Approve Cardano Foundation as New Managing Entity of Project Catalyst
198 DReps voted · 78 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
New manager, new ideas. Seems good.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
I’ve always considered the Cardano Foundation the most appropriate entity to manage Project Catalyst, so I support this proposal.
This support does not extend to unconditional approval of treasury withdrawals for Catalyst however. The program has identifiable shortcomings that require improvement, and I will assess those when the time comes. - Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on approving the Cardano Foundation as the new managing entity of Project Catalyst because keeping Funds 10–14 operational and giving CF a chance to prove responsible stewardship is preferable to avoidable disruption. IOG’s cooperation in this handover makes the transition more credible, and I still value Catalyst as a funding path for smaller builders even if the model may eventually need deeper reform or be replaced by better alternatives. At the same time, I remain cautious because CF already holds significant financial power, operates under a Swiss structure with limited community influence, and has a history that raises legitimate accountability concerns. This YES is therefore not a blank cheque: if CF later asks for more funding or manages Catalyst poorly, DReps should be ready to withdraw support and force a different path.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
In the interest of time and to save on the expense of setting up a brand new entity to manage this vital incubator program, I think it makes since to have the Cardano Foundation become the new stewards of Project Catalyst. I appreciate that the CF brought this to the community as a governance action to be voted on. It shows good faith and commitment to the system.
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
Frankly, the proposal reads more like “please prevent a mess” than “here is a compelling, high-performance operating model.” I do not like being presented with that kind of asymmetry. It is a sign of truly weak governance craftsmanship.
I vote "Yes", because I judge this to be a necessary continuity action. I do not find the case elegant, complete, or particularly impressive; I find it under-argued and overly reliant on urgency. But I would rather approve an operationally necessary administrator transition than risk avoidable paralysis in Project Catalyst. My support is pragmatic, not enthusiastic: We are not rewarding excellence here; we are preventing governance failure.
- Yes971.5K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on approving the Cardano Foundation as the new managing entity of Project Catalyst.
Project Catalyst has been a key pillar of innovation within the Cardano ecosystem, enabling early-stage ideas, developer experimentation, and community-driven growth. Ensuring its operational continuity is therefore of high importance.
We support the transition of management responsibilities to the Cardano Foundation and trust the Cardano Foundation to take on this role responsibly. As one of the core institutions within the ecosystem, the Foundation has demonstrated its ability to operate with a long-term perspective and in alignment with Cardano’s broader interests.
From our perspective, this transition represents a pragmatic and necessary step to avoid disruption of ongoing projects and funding processes. We currently do not see any substantial reason that would argue against this change, especially given the urgency of maintaining continuity for existing grantees.
For these reasons, we support this proposal.
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes829.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Although we'd prefer Catalyst to operate as an independent DAO or MBO we do not opose the new administration in hands of the Cardano Foundation. CF has proven to be capable, serious and committed to Cardano's future. Catalyst is a core element to the ecosystem that needs to continue and evolve.
- Yes798.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
We'll get better results.
- Yes776.8K ₳Rationale
Ensuring funds that have already been promised are disbursed is the function the results of such action would result in. Therefore, I believe it is in the Cardano community's best interest to fulfill these commitments, without yet determining the future of Catalyst as a funding mechanism.
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes759K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
Approving this transition helps avoid disruption and ensures ongoing support for existing Catalyst projects.
Vote: YES! - Yes652.3K ₳Rationale
I agree Catalyst is necessary and I believe CF is the best organization to take charge in the matter. However, fund withdraws from the treasury for Catalyst reasons will only approved in the future if the specific disbursements are relatively small and they must include strict "Cardano benefit" terms and conditions. The disbursement cap can be voted on as well as the terms and conditions for how each project must abide to benefit Cardano (i.e. must build on Cardano only for 5 years, must provide reimbursement to the treasury for 3 years, must create net positive inflow from XYZ chain for 4 years, etc.)
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes because operational continuity for active builders outweighs the legitimate concerns I have about concentrating more power in the Cardano Foundation. This is pragmatic necessity, not enthusiastic endorsement as we're preventing operational failure, not rewarding excellence. Project Catalyst has funded over 2,200 projects with more than 500 still active, and ensuring milestone reviews and payments continue for teams delivering on Funds 10-14 is a matter of honoring commitments and maintaining trust with the builders doing the hard work. Without community approval of a new managing entity, Catalyst operations face an indefinite pause, leaving builders mid-project without administrative support or payment certainty. That disruption is avoidable, and avoiding it is the responsible choice. This is particularly relevant today as builders are faced with the additional burden of underfunded development work.
The transition from IOG to the Cardano Foundation also makes structural sense. Moving Catalyst management from a commercial entity to a non-profit whose mission is explicitly focused on long-term ecosystem stewardship aligns the program's governance with its public-goods purpose. This separation strengthens Cardano's decentralization posture from a regulatory perspective, now that the funding mechanism is no longer directed by a single private company. IOG's cooperation in this handover increases credibility, and CF's explicit commitment to return the previously approved allocations for Funds 15 and 16 directly to the Cardano Treasury demonstrates fiscal discipline. That recovery of unspent funds protects the treasury while honoring legacy obligations, which aligns with fiscal conservatism.
Cardano needs funding mechanisms beyond on-chain governance, something that suits smaller initiatives. Catalyst fills that gap, providing a decentralized grant program that onboards builders, funds tooling, and supports innovation at a scale Treasury Withdrawals and DAO funding can't efficiently replicate. On-chain governance is not suitable for evaluating hundreds of small proposals; Catalyst complements rather than competes with treasury processes. The pause on Funds 15 and 16 also signals operational maturity, rather than continuing deployment through a system undergoing structural transition, CF is choosing to stabilize operations first and redesign before committing new capital. That's responsible capital management, not recklessness.
That said, I remain cautious. The Cardano Foundation already holds significant influence both socially and in ADA governance weight, and operates with limited community influence. This yes vote is a concession, not a celebration. If CF later requests additional funding beyond existing Catalyst obligations, manages the program poorly, interferes with a heavy hand, or exerts too much influence DReps should withdraw support and force the project to take a different path. My support is conditional on CF demonstrating improved accountability, transparent milestone tracking, and a more rigorous approach to grantee oversight than Catalyst has historically shown. The transition creates opportunity to address long-standing criticisms around impact measurement, project accountability, and the need for independent audits. CF must seize that opportunity, or this vote becomes the last expression of community patience rather than the first expression of renewed confidence. - Yes619.5K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES because this is a necessary and time-sensitive governance action to ensure continuity of Project Catalyst, protect ongoing projects, and maintain ecosystem stability + The Cardano Foundation is well-positioned to assume this role.
At the same time, I strongly encourage the Cardano Foundation to provide clear direction on how existing contributor reputation systems will be handled, as maintaining this social capital is key to sustaining trust and participation in Catalyst.
Over multiple funding rounds, contributors such as Community reviewers, Milestone reviewers, Veteran participants etc have built credibility, track records, and reputation capital through consistent participation.
It is currently unclear whether this reputation system will be preserved, migrated, or reset under the new management.
Thank you all for reading.
- Yes605.7K ₳Rationale
📌 I’M VOTING YES TO APPROVE CARDANO FOUNDATION AS THE NEW MANAGING ENTITY OF PROJECT CATALYST
Cardano is now going through an important governance vote.
The Cardano Foundation is asking the community to approve it as the new managing entity of Project Catalyst, replacing IOG. This is not about new grants and not about new funding. This is about who will officially keep Catalyst running from here.
👉 What is happening
Project Catalyst is the grant funding mechanism of the Cardano ecosystem.
Now the Cardano Foundation wants to officially take over Catalyst management so that:
— milestone reviews continue
— payouts for already approved projects do not get delayed
— operations for Funds 10–14 do not freezeIf this decision does not pass, Catalyst could face uncertainty and operational delays by the end of May 2026.
🗣️ The core point
This vote is not about Fund 15 and Fund 16.
This is not about Intersect as the budget administrator.
This is not about new treasury allocations.This vote is specifically about allowing the Cardano Foundation to become the new managing entity for Catalyst so the system does not stall.
🔥 Why I am voting YES
I am voting YES because in a moment like this, the ecosystem needs continuity, not confusion.
When a system changes its managing side, the priority is simple:
— keep operations running
— protect payouts
— honor existing obligations
— prevent disruption across legacy fundsIf management is not transferred in time, the result could be a pause, and a pause in a system like this damages trust across the entire ecosystem.
📍 My view
This may look like a technical vote, but it is a very important one.
This is not about hype.
This is not about slogans.
This is about making sure Catalyst does not get stuck and that existing commitments are completed in an orderly way.I vote YES.
🚀 COURSE “LEDGER COLD CRYPTO WALLET” | METAMASK
https://edgarbagdasarian.justclick.ru/order/LEDGERMETAMASK🔥 PRIVATE VIP CHAT PAID SUBSCRIPTION
https://t.me/MREDGARCROSS_BOT🌐 ALL COURSES AND LINKS
https://mredgarcross.com/I registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem. - I am optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world. 🖤 My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr More here https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
📌 Note: This post is for informational and analytical purposes only. It does not contain calls for action, protests, or violations of the law. Everything stated reflects the author’s personal reasoning.
- Yes590.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
This needs to keep going and CF is most appropriate to manage.
- No535.2K ₳Rationale
The CF has alreaddy meddled with Catalist in the path, leadership at the foundation continues to show an ridiculous lack of care about cardano, preserving their own allocation to ensure their pay-packages.
Tech team at the CF is solid but that does not absolve the leadership
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
Approve the CF takeover of Catalyst to ensure the protocol/project is efficient and driving everything we need.
- Yes499K ₳Rationale
- Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted414.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
No4mo agoSuperseded
- No409.7K ₳No rationale
- No409.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Yes381.1K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted325.4K ₳Rationale
I believe the Cardano Foundation is the right entity to operate Catalyst and will take this big responsibility seriously.
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes320.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES to approve the transition of Project Catalyst management from IOG to the Cardano Foundation (CF).
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES to approve the transition of Project Catalyst management from IOG to the Cardano Foundation (CF). My primary motivation is to ensure business continuity for our ecosystem’s builders and to uphold our commitment to those already delivering value through Funds 10–14.