This should probably fall under Intersects responsibilities

I'm not enthusiastic about indirect treasury funding schemes. Let's use the DAO we already have.

Daedalus needs maintenance and Cardano needs Daedalus.

That's a lot of money. I'm not convinced this is what we need right now. No thank you.

I don't see it taking off in today's market.

Voting YES on Bifrost: Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano — Road to Mainnet (Phase 1 of 2)

Summary

• Withdraw ₳12.3M (~$2.2M)
• Bridge between Cardano & Bitcoin
  • Only moves BTC between the two chains. ADA cannot be moved to the Bitcoin network.
• A new revenue source for SPOs and the Treasury. Paid in fBTC.
• The first of two phases
  • Phase 1
    • Nine months
    • Auditing & Hardening
    • Private Mainnet
  • Phase 2
    • Public release
    • 24 months of operations with the plan being to fund the bridge with bridge fees alone going forward from that point (~Q3 2029).
    • Expected to request ~$1.3M in Q1 2027
• FluidTokens
• Lantr Engineering

Conclusion

Bifrost is an awesome opportunity for bringing new revenue sources to Cardano SPOs and the Treasury. This is exactly what we need. I'm voting in favor of this exciting proposal.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood dRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

We probably need this

At this time I don't think this is a good idea

I'm just not feeling it. Too many ties to Emurgo.

Seems like a good idea

Too much DEI terminology on website mlabs.city

We definitely want Pallas to be maintained!

I think this is a reasonable price to pay for UTxO RPC to not die. Framing it in such dramatic terms makes me grateful for this treasury and our ability to use it to stave of death for many important projects during this particularly brutal winter. I'm glad that Cardano doesn't live or die on the whims of a handful of VCs.

TxPipe has a well earned reputation for building and maintaining great tools. I want these tools to continue existing.

TxPipe has a strong reputation. Dolos is a very useful tool. Dolos will need maintenance as Cardano evolves.

Mithril gud

HW wallet support needs some attention. There are many limitations detailed in CIP-21 I would like to see addressed. Personally I would really like HW wallets to be able to cast multiple votes in a single transaction.

Voting NO on Reforming Treasury Governance

Thoughts

Claims

First, there is a funding impasse. Second, while being pivotal for Cardano's stability and growth, treasury governance is only indirectly addressed and barely supported by the existing governance system.

• Claim 1: There is a funding impasse
• Claim 2: treasury governance is not enough to properly govern the treasury.

Are They Advocating For Bureaucracy?

And while treasury governance is crucial for the Cardano ecosystem, there is a lack of guardrails and structures that could provide the process with a strategic direction.

guardrails and structures sounds a lot like bureaucracy.

Yes, we have limited resources.

In particular, treasury withdrawal actions from different, but likewise important domains have led to a perceived competition for scarce resources

Wdym "perceived competition"? Of course there is competition between domains! We have to choose what to fund and what not to fund. That's just the nature of having limited resources.

Conclusion

This is just more bureaucracy. No thank you.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood dRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

After the Eternl withdrawal was deemed unconsitutional this minimal revision was submitted on chain. Being that my concerns were unrelated to the unconstitutionality of the withdrawal I am naturally maintaining my stance and again voting against this proposal.

View My Vote Against The Original Proposal

I voted for the 2-year Tweag withdrawal. Its unfortunate that it did not pass. Happily they have resubmitted and I see no reason not to support it.

What is there to say other than YES?

Voting NO on 5am.earth Trust Layer Targeting Vision 2030 KPIs

Summary

Requesting ₳10M to fund an 18-month work period to build an "agricultural trust layer" on Cardano.

Conclusion

This proposal is very cool. Decentralized agricultural insurance, which this project could enable, is the exact kind of project which excites me. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of project we should be focused on right now, no matter how aligned with the "Vision 2030 KPIs" it may be. We no longer have the funding we once did, and thus we have to contract our spending.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood dRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

If we are going to deploy liquidity at this time it would be best to deploy it on the largest dex on Cardano: Minswap. I am voting NO.

Voting YES on Cardano Critical Integrations V2

Considerations

• USDCx has been nice
• We gave them ₳70M 6 months ago
• The Cardano Foundation is involved and I'm unhappy with them because they don't have a single community-elected board member
• Emergo is involved and I'm unhappy with them because they control an unhealthy amount of voting power
• It sounds like much of this ₳23M is going to be a recurring cost
• We just got USDCx, why are we paying for it again so soon?
• At 4 months old, USDCx has a supply of just over $19M
• USDM, which is over 2 years old, has a supply of just over $12M
• At over 3 years old Djed has a supply of about $3.3M

Statement

We've seen initial success with USDCx. We don't want to half-commit to initiatives. I'm voting in support of this proposal.

References

• Cardano Critical Integrations Budget - My Vote From November 29th 2025
  • I voted YES
• Cardano Critical Integrations ₳70M Withdrawal - My Vote From December 29th 2025
  • I voted YES
  • Enacted
• Cerkoryn makes a good point
• Cardanoscan USDCx Details
• Cardanoscan USDM Details
• Djed Details From CoinMarketCap

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Sorry, no more sponsored events. Not a good use of a marketing budget. I'd rather spend that money on something as simple as google ads.

Plutus maintenance and minor updates. Sounds good.

Voting YES on IO: Hydra

Summary

IO is requesting just over ₳5M to fund four workstreams focused on taking Hydra to the next level.

Conclusion

This is an easy YES for me. In the Cardano ecosystem, nobody has a better track record than IO. Hydra allows Cardano to swallow the world. The core advantage is unlimited scalability while keeping everything compatible with the Cardano ledger. The same smart contract running on Cardano can be run on Hydra. I'm looking forward to seeing Hydra reach its full potential.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Voting NO on Eternl: Path to Sustainability (2026-2027)

Statement

I like and use Eternl but 6 FTE seems high. 1 or 2 FTE would be much more appropriate. I'm not convinced this would be the last withdrawal by Eternl as I don't see this "pro-plan" being compelling to users. I would be absolutely shocked if they can generate even $70k in revenue from the proposed service. In short, I don't believe this is a viable path to sustainability. As uncomfortable as it is, there is no such path so long as they insist on 6 FTEs.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Voting NO on Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5

Statement

I am voting against this action to reduce the committeeMinSize from 7 to 5. We should be looking to grow this committee. If we can't find 7 people to do this job we should probably take a moment as a community to figure out what we are getting wrong before we move forward with anything else.

It would not take much money to make the position desirable to a much wider group. Even $12k per year would be enough for someone in my position to justify that time investment to my family. I would love to do it but there's only so much time I can allocate to volunteer efforts.

We had an opportunity to expand the committee size back in December [1] but the community voted not to move forward with it. I don't know how we managed to screw that up.

Just today I saw Big Pey is leaving his position as a dRep. He said it's not worth his time because of constant stress and harassment[2]. We seem to be tolerating an unacceptable level of poor behaviour within our ecosystem. I encourage the community to consider putting together a legal fund to go after Cardano community members committing harassment.

Mark 9:47

References

1. Add Constitutional Committee Member - Christina
2. Big Pey tweet

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

I can't believe we didn't do this back in October!

This proposal seems unlikely to pass. I am therefore abstaining to reclaim my time.

Voting Abstain on Cardano dOSPO and OMF Program

Statement

This proposal is not going to pass regardless of how I feel about it. With 8 days to go and over 98% of votes being against it I don't feel the need to spend the time investigating this proposal. To reclaim my time I am abstaining.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Voting YES on Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026–2028

Summary

Asking ₳39,787,316 over the period of 2026–2028 to deliver 17 work packages for core infrastructure.

Conclusion

It seems a lot of people are voting against this budget because they don't like that it's a two-year timeline and they don't like that it's a bundled package. I used to think bundled packages were a bad idea but I now think that in some cases they make sense. We are, as a group, still in the process of figuring out what level of detail is best for the DRep democratic mechanism to operate. I'm starting to think that the democratic process should operate at a higher level than I once did.

The two-year timeline makes sense if Tweag believes it will take 2 years of continuous development to produce results.

The proposer is communicating that they believe these conditions are what they need to succeed. I think we should take that into account.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Voting Abstain on [OriLife × TonFarm] Identifying 180 Million Durians Without Physical Labels

Summary

They want ₳2.4M to do supply chain stuff with a Vietnamese fruit.

Conclusion

I don't find this proposal compelling, but to be honest it doesn't really matter what I think. This proposal is obviously not going to pass. For that reason I can't justify giving it my proper attention, and therefore I don't really feel comfortable explicitly voting against it.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Voting YES on Cardano Vision 2026: Human Centred, Scalable, Post Quantum Secure - IO Research

May 25th 2026

Summary

This proposal requests a withdrawal of approximately ₳33M, to be managed by Intersect and distributed to IOG and various subcontractors for seven work packages designed to further the research on which Cardano is built.

A Brief Review Of The Work Packages

Name	Main focus
Trust, Security & Reliability Infrastructure	Consensus (Leios/Peras, MEV), post-quantum security, node/key security (HSM/MPC)
Scalability & Execution Layer	Fee markets & L2 data availability, sharding study, P2P/pub-sub, ZK verification & L2 settlement
Developer Platform & User Experience	Plutus (verifying compiler, formal methods), light clients (Cavefish), Babel fees & intents
Applications, Adoption & Liquidity	Bridge security, atomic swaps, agent-based cross-chain coordination
Economic Systems & Incentives	SPO incentive recalibration, multi-resource consensus / PoUW, utility-weighted throughput metrics
Governance, Identity & Social Infrastructure	Governance incentives & DAO DSL, proof of personhood, verifiable credentials
Delivery, Dissemination & Partnerships	Program management, R&D sessions, CIP translation, ecosystem communication (in-kind via IOG)

Conclusion

Much of the success of Cardano can be attributed to its scientific approach. And I'm excited to see this proposal continue the research which got us this far. These work packages are very exciting.

I'm particularly excited to see the PQC elements of the first work package. A recent landmark paper from Google [1] urges all vulnerable cryptocurrency communities to join the migration to PQC without delay. I happen to know a little bit [2, 3, 4, 5] about this issue and I'm very happy to see it begin to be addressed. I am however fearful that this may be too little, too late. I hope IOG and the community will show even more emphasis on delivering post-quantum Cardano.

I'm voting in favor of this proposal.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

References

1. Babbush, R., Zalcman, A., Gidney, C., Broughton, M., Khattar, T., Neven, H., Bergamaschi, T., Drake, J., & Boneh, D. (2026). Securing elliptic curve cryptocurrencies against quantum vulnerabilities: Resource estimates and mitigations. arXiv:2603.28846 [quant-ph].

2. Dallaire-Demers, P.L., Doyle, W., & Foo, T. (2026). Brace for impact: ECDLP challenges for quantum cryptanalysis. arXiv:2508.14011 [quant-ph].

3. Dallaire-Demers, P.L., & Doyle, W. (2023). Post-quantum security for Cardano accounts. Catalyst Fund 10 proposal.

4. Dallaire-Demers, P.L., & Doyle, W. (live). Anchor Vault: A post-quantum smart contract wallet for Ethereum. Chrome Web Store extension.

5. Doyle, W. (live). EBP: Quantum-secure identity and email. Website.

Voting YES on The first node in the browser; a Cardano USP

May 22nd 2026

Summary

The request comes from Harmonic Laboratories. In this proposal they are asking for a total of 4,600,000 ADA to develop Gerolamo which is a Cardano node running in the web browser.

Quote: This proposal funds Gerolamo, the first production-ready Cardano node that runs in the browser, at 5 FTE.

Conclusion

I think this is a great proposal. I voted for the previous hlabs budget and felt it a shame it did not pass (see that vote context here). I'm glad they've resubmitted and I hope we can get it across the line this time.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

@william00000010 on 𝕏

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Voting NO on Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Baseline ‘Platinum' Sponsorship Proposa

May 21st 2026

gov_action18u8lpkzge2csxe3plynn9lh4agwtv3nrqkyfwalwj4ykjv7l68jqqzmul9z

Summary

EMURGO requests 3,303,750 ada (currently $821,942.37 USD) to sponsor TOKEN2049. TOKEN2049 is a big party where everyone in the crypto industry gets together and ideas are cross-pollinated.

Conclusion

I'm voting against this proposal for many of the same reasons as last time. This is not a good use of marketing funds. We should be looking to fund efforts which introduce non-crypto users to Cardano.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Voting NO on Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Baseline ‘Platinum' Sponsorship Proposa

May 21st 2026

gov_action18u8lpkzge2csxe3plynn9lh4agwtv3nrqkyfwalwj4ykjv7l68jqqzmul9z

Summary

EMURGO requests 3,303,750 ada (currently $821,942.37 USD) to sponsor TOKEN2049. TOKEN2049 is a big party where everyone in the crypto industry gets together and ideas are cross-pollinated.

Conclusion

I'm voting against this proposal for many of the same reasons as last time. This is not a good use of marketing funds. We should be looking to fund efforts which introduce non-crypto users to Cardano.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

contact@williamdoyle.ca

Voting NO on Revised Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore

May 20th 2026

Summary

The Cardano Foundation is again asking for money to host the Cardano Summit. This time its a little bit less.

Conclusion

No. Its still not party time. I'm voting against this again for most of the same reasons as last time. Please don't ask again.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling around 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qqfu3vtv

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qz6es0cp

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qyxkn2yk

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qx4njfhm

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qghg4q43

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3q2yd5rxu

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qvczhx6t

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qwt8k9fx

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qsuae57l

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on ALL IOG Withdrawals

May 20th 2026

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qqfu3vtv

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qz6es0cp

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qyxkn2yk

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qx4njfhm

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qghg4q43

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3q2yd5rxu

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qvczhx6t

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qwt8k9fx

gov_action1w0shrfxqwv95kk0v4cn34wylz25a2cmqkq5jpc0e2yrahhqava3qsuae57l

Summery

Nine treasury withdrawals from IOG totalling 162M ada ($40M USD)

Important Citation

https://x.com/EdnStuff/status/2051321214728118360

EdnStuff said the following on May 4th 2026

I see the IO proposals as a package deal. But by all accounts I see most dreps only voting yes on a small selection of the 9. This is going to lead to some extremely lopsided, fragmented, and piecemeal results that will fall short of what we need on #Cardano 
$ADA.

Charles quote tweeted saying

https://x.com/IOHK_Charles/status/2051376829949464792

Sadly, this is the end result of a piecemeal roadmap. It's an iPhone by committee, with people deciding whether they prefer the fingerprint sensor to wireless charging. You end up with a bizarre, useless product.

Statement

There are a handful of people who, when they speak, I think it unwise not to listen to. Charles is one such person. His statement above makes this choice pretty easy.

While we need to foster a wide ecosystem of R&D firms, we cannot afford to jeopardize our relationship with our biggest contributor. It is obvious and undeniable that the long-term success of Cardano remains dependent on the continued efforts of IO.

I am voting for all of these IO proposals because Charles has made it clear that he does not believe Cardano can be successful without each of them, and it would be unwise to disregard his intuition.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting YES on Pebble + Gerolamo - HLabs 2026 Budget

April 22nd 2026

Summary

Harmonic Laboratories is seeking ₳8,035,714 in funding for the next year of operations. Included in that is a 25% contingency buffer they hope to return to the treasury.

Thoughts

As a developer, the value proposition here is very clear. Gerolamo has the potential to allow developers to remove a key point of centralization from their stack while also improving ease of development and reducing maintenance costs. I've been working on a couple of projects that would benefit from access to blockchain data without a centralized provider.

Research and development shops like Harmonic Laboratories are vital to the continued existence and long-term success of Cardano. Times like these* are incredibly difficult for companies building in the crypto space.

*₳ is currently priced at ~$0.25 USD.

This 25% buffer is smart and reasonable.

Conclusion

Harmonic Laboratories does great work. I want them to continue doing great work. It makes sense to fund them so they can continue developing through this horrible crypto winter. This is the exact situation in which the treasury is most powerful. I am voting in favor of this treasury withdrawal.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting Against Funding Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore

Summary

Cardano Foundation and EMURGO are asking for 14,076,539 ADA to fund the 2026 Cardano Summit and to sponsor TOKEN2049.

Grievances

• The Cardano Foundation has resisted all attempts to allow for a community-elected board member.
• For years, the Cardano Foundation has neglected many of its responsibilities.
• EMURGO has abused its position as a wallet service provider to accumulate an unnatural amount of voting power across multiple dReps under its control (BTW, this is why I created drep-of-the-month.williamdoyle.ca - please check it out if you are looking for a new dRep or SPO).
• I refuse to finance parties with treasury funds. That's pretty much what these summits are.
• The Summit and TOKEN2049 are entirely separate events. They should be separate withdrawals as well.

Conclusion

This is incredibly silly, especially when the market is as bad as it is these days. Would these two events bring value to the ecosystem? Maybe... but would they bring in 14M ADA worth of value? I doubt it. That money would be better spent on Google Ads - a lot less fun, but probably a lot more profitable. I want to be clear: I enjoy a good party. I really do. But parties are not priorities. I am voting against this proposal.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Note: drep-of-the-month.onrender.com may work better, especially on mobile.

The decision has already been made

A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.

The decision has already been made

Voting YES on Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1

Summary

This action withdraws 800k ada to set up the legal and smart contract infrastructure for a stablecoin DeFi investment fund.

Additional Context

On September 22nd, 2025 I voted in favor of the referenced budget. The on-chain vote can be found here.

Conclusion

Since September, when I and many other dReps voted for the referenced budget, the price of ada has fallen from $0.85 to $0.24. We are now facing serious challenges funding the projects we need to fund. The Cardano treasury needs diversification, and this proposal moves us in that direction. I am voting for this withdrawal.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting against the proposal to Approve Cardano Foundation as New Managing Entity of Project Catalyst

Summary

The Cardano Foundation wants to run Project Catalyst going forward.

Statement

Absolutely not. Catalyst should either be shut down or given to Intersect. Why should we give that responsibility to the CF? We don't even have a single community elected member on the board.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Voting against Cardano Budget Process Framework (facilitated by Intersect)

April 1st 2026

gov_action1a95na44kgedjk3k64ajpfp4p9d9jj3sgzc6tt9nmnkvgj7c9nraqq7g4d2u

Terminology

TWGA: Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action

Summary

From the abstract This Governance Information Action provides the formal description of the Intersect Budget Process Framework for the 2026 and future cycles, until modified, administered by Intersect. It outlines a structured, multi-step workflow used to collect, review, consolidate, and execute Treasury-funded activities, and records the improvements introduced for the 2026 budgeting year.

Quotes & Details From the Proposal

Quote 1
"Proposals will be ranked based on their level of DRep support, using the Ekklesia voting results. Proposals will then be allocated in rank order, up to the available Net Change Limit (NCL)."

Quote 2
"Proposal consolidation converts individual, independently reviewed proposals into a coherent, ecosystem-wide Treasury Withdrawal/s. This ensures that treasury allocations are evaluated not only on their individual merits, but also on their collective impact on treasury sustainability and strategic alignment."

Quote 3

instead of treating all approved proposals in one TWGA, on-chain approvals will now be divided as follows:

    Proposals approved with ≥67% – <75% support
    Proposals approved with ≥75% – 100% support

Quote 3 is particularly frustrating because it asserts that the alternative to this proposal would be a single TWGA, whereas in actual fact last year we had individual on-chain approvals for each proposal.

Thoughts

• I like that vendors are required to make a 1k ada treasury donation.
• I don't love using Ekklesia for off-chain voting. It removes power from the on-chain vote.
• Aims to saturate the NCL. This process does envision itself as the only way in which treasury funds are distributed.
• Proposal Consolidation means individual proposals will not be submitted as individual governance actions.
• Voting on so many budgets last year was a lot of work, but it allowed us to reject individual proposals easily and ON-CHAIN.

Conclusion

This process almost treats the on-chain votes as a formality. I am voting against this process because it reduces the fidelity of on-chain control dReps would have. As dReps, we need to preserve our on-chain right to reject individual proposals on the terms of that proposal alone. There is some degree of off-chain organization we need, but consolidating budgets like this is unwise and unnecessary. There may be some cases where it makes sense to bundle two or more proposals, such as when the funding of one proposal only makes sense in the case of the successful funding of another proposal. But this moves too much of the process to Ekklesia.

Signed,

William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

https://x.com/william00000010

Summary

Dingo is a Cardano node developed by Blink Labs in the Go programming language. Blink Labs is seeking 6.9 million ada to fund 12 months of development.

" Blink Labs is requesting 6,900,000 ADA from the Cardano Treasury to fund twelve months of full-time engineering on Dingo, our Go Cardano node. "

Blink Labs expects that by the end of the 12-month period Dingo will be a viable option for block producers.

After twelve months: 

- Dingo produces blocks on mainnet. 

- SPOs have a real alternative block producer. 

- Dijkstra works from day one. 

- Leios exists in Go alongside the Haskell reference. 

- The audit report is public. 

- Every ADA is accounted for on-chain. 

Conclusion

I am voting YES on this withdrawal. In my vote for the Amaru withdrawal, I spoke about a bug which would have been mitigated by node diversity. 6.9 million ada is a lot of ada, but not a lot of dollars, and like the Amaru budget, this hurts. But I think it'll be better for everyone long-term if we pay this. Dingo is core infrastructure, just about as core as infrastructure can get. We've been talking about node diversity for years. The poisoned transaction attack last year convinced me node diversity should be a priority. Blink Labs has a track record of quality work.

Signed,
William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

This budget is painful, but I think in the long term this will be wise. In late November of last year, a bug was identified in the node implementation. It was possible to create a poisoned transaction that would take advantage of the bug and wreak havoc on the network. Before a fix could be deployed, some MORON decided to send such a poisoned transaction to mainnet. Predictably, the transaction wreaked havoc and caused a network bifurcation. Within a day, a fix was deployed and the network was healing. All things considered, Cardano weathered the storm admirably. However, had Cardano been in widespread global adoption, like we aim to someday be, this would have been a financial disaster on the order of many billions of dollars of damage.

Node diversity likely would have greatly mitigated this bug's impact on the network. Assuming the Amaru node does not use the same serialization library as the Haskell one, Amaru could have made this a much smaller emergency.

Signed,
William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

Summary

The net change limit is ₳300M for epochs 613–713, or from February 13, 2026, to July 3, 2027. This is a period of 505 days, with an average burn rate of ₳594,059.

Conclusion

I voted in favor of the ₳350M budget, which did not pass. This budget is ₳50M less than that, so I see no reason to vote against it.

Now is not a good time for this.

As a developer, I've run into these limits before. I'm confident the network can handle the increased load. Increasing these parameters means Cardano has more resources to sell. I'm voting yes.

Seems like a reasonable NCL for this period of time. It's approximately in line with previous values.

This is how we remember. May Max van Rossem rest in peace.

I was convinced to vote against this proposal by Jaromir Tesar in this post: https://x.com/JaromirTesar/status/2008124514148798841

Specifically this paragraph:

However, giving a single DEX team more than 2M ADA to develop without demonstrable results is too much in my opinion. At this stage, I would prefer the team to focus on attracting users and liquidity with what already exists (MVP), rather than requesting a large new budget to continue building.

I don't see the demand for this product. Our blockspace is rarely full and DeltaDefi does not have a large number of users. The proposal is interesting and I hope they are successful, but this is not a priority at this time.

Deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do. - Steve Jobs

Signed,
William Doyle

I just don't see the need for this. I considered abstaining, but at the end of the day I don't think we should bog ourselves down with this kind of formalism.

Considerations

• The governance action does not contain any explanation of Christina's motivations.
• Having done a little bit of preliminary research on Christina, it is clear she has been involved in the Cardano community for quite some time.
• I've reached out to Christina over Twitter via a direct message but have yet to receive a response.
• I want more individuals on the CC instead of multisigs.

Statement

Christina appears to be qualified for the role. I would have liked more explanation of her values and motivations. I prefer individuals on the CC because it makes for more direct personal responsibility. I am voting to make Christina a member of the CC because I want the CC to be mostly composed of individuals who will take direct responsibility for their actions with little insulation from consequences such as removal. I also want to avoid over-distilling the committee. Individuals come with unique perspectives and values, but large committees average out to mediocrity.

Signed,
William Doyle

Your friendly neighbourhood DRep!

https://x.com/william00000010

Objection

1. This draft contains grammatical changes as well as substantive changes. Making both types of changes in a single revision makes it difficult to identify and isolate the substantive changes.
2. Changes to the markdown styles are unwarranted and make it difficult to identify the substantive changes in the diff document. Seriously, you've made the "list of changes" almost useless.
3. I do not agree that we should remove the budget requirements. The current budget process grants us a much needed discovery period.
4. Definitions are unwarranted.
5. Minor grammatical changes are unwarranted
6. Some of the supporting documents attached to this proposal are not available
7. Removing the non-binding expectations is unwarrented.

Summary

I'm not going to approve this or any other constitutional revision with this many changes. 1770 additions is too much. That should be a single digit number.

For the reasons outlined in my response to the budget proposal, I am voting in favor of this withdrawal.

Thanks to the good dog HOSKY for noticing this. I see no issue with this proposal. This proposal is also important to ensure the Critical Integrations budget and withdrawal can proceed without issue. I am voting in favour of this proposal.

Summary

A budget of 70M ada to onboard critical infrastructure including

• tier-one stablecoins
• institutional digital asset custody and wallet infrastructure
• on-chain analytics platforms
• cross-chain bridges
• pricing oracles

Parties involved

• IOG
• The Cardano Foundation
• Emergo
• The Midnight Foundation
• Intersect

Additional notes:

• The project will follow a milestone-based funding structure. Intersect will receive the funds and administer this budget.
• A high-level budget breakdown is planned to be included in the subsequent Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action following this Budget Info Action. However, due to confidentiality obligations applied by most integration partners, the breakdown will be limited in granularity.
• If the allocated budget is not used at the end of the 24-month period, all remaining funds will be returned to the Cardano Treasury.
• It is currently not envisioned that the smart contract framework deployed earlier this year will be fully utilized, as this will likely result in disclosure of integration costs, which are typically confidential and protected by non-disclosure agreements.

The proposal justifies itself well in the following excerpt:

Despite being a top-10 blockchain by market cap, Cardano’s Total Value Locked (TVL) as of November 25th, 2025 remains around $191.860.000 (Source: Defillama.com), which is still far below comparable ecosystems that maintain several billion dollars in DeFi usage. This gap highlights Cardano’s limited market reach and the absence of the core primitives that other networks treat as standard utilities. Without scaling these key components, Cardano risks falling further behind in attracting dApps, liquidity, institutional partners, and large-scale integrations such as tier-one stablecoins.

Conclusion

While Cardano is number one in terms of technology, design, and security, we have thus far struggled with mainstream adoption. Very few CNTs (Cardano Native Tokens) are listed on top exchanges, and we have not attracted the depth of stablecoin liquidity that other chains enjoy. We need to increase demand for our blockspace. If we can’t do that, what’s the point of Leios? Why bother scaling if nobody wants to use the product? We clearly need to get traffic up.

I have always been motivated by the long-term success of the Cardano blockchain. I believe the world of today and tomorrow needs Cardano. But a blockchain is dependent on aligned incentives. If we cannot drive demand for our blockspace, the people who produce that blockspace will not have an incentive to continue doing so. The security of the network directly depends on there being substantial demand for blockspace. Cardano needs users.

The critical infrastructure outlined in this proposal is exactly what Cardano needs right now.

It is encouraging to see the three founding entities involved in this proposal. I’m also pleased to see the involvement of the Midnight Foundation, as I believe Midnight can contribute massively to achieving the outlined goals. I am similarly pleased to see Intersect involved in a very appropriate capacity.

All in all, this is a very promising and mature proposal. I am voting in support of it.

Signed,
William Doyle

Your friendly neighborhood DRep!

When this budget was proposed I said I wouldn't bet treasury funds on the long-term success of a memecoin. I still don't think this is a wise use of funds. I am voting against this proposal.

The constitutional committee plays an important role in the governance of Cardano. To ensure that we can continue to rely on their contributions, it is appropriate to compensate the committee for their efforts. I find the amount proposed to be quite reasonable.

Summery

Last year some people got together and made an info action basically saying “Cardano is pretty cool, Charles is pretty cool”, but they used a fancy Japanese word, Ikigai. It was a special moment and one of the first governance actions.

We were all still learning, and some technical mistake was made, resulting in the group being unable to withdraw their 100k ADA deposit.

In this info action, the proposer suggests withdrawing 103k ADA to compensate for the lost ADA and opportunity.

Conclusion

This is very reasonable. It was part of Cardano’s growing pains, and this loss should not be borne by one person alone. They helped us and, in the process, took some damage. It is only right that we stand with them. That being said, I will only vote to approve the actual withdrawal once I have seen proof that the funds are indeed going to the account/person who supplied the funds for the deposit.

This should not be seen as a precedent for addressing future stuck deposits. This case is unique in that it was one of the very first governance actions.

Summery

The Cardano Foundation wants the community to commit to supporting their effort to acquire the rights to the .ada and .cardano domain names. They say nothing about sharing revenue from the sale of such domains with the treasury.

Conclusion

It would be inappropriate to grant the Cardano Foundation more control over the ecosystem. These domain names would serve as appeals to authority. If they were under the control of the Foundation, it would give them influence over who is perceived as credible and who is not. I am voting against this.

While I really like many of the features proposed in this budget (script-based DReps, multiple votes per transaction, group proposers, CoSponsor integration), I just don't see the need for costs to be this high. All of these features would be nice, but none of them are real priorities right now.

Concerns

• The term "Ada user" was chosen in Argentina because it was intended to include those who had not taken custody of their own keys.
• "For as long as they wish, while honoring their freedom to take another path." ... This sounds lame.
• We don't need definitions; some ambiguity is acceptable.
• This is a significant rewrite of the constitution, and it has not undergone sufficient community exposure or review.
• It is not clear that we should remove the budget info action mechanism.
• We should not approve large changes to the constitution in a single action; each individual change should be proposed as its own revision.

Conclusion

For the reasons listed above, I am voting against this constitutional revision.

A lot of effort went into reaching the constitution as it exists today. If you want to propose minor individual changes, I will be much more open to them than I am to the large revisions you have submitted thus far.

At this time I don't see the need for a group vision.

Stablecoin liquidity may be the number one thing holding Cardano back right now. The solution proposed in this budget strikes a good balance between decentralized control and autonomous, rapid execution. With this in mind, I am voting in support of this budget.

Ultimately this proposal is asking us to bet on the long-term success of a memecoin. I wouldn't do that if it were my own money and I'm certainly not going to do it with treasury funds.

I am skeptical that this proposal will have meaningful impact. These hackathons, meetups, and workshops are likely to attract mostly existing community members and do little to raise awareness of Cardano. Therefore, I am voting against this proposal.

This revision to the constitution changes too many things at once.

I find this committee acceptable. While I would like to see Intersect and IOG maintain their positions on this committee I understand they both have valid reasons for not seeking reelection.

Changing vote from NO to YES after brief exchange with nftcdn over twitter DMs. They were convincing. Addressing metadata standard fragmentation will help developers. I am no longer confident in my previous criticism and am defaulting to YES on the basis that I don't believe we should block treasury withdrawals for an approved budget without a specific grievance.

Its a big request and I don't think its necessary

No strong opinion. Defaulting to YES

Considered voting NO because I don't like the idea of quadratic voting OR catalyst (I think catalyst proposals should instead be submitted to the dreps). But the team seems cracked and I'd like to give them a shot. They've already had their budget approved. Innovation in the governance space should be encouraged. I am voting YES.

I just don't know. Thus I will abstain. I'm not sure about funding a meme coin project, but at the same time the issue this proposal aims to address has been a serious topic of discussion within the Cardano community for a long time.

I don't think this is what Cardano needs right now.

No strong opinion. Defaulting to YES

I just don't see the value here. I do believe in advertising but I don't think this approach has significant potential.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

We still need Intersect

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I just don't feel good about this one.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I've never liked this proposal. I don't like the idea of using treasury funds to invest in real estate. The current real estate market is unnaturally high. Also, the amount of trust this product demands is unacceptable. Real world assets are still not mature technology. While I'm open to the idea of funding RWA tooling development, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of investing treasury funds into RWAs made with the currently available technology. Not only do I think it's a bad time to invest in real estate, I think it's a bad idea to invest in immature tokenization products.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

Hell yeah

I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.

Lucid Evolution is critical infrastructure and this is a reasonable price. Having used Lucid Evolution I can attest to it being a great tool which could absolutely benefit from some investment.

The deposit lending protocol has the potential to generate transactions on the L1 while making governance more accessible. However, the budget seems high. I particularly struggle with the infrastructure costs of 200k Ada for only six months of operation. That seems significantly higher than it should be. I am abstaining from voting on this project's budget due to having mixed feelings about it.

https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/17_tempodotvote.md

GovTools is starting to succumb to feature creep. The scope of GovTools should be restricted to proposing and voting on governance actions. A much more modest budget is appropriate.

Despite wanting to avoid an omnibus budget, and despite having concerns about some of the budget items, I am voting YES on this governance action. The majority of these funds are going to important work which should not be delayed given this critical period in Cardano's development.

Next year we should try to avoid an omnibus budget. To make this feasible, we will need to build an effective tool to enable governance action deposits to be crowd sourced.

https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/15_intersect_budget.md

The Intersect proposal took place off chain using a service called "Ekklesia" to collect votes from dReps and decide which budget items should be included in its omnibus budget. The authors of this proposal express concerns regarding the legitimacy of the Intersect proposal.

This proposal requests ₳7,568,810 and aims to fund seven high quality projects.

https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/14_community_budget.md

I agree that we should define an NCL that extends into the next year to avoid a period without an NCL. However, I believe this NCL is too low for this period given our current situation.

Should this proposal be enacted, the Intersect budget of ₳275M would leave only ₳25M for anything else the dReps choose to fund until June 3, 2026. With the current NCL of ₳350M, the dReps would remain in control of ₳75M.

The dReps, as a collective, need to develop resource allocation skills. The only way to achieve this is by giving them a sufficiently large budget that allows for a few mistakes.

https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/13_ncl.md

A lack of stablecoin liquidity has been identified as an area in need of improvement in the Cardano DeFi ecosystem. Thus, it may be wise to invest some portion of the treasury directly as stablecoin liquidity. Unfortunately, I do not think the management solution outlined in this proposal is strong enough in its current form to be implemented.

I encourage the team to refine the concept further and resubmit this proposal.

https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/12_liquidity_budget.md

Based on the relatively low cost of this budget, the quality of the team, and the value building a new node would bring to the ecosystem, I have decided to vote YES on the Amaru Node Development budget for 2025.

https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/11_amaru_budget_2025.md

Since my previous vote, where I stated "While the proposed amount of ₳350M is a tad high for my liking, it is not so high as to justify stalling the budget process." I have become convinced that ₳350M is approximately the correct value for the NCL for the remainder of the year.
This new proposal would set the NCL at ₳200M.

Cardano needs to learn how to swim — and we need to do it fast. Blockchain was conceived to solve the distribution of control problem. No network has fully lived up to that challenge yet, and it remains a problem we desperately need to solve.
Cardano is the closest to fulfilling the true destiny of blockchain, but we will only succeed if we learn to manage resources and make complex decisions.
We will not learn that by acting so cautiously that we never take risks. We need the freedom to make mistakes — and an NCL as low as ₳200M does not grant us that freedom.

Our responsibility is to manage the treasury wisely, not to avoid risk out of fear.
We need to accept that we will make mistakes, and that's okay — because we will address them and learn from them.
Because that's how we get better.

Matthew 25:14–30

https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/10_ncl_2025_b.md

Signed,
William Doyle

It is important to remember that the NCL itself does not dictate how much will be spent in a year, but rather only how much can be spent that year.
The DReps will still have an opportunity to reject treasury withdrawals as they arise.

While the proposed amount of ₳350M is a tad high for my liking, it is not so high as to justify stalling the budget process.

I am voting YES on this governance action.

Signed,
William Doyle

https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/9_ncl_2025.md

I see this proposal as making two main points. The first is that we should set a minimal NCL early and optionally increase it later. The second is that we should set these values at 300M ₳ for 2025 and 250M ₳ for 2026.

I agree with both of these suggestions.

Setting the lowest NCL we can all agree on allows us to immediately unlock and deploy the portion of treasury funds that has broad support, rather than waiting for consensus on a higher number. This gives the ecosystem access to funding sooner, while still leaving room to debate and potentially raise the limit later.

The two proposed values—300M ₳ and 250M ₳ for 2025 and 2026, respectively—make sense as a minimal NCL starting point because they are approximately equal to the expected treasury revenue for each year.

Signed William Doyle

Suggested Additions To The 2025 Roadmap

March 4, 2025

The relevant info action (gov_action12me...hmr9wx) requests that dReps provide feedback with their vote and consider voting repeatedly after revisions.

During the lifetime of the governance action, the Product Committee will iterate upon the roadmap based upon DRep feedback, adjusting the referenced roadmap. DReps are encouraged to attach metadata to their votes, providing rationale; these rationales will be reviewed by the Product Committee. A yes vote for this action signals support for the proposed roadmap. A no vote on this action signals a lack of support for the roadmap. An abstain vote means signals neither in favor nor against. While the referenced roadmap develops, DReps should consider submitting multiple votes to signal approval across versions.

With this in mind I am tentatively voting against this roadmap and offering three suggestions for what I believe should be prioritized in addition to what has already been outlined.

• Post Quantum R&D
• Ouroborus Genesis
• Ouroborus Chronos

Post Quantum R&D

Quantum computers are coming sooner than anticipated and the first practical application will be breaking the elliptic curve cryptography Cardano depends on. We need a plan beyond mere disaster recovery. I suggest we start by drafting an inventory of everything that needs to be upgraded, funding the development of competing solutions (hash-based and lattice-based), and hiring cryptographers to design domain specific signature schemes for use in blockchain.

Post Quantum Cardano By Charles Hoskinson

Ouroborus Genesis

The ability to bootstrap from Genesis has the potential to differentiate Cardano from other proof-of-stake networks and eliminate all lingering dependency on centralized actors. From what I understand, work on Genesis is nearly complete, making this an easy win.

Genesis Paper

Ouroborus Chronos

When paired with Genesis, Chronos will provide feature parity with proof-of-work blockchains. Implementing Chronos before Leios and multiple node implementations would be prudent. I fear Chronos is not sufficiently discussed and may otherwise never be implemented.

Chronos Paper

Conclusion

Including Post Quantum R&D would be enough to make me change my vote to YES. However I would very much like to see Genesis and Chronos included as I believe they complete a significant goal of the Cardano project which is to prove that proof-of-stake can be just as secure as proof-of-work. This would not only help by improving Cardano's security but would have the added benefit of differentiating Cardano in an increasingly competitive blockchain industry.

Signed William Doyle

Your friendly neighborhood DRep!

$computerman

drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

We have just unlocked the treasury. This is an exciting yet uncertain time. Many in the Cardano community are concerned that their taxes will be wasted. I share these concerns, which is why I chose to become a dRep. However, the treasury is one of the most powerful aspects of the Cardano ecosystem and must not be undermined.

Cardano does not exist solely for its current users. It exists for all of humanity, current and future. It is our responsibility as stewards in these early days to ensure our network continues to improve. Maintaining, growing, and spending our treasury responsibly is not only a matter of personal benefit; it is a sacred duty we owe to our children and our children’s children.

This proposal, which I am voting to reject, postulates that a 10% tax would suffice due to an expected appreciation in the value of Ada and that decreasing the tax from 20% would benefit the decentralization of the network by encouraging more participation in consensus.

Basing such a critical decision on price speculation is not only unreasonable but dangerously short-sighted.

Decentralization could always be improved; however, it is not the only consideration. As we are currently among the best in class when it comes to decentralization, we should be careful not to prioritize it above other critical considerations. As this proposal would halve the current contributions to the treasury, it has the potential to inhibit our long-term viability.

Our duty as stewards of the treasury is not to drive the price of Ada higher, but to shepherd Cardano through each challenge the future brings. Let us not become distracted by personal gain. May we keep sight of the opportunity granted to us—that we might change the course of human history and deliver all of mankind to a truly trustless world.

Signed William Doyle

Your friendly neighborhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt

This constitution, the product of many conversations from around the world, enshrines our values and shall act as our Ulysses pact to constrain us in times of temptation. May we forever remember what came before, the mistakes that were made, and the lessons that were learned. Now that Cardano belongs to us, it is our duty to preserve it, enhance it, and, when the time comes, hand it down to our children.

It is proper to honor those who are no longer with us, especially when they have contributed so much. Chang & Plomin is a fitting name for the pair of hard forks. May both men rest in peace.

While I do think it is wise to increase K, this action provides no details about how much to increase K by. This leaves me, as a DRep, in a precarious situation; if I vote YES, it may indicate to delegates that I am in favor of moving K to 1000 immediately after change 2, which I am not. However, if I vote NO, it may indicate that I do not approve of any increase in K, which is also false. My current thinking is that we should adjust K slowly, increasing it by no more than 100 each quarter.

Couldn't agree more! Long live Cardano! Long live freedom! Long live Ikigai! Massive gratitude to those who came before.

sure why not name the next HF after Hosky