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.
- No584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi as a DRep, votes No on this Info Action regarding 2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 7.5M ₳ for Community Builders(defbf15b06092718adf4befeab982e03d2966b9caeef93c19e470549ef75ea4900).
Rationale
Redundancy in Funding: All of these initiatives are already included in the Intersect budget process, and approving them again here risks double-funding and undermines the clarity of treasury management.
Upholding Process: Yoroi believes it’s essential to follow the established, transparent channels for treasury allocation to ensure fair, sustainable, and community-aligned funding.
Even though we support every proposal listed, we cannot support the approach taken in this governance action. For these reasons, Yoroi has voted No
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
I voted YES for the 7.5M and 275M budgets, including requirements that I would like met before treasury withdrawals could be made.
*Even if all of these conditions are met, I would not necessarily automatically vote YES on the Treasury Withdrawal governance action.
Treasury withdrawal governance actions must be performed in reasonably granular chunks. This is a requirement, and any unreasonably aggregated Treasury withdrawal governance actions will be immediately voted NO.
Please have it reviewed by the relevant committee. (In particular, milestone setting, KPIs and target values, and their feasibility (including technical reviews if necessary) ) This does not necessarily mean getting "approval" from the committee. Please attach the review results from the committee (even if they are negative).
For each proposal, I outlined the requirements I wanted them to meet before the treasury drawdown could take place. In particular, I would like the following to be implemented for proposals that include large budgets with multiple contents:"Please rationally break down the contents of the proposal, hold a DRep vote on each one (off-chain voting is also acceptable), and reflect the voting results in the treasury withdrawal governance action."
At the time of submission of this vote
https://github.com/cardanoz/drep/blob/822355afa4b4bb0c22a0f7f1b70529d0209f2229/ga/cardano_budget_yuta_public%20-%20Cardano%20Budget%202025_Conditions.pdf
If there are any changes, they will be reflected in the next sheet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M8JAuAntJOa7Z6j3GfC2hWFl4kbZLkzEel_cN4-kymw/edit?usp=sharing
ーーー
トレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションまでに満たして欲しい要件を添えた上で、7.5Mと275MのBudgetにYESを投票しました。
*これらの条件がすべて満たされたとしても、必ずしも自動的にトレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じるわけではありません。
トレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションは、合理的に細分化された単位で実施する必要があります。これは必須要件であり、不合理に集約されたトレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションは、直ちに反対票を投じます。
関連する委員会によるレビューを受けてください。（特に、マイルストーンの設定、KPIと目標値、そしてそれらの実現可能性（必要に応じて技術的なレビューを含む）について。)これは必ずしも委員会からの「承認」を得ることを意味するものではありません。委員会によるレビュー結果を添付してください（否定的な結果であっても）。
各提案について、トレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションを実施する前に満たすべき要件を概説しました。特に、私は金額が大きく複数の内容のBudgetを含む提案書に関して、それらを合理的に細分化して細分化された単位でDRepからの投票による需要調査をしてほしいと考えています。
この投票の提出時点：
https://github.com/cardanoz/drep/blob/822355afa4b4bb0c22a0f7f1b70529d0209f2229/ga/cardano_budget_yuta_public%20-%20Cardano%20Budget%202025_Conditions.pdf
変更があったら次のシートに反映：
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M8JAuAntJOa7Z6j3GfC2hWFl4kbZLkzEel_cN4-kymw/edit?usp=sharing
- No293M ₳Rationale
EMURGO upholds the importance of transparent, constitutionally grounded treasury processes that support sustainable growth for community-driven initiatives. While we strongly support grassroots contributions and have voted in favor of most within this governance action, not all included proposals align with our criteria for support.
In particular, we note that all of the initiatives listed are already being considered for funding under the Intersect MBO 2025 framework. Proceeding with an overlapping Info Action introduces the risk of duplicated funding efforts and compromises the clarity and accountability we strive for in treasury allocation.
To maintain consistency, prevent redundancy, and reinforce the integrity of Cardano’s budgetary systems, EMURGO has chosen to vote ‘No’ on this governance action. We continue to encourage all proposals to follow the established, transparent channels to ensure long-term fiscal responsibility and alignment with the community’s governance model.
- No120.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes91.5M ₳Rationale
I voted YES for the Ecosystem Budget for Community Builders.
Rationale:
A total of 7,568,810 ADA is needed to fund seven community builder projects that have surpassed the 2.69B ADA threshold, which represents 50% + 1 Lovelace of the active registered voting stake.
In GovTool and Ekklesia, I supported six out of the seven projects—but all seven are expected to have a positive impact on the ecosystem.
From Ekklesia’s voting results, it’s clear that DReps overwhelmingly support these projects, and that should be acknowledged.
Three of the seven projects—Midgard, Starstream, and ZK Rollup—specifically address scalability, which is the most pressing need for the Cardano ecosystem.
Given this context, voting YES was the only logical choice.
Founding Entity Proposals:
Proposals from founding entities that also met the threshold were intentionally excluded from this governance action. Instead, they are invited to submit their own governance actions for budget requests.
I fully support this decision, as it aligns with the ongoing community debate about the Net Change Limit (NCL).
The current NCL is set at 350M ADA, but a reduction is expected. Two governance actions have been submitted to adjust the NCL to 200M or 300M ADA.
To minimize spending, it’s best to decide on-chain for each proposal individually, rather than bundling multiple proposals into a single governance action.
This approach prevents situations where DReps who support IOG’s budget feel obligated to also back community proposals they disagree with.
Given the circumstances, Intersect has made the right decision, and I appreciate their approach.
- Yes88.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain86M ₳Rationale
SIPO votes ABSTAIN on the “2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget – 7.5M ₳ for community builders” proposal.
SIPO fully recognizes the community-driven nature of this budget and supports the underlying principles of fairness, inclusion, and bottom-up governance. However, at this stage, SIPO believes that further clarification and safeguards are needed to ensure effective execution and to avoid unintentional overlap with the already-approved 275M ADA Intersect budget.
In particular, SIPO identifies the following concerns:
• Some proposals appear in both budget packages, raising concerns over potential double allocation.
• The execution frameworks across the bundled proposals vary significantly and may lack the standardization of oversight and smart contract-based disbursement mechanisms established by Intersect.
• There is currently no unified process for selecting which version of a proposal should proceed to Treasury Withdrawal.Therefore, SIPO abstains not out of opposition, but as a call for procedural refinement. SIPO would strongly support a revised version of this budget that aligns with a unified execution framework or is integrated under Intersect’s smart contract governance model. SIPO believes this will strengthen transparency, prevent redundancy, and build a sustainable funding precedent for community-led innovation.
- Yes77.7M ₳Rationale
支持社区开发者，为Cardano未来打造更多有潜力的项目，不依赖现有开发者团体，也可以降低风险。
- Abstain75.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5M ₳No rationale
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
I strongly support several key proposals in this Info Action, particularly Midgard, Starstream, Dolos, and certain others included. These initiatives reflect community priorities and the kind of innovation Cardano governance should fund.
However, I am voting NO against this bundled proposal. I believe each proposal should be voted on individually to allow for more precise and democratic decision-making. There was no clear consent from the named administrator, and at least one project, Starstream, publicly stated they did not currently agree to be included under Intersect’s administration.
- AbstainRevoted62.7M ₳Rationale
I voted Abstain on this proposal because, while I support the projects included, I don’t believe there’s a strong need to submit a separate Governance Action for proposals that were already included in the main Intersect-led budget.
At this early stage in Cardano’s on-chain governance journey, it's important to keep the process simple and clear. Having multiple Governance Actions for the same set of projects — even if they’re well-supported — adds unnecessary complexity and could confuse voters, without offering clear added value.
A single coordinated budget process, with transparent inclusion criteria and community signalling (like what Intersect facilitated), is the better path for now. This helps build trust, avoids fragmentation, and gives the ecosystem a cleaner, more unified way to manage treasury allocations.
Please reduce my workload, don't increase it.
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
The proposal lacks to prove how the funds will be managed in transparent manner. This proposal would be considered as unconstitutional.
- No49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6M ₳Rationale
These proposals are key components for Cardano to attrach more developers and improve UX for Cardano dapps, passed the temp check with more than 50% Dreps approval off-chain, and also come at very reasonable cost.
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.3M ₳Rationale
We abstain from voting on this proposal. While we understand the intent of the proposal, we believe careful consideration is needed at this time, taking into account its relationship with other budget proposals and overall alignment with the comprehensive funding plan. We will continue to monitor the development of these discussions.
- Yes31.4M ₳No rationale
- No30.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
I support this budget because every included proposal surpassed the 50% + 1 lovelace quorum and is on track to clear the 67% withdrawal threshold, demonstrating unmistakable grassroots backing. The package also excludes low-support or founding-entity items, avoiding the temptation to bundle weaker proposals together with popular ones merely to secure passage. Although I generally prefer pure line-item votes, this focused grouping of only high-support initiatives is a reasonable compromise that preserves transparency, respects constitutional thresholds. I believe it is a sound, community-aligned allocation of treasury funds.
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.3M ₳No rationale
- No25.3M ₳Rationale
I have voted NO on the current proposal.
The proposal author is unaffiliated with any of the projects initiatives being proposed and has not submitted this proposal on behalf of the stated budget administrator.
I find introducing this degree of bureaucracy unwelcome and both detrimental and disrespectful to governance process.
- No23.5M ₳Rationale
I spoke with one of the builders directly and they had no idea what this is.
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote “NO” on the budget proposal of 7.5M ada for community builders. While this proposal may seem well-intentioned on the surface, it is lacking in a number of areas. It appears to be a reactionary proposal, hoping to address a perceived shortcoming of the Intersect-led budget process and offering a bundled proposal on behalf of several community development proposals that may lack the governance action deposit to submit their own individual proposals.
However, in doing so it has created an overlap whereby some proposals now feature in multiple budget proposals and causes unnecessary ambiguity for DReps voting on them. It has also become apparent during off-chain discussions that one of the projects included in this particular proposal has previously expressed that they did not wish to appoint Intersect as the administrator for their budget proposal. This in turn raises questions around the level of communication that may or may not have taken place between the proposer and those that they claim to represent before the submission of this proposal.
Finally, while the proposal provides ample supporting evidence, particularly the background voting process and results, it lacks any details of what comes next. This should include an outline of any auditing process and details regarding the administration of the requested funds.
- Yes21.4M ₳Rationale
I vote YES because:
All proposals in this budget surpassed the 2.69B ADA threshold on Ekklesia, reflecting broad consensus among DReps and the Community.
Midgard, Starstream, and zkFold directly address scalability — Cardano’s top priority. The other projects strengthen infrastructure and developer tools.
The total budget of 7.5M ₳ is within the 2025 spending cap (350M ₳) and complies with governance procedures.
*Future treasury withdrawals should still be assessed individually per proposal, with clear milestones and verifiable deliverables.
Japanese Translation
私は賛成票（YES）を投じます。理由は以下の通りです：
この予算に含まれるすべての提案は、Ekklesia上で2.69B ADAの閾値を超えており、コミュニティの広範な合意を示しています。
Midgard、Starstream、zkFoldは、カルダノにとって最優先課題であるスケーラビリティに直接対応しています。他のプロジェクトもインフラや開発ツールの強化に貢献しています。
総予算7.5M ₳は、2025年の支出上限（350M ₳）内であり、ガバナンス手続きにも準拠しています。
※将来的な財務引き出しについては、各提案ごとにマイルストーンと検証可能な成果に基づいて個別に評価されるべきです。
Vietnamese Translation
Tôi bỏ phiếu YES vì:
Tất cả các đề xuất trong ngân sách này đều vượt ngưỡng 2.69B ADA trên Ekklesia, thể hiện sự đồng thuận rộng rãi từ các DRep trong giai đoạn tham vấn ý kiến cộng đồng.
Midgard, Starstream và zkFold giải quyết trực tiếp bài toán mở rộng – ưu tiên hàng đầu của Cardano. Các dự án còn lại củng cố hạ tầng và công cụ phát triển.
Tổng ngân sách 7.5M ₳ nằm trong giới hạn chi tiêu năm 2025 (350M ₳) và tuân thủ quy trình quản trị.
- Việc rút ADA từ kho bạc sau này vẫn cần được đánh giá riêng theo từng proposal, gắn với các mốc và kiểm chứng cụ thể.
- No21.1M ₳Rationale
SIDAN Lab votes No on 2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget – 7.5M ₳ for Community Builders
Bundling Risk and Coordination Complexity
While the total requested funding (7.5M ₳) is relatively small, bundling proposals into a single governance action introduces risk. As the number of projects grouped together increases, so does the complexity of coordinating delivery timelines, reporting standards, and fund oversight. This approach may set an undesirable examples for future governance actions.
Support for the Projects, But Reservations on Process
We recognize the significance of the included projects and the strong community support they’ve received during prior temperature checks.
Lack of Constitutional Compliance on Oversight
The proposal does not meet the oversight standards required by the Cardano Constitution, Article IV, Section 2.
It fails to outline any type of administrator or process for how oversight would be carried out.
Due to the unresolved constitutional and structural concerns, we are unable to vote yes on the proposal in its current form. We would welcome a revised submission that provides clearer oversight mechanisms and better aligns with governance expectations.
- Abstain20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted19.9M ₳Rationale
All but "Starstream: next gen VM" are already part of the Intersect 'bundle'. The is a very useful builders bundle. As Starstream did not make the cut in Ekklesia, I am repating my vote with this bundle. I assume we will avoid double-spending on the same topic either way.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
All but "Starstream: next gen VM" are already part of the Intersect 'bundle'. The is a very useful builders bundle. I regret missing Starstream in the Ekklesia vote, so I am correcting my vote with this bundle, I am happy with. I assume we will avoid double-spending on the same topic either way.
- No17.4M ₳Rationale
I will individually approve many of these budget items but I don't approve of commingling service providers and bundling as an omni-bus budget proposal. Furthermore, I don't support wasting software development resources on devices, such as Ledger, that haven't fully open sourced their code.
- Abstain17.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.4M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged14.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
I am choosing to **abstain **from voting on this proposal, not out of opposition to the individual initiatives it includes—many of which I support—but due to concerns around the structure, process and constitutional clarity of the proposal as a whole. While I recognise the community support for specific sub-proposals such as Midgard, zkFold, and Dolos, the decision to package them into a single Governance Action introduces governance ambiguity and limits my ability to vote accurately on each initiative’s merits. More concerning is the lack of explicit administrative confirmation from all included projects, such as Starstream, which raises legitimate constitutional questions—something reflected in the Cardano Foundation’s “No” vote and IOG’s assessment of unconstitutionality.
Moreover, this proposal arises amidst overlapping budget Governance Actions, which, while well-intentioned, are contributing to confusion and procedural fatigue among DReps and the wider community. I appreciate the proposers’ attempt to correct earlier threshold misapplications in the budgeting process, but I am not convinced this bundling and resubmission fully addresses those concerns without introducing new ones.
Casting a “Yes” would endorse a flawed procedural model; casting a “No” risks sending a signal of rejection to community-led initiatives that deserve support and funding. Neither outcome reflects my position accurately. Therefore, I am abstaining from this vote to signal the need for future budget proposals to be more procedurally sound, clearly administered and unbundled where possible, allowing for more precise and principled decision-making in line with Cardano’s constitutional standards.
- Abstain12.1M ₳Rationale
As Wada DRep, we represent a decentralized and globally connected network of Cardano community builders, innovators, and voters, many based across Africa and the diaspora. Our role in constitutional governance is to act in the best interests of the ecosystem while reflecting the priorities of our community and honoring our internal deliberative frameworks.
While we deeply value the intentions behind the proposal titled “2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget – ₳7.5M for Community Builders,” we have made the decision to abstain from voting on this Budget Info Action. Our abstention is not a reflection of disagreement with the proposals listed. On the contrary, we voted “Yes” on each of these individual projects during the community review phase and maintained strong support for their impact and alignment with Cardano’s long-term vision.
However, we must also act in a way that preserves clarity and coordination within Cardano’s treasury governance process. All of the individual proposals bundled in this ₳7.5M package also appear in the larger ₳275.3M aggregate budget proposal administered by Intersect, titled “Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget – 275M ADA Administered by Intersect.” That proposal includes the same community-approved projects, has passed DRep signaling, and has been carefully structured to align with treasury guardrails, milestone management, and transparent disbursement practices.
As such, casting a “yes” vote on both Budget Info Actions creates a risk of administrative and treasury access conflict if both are passed. There is no clearly defined resolution process for managing overlapping budget actions that authorize separate administrators for the same set of proposals. In this context, a dual approval may create confusion around which administrative pathway—Intersect’s structured oversight framework or an alternate, undefined one—should take precedence.
Our abstention reflects our desire to avoid contributing to that ambiguity while still honoring our prior support for these proposals. We continue to recognize and affirm the tremendous contributions of the community builders represented in this budget. However, we believe that the best path forward is to endorse a single, unified administration for the 2025 budget cycle, specifically, Intersect, which we have already decided to support in the broader ₳275.3M proposal.
We encourage our fellow DReps to consider the importance of administrative consistency and treasury process integrity when casting their votes on overlapping Budget Info Actions.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.8M ₳Rationale
私は本提案を棄権します。本提案に含まれる内容は評価しておりますが、内容が類似した別の提案との関係性も踏まえ、今回はあえて棄権する判断をいたしました。今後の議論や予算編成において、こうした重複や整合性の扱いがより明確になることを期待しています。\n\nI abstain from voting on this proposal. While I appreciate the content included, I have chosen to abstain in consideration of its relationship to another similar proposal. I hope that future discussions and budgeting processes will offer greater clarity on how to handle such overlaps and maintain consistency.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
The seven proposals bundled together in this motion have all received very high approval ratings from DReps in the off-chain temperature check process that took place over the Ekklesia tool developed for Intersect MBO a few days ago.
During the Ekklesia voting stage I voted YES for all 7 proposals that are now bundled and as all 7 have received a lot of YES votes compared to the total participating DRep poewr in Ekklesia (I checked and saw that one of the top voted on proposals (2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal) was voted on by a participating stake of Total voting power: 4,009,632,409 ADA
The proposals listed in this budget action have received YES votes from at least 2,695,223,782 ADA that took part in Ekklesia voting. This indicates a support of more than half of the DRep voting power.
Yes, governance is still performing baby steps, however, support for these proposals has been clear and there is no evident need to slow them down by requiring a mandatory bundling of these 7 into a larger budgetary package now that the action has been proposed.
As regards the constitutionality of this proposal, the true measure of its constitutionality will be given by the Constitutional Committee. As a DRep, my impression is that this proposal does not have glaring omissions that would require us to stall the DRep process. The CC will address the constitutionality in its own right.
- Abstain5.9M ₳Rationale
I could be more supportive of this proposal if we saw a more consistent method for how the off-chain voting was going to translate into smaller proposals like this. I've voted yes to most of the projects included here, not all. That said, I would rather support a somewhat larger group proposal maybe categorized to areas of the roadmap - or something other than what's happening here. If the governance process shifts to be more in line with something like this I could be more in favor once all those proposals are understood in how they would be submitted. For now, I will vote abstain, being more in favor of an all encompassing budget proposal with a more granular and broken out treasury withdrawal process.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale