Yosh

I am voting YES. The questions I previously raised during the GA regarding transparency and clarity around the entities responsible for managing the funds have been adequately addressed.

Voted Yes. This governance action is foundational to Cardano’s long term success, and there is no alternative entity capable of executing this work effectively.

The founding entities + the Midnight Foundation, will be undertaking a set of critical responsibilities that will also provide a valuable real world test case for how an executive function could operate within Cardano’s governance framework. The outcomes of this effort should meaningfully inform future discussions on establishing an executive group to help guide and steward the blockchain.

Voted Yes. This governance action is necessary to formally record the results of the audited Ekklesia elections on-chain and seat the remaining Constitutional Committee member.

Until all CC seats are filled, the governance system cannot function, and no governance actions can be approved. Passing this GA promptly is essential to restore full operational governance.

Voted Yes. With the massive support of the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget GA, this necessitates the need for a small extension in the NCL timeframe to allow for the CCIB to have enough time to pass and get approved for its TW. Both are mutually exclusive.

Voting YES. This proposal and the approach taken by the Founding Entities and the Midnight Foundation are exactly what Cardano needs at this stage. There are certain initiatives that the FEs are simply better positioned to execute and implement than community developers. It would also be significantly more difficult to trust any group other than the FEs with 70M ADA, especially given the time and complexity involved in securing approvals and funding for these initiatives.

Since the 70M ADA allocation comes from the remaining balance of this year’s NCL, I would like to see some acknowledgment that if the costs required to execute these initiatives exceed the 70M ADA, which is entirely possible, the FEs will cover any surplus.

Voting yes, as it is the fair thing to do for an early pioneer in the governance era; however, the 3,000 ADA is a very bad look and im sure that they now regret including that in this GA.

Voting yes for now, but will vote no on the TW if its anything more than 100,000 ADA.

Voted yes, as it will be funded by the CF and is in the best interest of Cardano. Hopefully the CF doesn't hold these domains as hostage in the future, as they will be the owners of them and we the community have no representation in the CF. I trust it will be fine.

Liquidity is one of the biggest challenges facing our ecosystem right now. Despite the risks associated with voting YES on this proposal, I believe the potential benefits outweigh those risks.

That said, I would like to see a clearer and more structured protocol for how these funds will be managed during the TW, as this is essentially a fund management operation above all else.

While the proposed amendment does a good job of improving clarity and cleaning up definitions, I am voting No on this proposal.

My concern is that replacing budgets with roadmaps removes the detailed financial oversight we currently have. Roadmaps are too broad to judge funding requests on their own, which risks making treasury withdrawals being more fragmented and less disciplined. I do think there are opportunities to improve the process, but I don't feel this has been debated enough. Removing codes of conduct also weakens formal accountability, and shifting more weight onto the Constitutional Committee creates additional risk by concentrating too much discretion in the hands of a small group.

These are significant governance changes that haven’t been discussed enough by the community, and I don’t believe the current Constitution justifies such a quick amendment.