Governance ReviewNo. 20Epochs 582 to 58411 Sept 2025 to 26 Sept 2025
A ₳50M stablecoin budget and GovTool's ₳1.15M withdrawal are filed
A new ₳50M budget proposed supplying ada and stablecoin liquidity to Cardano exchanges and lending protocols under a nine-person committee. GovTool separately requested ₳1.15M for maintenance and development, while a community-submitted draft of the Cardano 2030 strategy drew objections that it was incomplete.
Elder Millenial’s ₳50M stablecoin liquidity budget is filed
Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget, filed in epoch 582 with Elder Millenial as its author, asks for ₳50M over twelve months for a fund of ada and fiat backed stablecoins to place with decentralised exchanges and lending protocols as liquidity. Its document names more stablecoin liquidity on Cardano as the primary goal and revenue for the treasury as the secondary one: each month 15% of what the deployed funds earn would be converted to ada and returned to the treasury. Its deadline was the start of epoch 589.
The money would be drawn in two withdrawals. The first, up to ₳500,000, would pay for a legal framework and the smart contract. The second, ₳49.5M, could only be filed once the legal structure was in place, with ₳500,000 of it for converting ada and minting stablecoins and ₳49M for deploying liquidity, up to 35% of the fund kept in ada to pair with the stablecoins.
A nine person interim committee of publicly identified individuals, Elder Millenial among them, would administer the fund from a smart contract that needs five of the nine signatures to spend. A new treasury organisation of DReps would oversee it, with the power to remove and elect committee members, to block any spending other than a return to the treasury, and to shut the fund down and return the money. After one year it has to elect a new committee, or the committee can take no further action.
YUTA voted yes in epoch 583, writing that as a user of decentralised finance it had “many situations” where it would have transacted on chain with more liquidity, and that it would re-read the no rationales in October and reconsider. In epoch 584 CardanoYoda (MANDA Pool) put stablecoins at a $282B market, of which Cardano’s native dollar backed coins held about $25M, so that ₳50M “could roughly double that amount” and was “the bare minimum needed”. SASA_nagamaru_ながまる called thin stablecoin liquidity “one of the biggest challenges currently facing Cardano” and pointed to the proposal’s simulation of a gradual sale of ada to limit the price impact. Kyle Solomon called the oversight body’s power to remove administrators or shut the fund down and return the money “a critical component”. The largest no by delegated power, ₳26.7M at epoch 584, came in epoch 583 from a DRep without a published name, who wrote that trading demand in decentralised finance on Cardano is weak, that “the absence of native USDT/USDC is the fundamental bottleneck” and that deploying ₳50M now is premature.
The Cardano 2030 strategy draft is filed without a named author
Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy, filed in epoch 583, asks DReps to support a vision and strategy for Cardano to 2030. Its document lists no author. It says the product committee created the content and a community member, not the committee or any of its members, submitted the action to gather feedback on chain, where the committee had relied on feedback collected off chain. A yes signals support, a no a lack of support and an abstention neither, and DReps are asked to attach a rationale. Its deadline was the start of epoch 590.
In epoch 584 Kyle Solomon abstained as vice chair of Intersect’s product committee, writing that the committee already planned its own information action “circa end of October” and that DReps were being shown “heavily incomplete work”. Hephaestus Stake Pool abstained, quoting product committee members who had called the submission premature and said the committee had not signed off on its wording. SASA voted no, writing that a target of $200M of base layer revenue lacks a calculation method or ada price assumptions and that the strategy “reads more like a comprehensive wishlist” than a prioritised plan. CardanoYoda called the document well written but voted no, writing that approving the vision apart from the strategy asks DReps to back targets such as that revenue figure “without being shown whether the actual strategy is realistic”. YUTA voted yes, calling the draft provisional and writing that letting other governance actions go ahead with a blank vision posed the deeper risk.
GovTool asks for ₳1.15M for a year of maintenance
Withdraw ₳1,150,000 for GovTool 12 months active maintenance and development, filed in epoch 584, is the withdrawal against the GovTool budget that closed at the start of epoch 574, covered in the review of epochs 573 to 575. It pays for twelve months of maintenance and development of GovTool, the open source tools used to register as a DRep, delegate, submit proposals and vote. Its deadline was the start of epoch 591.
The work would be done by the Cardano GovTool Consortium of ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, LidoNation and Dquadrant, with other open source contributors, and Intersect would administer the money through a smart contract, with anything unused going back to the treasury. The sum is itemised: hosting and infrastructure, development of each part of the tools priced in full time equivalents, ₳150,000 for contributors paid through their contributions to the code, and ₳100,000 for other open source governance tools that build on GovTool’s code or interfaces.
The votes cast in epoch 584 carried ₳0.62B of delegated power for the withdrawal and ₳0.24B against, of which ₳212.9M came from CryptoCrow, whose vote carries no rationale. SASA and YUTA voted yes, SASA writing that it “simply executes the already-approved ₳1.15M budget” and YUTA that governance “is in a very difficult situation” and that GovTool and wallet providers need to work together. TriangleForces voted no, writing that it supports a community owned tool as a public good but that this request “fails to demonstrate fiscal discipline”, and asked the consortium to “tighten the ask, come back”.
Cardano in Oceania and the Snek loan budget close first
No voting period ended inside the window. Cardano in Oceania and the Snek loan budget, carried over from the review of epochs 579 to 581, had their deadlines at the starts of epochs 586 and 587, ahead of the three proposals filed in these epochs.
Three new proposals and five upcoming deadlines
Epochs, with the deadline being the start of the epoch named
Nothing had been paid from the treasury since epoch 578, so ₳78.0M of the ₳350M ceiling, which runs to the end of epoch 604, stayed unused. The window recorded 319 votes, 301 from DReps, 8 from pools and 10 from committee members, with final votes from 132 distinct DReps. At epoch 584, 858 DReps held ₳5.61B of delegated power, the most DReps up to then, and the ten largest held 49.2% of it. The count of DReps with a vote in the last twelve epochs fell from 382 at epoch 581 to 355, as epochs 570 to 572, with 3,976 DRep votes between them, dropped out of it. The treasury reading rose ₳8.2M to ₳1.59B.
Open at the close of the window
| Action | Amount | Status | DRep yes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget | Voting ends at the start of epoch 589 | n/a | |
| Defining the Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy | Voting ends at the start of epoch 590 | n/a | |
| Withdraw ₳1,150,000 for GovTool 12 months active maintenance and development | ₳1.2M | Voting ends at the start of epoch 591 | n/a |
| Cardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth. | Voting ends at the start of epoch 586 | n/a | |
| Budget: ₳5M Loan for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek | Voting ends at the start of epoch 587 | n/a |
n/a: the record holds no DRep share from inside this window for this action, only a tally read after it closed.
The numbers behind the window
- Delegated to DReps, at the start of epoch 582
- ₳5.62B
- Delegated to DReps, at the start of epoch 584
- ₳5.61B
- Votes cast in the window, superseded votes included
- 319
- DReps whose final vote fell in the window
- 132
- Treasury, at the start of epoch 582
- ₳1,585.2M
- Treasury, at the start of epoch 584
- ₳1,593.3M
- DRep shares are the share of counted power: abstaining power is left out, while power that did not vote and power delegated to the always no confidence option are folded into the no side. Committee shares are yes votes over the members active at the decision minus those who abstained.
- Nothing was decided and nothing was paid in these three epochs. All five proposals open at the close are decided after this window, so no share for any of them is given from inside it, only tallies read afterwards, and the table shows none.
- What the three new proposals ask for is read from their own documents, named under the sources below.
- The votes and rationales quoted were cast inside epochs 582 to 584, dated by their block time, and are the published reasons of the DReps quoted. A DRep may change a vote until the deadline. That most of the largest DReps had not voted yet says nothing about their intentions: the proposals were between one and three epochs old at the close. The ceiling in force runs to the end of epoch 604, which is not the end epoch the site registry carries today, because a later action extended the period.
- Votes cast is every vote of epochs 582 to 584 across all three roles, superseded votes included. Per epoch DRep counts exclude votes without a block time. The count of DReps with a vote in the last twelve epochs covers the epoch read and the eleven before it, and includes DReps without delegated power. Delegated power and the concentration measures exclude the predefined delegation options.
Sources and further reading
17 sources, open the list
- YUTA voted yes on the liquidity budget in epoch 583, writing that liquidity provision is no magic bullet and that concerns had been raised, but that the benefits likely outweigh the disadvantages, that as a user of decentralised finance it had many times held back from transacting on chain for lack of liquidity, and that it would re-read the no rationales of other DReps in October and reconsider. the rationale of YUTA on the liquidity budget
- CardanoYoda voted yes on the liquidity budget in epoch 584, writing that stablecoins are a 282,000,000,000 dollar market of which Cardano's native dollar backed stablecoins hold about 25,000,000 dollars, that 50,000,000 ada could roughly double that, that the sum is the bare minimum needed, and that it would support an even larger withdrawal. the rationale of CardanoYoda on the liquidity budget
- SASA voted yes on the liquidity budget in epoch 584, writing that a lack of deep stablecoin liquidity is one of the biggest challenges facing Cardano, that the fund would be run from a smart contract with monthly reporting and oversight by a treasury organisation of DReps able to pause or shut it down, and that the proposal presents a simulation showing that a gradual sale of ada could limit the price impact. the rationale of SASA on the liquidity budget
- Kyle Solomon voted yes on the liquidity budget in epoch 584, writing that a treasury organisation governed by a broad selection of DReps that can add or remove administrators or shut the fund down and return the money is a critical component, and that the initial team is well known and trusted. the rationale of Kyle Solomon on the liquidity budget
- A DRep without a published name voted no on the liquidity budget in epoch 583, writing that trading demand in decentralised finance on Cardano is currently weak, that existing decentralised exchange liquidity already serves most retail needs, that the absence of native USDT/USDC is the fundamental bottleneck, and that deploying 50,000,000 ada now is premature and an inefficient use of treasury funds, recommending to wait for clear growth in demand and then phase liquidity in. the rationale of a DRep without a published name on the liquidity budget
- YUTA voted yes on the strategy draft in epoch 584, writing that it can be considered a provisional vision and strategy, that it agrees with many of the shortcomings other DReps pointed out, and that letting other governance actions move forward with a blank vision and strategy poses a deeper risk. the rationale of YUTA on the strategy draft
- CardanoYoda voted no on the strategy draft in epoch 584, writing that it generally likes the document, which is well written and ambitious, but cannot approve it in its current form for reasons partly procedural and partly substantive, among them that approving the vision separately from the strategy asks DReps to support ambitious declarations such as a 200,000,000 dollar annual revenue target without being shown whether the actual strategy is realistic. the rationale of CardanoYoda on the strategy draft
- SASA voted no on the strategy draft in epoch 584, writing that targets such as 200,000,000 dollars of base layer revenue lack a calculation method or ada price assumptions, that the strategy reads like a comprehensive wishlist rather than a prioritised plan, and that an actively managed treasury is a significant strategic shift needing a governance and risk framework first. the rationale of SASA on the strategy draft
- Kyle Solomon abstained on the strategy draft in epoch 584 as vice chair of the product committee of Intersect, writing that the committee was already planning to solicit feedback through an information action around the end of October, that DReps were being asked to vote on heavily incomplete work, and that the author should attend a committee meeting. the rationale of Kyle Solomon on the strategy draft
- Hephaestus Stake Pool abstained on the strategy draft in epoch 584, writing that the submission came from a community member, that product committee members had stated publicly that it was premature and that the committee had not signed off on the wording, and that an official proposal was expected. the rationale of Hephaestus Stake Pool on the strategy draft
- YUTA voted yes on the GovTool withdrawal in epoch 584, writing that it votes for the same reasons as on the budget action, that Cardano governance is in a very difficult situation, and that GovTool and wallet providers need to work together to give people a better chance to choose a DRep that matches their values. the rationale of YUTA on the GovTool withdrawal
- SASA voted yes on the GovTool withdrawal in epoch 584, writing that it simply executes the already approved budget, that GovTool is the core public good for taking part in on chain governance, that the funds would be managed through a smart contract with an oversight committee, and that unused funds return to the treasury. the rationale of SASA on the GovTool withdrawal
- TriangleForces voted no on the GovTool withdrawal in epoch 584, writing that it supports an open, neutral, community owned GovTool as a public good, but that this request fails to demonstrate fiscal discipline and leaves too many trust and delivery questions open, and closing by asking the proposers to do the work, tighten the ask and come back. the rationale of TriangleForces on the GovTool withdrawal
- The document behind the liquidity budget lists Elder Millenial as its author and asks for 50,000,000 ada for a budget period of twelve months to build a fund of ada and fiat backed stablecoins. It names increasing stablecoin liquidity on Cardano as the primary goal and revenue for the treasury as the secondary goal, says 99% of the funds would be disbursed to decentralised exchanges and lending protocols to seed liquidity, and keeps up to 35% of the fund in ada to pair with stablecoins. The money would come in two withdrawals: up to 500,000 ada to establish a legal framework and the smart contract, then 49,500,000 ada, of which 500,000 ada for converting ada and minting stablecoins and 49,000,000 ada for deploying liquidity, and the legal structure must be established before the second withdrawal is submitted. Each month 15% of the revenue earned would be converted to ada and sent back to the treasury while 85% stays in the protocols. The fund would be administered from a smart contract by a nine person interim committee of publicly identified individuals, among them Nick Schaub (Elder Millenial), with five of the nine signatures needed to spend, and overseen by a new treasury organisation of DReps that can remove and elect committee members, prevent any spending other than returning funds to the treasury, and shut the fund down and return the funds. After one year that organisation must elect a new committee or no actions can be taken. the document behind the liquidity budget
- The document behind the strategy draft lists no author. It states that the product committee created the content but that the governance action was submitted independently by a community member, not the committee or its members, to help gather feedback on chain where the committee had so far relied on feedback collected off chain. It says a yes signals support for the vision and strategy, a no a lack of support and an abstention neither, and encourages DReps to attach a rationale to their vote. the document behind the strategy draft
- The document behind the GovTool withdrawal names the approved budget it follows by its id and describes twelve months of maintenance and development of GovTool, the open source governance tools used to register, delegate, propose and vote, carried out by the Cardano GovTool Consortium, which it says consists of ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, LidoNation and Dquadrant with additional open source contributors, and administered by Intersect through a smart contract framework, with unused funds returned to the treasury. Its itemisation covers hosting and infrastructure, development of each part of the tools in full time equivalents, 150,000 ada for contributors allocated through direct contributions to the code repositories and 100,000 ada for other open source governance tools that build on GovTool code or interfaces. the document behind the GovTool withdrawal
- The ceiling in force caps paid withdrawals at ₳350M for the period from the start of epoch 532 to the end of epoch 604. the document behind the ceiling in force