Two members of Cardano's constitutional committee vote against the budget framework

A framework, and two votes against it

Cardano Budget Process Framework (facilitated by Intersect) asks for no money. What it asks for is agreement on how money will be asked for in future, and it is specific about the level of agreement it wants: its own text seeks a minimum of 51% of stake from DReps to run the process it describes.

The process runs in five stages: strategic planning, where a vision, the framework itself and a net change limit have to be approved on chain before a budget cycle starts, then collection of proposals, review, consolidation into a budget and execution through withdrawals with milestone reporting. The ceiling for epochs 613 to 713 was settled two windows earlier, in the review of epochs 612 to 614. Any change to the framework has to come as a fresh information action, so the version in force is always the one on chain.

Voting closed at the start of epoch 623 with 68.4% of DRep power behind it, on 138 yes ballots, 32 no and 7 abstain, past the 51% it asked for. The shares in this edition are the yes power as a share of all counted power, with abstaining power left out and power that cast no ballot counted as no. Among the twelve largest DReps on its ballot list, ranked by delegated power at epoch 623, nine voted yes, one abstained and two voted no. The pools recorded 23 yes ballots, 1 no and 1 abstain, a yes stake share of 6.0%.

YUTA backed the revised voting threshold, writing that “the biggest problem with the previous Budget process was that the threshold was simply calculated far too low”, and that this time a proposal needs 67% of participating stake, with every DRep that voted yes or no on it counted. That 67% applies to the proposals inside the process, the 51% to the framework itself. The Eternl DRep Committee called the process “going in the right direction”, noted that a 1,000 ada fee to take part as a vendor “is a lot” for smaller teams in the current market, and disclosed that Eternl had received funding through the previous year’s process and would likely file again. Army of Spies objected to bundling proposals, CardanoYoda to the workload the process expects of DReps. Army of Spies wrote that it hates “the bundling of proposals”: it did not want to vote yes on a withdrawal for a bundle when it strongly disfavours some components and favours others. CardanoYoda (MANDA Pool) voted no to ask for changes, writing that the framework “sets unrealistic expectations regarding the workload of DReps”: around 200 proposals came in the previous year, and a DRep with two hours a day for governance and four hours per proposal “can process only about ten proposals per month”. One stake pool wrote that “monopolizing the budget is a terrible idea”.

Why two committee members called it unconstitutional

Five committee members found the framework constitutional and two did not, a reading of 71.4% with all seven voting. It is the only one of the three actions decided in these epochs whose committee tally holds a no vote, and the two objections are arguments about what an information action does rather than about the process itself.

KtorZ wrote that the framework is in the committee’s scope because it refers to a type of governance action, and that its document proposes an Intersect facilitated process “as the only process permitting access to the Cardano treasury”. Intersect is a member organisation, and the constitution says that no formal membership shall be required to use, take part in and benefit from the chain. Underneath it all, he wrote, the budget “is framed as a Cardano budget framework, whereas it is in fact an Intersect budget framework”. The Eastern Cardano Council took the framework’s own motivation at its word: publishing it “ensures that all governance participants” work from one reference, so DReps “will likely reject proposals that do not follow it”, even though the protocol permits anyone to file directly. It cited DReps who had already appealed to the strategy information action when rejecting proposals “rather than rejecting it on its merits”.

In epoch 623, Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore was submitted outside the Intersect process, ₳14.1M for a two day summit hosted by the Cardano Foundation and a title sponsorship at TOKEN2049, managed by EMURGO. Its own text says the choice was made on purpose: payments through that process were projected for August or September at the earliest, and both events are in October 2026. Whether DReps treat a request that skips the process on its merits is exactly what the objection is about, and that request’s vote runs past this window.

The committee’s objections could not block the information action, which triggers no automatic change on chain and is never ratified.

Amaru receives ₳10.1M

Amaru received ₳10.1M at the start of epoch 621, the window’s only treasury withdrawal and the first charged against the net change limit for the spending period that began at epoch 613. It had been ratified at the start of epoch 620, before this window, on 70.9% of DRep power, a vote the review of epochs 615 to 620 covers. The proposal describes Amaru as a block producing node designed for low hardware requirements, and calls this its second treasury withdrawal.

After the payment the treasury balance stood ₳6.3M below its epoch 620 reading. It recovered to ₳1.66B by epoch 623.

₳50M ratified for Orion, over objections about oversight

Cardano x Draper Dragon: Orion Fund was ratified at the start of epoch 623 on 74.9% of DRep power, 109 yes ballots, 37 no and 10 abstain, with all seven committee members in favour.

It is not a grant and not a loan. The proposal sets up a limited partnership with Draper Dragon as general partner, which would invest in companies building on or integrating with Cardano, and it asks the DReps to approve only the first tranche, ₳50M, which it puts at roughly fifteen million dollars at an assumed ada price of thirty cents. The net proceeds of the direct investments are to be returned to the treasury on a repayment schedule set out in the proposal, and each further tranche needs its own vote. The long term plan it lays out is a fund of at least eighty million dollars, seventy five million of it from the treasury over three tranches, this first one included, with total withdrawals capped at ₳175M, and only the first tranche is approved by this vote.

Yoroi W₳llet voted yes because “excessive caution can also slow ecosystem progress”, and because the fund is an investment vehicle approved for a first stage only rather than “a one-way grant”. The no votes were about who decides once the money is out. hix_coffeepool☕️ wrote that investment decisions are left to the general partner’s “sole discretion”, that portfolio information is designated confidential, that “no independent auditor is named”, and that approving the first tranche opens a path to ₳175M “without transparency in place”. Army of Spies called it “another abdication of the power of the purse by the dReps”. CardanoYoda voted no as feedback rather than as an absolute no, asking for the fund to commit to the numeric targets of the 2030 strategy. The ₳50M is due one epoch later, in the review of epochs 624 to 626. For the treasury, the window ended with ₳10.1M drawn against the new limit and ₳50M more ratified against it.

Dingo and the liquidity budget at their deadline, as of the close of epoch 623

Two more withdrawals reached their voting deadline at the start of epoch 624, the window’s closing boundary: Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1 at 74.1% of DRep power as of that close, ₳800,000 to set up the legal entity, the audit and the multisig the stablecoin liquidity budget needs, and Dingo: a Production-Grade Block Producer in Go by Blink Labs at 70.3%, ₳6.9M for twelve months of work on a block producing node written in Go. The liquidity request lists the circumstances under which funds return to the treasury and discloses that the recipient has received no treasury ada in the previous two years, the two things a committee rationale had found missing from the ₳500,000 request on the same budget that the review of epochs 612 to 614 covers.

Two new requests were submitted inside the window and still open at its close: the ₳14.1M conference bundle above, and Pebble + Gerolamo - HLabs 2026 Budget for ₳8.0M, twelve months of work on TypeScript tooling, a light node and a smart contract language, with a 25% refundable contingency on its base budget.

The window recorded 563 ballots, superseded votes included: 518 from DReps, 19 from committee members and 26 from stake pools. Final ballots came from 166 DReps and 21 pools.