Zacros

Panda votes YES. The KEY to not be ruled by THEM

Panda votes YES. From the past governance years it seemed that the voting decisions were pretty straightforwad. Min 5 + roles covered by the community seems fine

Might consider even lower around 250/275

Unfortunately Panda vote NO. Panda thinks Hydra is awesome but tricky. Panda wants more info on

• who runs the nodes?
• whats the damage if the nodes go down?
• is there a path for community members (open) to run nodes?
• what's the trade off to obtain low fees and fast trading with your solution?
• what are the risks?

Panda wants more info/assurances on the aspects of reliability, availability, censor resistance, users risks, and more.
What does the road ahead look like? Is there a path to improve on these aspects?

Once again Panda votes YES. However Panda prefers "Ada owners" to "ada owners" with a capital "A"

Panda votes NO. Panda thinks is not the time to continue spending as if it has no consequences for CARDANO.
Panda was ok to spend that much the first year to bootstrap everything, but now Panda thinks it is a moment to slow down, recollect, verify what's the effect of the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL of the past year and then go.
Panda thinks stability and TOP 10 marketing for Cardano is A MUST

Panda votes YES.
Although Panda believes that reasonable spending lies at the base of the blue foundation, when the time comes to push through the forest and reach a new dawn Panda is ready.

0 to 200k in a blink. You might argue that many seats comprise several members and so 200k might be okish per head, however most of the overhead in voting/meetings/etc arise from their choice of forming the Constitutional Head that way

Panda Paw

As the info action.
Noted

Panda thinks the budget is quite high; however, in these trying times of booting up Governance, the pockets must be emptied*

*A pandaneese joke. Don't you worry

Panda votes YES since the revision eliminated Panda concerns about the previous v2.0

However, not sure about keeping "ada" lower case vs "Ada"

Overall Panda thinks it is good. However Panda would love some more emphasis on keeping decentralization alive:

• with SPO (supporting small pools and growing their numbers)
• but also in Governance, since right now few keys hold enormous power (voting dynamics/power, Dreps participation, processes improvement)

Panda thinks the proposal main goal is very valid, however Panda is not sure about

• Team members: I can see some, but why the rest? What would be their role?
• I have seen some chatter on X where you are OK in reducing slippage for stablecoin swaps but not pools fees (since you are looking for a 4% return to the treasury). Would be best aiming for an x% return for the Treasury while ignoring/denying potentially more swaps from users (more use-cases)? <- that is, returns above all

As a side note: you are looking for a 4% return, however have you considered about what 50million injections would do to the currently available yields?

Snek has proven time and time again that they can spearhead initiatives and unlock new levels for Cardano, helping it reach closer to ‘mainstream’ recognition within the larger crypto community

If you see it simply as ‘funding a memecoin,’ it might not seem very appealing. However, Snek appears to be much more than that: a movement and a community that pushes Cardano in areas where it currently struggles such as marketing, virality and onboarding .

For the Treasury Withdrawal action, I’d like to see a detailed breakdown of how they plan to repay the loan, including current revenue sources and amounts.

Panda voted NO solely for this piece:

Treasury withdrawal governance actions must. [...] , the location and the identity of the recipient.

Panda is not sure what it means and entails " location and the identity of the recipient.". Might be too broad and general and force unwanted consequences

Panda pleased by the Rare Evo presentation

Exorbitant Infrastructure Cost of 200k ADA for 6 months