2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 7.5M ₳ for community builders
171 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes756.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes731.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- No707.1K ₳Rationale
We, the Dutch DRep, vote No on this budget Info Action.
While we support funding for community-driven initiatives, we have strong reservations about including proposals that introduce protocol-level changes—specifically zkFold and Starstream.
Both propose ambitious technologies that would require significant modifications to Cardano’s ledger and core protocol. These kinds of changes demand deep coordination with the broader development community and should not be funded without clear technical alignment, ecosystem consensus, and process transparency. Yet, neither proposal provides sufficient clarity on integration challenges, dependencies, or risk factors—and neither team has meaningfully engaged in Cardano’s open CIP process.
As a constructive path forward, we strongly encourage both teams to initiate a CIP (Cardano Improvement Proposal) and, where appropriate, a CPS (Cardano Problem Statement) that formally outlines their proposed changes. A clear example to follow would be the approach taken by the Leios and Alba proposals, which have demonstrated how protocol innovations can be transparently introduced and evaluated within the community.
We would also recommend this path for proposals like Midgard, which touches on optimistic rollup design and may similarly intersect with future ledger evolution. Proposals of this scope should first be explored through the CIP/CPS process before treasury funding is considered.
We also invite fellow DReps to demand greater technical rigor and transparency from high-impact proposals. When millions of dollars in treasury funds are at stake, big claims—especially those involving protocol changes—should not be taken at face value. They must be supported by clearly articulated implementation paths, risk analysis, and evidence of engagement with Cardano’s open governance and development processes.
Our stance is not a rejection of the innovation of zkFold and Starstream. Rather, we believe treasury support for protocol-level initiatives should be contingent on demonstrated ecosystem alignment and technical diligence. In contrast, other proposals included in this budget—such as Blockfrost and the Ledger/hardware wallet initiatives—are narrower in scope, do not require consensus-layer changes, and are much better suited for direct funding at this stage.
- Yes705.1K ₳No rationale
- No625.9K ₳Rationale
I’m voting no on the 2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 7.5M ₳ for community builders. This proposal is submitted by a third party without providing evidence of formal agreements with all the parties named to undertake the proposed commitments. It therefore does not satisfy the requirement for a specified administration partner. I also find this proposal flawed in that, it lacks transparency and I have concerns about how accurately the proposal reflects the intentions of the named contributors. Therefore I don't have confidence in the proposal’s ability to deliver on its goals effectively and responsibly.
- No616.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- No590.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged501K ₳Rationale
This proposal brilliantly solves the collective action problem plaguing early-stage governance systems. Rather than forcing each builder to navigate the byzantine process of individual on-chain submission (creating governance fatigue), this approach establishes a repeatable pattern for efficiently allocating resources to promising initiatives with proven community support.
When future blockchain historians analyze Cardano's evolution, they'll point to this moment as when we transcended theoretical governance discussions and started building tangible infrastructure. The 7.5M ADA allocated here will likely generate 10x returns through ecosystem growth, user adoption, and technical advancement.Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
I’m abstaining on this one.
Not because I think the proposal is bad, I actually don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. The community clearly signaled support for these projects, and I respect that. If people voted to fund them, then yes, let them go ahead. That part makes sense to me.
But here’s the thing. I’ve been pretty consistent about wanting treasury spending to stay closer to 200 million ADA. If you twist my arm, maybe 250 million...but this budget takes us to 275 million, and that just feels like too much. Even if I think the proposal itself is technically fine, voting yes would contradict everything I’ve already said about staying within limits.
Also, each of these proposals will still go through treasury withdrawal. Nothing gets funded automatically. They’ll be scrutinized one by one, so I don’t see this Info Action as make-or-break. It’s more procedural than anything.
So while I support the spirit of this and I’m not voting no, I’m also not going to vote yes just to stay in line. I’d rather abstain and be honest about where I stand. - Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- No409.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes390K ₳No rationale
- No385.2K ₳Rationale
Krypto Labs acknowledges the vital importance of transparent, constitutionally aligned treasury allocation for community builders. While we support the spirit of empowering grassroots initiatives, we will be voting 'No' on this Info Action. Our decision stems from the understanding that the projects listed within this proposal are already slated to receive funding through the established IntersectMBO 2025 budget process. Approving this separate action would create redundancy and potential for double-funding, undermining the integrity of our budgetary framework. We advocate for a singular, clear funding path to ensure fiscal responsibility
- No383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳Rationale
I'm voting No on the 'community builder' budget because I don't want part of the included projects – Midgard, Starstream, zkFold – to be funded. I don't think that they are worth our ADA and greenlighting that budget that combines a lot of different proposals could (and I fear will) be seen as a precedence that they then also have the 'right' to get those ADA in later treasury withdrawals. Large omnibus budgets were a phenomenally bad idea and the 'budget committee' was not open to change paths at all.
- No365.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain332.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain314.4K ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting ABSTAIN on 2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 7.5M ₳ for community builders
I have decided to vote ABSTAIN on this Info Action.
While I support funding the individual proposals included in this Budget Info Action, I believe the way this Governance Action is structured is unconstitutional. Each budget proposal must have a named administrator responsible for managing disbursement, oversight, and reporting of funds. This is a key requirement of the Cardano Constitution.
Additionally, these proposals are already part of the 275M ADA budget Info Action, which is submitted and administered by Intersect. If both Info Actions are approved, it could create confusion and overlap in fund management.
I also understand the motivation behind submitting this budget Info Action - ensuring that only proposals with clear majority support (over 50% + 1 Lovelace of the 5.38B active voting stake) are included. However, I do not fully agree with the claim that the 275M Budget Info Action contains proposals lacking majority consensus. It is the responsibility of DReps to participate in Cardano governance and for delegators to choose their representatives. If some DReps did not vote on Ekklesia, I consider their non-participation as a form of abstention. Therefore, the 3.92B ADA voting participation in Ekklesia should be regarded as the effective active voting stake for this process.
For these reasons (support of proposals, but unconstitutionality and duplication of the Info Action), I have chosen ABSTAIN.
- No313.4K ₳Rationale
I vote no on the proposal requesting 7.5 million ADA for Community Builders initiative. While I strongly support efforts to grow and strengthen Cardano’s community, I find this particular proposal flawed on several critical fronts.
First, it lacks transparency and professionalism. It references a number of projects including at least one that has not requested to be administered by Intersect yet here citing Intersect as administrator. I do not see evidence of coordination or consent from those initiatives. This raises concerns about how accurately the proposal reflects the intentions and needs of the named contributors.
Second, the grouping of disparate initiatives into a single budget request without clear governance, delivery mechanisms, or accountability structures diminishes confidence in the proposal’s ability to deliver on its goals effectively and responsibly.
In its current form, I do not believe this is a credible or well-structured funding request. I encourage future proposals in this space to prioritize consultation, coordination, and clarity in their design, our community deserves nothing less.
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
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
- No294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
I voted for each of these submissions individually while processing the 190+ proposal 'survey' presented through the Ekklesia website. I see no reason not to support them directly through this info action to ensure they receive appropriate support, just in case they don't pass while being included in a separate bundled proposal.
I have therefore voted YES to this proposal.
- No261K ₳Rationale
I do not support this governance action due to critical gaps in constitutional compliance and governance execution.
Violation of Article IV.2 of the Cardano Constitution:
This budget Info Action fails to define any process for administering the ₳7.5M requested. No administrator, smart contract, multisig mechanism, or execution framework is mentioned — nor even an intention to define one. This directly violates the requirement that every budget must include a process for administering funds.No coordination across overlapping bundles:
Several proposals in this action are also present in the 39-proposal Intersect info action bundle. Without any coordination or clarity on how overlapping proposals will be handled, there is a risk of duplicated withdrawals or conflicting execution paths.Retroactive application of threshold:
The 2.69B ADA voting threshold used to filter which proposals were included was not communicated clearly to dReps during the Ekklesia voting phase. Applying it retroactively undermines the legitimacy of the signaling process and introduces procedural unfairness.Weak quality of signaling:
Many dReps either abstained or voted No without reviewing individual proposals. This resulted in high-visibility proposals dominating the outcome, while lesser-known contributors were excluded — not necessarily due to lack of merit, but lack of attention.All-or-nothing structure suppresses representation:
This budget is bundled. dReps are forced to accept or reject all included proposals, with no ability to make granular decisions. This limits representative governance and incentivizes strategic voting rather than thoughtful review.
Conclusion:
While I support funding high-quality community-led proposals, this action does not meet the required standards for constitutional compliance, coordination, or transparent execution. I vote NO until these gaps are addressed. - Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
- No228.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes202.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes174.5K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.2K ₳No rationale
- No118.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I have decided to vote in favor of this proposed budget. There is no limitation on the amount of budgets that can be approved and since this budget is simply looking to fund projects that have high community support and are already part of the intersect budget proposal there is no added cost to the ecosystem. I see this proposed budget mostly as a failsafe to approve high support proposals in the event that intersect fails to get an approved budget or bundles spending proposals in a way that the community does not support. In the event of that happening this is a good backup option.
- Yes92.6K ₳Rationale
Here’s my summary of what I’m voting for, based on the Cardano 2025 Budget Info Action, written as if I’m reviewing it myself and choosing to vote YES:
I’m voting on a Cardano 2025 budget that allocates 7,568,810 ada to fund seven community-driven projects. This budget is part of a community-led, constitutionally guided process to spend Cardano’s treasury within a 350 million ada Net Change Limit, aiming to drive growth and hit the 2025 roadmap goals. After reviewing it, I’m voting YES because I believe these projects, backed by strong community support, will push Cardano forward.
What’s in the Budget?
The budget funds these seven projects, each with over 2.69 billion ada in Ekklesia’s off-chain polling (50% + 1 Lovelace of the 5.38B active voting stake):Midgard - Optimistic Rollups (2.16M ada, 3.58B ada votes): Scales Cardano with rollup tech.
Starstream: Next Gen VM (2M ada, 3.47B ada votes): A new virtual machine for better apps.
Blockfrost Platform (1.3M ada, 3.19B ada votes): Tools to help developers build on Cardano.
zkFold ZK Rollup (1.16M ada, 3.20B ada votes): Zero-knowledge rollups for faster, private transactions.
Hardware Wallets Maintenance (424,800 ada, 3.43B ada votes): Keeps wallets secure and updated.
Ledger App Rewrite (300,000 ada, 2.83B ada votes): Upgrades Cardano’s Ledger support.
Dolos: Lightweight Data Node (220,914 ada, 2.70B ada votes): Maintains a lean node for the network.
Total: 7,568,810 ada (~$4.16M at ~$0.55/ada). These are community projects, not from founding entities like Intersect, IOG, Cardano Foundation, or Emurgo, which must submit their own proposals separately.Why I’m Voting YES
This budget is Cardano’s chance to live up to its Voltaire vision—decentralized, community-driven governance. With 3.92 billion ada cast in Ekklesia (72% of active voting power), the community showed up in force. Each project cleared a tough 2.69B ada threshold, proving they’ve got broad support. That gives me confidence I’m backing what the ecosystem wants.The projects themselves hit key areas for 2025: scalability (rollups, VMs), developer support (Blockfrost, Dolos), and security (wallets, Ledger). These are the kinds of investments that can help Cardano compete with bigger chains and grow adoption. The budget’s small size (~2% of the 350M ada cap) means it’s not overreaching, and the Net Change Limit keeps spending in check.
I also like how this budget fixes past governance hiccups. It only includes proposals that hit the proper 50% + 1 Lovelace threshold (2.69B ada of active stake), avoiding the risk of weak projects sneaking through on low turnout. Kicking out founding entities’ proposals ensures fairness—everyone plays by the same rules. Plus, Intersect’s role as administrator, with standardized submissions and public Ekklesia data, adds transparency, and the Constitutional Committee’s oversight (needing 5/7 votes) keeps it legit.
My Lingering Thoughts
I’m not 100% worry-free. Some X posts mentioned Ekklesia’s clunky interface—DReps had trouble with online wallet requirements, which might’ve limited who voted. That’s a bummer, but 72% participation is still solid. I’m also curious why this budget is so focused and small compared to the 275M ada one I saw earlier. It’s not a dealbreaker, but I’ll want to see how it fits into the bigger picture.There’s also a tiny market risk—7.5M ada is only ~0.03% of the 22.7B circulating supply, but I’m counting on Intersect to space out withdrawals to avoid price dips. And while Intersect’s running the show as administrator, the fact that they’re not funding their own projects here makes me feel better about their neutrality.
My Vote
I’m voting YES on this Budget Info Action. These seven projects, backed by strong Ekklesia votes, are a smart bet to boost Cardano’s scalability, developer ecosystem, and security. The process feels fair, transparent, and aligned with the Constitution, and I’m excited to support community builders who might not have the 100k ada deposit to go it alone. This is a step toward the decentralized, thriving Cardano I want to see in 2025.I’ll stay active, though—watching Intersect’s fund management, checking the community dashboard for updates, and voting on treasury withdrawals to ensure every ada is well spent. If this passes, these projects could give Cardano a real edge, and I’m happy to help make that happen.
- Yes55.9K ₳Rationale
dont like that they are bulked, and not at all that it doesnt talk about how money is distributed, managed, etc. , but I already voted yes for those on Ekklesia.
- Yes50.5K ₳No rationale
- No49.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain49.6K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale