous evaluations and respects the structure and intent of the wider community budget process.

We are especially aligned with the proposal’s administrative design. Intersect’s role as the designated administrator is backed by a constitutionally compliant, smart contract–based fund management system. This includes milestone-gated disbursements, due diligence checks (KYC/KYB), audit and pause-payment mechanisms, and multi-signature oversight involving independent stakeholders. These controls are exactly what is needed to model responsible treasury stewardship in Cardano’s first constitutional budget cycle. The presence of these safeguards gives us confidence that Treasury funds will be managed transparently and only released in accordance with project performance and community expectations.

By voting yes, we are affirming the legitimacy of community-led budget formation. This proposal represents the most coordinated and participatory budget process in Cardano’s history and deserves our support as a model for future funding cycles. Additionally, we recognize and endorse the competence of Intersect to oversee fund disbursement with transparency and accountability. The organization has demonstrated its readiness to fulfill the role of administrator in alignment with the Cardano Constitution and community interest.

This vote also signals our belief that Cardano’s governance system is ready to support proposals from both founding and non-founding entities in a fair, strategic, and verifiable manner. A robust ecosystem must be built on inclusion, legitimacy, and capacity, not on legacy position alone. We believe this proposal successfully integrates contributions from across the community in a way that reflects that principle.

Finally, this vote is a signal to our fellow DReps and community members: we must not fragment our governance process with redundant or competing budget actions. The strength of this proposal lies in its cohesion, as it consolidates a wide array of high-quality proposals under a single, unified administrative track. That clarity and coordination will be essential for maintaining legitimacy and trust as we operationalize decentralized budgeting at scale.

For these reasons, we, the Wada DRep, voted YES on the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget Administered by Intersect. We see it as both a milestone in governance maturity and a foundation for the community to build upon in future funding cycles.

As Wada DRep, we represent a decentralized and globally connected network of Cardano community builders, innovators, and voters, many based across Africa and the diaspora. Our role in constitutional governance is to act in the best interests of the ecosystem while reflecting the priorities of our community and honoring our internal deliberative frameworks.

While we deeply value the intentions behind the proposal titled “2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget – ₳7.5M for Community Builders,” we have made the decision to abstain from voting on this Budget Info Action. Our abstention is not a reflection of disagreement with the proposals listed. On the contrary, we voted “Yes” on each of these individual projects during the community review phase and maintained strong support for their impact and alignment with Cardano’s long-term vision.

However, we must also act in a way that preserves clarity and coordination within Cardano’s treasury governance process. All of the individual proposals bundled in this ₳7.5M package also appear in the larger ₳275.3M aggregate budget proposal administered by Intersect, titled “Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget – 275M ADA Administered by Intersect.” That proposal includes the same community-approved projects, has passed DRep signaling, and has been carefully structured to align with treasury guardrails, milestone management, and transparent disbursement practices.

As such, casting a “yes” vote on both Budget Info Actions creates a risk of administrative and treasury access conflict if both are passed. There is no clearly defined resolution process for managing overlapping budget actions that authorize separate administrators for the same set of proposals. In this context, a dual approval may create confusion around which administrative pathway—Intersect’s structured oversight framework or an alternate, undefined one—should take precedence.

Our abstention reflects our desire to avoid contributing to that ambiguity while still honoring our prior support for these proposals. We continue to recognize and affirm the tremendous contributions of the community builders represented in this budget. However, we believe that the best path forward is to endorse a single, unified administration for the 2025 budget cycle, specifically, Intersect, which we have already decided to support in the broader ₳275.3M proposal.

We encourage our fellow DReps to consider the importance of administrative consistency and treasury process integrity when casting their votes on overlapping Budget Info Actions.

As Wada DRep, we represent a decentralized and globally connected network of Cardano community builders, innovators, and voters; many based across Africa and the diaspora. Our role in constitutional governance is to act in the best interests of the ecosystem while reflecting the priorities of our community and honoring our internal deliberative frameworks.

After careful review and deliberation, we have voted YES on the Amaru Node Development proposal, which requests ₳1.5 million in Treasury funding to support the project’s second phase in 2025. The Amaru project represents more than a technical milestone; it is a foundational step toward realizing the full vision of a resilient, multi-client, and decentralized Cardano. It embodies constitutional alignment, budgetary discipline, and strategic foresight, and its success or failure will significantly shape the ecosystem’s credibility and progress.

Cardano currently operates with a single block-producing node, i.e.,the Haskell node maintained by IOG. While it has served the network well, relying on one implementation creates systemic risk:
*

A single point of failure, with no fallback in case of critical bugs.
*

Limited validation of protocol conformance and specs.
*

Bottlenecks in innovation, observability, and integration across environments.

Amaru addresses these by introducing a fully interoperable, modular node in Rust, which brings improved performance, memory efficiency, and cross-platform capabilities (e.g., WebAssembly, RISC-V). A second node implementation increases network resilience, fosters protocol transparency, and accelerates feature experimentation without compromising safety.

The Amaru proposal is a textbook example of what Voltaire-era BIA should look like:
*

It complies fully with Articles IV.1 through IV.4 of the Cardano Constitution.
*

It proposes a multi-signature smart contract system to manage disbursements.
*

Each scope of work has a clearly defined owner and budget.
*

Safeguards include milestone-gated releases, pause-payment mechanisms, refund capabilities, and credential rotation.

Amaru is governed by PRAGMA, a nonprofit association formed by core ecosystem teams: Blink Labs, dcSpark, Sundae Labs, TxPipe, and the Cardano Foundation. This collaboration brings together some of the most experienced contributors to Cardano’s open-source tooling and node infrastructure. Moreover, the team has committed to:
*

Quarterly progress reports, made public via GitHub.
*

Working demos every 4–6 weeks, showcasing real deliverables.
*

Ongoing community visibility and documentation of all development efforts.

These commitments far exceed the transparency baseline expected of Treasury-funded initiatives.

The proposal seeks ₳1.5 million to fund 6 full-time contributors over six months. This includes a 25% contingency for complexity and overhead, based on a $0.50/ADA conversion rate. The networking scope, already funded via Catalyst, is excluded from this ask.

In relative terms, this is a small investment for a high-impact project, especially considering that community-signaled proposals totaling over ₳275 million is also up for vote.

Rejecting the Amaru Node proposal would have negative ripple effects:
*

It would delay node diversity, exposing Cardano to prolonged infrastructure fragility.
*

It would discourage developers from engaging in critical protocol-level work.
*

It would undermine the credibility of the on-chain governance and treasury processes we are working to legitimize.
*

It could stifle future-forward innovation, such as light clients, WASM support, and modular architecture.

The message it would send is that even the most constitutionally aligned, community-driven, technically sound proposals are not safe from political or procedural paralysis.

As Wada DRep, we represent a decentralized and globally connected network of Cardano community builders, innovators, and voters, many based across Africa and the diaspora. Our role in constitutional governance is to act in the best interests of the ecosystem while reflecting the priorities of our community and honoring our internal deliberative frameworks.

We have voted YES on this proposal to establish a 300 million ADA Net Change Limit (NCL) for the period covering Epochs 563 to 635, and we offer the following rationale:

As part of our review of community proposals during the 2025 budget cycle, the Wada DRep adopted an internal NCL ceiling of 280 million ADA. This number reflected a balanced position: conservative enough to avoid excessive Treasury depletion but generous enough to allow meaningful investments in Cardano’s decentralized future.
The 300M NCL now under vote is closely aligned with this internal benchmark, offering a realistic and responsible ceiling that supports the continuity of projects we already endorsed. For us, voting “Yes” on this proposal reinforces the integrity of the internal budgeting framework we shared with our stakeholders.

We are in a critical phase of implementation. The Cardano community has approved over ₳275.3 million worth of proposals, including those administered by Intersect, alongside other important initiatives like the Amaru node development, which is up for voting.
Many of these projects have 12-month roadmaps that will extend into 2026. A 300M ADA NCL for Epochs 563 to 635 ensures that disbursements tied to milestones in 2026 remain viable and that there is no break in Treasury availability when it’s most needed to sustain development momentum.
In this sense, the 300M NCL is not speculative. It is a realistic reflection of existing commitments that now require a supportive fiscal framework.

We understand that some in the community favor a lower NCL (such as the 200M proposal) out of caution and a desire to protect Treasury longevity. We share the value of sustainability, but we also recognize the risks of underfunding an ecosystem that is entering a new phase of decentralized governance.
The 300M proposal is a responsible compromise. It is lower than the 350M NCL already approved for 2025 but high enough to enable critical functions, including:
DRep tooling and compensation
Ongoing constitutional committee operations
Developer audits and milestone reviews
Outreach, education, and regional capacity-building
Infrastructure delivery and protocol experimentation

By voting "Yes," we endorse a path that supports responsible spending without limiting our ability to learn, adapt, and iterate.

One of the worst outcomes we can invite as a decentralized ecosystem is uncertainty, especially after budgets have been approved. A delayed or insufficient NCL would create ambiguity about whether or how proposals will be funded beyond 2025.

The 300M ADA limit reduces this ambiguity and offers DReps, proposers, and contributors a clearer framework for long-term planning. It also allows Treasury Withdrawal governance actions to proceed with confidence that funds are available up to a predictable ceiling.

Our “Yes” vote on the 300 million ADA NCL proposal reflects a careful balance between fiscal responsibility and ecosystem stewardship. This limit:
Aligns with our internal 280M fiscal model,
Supports funding continuity for already-approved projects,
Avoids disrupting long-term roadmaps,
Provides a safe, sustainable alternative to both overly high and overly restrictive limits.
In short, it is a measured, community-informed, and execution-ready fiscal guardrail.

As the Wada DRep, we believe this proposal offers Cardano a stable foundation to advance its 2025–2026 governance and development agenda.

Let’s build Cardano’s next chapter boldly and responsibly.

As Wada DRep, we represent a decentralized and globally connected network of Cardano community builders, innovators, and voters; many based across Africa and the diaspora. Our role in constitutional governance is to act in the best interests of the ecosystem while reflecting the priorities of our community and honoring our internal deliberative frameworks.

We have voted NO on the 200 million ADA Net Change Limit (NCL) proposal currently under consideration. Our rationale is grounded in the fiscal framework we adopted during the budget evaluation cycle, the governance signals already sent by the broader Cardano community, and the practical needs of delivering on our shared roadmap.

As part of our internal governance process, the Wada DRep committee adopted a 280 million ADA Net Change Limit as the basis for evaluating and voting on funding proposals submitted in the 2025 budget round. This figure was selected to strike a responsible balance, well below the community’s maximum cap of 350M ADA, yet sufficient to support high-impact projects advancing the ecosystem.
The vast majority of the proposals we supported under this internal framework are now bundled within the Intersect-administered ₳275.3M aggregate budget. Voting "yes" on a new 200M NCL would directly undermine the logic and consistency of our internal budgeting decisions, calling into question the integrity of the structured assessment we undertook with our community.

Through a robust, DRep-led signaling process, the Cardano community has already approved more than 275 million ADA in funding proposals, all of which passed the required threshold of 50%+1 Lovelace in live DRep stake. These proposals span core development, governance infrastructure, marketing, community empowerment, open-source tooling, and more.
Reducing the NCL to 200M ADA now would effectively block full or timely disbursement of many of these already-approved initiatives. We believe it is a governance failure to approve a project and then retroactively impose fiscal constraints that prevent its execution.

This is the first full year of decentralized, constitutional governance in Cardano. A Net Change Limit is intended to serve as a safeguard and not as a restrictive ceiling that stifles the very processes it was meant to enable. Approving only 200M ADA for 2025 would risk starving essential components of Cardano’s governance experiment: constitutional oversight, DRep operations, auditing frameworks, and the infrastructure required to make Voltaire viable.
We believe a stronger test of governance maturity is not whether we spend less but whether we spend wisely and deliver results. Artificially suppressing funding capacity may delay the development of tools and insights we need to evolve the governance model.

We acknowledge and appreciate the fiscal caution motivating the 200M proposal. However, we believe that caution is better reflected in the ongoing proposal to establish a 300M ADA NCL for Epochs 563–635, which extends into 2026. That figure is more aligned with expected treasury inflows and allows for continuity of funding without encouraging excess.
In contrast, the 200M proposal feels disconnected from both the scale of approved budgets and the trajectory of Cardano’s growth. Rather than help us build a robust treasury governance culture, it may erode confidence in the predictability and reliability of the on-chain funding process.

Our vote of "No" on the 200M ADA NCL proposal is not a vote against caution; it is a vote for coherence, credibility, and continuity. It reflects our obligation as a DRep to act in alignment with the budgeting framework we adopted, to defend the legitimacy of Cardano governance, and to preserve trust in the roadmap we are collectively building.

Cardano’s governance needs to be accountable, but also functional. That means setting limits that are anchored in realistic funding needs and in the will of the community and not overly restrictive thresholds that ignore context and hamstring delivery.

For all these reasons, we, the Wada DRep, have voted NO.
Let us govern boldly and wisely.

The proposed Net Change Limit (NCL) of 300 million ADA for 2025 and 250 million ADA for 2026 reflects a prudent approach to managing Cardano’s fiscal policies, which is essential for ensuring the long-term sustainability and development of the blockchain. Given the treasury inflows of approximately 345 million ADA in 2024, with projections indicating a 300 million ADA inflow for 2025, it is sensible to adopt a conservative spending limit that aligns with these figures.

Setting a lower NCL than the total expected inflow allows us to preserve a portion of the treasury’s resources, specifically 44 million ADA in 2025 and 50 million ADA in 2026. This savings approach is not merely about withholding funds but rather about fostering a culture of prioritized and responsible spending. It ensures that funds are available for critical projects that enhance Cardano’s infrastructure and capabilities, thus positioning it as a leading blockchain technology.

Moreover, establishing such fiscal constraints encourages a more strategic allocation of resources. It compels project proponents and the community to prioritize initiatives with the highest potential impact and value for the Cardano ecosystem. This is particularly pertinent in light of the current budget draft by Intersect, which demands a significant portion of the NCL—265M. By advocating for a reduction in Intersect’s budget to a level that maintains operational efficacy while freeing up funds for other valuable community projects, we promote a balanced and inclusive fiscal environment.

As a conservative delegate representative, we believe this proposal serves the best interest of the community. It balances the need for robust development and innovation with the imperative of maintaining a healthy fiscal reserve. This approach not only supports ongoing and future technological advancements but also upholds the integrity and stability of the Cardano treasury. This proposal, therefore, is not just about setting limits; it's about ensuring that every ADA spent is an investment into the secure, sustainable, and strategic growth of Cardano, making it the most robust blockchain platform for years to come.

We are voting YES on this governance action not because the various line items listed in the proposal’s external documentation meet or address all instances of growth and development of the ecosystem. Instead, as Cardano has transitioned fully into a new era, we believe that the volume of responsibility bestowed on us as a community to own and manage the ecosystem is one that is really heavy and plentiful; hence, the availability of a realistic vision, backed by a time-bound roadmap to guide our development and expenditure, is crucial to prevent us from doing things that would destruct the organic growth, security, and sustainability of the ecosystem.

We believe the line items spelled out in the roadmap are all crucial for the ecosystem’s growth. Our only feedback is that whereas the roadmap gives a lot of attention to development, a good amount of attention should also be given to educating the community about the need for these developments. We should also look at training a lot more developers for effective inclusion in the development of the ecosystem. Africa has a lot of potential in that regard, where the ecosystem could tap in by simplifying the development process and encouraging the young and vibrant minds of the region to engage through the creation of technical educational opportunities.

Reducing the treasury cut from 20% to 10% effectively halves the rate at which funds accumulate for future development, community initiatives, and unforeseen challenges. Although the treasury’s current balance is significant; almost ₳1.7Bn, longer-term implications warrant caution. Projected annual budgets of ₳200M+ could rapidly deplete reserves, especially in volatile market conditions. While prioritizing spending is prudent, it becomes much harder to fund simultaneous, large-scale initiatives as cutting the treasury inflow by half essentially forces the ecosystem to operate under tighter budget constraints at about ₳130M+. This can create bottlenecks or lengthier development timelines if the treasury cannot sustain multiple high-impact projects. Because the financial impact is substantial, prudence dictates that decisions be made only when we have both robust evidence of the benefits and a well-defined risk mitigation strategy.

The proposal’s main benefit, an estimated increase in staking rewards from around 4% to roughly 4.5% APY, may not meaningfully boost overall staking participation. Historical data across different blockchain ecosystems suggests that moderate APY increases often have only marginal effects on delegation behavior. In particular, large holders may see the biggest benefit, while smaller stakers and network security overall may see negligible change. In a large, mature ecosystem like Cardano, it is unclear whether this slight incentive bump justifies the resulting halved treasury inflow.

Given that Cardano has only recently adopted its new governance framework with updated constitutional guardrails, we believe it is more prudent to see how well these structures manage existing priorities and funding for at least 12 months. Such a monitoring period would yield real-world data on treasury inflows, budgets, and stakeholder behavior. If the governance framework proves stable, a future treasury tax adjustment; one that includes the required reversion plan, key milestones, and review phases, could be introduced more safely. Even then, a narrower incremental reduction (for example, starting at 5%) or a staged approach would respect constitutional requirements and generate evidence on whether even a modest cut actually improves staking participation without undermining treasury sustainability.

In my humble opinion, I think the name for the next HF, which is expected any sooner, remains Chang 2 Hard Fork. I think it will be proper for Intersect to look into future forks and dedicate one that aligns with governance, tokenism, community expansion, etc., to our beloved Matthew Plomin to honor his ecosystem legacy while leaving the Chang 2 HF as it is, given that the name has already traveled and is most familiar to the community and the timeline is pretty close.

Matthew was a GREAT GUY.

It was a nice experience casting a vote on this governance proposal. I stressed less to provide any meaningful rationale for this vote, as I know very well that the outcome would not affect any parameters. However, the proposal is technically interesting and provides a clear foresight into what to expect post chang 2 and very much interested in prepping myself as a DRep for the activities ahead as an organisation with a common will to ensure inclusivity from the community that delegates to me.