Budget: ₳5M Loan for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek
225 DReps voted · 95 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳Rationale
- YesRevoted10.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes10mo agoSuperseded
- YesRevoted9.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案は、新しい資金提供モデルを試す意義があると考えます。一方で、その効果の広がりや資金配分の優先度には懸念が残ります。Cardanoの財務資金は、エコシステム全体に波及する取り組みに重点を置くべきだと思います。このため、今回は棄権とします。\n\nI believe this proposal has value in testing a new model of treasury funding. However, I still have concerns about its broader impact and the prioritization of resources. Cardano’s treasury funds should focus on initiatives that benefit the ecosystem as a whole. For these reasons, I choose to abstain.
- Abstain8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
This loan proposal is apparently a better deal for the Cardano treasury than the previous proposal that was submitted on August 2 ["Withdraw ₳5M for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek"]
I do not hold Snek and I have never purchased it. I appreciate its contributions and I wish them massive success and a lot of investments and commercial interest and a profitable future.
I have to preface this rationale by the contents of a disclosure warning that pops up immediately after visiting the snek.com website: "SNEK is a meme coin with no intrinsic value or expectation of financial return. There is no formal team or roadmap. The coin is for entertainment purposes only." One is unable to visit the site until one clicks "Confirm".
The team does state on the web page that: "Snek is the largest token in the Cardano ecosystem by market cap and by all-time trading volume. It is a memecoin that stands out by having built an ecosystem of products around its brand. These products include: Snek.fun (token launchpad), SNEKx (token minter), SNEKbot (telegram trading bot), SNEKalerts (alert bot for X, discord, and telegram) and Snek Energy (energy drink)." The team claims that the products ensure Snek's long-term sustainability.
Obtaining exchange access is real leverage. SNEK already broke through on Tier-1s (Kraken, Crypto.com, KuCoin). A loan (vs. grant) is healthier for Cardano's Treasury culture.
I do remember a DC Spark request for a loan from Catalyst. I do not remember how I voted on that one (I think I may have voted NO), the team has since repaid it. So there is a positive precedent. That was Catalyst, this is now the Treasury. Similar, but different.
However, we have to be real here about credit risk. Is credit risk actually controlled and enforceable?
This proposal represents mostly token-specific marketing + liquidity for a meme asset with a commercial arm. Right now it is being pitched as “global listing expansion for Cardano.”The board with CF/EMURGO/Midnight leaders is a heavyweight move that lends credence.
Overall, I see this as a risky precedent for the Cardano treasury. It sets a token-specific subsidy with weak creditor protections - it seems like a near risk-free loan.There is no amortization from day 1 with quarterly repayments, as the loan repayment must commence no later than the last day of year 3. A lot of water will pass under the bridge by the end of year 3.
The risk for the Cardano treasury is underpriced at an interest rate of 2.44% (the budget motion states: "the current average Cardano staking rewards rate of 2.37% per year, plus an additional 0.07% as a gesture of good faith"). I presume that this collateral-free loan should be at a much higher rate, if it were to be implemented.Are there signed letters from each proposed advisor? Will they publish conflict-of-interest and recusal policies?
EMURGO, the commercial arm of Cardano with an investment arm (EMURGO Ventures), is designed to do exactly this kind of thing/ It is interesting that they are not opting to place structured, risk-priced capital into this project. Does it mean that it does not believe it will drive adoption and generate returns? I do not know. If EMURGO or other commercial investors won’t underwrite on commercial terms, the Treasury shouldn’t step in on under-priced, unsecured terms.Addendum: No more YES votes from me in the first budget year of minimum viable governance (MVG). The current system of minimum viable governance - with heavy concentration of DRep power in the hands of a few DReps makes me even more wary of approving more treasury withdrawals.
The majority of DRep power approved ₳272 million in treasury withdrawals in the first budget year of MVG. This effectively ties my hands for the rest of the budget year - apart from emergencies.
I set a personal DRep limit to approve up to ₳200-250 million of spending in 1st year of MVG. I respected that. I voted YES to approve treasury withdrawals totalling around ₳172 million so far.
As things stand, the upcoming @cardano_govtool proposal (if good and if submitted) could be my last YES vote to a Treasury Withdrawal this budget year, I see that as a necessity/emergency under MVG. Other emergencies may crop up. - Yes7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
Supporting this proposal not because I absolutely think it'll be successful, but because I'd like to see us explore options with new teams to expand our CEX visibility and ecosystem overall for Cardano. We have founding entities with millions of ADA and we're still seeing challenges with listings, granted we've not quite yet meet the listing requirements for all of them to make it worth their while. SNEK does drive volume and activity, on-chain, for Cardano - and we should at least take this measured risk (in the form of an collateralized loan) to explore a different avenue. At the very least, a pathway will be determined for future CNTs. It's worth mentioning SNEKs' multiple business paths and options for revenue without this which could be attributed to their ability to pay back some if not all of this loan. While not structured appropriately, imo, for an uncollateralized loan - I do not think this sets precedence either for potential future loans.
Thoughts on risk here: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/1964291870407770286
- No5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because it pioneers a repayable treasury instrument that could transform how Cardano funds high-impact initiatives, turning one-time grants into revolving capital that grows with the ecosystem. The proposal is expected to strengthen Cardano’s liquidity position, expand Cardano’s top-of-funnel retail discovery, and produce reusable legal and integration playbooks that lower future CNT listing friction.
The Snek team has already delivered three Tier-1 listings, proving their ability to execute and their commitment to Cardano. They carry significant reputational risk with this proposal, which further aligns their incentives to deliver and repay as promised.
We recognize real concerns about on-chain conversion, repayment sensitivity to market cycles, concentration risk in a single meme asset, and advisor role optics. Because this is the first treasury loan, it will set a precedent for future lending. We therefore support strengthening what is already proposed with clear milestone-based disbursements, quarterly progress and repayment reporting (rather than only bi-annual), advisor confirmation statements, and public availability of the legally binding loan agreement between Intersect and the Snek Foundation to clarify remedies in the event of default.
Our YES is a vote of confidence in a proven team, but also a call to raise the bar on accountability and knowledge-sharing as Cardano experiments with revolving treasury capital.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- No4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
I will support the updated version of Snek's info action. However, when the treasury withdrawal is proposed, I require more than an extended narrative praising the Snek token and its community. We all recognize Snek's strong community and their incentives to repay the loan. The key question is: How will they generate revenue? Vague references to "Snek product revenues and business ventures" are insufficient. We need detailed information to assess the loan's viability. I remind everyone that the loan is denominated in ADA, which could equate to $15 – $20 million at ATH, for eg. Finally, I would like to understand why the team is not utilizing one of our lending platforms for this loan, as that would directly contribute to the Cardano ecosystem.
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1jr84r96lnsvu9yd6c0jhxe9gj5r7vnd2pgkntc6klplxdpyzz4tqqc9uldx), pois a SNEK já está listada em diversas exchanges. No entanto, a proposta não especifica em qual exchange há intenção ou negociação para uma nova listagem, o que impede uma avaliação adequada da relação risco/retorno do empréstimo solicitado. Caso houvesse informações mais concretas — por exemplo, a existência de um orçamento ou pré-acordo de listagem na Binance — a proposta poderia ser vista de forma mais favorável, ainda que permanecessem riscos relevantes, como a ausência de colateral de garantia. Diante da falta dessa definição mais clara, optamos por recusar a proposta neste momento.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action (gov_action1jr84r96lnsvu9yd6c0jhxe9gj5r7vnd2pgkntc6klplxdpyzz4tqqc9uldx), because SNEK is already listed on several exchanges. However, the proposal does not specify which exchange there is an intention or negotiation for a new listing, which prevents a proper assessment of the risk/return ratio of the requested loan. If there were more concrete information — for example, the existence of a budget or a preliminary listing agreement with Binance — the proposal could be viewed more favorably, even though relevant risks would remain, such as the lack of collateral guarantees. Given the lack of a clearer definition, we chose to reject the proposal at this time. - No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
Drep vote report: Snek Loan
There is no doubt that Snek has brought tremendous activity, energy, and value to the Cardano ecosystem. The list of their contributions is long and well-documented in posts by others, so I won’t repeat them here. They deserve recognition for everything they have achieved.
Strengths of the Proposal
1. Structuring the request as a loan rather than a grant is innovative and should inspire others.
2. The use case for funds is clear, with much allocated toward liquidity provision—closer to a treasury action than an expense.
3. Snek has already demonstrated commitment by self-funding exchange listings, showing they are willing to put skin in the game.That said, after reviewing this proposal through the lenses of corporate finance, business operations, and anti-fraud practice, I cannot support it.
Concerns Leading to My No Vote
• Loan terms not appropriate: The proposed interest is equivalent to Cardano’s staking risk-free rate. In traditional finance, a corporation like Snek would borrow at risk-free + a significant premium (typically 5–8% above risk-free), and with collateral. An unsecured loan at a risk-free rate does not reflect market reality and would not be offered by any financial institution. Using public funds under these terms does not seem responsible.• Overvaluation and repayment risk: From a financial analyst’s perspective, Snek’s market valuation appears far higher than its underlying business value and assets. Revenue streams are directly tied to token price, meaning that if the token drops significantly, repayment becomes much less likely. The downside risk here is more probable than the smooth repayment scenario described. • Normal business expense: Exchange listings and liquidity provision are standard costs of doing business for any token project, especially meme-coins. Other projects in other ecosystems routinely budget for this. I see no clear reason why Snek should be treated differently. • Externalities already being covered: Snek argues that their listings benefit the broader Cardano token ecosystem. While true in principle, other players—such as the Midnight Foundation—are already covering similar expenses for their own listings, generating the same ecosystem benefits without drawing on Treasury funds. This makes the argument for community financing less compelling.Final Position
This was a difficult decision, and I took time to reflect and review a wide range of perspectives. In particular, the comments by @goofycrisp, @CardanoRami, @JaromirTesar, @Jane14457995, and @yuta_cryptox were especially helpful.
I respect the Snek team and community and acknowledge their positive impact on the Cardano ecosystem. However, I believe that a project as vibrant and successful as Snek should finance its own core business expenses. I can not support using public funds to finance this for them especially when the loan terms do not make financial sense from a risk-management perspective.
For these reasons, I voted No.
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I focus on core engineering first. I don’t support using treasury capital for events, marketing, or exchange listings.
However, I quite like the idea of a loan but not for that purpose.
Strength and honor.
- Yes3.4M ₳Rationale
SNEK team has demonstrated acumen to succeed in integrating with many prominent CEXes two of which are T1 and paved the way for more Cardano Native Assets to be integrated and traded.
SNEK ecosystem is not only a memecoin but also owns (d)apps that generate revenue.
Although we have no guarantee, collateral, or binding documents, I think it's worth to support the team in their endeavour.
- YesChanged3.1M ₳Rationale
I'm happy to see the SNEK proposal restructured and resubmitted. Requesting funding for this initiative as a repayable loan is a good way to go about the proposal, and the SNEK team has a proven track record of valuable contributions to the Cardano ecosystem. This initiative also aims to solve a major issue Cardano continues to have, which is onboarding CNTs onto centralized exchanges. I would have preferred to see genesis ADA from the Cardano Foundation or EMURGO spent on this kind of initiative, but since both entities continue to fail the Cardano ecosystem in fulfilling their roles and utilizing genesis ADA as intended, we must rely on treasury withdrawal proposals like this instead. Thank you for being a trailblazer for the rest of the Cardano ecosystem SNEK team!
Earlier votes
Abstain10mo agoSuperseded
As I have not yet had time to review this proposal, I have submitted a vote of Abstain for now.
- No3M ₳Rationale
I didn't like it based on what I read. I don't think the impact will be that great, and it's also too much money.
Note: I made my decision to avoid writing to request a change of vote, since if I'm leaving this note, it's because a change isn't possible.
- Abstain2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳Rationale
The snek team has proven that they are industry leaders. This funding will not only help the Snek token but rather the entire Cardano ecosystem. I can't wait to see this expansion.
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
賛成票。スマートコントラクトによる自動返済ではなく、オフチェーン契約とIntersect管理に依存している点は残念です。しかし、Treasuryローンの初実装として大きな価値があり、Cardanoに返済型資金モデルの前例を築く試みとして支持します。Yesとします。
Yes vote. While it is unfortunate that repayment is not handled through smart contracts but rather via off-chain agreements and Intersect oversight, I recognize the strong value of this as the first Treasury loan implementation. It sets an important precedent for a repayable funding model within Cardano, and I support this initiative with a Yes.
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
There is an undoubted need to advance CNT exchange listings. Snek has a solid track record of corresponding activities. The project is expected to pay directly back to the treasury while paving the way for other CNTs as well. The team actively engages with the community.
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
I've been convinced over the last few days of discussion. The Snek team is clearly working with the community and has made some strides on our behalf. I want to see what this team can do.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳Rationale
I agree with this proposal but it seems quite risky because Snek use your reputation to borrow at low interest rates. I think there should be a large enough amount of $Snek to act as collateral and help promote future loan repayments.
- Abstain2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on this governance action because it is both constitutionally compliant and strategically valuable for the long-term growth of the Cardano ecosystem.
- Constitutionality
This proposal is consistent with the Cardano Constitution:
Article III.5 – Submitted in a legible, standardized format with rationale, budget, administration plan, and reporting.
Article IV.1 – Advances adoption, liquidity, and token infrastructure, directly serving Cardano’s sustainability and competitiveness.
Article IV.2 – Funds are administered by Intersect, with oversight from a Board of Advisors and provision for audits.
Article IV.3 – At ₳5M, it sits comfortably within the Net Change Limit (₳86M still available for 2025).
Article IV.4 – Provides for independent yearly audits, ensuring transparency and accountability.
There are no constitutional violations present.
- Strategic Value
Loan, not grant – This is the first-ever Treasury loan, with repayment terms (5 years, 2.44% APR). It sets a precedent for sustainable Treasury use.
Ecosystem-wide benefit – While led by the Snek Foundation, the benefits extend far beyond SNEK:
ADA liquidity and trading pair depth will increase.
Exchange infrastructure and compliance frameworks will be reusable by future Cardano Native Tokens (CNTs).
Visibility and accessibility of Cardano assets on Tier 1 platforms will grow.
Proven track record – Snek has already self-funded $4.5M to deliver Cardano’s first three Tier 1 listings (Kraken, Crypto.com, Kucoin). This demonstrates competence, credibility, and “skin in the game.”
Momentum alignment – This loan complements other strategic listing pushes (e.g., Midnight Foundation / $NIGHT), enabling a positive chain reaction for CNT listings.
- Treasury Context
With ₳86M ADA still available under the Net Change Limit, allocating ₳5M (just ~6%) to this initiative is proportionate and justified.
Given that much of the Net Change allowance will likely be consumed this year, supporting a high-impact, repayable initiative is a responsible use of funds.
- Risk Assessment
Repayment risk exists, as repayment depends on Snek revenues and broader market conditions.
However, the safeguards (Intersect administration, Board oversight, yearly audits, enforceable loan agreement) reduce risk to an acceptable level.
Even in the unlikely event of repayment default, the Treasury benefits from the exchange infrastructure and ecosystem visibility established.
- Conclusion
This proposal combines innovation, accountability, and ecosystem impact. It addresses a major bottleneck for Cardano adoption (CEX visibility and liquidity), introduces a sustainable funding model (repayable loans), and leverages a proven team with significant prior investment.
For these reasons, I believe the benefits to ADA, CNT adoption, and the broader Cardano ecosystem far outweigh the manageable risks. Supporting this initiative demonstrates confidence in new Treasury models and accelerates Cardano’s competitiveness globally.
I therefore cast my vote: YES.
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Votes YES on the ₳5M loan proposal for Cardano’s Global Listing Expansion powered by SNEK.
- Accountability: First loan-based Treasury request, with 2.44% APR repayment.
- Credibility: SNEK self-funded $4.5M, secured Tier 1 listings (Kraken, Crypto.com, KuCoin).
- Ecosystem impact: Expands ADA liquidity, visibility, and sets frameworks for future tokens
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Yes. This proposal is structured as a loan with oversight, audits, and repayment plus interest. SNEK is currently one of the only Cardano-native tokens capable of securing Tier 1 exchange listings, and although it is a meme, the team has built revenue-generating products and has a proven track record.
SNEK can serve as a gateway for new users into Cardano while establishing the legal and technical infrastructure that other CNTs can reuse to access exchanges. Centralised exchanges are not the end goal, but they remain essential bridges for onboarding users and liquidity. Supporting SNEK is also an opportunity to show that Cardano is not a “ghost chain” and to increase awareness of our DeFi ecosystem.
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
I like how Snek Foundation approached this proposal in framing it as a loan instead of a grant. However, I’m voting no because the proposal doesn’t have enough safeguards. An on-chain contract would make me more comfortable. Also, a 2.44% APR seems low for an unsecured loan, and it might set a precedent that’s not sustainable.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳Rationale
The proposal as outlined has are no terms, no promissory, no collateral, no redress and remedy; basically, it's not a loan as written. There are social rumors of an actual loan, but it is not presented. “Trust us bro” is not going to work for me.
Additionally, Rapha @golden_Rapha, the CEO of Snek Foundation sits on the CSFW Treasury Management Committee, a clear conflict of interest and fiduciary violation.
Further Drep @goofy_crisp is schilling and gathering voting power for this proposal which he should be abstaining from, as this is a clear conflict of interest and blatant fiduciary violation.
The team has made it crystal clear that ‘Our goal with this proposal is to set a precedent...’ This is not a precedent that should be created for future governance.