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.
- Yes313.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES supporting the Info Action to appoint the Cardano Foundation as the new managing entity for Project Catalyst.
my support for this proposal is based on the need to ensure continuity for existing grantees, milestone reviews, and outstanding obligations linked to Funds 10–14.Without a new managing entity in place, theres a risk of disruption to operations, delays to reviews, payments, etc and uncertainty for teams that have already been actively delivering work. Regardless of different views on Catalyst’s future, I believe there is value in ensuring that commitments already made to funded teams are managed responsibly and brought to an orderly conclusion, and want to signal my strong support for CF to handle this.
- Yes300.6K ₳No rationale
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
Voting against the proposal to Approve Cardano Foundation as New Managing Entity of Project Catalyst
Summary
The Cardano Foundation wants to run Project Catalyst going forward.
Statement
Absolutely not. Catalyst should either be shut down or given to Intersect. Why should we give that responsibility to the CF? We don't even have a single community elected member on the board.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010 - Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes285.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
Rationale for the direction of this vote:
The operational urgency argument presented in this proposal is legitimate and not in dispute. Over 500 active projects — with an estimated $33 million USD in undistributed milestone payments across Funds 10–14 — require a managing entity to continue functioning. If no Administrator is confirmed before the end of May 2026, Catalyst operations face an indeterminate pause that would directly harm grantees who have fulfilled or are fulfilling their obligations in good faith. That is a material harm this vote intends to avoid.
However, approval of this proposal does not signal satisfaction with the Cardano Foundation as a stewardship body, nor does it constitute endorsement of how CF has conducted itself in previous community interactions. Several concerns remain unresolved and will be actively monitored:
Governance accountability deficit. The CF operates under a Swiss Stiftung structure that does not permit ADA holders to elect or remove board members. The board is self-perpetuating and structurally unaccountable to the community whose treasury funds it is being asked to steward. This is a foundational governance misalignment with the principles embedded in the Cardano Constitution. This vote does not ratify this structure as acceptable — it accepts a constrained operational necessity.
Contested prior conduct. CF's deployment of 180 million ADA in voting stake during Catalyst Fund 13, in a manner perceived by a significant portion of the community as contrary to community direction, and its governance lead's characterization of community critics as "useful idiots," represent a culture of entitlement incompatible with the concept of community stewardship. These incidents are on record and will inform all future evaluations of CF's conduct in this role.
No operational readiness documentation. The proposal provides no staffing plan, no milestone management framework, no transition timeline, and no description of the internal controls that will govern CF's administration of Funds 10–14. This level of opacity is inadequate for a stewardship role of this scale and will not be accepted as a standard going forward.
Structural failings of Catalyst unaddressed. Known deficiencies in Catalyst — including process documentation gaps, technical access limitations, procedural inconsistencies, and inadequate community representation in program design — are not acknowledged in this proposal. These failings did not originate with CF, but they must be addressed under CF's stewardship. Silence on these issues is not acceptable.
No accountability framework. The proposal includes no commitments to regular public reporting, community escalation pathways, independent oversight for the transition period, or measurable performance standards. These are minimum expectations for a body being granted stewardship of public funds.
Conditions and expectations attached to this vote:
This vote is cast with the explicit expectation that the following will be delivered within a reasonable timeframe:
Regular, structured public reporting on Fund 10–14 milestone reviews and disbursement status, on no less than a monthly cadence
A published transition and operational plan for CF's assumption of Catalyst administration
A documented assessment of Catalyst's existing structural deficiencies and a proposed remediation roadmap
Demonstrably transparent and consistent milestone review and disbursement decisions, with rationales available to the community
No repetition of the conduct observed in Fund 13 or the dismissive posture toward community accountability concerns
Failure to deliver substantive progress on these expectations will result in a motion to remove the Cardano Foundation from its stewardship position, with a defined reinstatement bar and cooling-off period. This is not an idle condition — it is a governance commitment.
The community has been offered a binary choice: approve CF or pause Catalyst operations. Under those circumstances, this vote approves continuity. It does not approve complacency.
- Yes261K ₳Rationale
English
1. Introduction
An Info Action has been submitted to approve the Cardano Foundation as the new managing entity of Project Catalyst, replacing Input Output Global in the management role of the Catalyst Foundation Company. The immediate purpose is to allow Catalyst operations and responsibilities to transition without interruption, especially for grant administration, milestone reviews, and eligible payouts connected to Funds 10 to 14. According to the action text, this approval is required under the statutes of the Catalyst Foundation Company, which require a Cardano community decision before a new administrator can assume the role. [Source: Governance Action]
The proposal states that this transition is unrelated to Intersect’s role as constitutionally mandated budget administrator for Funds 14 to 16, and also unrelated to the previously announced return of approved allocations for Funds 15 and 16 to the Cardano Treasury. It further states that, without community approval of a new managing entity by the end of May, Catalyst operations would likely face an undetermined pause, with potential delays in fund disbursements and uncertainty over continuation of the program. Approval is defined in the text as more than 50% of active DRep voting stake voting YES at expiration. [Source: Governance Action]
2. Governance Action Analysis
Positive aspects
Under the current circumstances, approving the transfer of Catalyst management from Input Output Global to the Cardano Foundation is the least harmful and most institutionally responsible option available.
At its narrowest level, the proposal addresses a specific operational need: appointing a new managing entity for the Catalyst Foundation Company so that existing grant administration, particularly for Funds 10 to 14, can continue without interruption.
Rejecting the Info Action would likely produce a worse outcome. Without a clear successor managing the Catalyst Foundation Company, operations could enter an undefined pause. This would affect the administration of ongoing grants and further harm projects already operating under limited funding conditions.
The available institutional options are limited. IOG has effectively stepped away from continuing the program. EMURGO has not historically operated Catalyst. No other organization currently appears capable of assuming operational responsibility at this scale.
The Cardano Foundation therefore emerges as the only viable institution able to assume stewardship without further disruption.
Support is also informed by the observation that the Cardano Foundation has previously demonstrated concern about structural weaknesses within Catalyst. Some of its earlier actions were controversial but reflected an awareness that Catalyst’s governance model required scrutiny and improvement.
The Foundation’s mandate regarding ecosystem integrity, reputation, and governance oversight positions it as a credible steward capable of stabilizing the program during this transitional period.
Negative aspects
This vote should not be interpreted as an endorsement of how the current situation was reached.
A corrective administrative decision is being taken in response to a prolonged deterioration in confidence, performance, transparency, and stewardship surrounding Project Catalyst.
Several treasury-funded Catalyst-related deliverables remain unresolved. Across multiple funding rounds, significant treasury resources were allocated to proposals intended to deliver technical improvements, infrastructure, and operational tooling for the Catalyst platform. Some of these deliverables remain incomplete, substantially delayed, or unclear in status.
In certain cases, delays appear to exceed one year despite portions of the allocated funds already having been disbursed.
Legitimate questions remain open: what is the status of incomplete Catalyst-related deliverables funded by the treasury, which obligations remain outstanding and under whose responsibility, what accounting exists for funds already spent on unfinished work, and whether IOG retains responsibility for outputs funded under previous approved proposals.
The ecosystem cannot accept a situation in which treasury-funded development work simply disappears during a managerial transition without clear accounting. If public funds were allocated to build specific technical infrastructure for Catalyst, traceability, accountability, and closure regarding those commitments remain necessary.
Catalyst did not arrive at its current situation due to a single event. Years of structural weaknesses were insufficiently addressed. Members of the Cardano community repeatedly raised concerns about governance design, responsiveness to feedback, and delivery capacity.
Although Catalyst enabled valuable initiatives across the ecosystem, critical structural issues persisted for extended periods without adequate resolution. Several promised platform improvements were delayed far beyond expected timelines. At the same time, decision-making gradually became more centralized, reducing meaningful community influence over category design, review processes, and operational parameters.
A funding mechanism of this scale cannot remain chronically delayed, structurally centralized, and insufficiently accountable while continuing to expect sustained community confidence.
The events surrounding Fund 15 significantly intensified these concerns. Hundreds of participants engaged in Fund 15 in good faith. Proposers invested time, coordination, and resources. Community reviewers and moderators collectively dedicated thousands of hours to proposal assessment and quality control.
The decision to pause and ultimately cancel Fund 15 occurred very late in the process, shortly before voting was expected to begin. Communication prior to that decision was often vague and did not clearly reflect the institutional nature of the underlying issues.
If reviewers and contributors are not compensated for work already performed, that represents a serious institutional failure. The community should not treat this outcome lightly.
Primary operational responsibility for Catalyst during this period rested with IOG, which administered the program.
Risks and concerns
This Info Action does not close the questions surrounding unresolved treasury-funded obligations.
The transition period should include public reporting on incomplete treasury-funded deliverables, transparent accounting of associated expenditures, operational and financial review where necessary, and a written post-mortem explaining why Catalyst reached its current state.
A YES vote does not mean that the Fund 15 situation has been adequately explained, that treasury-funded deliverables no longer require scrutiny, that community labor already performed can be ignored, or that previous stewardship has been absolved.
If this transition is approved, it should be followed by transparency on treasury-funded work, clear responsibility for incomplete deliverables, explanation of decisions leading to the collapse of Fund 15, and structural reforms restoring community confidence.
This does not imply unconditional trust. A comparative institutional judgment is being made under constrained circumstances.
Potential impacts
Economic — Ongoing grant administration and eligible payouts for Funds 10 to 14 can continue without interruption. Rejecting the transition would likely increase harm to projects already operating under limited funding conditions. Unresolved treasury-funded deliverables and previously disbursed funds still require transparent accounting and review.
Technical — Incomplete or substantially delayed Catalyst-related technical improvements, infrastructure, and operational tooling remain unresolved. Clear traceability and closure are still required for treasury-funded technical commitments.
Governance / political — A new managing entity can prevent an undefined operational pause, but the transition does not resolve long-standing concerns about centralization, limited community influence, weak responsiveness to feedback, and inadequate accountability. Structural reforms remain necessary to restore confidence.
Reputational — Prolonged deterioration in confidence, transparency, performance, and stewardship has already damaged trust around Project Catalyst. A poorly accounted transition, unresolved deliverables, and the handling of Fund 15 risk further harm to institutional credibility across the ecosystem.
3. Vote and Rationale
Vote: YES
A YES vote is being cast because, under the current circumstances, approving the transfer of Catalyst management from IOG to the Cardano Foundation is the least harmful and most institutionally responsible option available.
This should not be read as endorsement of how the present situation emerged. A corrective administrative decision is being taken in response to prolonged deterioration in confidence, performance, transparency, and stewardship surrounding Project Catalyst.
The proposal addresses an immediate operational need by appointing a new managing entity for the Catalyst Foundation Company so that existing grant administration, especially for Funds 10 to 14, can continue without interruption. At the same time, the vote takes place amid unresolved governance and accountability failures, including incomplete treasury-funded deliverables, unclear responsibility for unfinished work, delayed platform improvements, growing centralization, and the late-stage collapse of Fund 15 under IOG’s operational stewardship.
Despite these failures, rejecting the transition would likely produce a worse outcome. Without a clear successor, Catalyst operations could enter an undefined pause, further harming ongoing projects. The institutional alternatives are limited. IOG has stepped away, EMURGO has not historically operated Catalyst, and no other organization currently appears capable of assuming this responsibility at scale. The Cardano Foundation therefore appears to be the only viable institution able to assume stewardship without further disruption.
Support for the transition is also informed by previous signs that the Cardano Foundation recognized structural weaknesses within Catalyst and had shown concern about the program’s governance model. This remains a comparative institutional judgment under constrained circumstances, not a blank cheque.
If approved, the transition should be followed by public transparency on treasury-funded work, clear responsibility for incomplete deliverables, explanation of decisions leading to Fund 15’s collapse, and structural reforms capable of restoring community confidence.
4. Conclusion
Support is being given because Catalyst requires a new administrative steward, because previous stewardship accumulated significant delivery and transparency failures, and because rejecting the transition would likely cause further harm to projects and to the ecosystem. The Cardano Foundation currently appears to be the only viable institution able to assume this role, but unresolved accountability questions remain open.
Português (PT-BR)
1. Introdução
Foi submetida uma Info Action para aprovar a Cardano Foundation como a nova entidade gestora do Project Catalyst, substituindo a Input Output Global na função de gestão da Catalyst Foundation Company. O objetivo imediato é permitir que as operações e responsabilidades do Catalyst sejam transferidas sem interrupção, especialmente na administração de grants, milestone reviews e pagamentos elegíveis relacionados aos Funds 10 a 14. Segundo o texto da ação, essa aprovação é exigida pelos estatutos da Catalyst Foundation Company, que requerem uma decisão da comunidade Cardano antes que um novo administrador possa assumir a função. [Source: Governance Action]
A proposta afirma que essa transição não está relacionada ao papel da Intersect como administradora orçamentária constitucionalmente mandatada para os Funds 14 a 16, nem ao retorno já anunciado ao Tesouro da Cardano das alocações previamente aprovadas para os Funds 15 e 16. Afirma ainda que, sem a aprovação da comunidade para uma nova entidade gestora até o fim de maio, as operações do Catalyst provavelmente enfrentariam uma pausa indeterminada, com potenciais atrasos nos desembolsos e incerteza quanto à continuidade do programa. A aprovação é definida no texto como mais de 50% do stake ativo de voto dos DReps votando YES no vencimento da ação. [Source: Governance Action]
2. Análise da Governance Action
Aspectos positivos
Nas circunstâncias atuais, aprovar a transferência da gestão do Catalyst da Input Output Global para a Cardano Foundation é a opção menos prejudicial e mais institucionalmente responsável disponível.
No seu nível mais imediato, a proposta atende a uma necessidade operacional específica: nomear uma nova entidade gestora para a Catalyst Foundation Company para que a administração dos grants existentes, especialmente dos Funds 10 a 14, possa continuar sem interrupção.
Rejeitar a Info Action provavelmente produziria um resultado pior. Sem uma sucessora clara na gestão da Catalyst Foundation Company, as operações poderiam entrar em uma pausa indefinida. Isso afetaria a administração de grants em andamento e prejudicaria ainda mais projetos que já operam sob condições financeiras limitadas.
As opções institucionais disponíveis são limitadas. A IOG se afastou da continuidade do programa. A EMURGO não operou historicamente o Catalyst. Nenhuma outra organização parece atualmente capaz de assumir responsabilidade operacional nessa escala.
A Cardano Foundation, portanto, surge como a única instituição viável capaz de assumir a stewardship sem causar maior disrupção.
O apoio também é informado pela observação de que a Cardano Foundation já demonstrou preocupação com fragilidades estruturais do Catalyst. Algumas de suas ações anteriores foram controversas, mas refletiram consciência de que o modelo de governança do programa exigia escrutínio e melhorias.
O mandato da Fundação em relação à integridade do ecossistema, reputação e supervisão de governança a posiciona como uma steward crível, capaz de estabilizar o programa durante este período de transição.
Aspectos negativos
Este voto não deve ser interpretado como um endosso da forma como a situação atual foi alcançada.
Uma decisão administrativa corretiva está sendo tomada em resposta a uma deterioração prolongada de confiança, desempenho, transparência e stewardship em torno do Project Catalyst.
Vários entregáveis do Catalyst financiados pelo Tesouro permanecem sem resolução. Ao longo de múltiplos ciclos de funding, recursos significativos do Tesouro foram alocados para propostas destinadas a entregar melhorias técnicas, infraestrutura e ferramentas operacionais para a plataforma Catalyst. Parte desses entregáveis permanece incompleta, substancialmente atrasada ou com status pouco claro.
Em certos casos, os atrasos parecem ultrapassar um ano, apesar de parte dos recursos aprovados já ter sido desembolsada.
Permanecem em aberto questões legítimas: qual é o status dos entregáveis do Catalyst financiados pelo Tesouro que seguem incompletos, quais obrigações permanecem pendentes e sob responsabilidade de quem, qual prestação de contas existe para recursos já gastos em trabalho inacabado, e se a IOG continua responsável por outputs financiados por propostas aprovadas anteriormente.
O ecossistema não pode aceitar uma situação em que trabalho de desenvolvimento financiado pelo Tesouro simplesmente desapareça durante uma transição gerencial sem prestação de contas clara. Se recursos públicos foram alocados para construir infraestrutura técnica específica para o Catalyst, rastreabilidade, accountability e encerramento dessas obrigações continuam necessários.
O Catalyst não chegou à situação atual por causa de um único evento. Anos de fragilidades estruturais foram insuficientemente enfrentados. Membros da comunidade Cardano levantaram repetidamente preocupações sobre design de governança, responsividade ao feedback e capacidade de entrega.
Embora o Catalyst tenha viabilizado iniciativas valiosas em todo o ecossistema, problemas estruturais críticos persistiram por longos períodos sem resolução adequada. Diversas melhorias prometidas para a plataforma foram atrasadas muito além dos prazos esperados. Ao mesmo tempo, a tomada de decisão tornou-se gradualmente mais centralizada, reduzindo a influência comunitária significativa sobre design de categorias, processos de revisão e parâmetros operacionais.
Um mecanismo de funding dessa escala não pode permanecer cronicamente atrasado, estruturalmente centralizado e insuficientemente accountable enquanto continua esperando confiança sustentada da comunidade.
Os acontecimentos em torno do Fund 15 intensificaram significativamente essas preocupações. Centenas de participantes se engajaram no Fund 15 de boa-fé. Proposers investiram tempo, coordenação e recursos. Community reviewers e moderadores dedicaram coletivamente milhares de horas à avaliação de propostas e ao controle de qualidade.
A decisão de pausar e, posteriormente, cancelar o Fund 15 ocorreu muito tarde no processo, pouco antes do início esperado da votação. A comunicação anterior a essa decisão foi frequentemente vaga e não refletiu claramente a natureza institucional dos problemas subjacentes.
Se revisores e contribuintes não forem remunerados pelo trabalho já realizado, isso representa uma falha institucional séria. A comunidade não deve tratar esse desfecho com leveza.
A responsabilidade operacional primária pelo Catalyst durante esse período estava com a IOG, que administrava o programa.
Riscos e preocupações
Esta Info Action não encerra as questões relativas às obrigações financiadas pelo Tesouro que permanecem sem resolução.
O período de transição deve incluir relatórios públicos sobre entregáveis financiados pelo Tesouro que permanecem incompletos, prestação de contas transparente dos gastos associados, revisão operacional e financeira quando necessário, e um post-mortem escrito explicando como o Catalyst chegou ao seu estado atual.
Um voto YES não significa que a situação do Fund 15 foi adequadamente explicada, que entregáveis financiados pelo Tesouro deixaram de exigir escrutínio, que o trabalho comunitário já realizado pode ser ignorado, ou que a gestão anterior foi absolvida.
Se essa transição for aprovada, ela deve ser seguida por transparência sobre o trabalho financiado pelo Tesouro, definição clara de responsabilidade por entregáveis incompletos, explicação das decisões que levaram ao colapso do Fund 15 e reformas estruturais que restaurem a confiança da comunidade.
Isso não implica confiança incondicional. Está sendo feito um julgamento institucional comparativo sob circunstâncias restritas.
Impactos potenciais
Econômico — A administração contínua de grants e os pagamentos elegíveis dos Funds 10 a 14 podem prosseguir sem interrupção. Rejeitar a transição provavelmente ampliaria o dano a projetos que já operam sob condições financeiras limitadas. Entregáveis financiados pelo Tesouro ainda não resolvidos e recursos previamente desembolsados continuam exigindo prestação de contas transparente e revisão.
Técnico — Melhorias técnicas, infraestrutura e ferramentas operacionais do Catalyst que permanecem incompletas ou substancialmente atrasadas seguem sem resolução. Rastreabilidade e encerramento claros ainda são necessários para compromissos técnicos financiados pelo Tesouro.
Governança / político — Uma nova entidade gestora pode evitar uma pausa operacional indefinida, mas a transição não resolve preocupações antigas sobre centralização, influência comunitária limitada, baixa responsividade ao feedback e accountability inadequada. Reformas estruturais continuam necessárias para restaurar a confiança.
Reputacional — A deterioração prolongada de
- Yes245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
Transferring stewardship from IOG to the CF will help ensure continuity and long-term sustainability of community funding. Lately, the Cardano Foundation has delivered several clear wins for the community including strong governance progress, successful startup accelerator partnerships supporting 70+ projects, new developer tools and challenges, cross-chain liquidity improvements (such as USDCx), and effective enterprise adoption initiatives. I believe they are well-positioned to run Catalyst efficiently going forward.
- Yes234.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes215.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes174.5K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted142.5K ₳Rationale
If IOG proposes it and the Cardano Foundation accepts, they will have a good reason
Earlier votes
- Yes138.4K ₳Rationale
As a DRep and co-founder of Cardano Ghana, I support this proposal to ensure continuity and stability in Project Catalyst. Approving the transition from Input Output Global to Cardano Foundation prevents delays in milestone reviews and payments for Funds 10–14, protecting builders and ongoing projects. This change follows established governance structures and ensures a smooth, accountable handover. A YES vote safeguards the Cardano Treasury, supports responsible management of legacy funds, and maintains trust across the ecosystem. Most importantly, it avoids disruption while the community continues shaping the future of decentralized governance.
- Yes134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes118.7K ₳Rationale
Given the cancellation of most recent Catalyst Funds, it seems that turning management of the fund to CF is the only way forward.
This ecosystem needs what Catalyst brings, so I hope CF will revise the fund and develop new, beneficial opportunities for the ecosystem.
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am in favor of this proposal. There are several advantages to having the CF be the administrator for catalyst. This type of project is much more in scope for them than IOG. All major parties agree that this is the best course of action and we should move to get funds returned to the treasury.
- Yes68.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.7K ₳Rationale
I voted YES because this action is a practical continuity measure. It enables CF to assume Catalyst management from IOG so milestone reviews and eligible payouts for Funds 10–14 can continue without disruption. Since Fund15–16 are already being handled separately and Intersect’s budget-administration role remains distinct, approving this transition seems like the most orderly way to honor existing commitments while the community designs the longer-term future of ecosystem funding.
- Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
I vote yes to hand over the Catalyst project to the Enterprise focused Cardano Foundation as its New Managing Entity
- Yes48.6K ₳Rationale
great
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
This is an aligned internal actions amongst father and mother of Cardano. The founding entities should resolve this quickly and regain trust from community (eps with fund 15 bad reputation)
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain28.2K ₳Rationale
Abstaining on Catalyst management transition. Continuity matters, but this shift deserves stronger guarantees around transparency, decentralization, and long-term reform.
- Yes26.7K ₳Rationale
This should have been done years ago. If anything, Catalyst needs to be dissolved. Hopefully this change will actually spark something worthwhile.
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.6K ₳Rationale
i'm like proposal so i vote yes
- Yes8.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged4.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes4.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes682 ₳No rationale
- Yes618.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes153.7 ₳No rationale
- YesChanged4 ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale