Cardano 2030: Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework and KPIs
191 DReps voted · 83 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, 2 to no, 1 to abstain, together voting with 10.7M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes185K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes175K ₳No rationale
- Yes171.6K ₳Rationale
Why Vote YES
A key reason might some people like me hesitate to vote yes is the absence of person-level or grassroots adoption metrics. That concern is reasonable. It was raised, discussed, and answered honestly: we don’t yet have reliable ways to measure unique individuals or real community participation. That’s a limitation of today’s infrastructure, not a statement about what matters.
Voting YES is the pragmatic choice because it enables progress rather than freezing it:
It acknowledges reality without pretending it’s permanent.
The governance tool reflects what can be measured responsibly today, while leaving room to add better metrics as identity and measurement capabilities mature.It treats the Vision as a living framework, not a final verdict.
Passing it creates a shared baseline that can evolve—especially on hard problems like SSI, personhood, and community adoption—once the right tools exist.It avoids blocking progress over missing prerequisites.
Waiting for perfect measurement would delay coordination. Governance should move forward and surface the gaps we need to close next.It creates the conditions to fix what’s missing.
You can’t meaningfully improve how we measure humans and communities without a governance mechanism that can prioritize, fund, and iterate on those capabilities.It aligns incentives toward improvement instead of stalemate.
A “YES” vote doesn’t deny grassroots adoption; it keeps the door open to make it measurable and first-class in future iterations.In short: vote YES to move forward with honesty, keep the document adaptable, and create the governance capacity needed to eventually measure what truly matters—real people and real communities.
- Yes161.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes149.8K ₳Rationale
I endorse the Cardano 2030 Vision and Strategy. This community-led framework, developed through an extensive and repeatable process involving over 700 participants, provides a clear shared direction for Cardano's future. Most importantly for my role, the defined Strategic Pillars and associated KPIs offer an essential measuring stick and guidance, enabling DReps like myself to more effectively evaluate proposals, allocate treasury resources, and ensure initiatives align with our long-term goal of becoming the most secure, reliable, and censorship-resistant blockchain for mission-critical applications. This non-binding strategic tool will empower better-informed governance decisions without imposing restrictions, fostering focused and coherent ecosystem growth.
- Yes138.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes102.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes99K ₳No rationale
- No90.6K ₳Rationale
GOVERNANCE ACTION REVIEW [EN]
UPSIDES
The importance of a shared vision and strategic orientation for a highly decentralized ecosystem is recognized. The pillar set, in its general formulation, is treated as essential, relevant, and broadly aligned with the core areas of the ecosystem, without an explicit major domain being relegated to a secondary or neglected position.
A broad feedback process is acknowledged, including multiple workshops held across different regions, with workshop inputs largely reflected in the final output. A relatively mature strategic definition process is supported, with refinement prioritized over refoundation, and the overall effort treated as fundamentally positive.
Workshop macro-alignment is noted across core themes such as infrastructure/security, adoption/UX, governance, ecosystem growth, and economic sustainability.
During the first year of Cardano on-chain governance, there was a severe funding bottleneck for small teams, small builders, and emerging contributors. In practice, the vast majority of treasury resources were allocated to founding entities and large, consolidated actors, while smaller initiatives faced extremely limited access to funding.
This was amplified by a governance posture where many dReps prioritized what was labeled as “core” work without sufficient pushback against multi-million-ADA budget requests that lacked acceptable levels of detail, KPIs, or accountability criteria. The systemic effect is damaging: it signals permissiveness toward established actors while eroding trust among small and mid-sized contributors who lack political leverage, visibility, or social capital.
This is especially concerning in an ecosystem that does not benefit from strong Venture Capitals/private investment backing. The treasury is therefore a critical instrument for decentralized innovation. Yet rising bureaucratic barriers (high deposits to submit Governance Actions, complex budgeting processes (e.g., Ekklesia), and popularity-driven dynamics) further excluded competent but less visible teams. The outcome was frustration, disengagement, and, ultimately, brain drain, precisely when the ecosystem should be attracting and retaining talent.
For this reason, I welcome the explicit inclusion of incubators, accelerators, grants, and community programs in the Vision 2030 text. Without these mechanisms functioning effectively, governance risks becoming formally decentralized but materially concentrated.
DOWNSIDES
Blockchain space is a highly dynamic environment due to narratives, macro conditions, regulation, and technological paradigms, making evolving priorities and revisions reasonable expectations.
While the pillars can function as high-level strategic guidance, the current framework, including KPI design, target-setting approach, governance parameters, and supporting accountability mechanisms, remains insufficient to create the pressure, accountability, and institutional discipline required over a five-year horizon.
The proposed KPI set is treated as insufficient given the scope and systemic relevance of the 2030 framework. Metrics such as USD-denominated TVL, address-based MAU, and raw transaction counts are treated as highly sensitive to market cycles, speculative inflows, technical artifacts, and non-human activity, allowing targets to be met without corresponding structural improvement in adoption, real utility, ecosystem quality, or user experience.
The acknowledgment that more granular and actionable KPIs are expected in 2026 is treated as positive but insufficient to justify approving under-specified instrumentation at this stage, given the signaling power and intended five-year reference role.
Several workshop-raised areas are treated as not explicitly articulated, increasing execution risk through deprioritization of implicit topics. Accountability, quality assurance, and reputation systems are treated as notably under-reflected despite explicit workshop discussion. Alternative voting models discussed as mechanisms to address plutocracy and perceived fairness are treated as lacking observable instrumentation.
The absence of any meaningful framing for AI (Artificial Intelligence) in the Vision 2030 is concerning. For a cutting-edge technology project articulated in 2025, this omission is difficult to justify. AI is not a buzzword; it is a transversal capability that can materially improve productivity, coordination in decentralized systems, developer tooling, onboarding, security monitoring, and execution quality. AI could be used as an assiting tool to every single pillar described on the stratgic plan for 2030.
The lack of even a minimal strategic framing for AI, including principles and boundaries, is therefore a notable downside.
RISKS AND CONCERNS
Accountability, audit, quality assurance, delivery performance, historical track record, and reputation systems for proposers, executors, and governance actors are treated as missing strategic priorities, weakening ex-post evaluation, consequences, and institutional learning. Without mechanisms and metrics capturing quality, execution reliability, and long-term performance, macro-level KPIs risk remaining aspirational rather than operational.
Treasury Withdrawal practice in 2025 included dozens of approvals with weak cost definitions, generic or absent KPIs, and poor ex-ante and ex-post criteria. In that context, a small number of ecosystem-wide KPIs are insufficient to create systemic pressure for proposal-level rigor. System-level KPIs are non-substitutes for mandatory minimum standards on cost breakdowns, milestones, outcome metrics, and auditability.
The governance decentralization KPI targeting 50% + 1 of effective voting power being controlled by more than 22 dReps is a minimal anti-collusion threshold rather than a meaningful decentralization objective, setting a low bar that can be satisfied without substantial improvement in stake dispersion or governance pluralism. Limited incentive is created for broader delegation, emergence of new influential dReps, or reduction of concentration beyond a narrow safety margin.
Treasury funding concentration per entities/groups and development decentralization are insufficiently instrumented. Thresholds limiting treasury funding concentration by a single entity or related group are absent, alongside metrics evaluating decentralization of development and execution. A “two or more nodes” diversity measure is insufficient to mitigate systemic risk; development decentralization, executor diversity, and funding dispersion are requiring explicit instrumentation.
A five-year horizon is incompatible with weak and sparse KPIs amid observed treasury withdrawal pace and limited replenishment mechanisms, increasing the risk of institutional complacency. A longer horizon require stronger targets, more granular instrumentation, and periodic recalibration.
A funding bottleneck for small teams and emerging contributors is relevant risk, with the practical effect of allocating most treasury resources to founding entities and consolidated actors while smaller initiatives face limited access.
Bureaucratic barriers (high deposits to submit Governance Actions, complex budgeting processes, popularity-driven dynamics) are exclusionary pressures that can drive frustration, disengagement, and brain drain, especially in an ecosystem without strong VC backing, undermining material decentralization even when formal decentralization exists.
VOTE RATIONALE
A shared vision and strategic orientation are supported, and the pillars are treated as broadly relevant as an organizing framework. However, the KPI set, targets, and parameters are treated as inadequate as a five-year reference for governance and resource allocation.
Market-sensitive metrics (USD-denominated TVL, address-based MAU, raw transaction counts) are vulnerable to vanity outcomes and capable of being satisfied without structural improvement in adoption, real utility, ecosystem quality, or user experience.
Accountability, auditability, execution quality, delivery performance, and reputation systems are insufficiently prioritized, despite being raised in workshops. System-level KPIs are non-substitutes for minimum proposal-level standards for Treasury Withdrawals (cost breakdowns, milestones, outcome metrics, ex-ante and ex-post evaluation criteria).
Governance decentralization instrumentation is weak and poorly suited to incentivize real decentralization, while funding concentration and development decentralization remain insufficiently instrumented.
A vote change to YES is conditioned on a revised version that adds more KPIs per pillar and sub-items; strengthens and normalizes targets (e.g., TVL in ADA and/or TVL/market cap); reinforces minimum standards for Treasury Withdrawals; and introduces explicit anti-concentration thresholds for treasury funding plus accountability, reputation, execution-quality, and development-decentralization metrics.
REVISÃO DE AÇÃO DE GOVERNANÇA [PT]
PONTOS POSITIVOS
Reconhece-se a importância de uma visão compartilhada e de uma orientação estratégica para um ecossistema altamente descentralizado. O conjunto de pilares, em sua formulação geral, é tratado como essencial, relevante e amplamente alinhado às áreas centrais do ecossistema, sem que um domínio principal seja explicitamente rebaixado a uma posição secundária ou negligenciada.
Reconhece-se um processo amplo de coleta de feedback, incluindo múltiplos workshops realizados em diferentes regiões, com insumos desses workshops em grande parte refletidos no resultado final. Apoia-se um processo relativamente maduro de definição estratégica, com priorização de refinamento em vez de refundação, e o esforço geral é tratado como fundamentalmente positivo.
Nota-se um macroalinhamento dos workshops em torno de temas centrais como infraestrutura/segurança, adoção/UX, governança, crescimento do ecossistema e sustentabilidade econômica.
Durante o primeiro ano da governança on-chain da Cardano, houve um gargalo severo de financiamento para equipes pequenas, pequenos builders e contribuidores emergentes. Na prática, a vasta maioria dos recursos do tesouro foi alocada a entidades fundadoras e atores grandes e consolidados, enquanto iniciativas menores enfrentaram acesso extremamente limitado a financiamento.
Isso foi amplificado por uma postura de governança em que muitos dReps priorizaram o que foi rotulado como trabalho “core” sem contraposição suficiente a pedidos de orçamento de múltiplos milhões de ADA que careciam de níveis aceitáveis de detalhamento, KPIs ou critérios de accountability. O efeito sistêmico é danoso: sinaliza permissividade com atores estabelecidos enquanto corrói a confiança de contribuidores pequenos e médios que não têm alavancagem política, visibilidade ou capital social.
Isso é especialmente preocupante em um ecossistema que não se beneficia de forte suporte de Venture Capitals/investimento privado. O tesouro é, portanto, um instrumento crítico para inovação descentralizada. Ainda assim, o aumento de barreiras burocráticas (depósitos altos para submeter Governance Actions, processos complexos de orçamento, por exemplo Ekklesia, e dinâmicas orientadas por popularidade) excluiu ainda mais equipes competentes porém menos visíveis. O resultado foi frustração, desengajamento e, por fim, fuga de cérebros, exatamente quando o ecossistema deveria estar atraindo e retendo talentos.
Por esse motivo, acolhe-se a inclusão explícita de incubadoras, aceleradoras, grants e programas comunitários no texto da Vision 2030. Sem esses mecanismos funcionando de forma efetiva, a governança corre o risco de se tornar formalmente descentralizada, mas materialmente concentrada.
PONTOS NEGATIVOS
O espaço blockchain é um ambiente altamente dinâmico devido a narrativas, condições macroeconômicas, regulação e paradigmas tecnológicos, tornando prioridades evolutivas e revisões expectativas razoáveis.
Embora os pilares possam funcionar como orientação estratégica de alto nível, o framework atual, incluindo desenho de KPIs, abordagem de definição de metas, parâmetros de governança e mecanismos de accountability de suporte, permanece insuficiente para criar a pressão, a responsabilização e a disciplina institucional requeridas ao longo de um horizonte de cinco anos.
O conjunto proposto de KPIs é tratado como insuficiente dada a abrangência e a relevância sistêmica do framework 2030. Métricas como TVL denominado em USD, MAU baseado em endereços e contagens brutas de transações são tratadas como altamente sensíveis a ciclos de mercado, entradas especulativas, artefatos técnicos e atividade não-humana, permitindo que metas sejam atingidas sem melhoria estrutural correspondente em adoção, utilidade real, qualidade do ecossistema ou experiência do usuário.
O reconhecimento de que KPIs mais granulares e acionáveis são esperados em 2026 é tratado como positivo, mas insuficiente para justificar a aprovação de instrumentação subespecificada neste estágio, dado o poder de sinalização e o papel pretendido como referência de cinco anos.
Diversas áreas levantadas nos workshops são tratadas como não explicitamente articuladas, aumentando o risco de execução por despriorização de tópicos implícitos. Accountability, garantia de qualidade e sistemas de reputação são tratados como sub-refletidos de forma notável, apesar de discussão explícita nos workshops. Modelos alternativos de votação discutidos como mecanismos para lidar com plutocracia e percepção de justiça são tratados como carentes de instrumentação observável.
A ausência de qualquer enquadramento minimamente significativo para IA (Inteligência Artificial) na Vision 2030 é preocupante. Para um projeto de tecnologia de ponta articulado em 2025, essa omissão é difícil de justificar. IA não é buzzword; é uma capacidade transversal que pode melhorar materialmente produtividade, coordenação em sistemas descentralizados, ferramental para desenvolvedores, onboarding, monitoramento de segurança e qualidade de execução. IA poderia ser usada como ferramenta de apoio a cada pilar descrito no plano estratégico para 2030.
A falta de sequer um enquadramento estratégico mínimo para IA, incluindo princípios e limites, é, portanto, um ponto negativo relevante.
RISCOS E PREOCUPAÇÕES
Accountability, auditoria, garantia de qualidade, desempenho de entrega, histórico de execução e sistemas de reputação para proponentes, executores e atores de governança são tratados como prioridades estratégicas ausentes, enfraquecendo avaliação ex-post, consequências e aprendizado institucional. Sem mecanismos e métricas que capturem qualidade, confiabilidade de execução e desempenho de longo prazo, KPIs macro correm o risco de permanecer aspiracionais, em vez de operacionais.
A prática de Treasury Withdrawals em 2025 incluiu dezenas de aprovações com definições de custo fracas, KPIs genéricos ou ausentes e critérios ex-ante e ex-post deficientes. Nesse contexto, um pequeno número de KPIs de nível ecossistêmico é insuficiente para criar pressão sistêmica por rigor no nível das propostas. KPIs sistêmicos não substituem padrões mínimos obrigatórios para detalhamento de custos, marcos, métricas de resultado e auditabilidade.
O KPI de descentralização de governança que mira 50% + 1 do poder efetivo de voto controlado por mais de 22 dReps é um limiar mínimo anti-conluio, e não um objetivo significativo de descentralização, estabelecendo um patamar baixo que pode ser satisfeito sem melhora substancial em dispersão de stake ou pluralismo de governança. Cria-se pouco incentivo para delegação mais ampla, surgimento de novos dReps influentes ou redução de concentração além de uma margem estreita de segurança.
A concentração de funding do tesouro por entidades/grupos e a descentralização do desenvolvimento estão insuficientemente instrumentadas. Ausentam-se limiares que limitem a concentração de funding do tesouro por uma única entidade ou grupo relacionado, assim como métricas que avaliem descentralização de desenvolvimento e execução. Uma medida de diversidade “dois ou mais nós” é insuficiente para mitigar risco sistêmico; descentralização de desenvolvimento, diversidade de executores e dispersão de funding exigem instrumentação explícita.
Um horizonte de cinco anos é incompatível com KPIs fracos e esparsos diante do ritmo observado de retiradas do tesouro e de mecanismos limitados de reposição, aumentando o risco de complacência institucional. Um horizonte mais longo requer metas mais fortes, instrumentação mais granular e recalibração periódica.
Um gargalo de financiamento para equipes pequenas e contribuidores emergentes é um risco relevante, com o efeito prático de alocar a maior parte dos recursos do tesouro a entidades fundadoras e atores consolidados, enquanto iniciativas menores enfrentam acesso limitado.
Barreiras burocráticas (depósitos altos para submeter Governance Actions, processos complexos de orçamento, dinâmicas orientadas por popularidade) são pressões excludentes que podem gerar frustração, desengajamento e fuga de cérebros, especialmente em um ecossistema sem forte suporte de VC, minando a descentralização material mesmo quando existe descentralização formal.
JUSTIFICATIVA DO VOTO
Uma visão compartilhada e uma orientação estratégica são apoiadas, e os pilares são tratados como amplamente relevantes como framework organizador. No entanto, o conjunto de KPIs, metas e parâmetros é tratado como inadequado como referência de cinco anos para governança e alocação de recursos.
Métricas sensíveis ao mercado (TVL denominado em USD, MAU baseado em endereços, contagens brutas de transações) são vulneráveis a resultados de vaidade e podem ser satisfeitas sem melhoria estrutural em adoção, utilidade real, qualidade do ecossistema ou experiência do usuário.
Accountability, auditabilidade, qualidade de execução, desempenho de entrega e sistemas de reputação são insuficientemente priorizados, apesar de terem sido levantados nos workshops. KPIs sistêmicos não substituem padrões mínimos no nível de proposta para Treasury Withdrawals (detalhamento de custos, marcos, métricas de resultado, critérios de avaliação ex-ante e ex-post).
A instrumentação de descentralização de governança é fraca e pouco adequada para incentivar descentralização real, enquanto concentração de funding e descentralização do desenvolvimento permanecem insuficientemente instrumentadas.
Uma mudança de voto para YES fica condicionada a uma versão revisada que: adicione mais KPIs por pilar e subitens; fortaleça e normalize metas (por exemplo, TVL em ADA e/ou TVL/market cap); reforce padrões mínimos para Treasury Withdrawals; e introduza limiares explícitos anti-concentração para funding do tesouro, além de métricas de accountability, reputação,
- Yes83.9K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of this info action. The overall goal of the info action is a good one. In general a vision document is valuable to have to focus efforts towards a common goal, and I believe this should be supported. The vision outlined is also well thought through and aligns with my view of where Cardano should move towards in the future. The pillars identified are all important but are not assigned a particular order of priority. This does make the vision slightly less focused but is reasonable since there would be significant disagreement on that front. I do appreciate, however, that the main focus is on branding Cardano as a mission-critical, high-assurance protocol, and this focuses on its legitimate strengths. This is a good decision in my view, as we need to stop comparing all blockchains using the same metrics. Cardano's focus should be on decentralized stability and security. All the pillars in the action support that goal. The KPIs are an interesting component. I don't actually think that KPIs are required for this type of vision document, and I can't say I fully agree with the KPIs listed. I only say this in the context that this space moves so quickly that I don't think KPIs can stay relevant for a 5 year period. That said, I don't see anything that is incorrect in terms of focus and the KPIs can always change in the future if they become irrelevant and the community agrees to change the focus. Overall a solid proposal that I am happy to support.
- Yes77.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain69.9K ₳No rationale
- No65.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes63.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this Info Action in support of establishing a shared Cardano 2030 Vision & Strategy as a strategic reference point for the ecosystem.
Disclosure: I served as a voting member of the 2024–2025 Cardano Product Committee, which facilitated the community-led process that produced this Vision and Strategy. While this governance action was submitted by a community member, the underlying content reflects a documented, open, and repeatable process involving 700+ participants, cross-ecosystem stakeholders, and delegated authority granted during the 2025 budget cycle.
I support this action because Cardano now operates in full on-chain governance and requires a clear, community-backed strategic compass. This Vision and Strategy provide DReps with a non-binding but essential measuring stick—connecting infrastructure excellence to real-world utility, governance maturity, ecosystem sustainability, and long-term differentiation.
Importantly, this document does not constrain future governance decisions nor carry constitutional force. It offers a shared direction, not enforcement. The framework, pillars, and KPIs are intended to evolve through future Info Actions as new data emerges.
- Abstain56.1K ₳Rationale
its fine, a solid plan, but to my ears its too specific in too many places to count as "continuation" of the initial roadmap, which just defined an end-state. This proposal sounds like a wishlist, which, if approved, could be exploited for budget & TW requests.
i am FOR what they have created, but dont consider it to be an "official" roadmap - as there is no official anymore. This info action could become a Trojan horse as reference in future TWs (by arguing: "you voted for the roadmap, so you must vote yes on this budget request and this TW request, otherwise the roadmap's fulfilment is in danger, which means in Cardano is in danger, and its your fault. ".
there is at the grander scheme of things nothing wrong with a "pre-budgetInfoAction-InfoAction", as the items are solid, but approving this without values might block other, "un"official developments, contributions from being realizable. In fact, this might even destroy the "market" (=treasury) for companies to contribute to Cardano and thus hurt decentralization.Since they dont mention that this is not a Trojan horse for future budget requests, which Charles would not unlikely hold against the community again, like he did for the previous budget round, where he accused everyone who votes against the monolithical and rather intransparent IO budget of destroying Cardano and critique to any part of the budget got aggressive responses like "then you decided that IO and me leave Cardano. fine. help yourselves". (sry. shouldnt have been a Charles rant at all. just using him / his past to make a point.) - i vote abstain not to block it, but also not to ignore my red flags
- Yes51.8K ₳Rationale
Yes for us, the same with the constitution.
The Cardano 2030 is a longer term and strategically approach with quantifiable KPIs for the community to come together across different point of view.This is curcial even when the IOG now launching and shifting some focus for the Midnight network
- Yes48.7K ₳Rationale
Good
- Yes48K ₳No rationale
- No45.9K ₳Rationale
Wistkey Lab appreciates the significant effort and community input invested in developing the Cardano 2030 Vision, Mission, Strategy Framework, and KPIs. We recognize the value of attempting to articulate a long-term direction for the ecosystem. However, we are voting NO at this stage due to several substantive concerns.
First, DReps must retain independent judgment when evaluating governance actions and funding decisions. Framing this document as a “community-vetted filter” for future proposals risks turning a strategic document into a soft policy or gatekeeping tool. Strategy should inform decision-making, not constrain it or condition votes against a static framework.
Second, the proposed KPIs are largely aspirational and difficult to measure or hold accountable in practice. Many outcomes described are influenced by external factors beyond direct governance control. We believe performance-based measures and clearly defined measures of effectiveness would provide a more practical and accountable way to assess progress over time.
Third, the Sustainability & Resilience pillar introduces a major strategic shift toward a managed, multi-asset treasury with yield generation and ROI targets. While this direction may be worth exploring, the proposal does not sufficiently address critical governance requirements such as risk management frameworks, accountability structures, conflict-of-interest protections, custody models, failure modes, or rollback mechanisms. Without these safeguards, the treasury strategy appears premature.
Finally, the framing of Cardano as “The World’s Operating System” is overly expansive and lacks focus. Such broad positioning risks diluting strategic clarity rather than reinforcing Cardano’s core strengths and differentiators. - No45.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes29.3K ₳Rationale
We need a clear vision, what does Cardano do and what should it achieve by 2030, set it clearly apart from other chains and have a simple 1-3 word explanation of its purpose.
- No26.7K ₳Rationale
The proposal wants more bullshit workshops which Intersect has failed to run well over the last two years. You look at the vision creation process, no retail involvement and more BS humanitarian aid stuff. This isn't going to bring any success to Cardano and is a waste of everyone's time. Get actual people with business experience into Cardano. I vote no due to a lack of faith, results, direction, and general competency that Intersect has show.
- Abstain15.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain10.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.7K ₳Rationale
I'm like this proposal, so I'm voting yes
- Yes8.4K ₳No rationale
- No6.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2K ₳No rationale
- No4.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.2 ₳Rationale
Lets go!
- Yes688.8 ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged4 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes8mo agoSuperseded
Abstain8mo agoSuperseded
Yes8mo agoSuperseded
Abstain8mo agoSuperseded
Yes8mo agoSuperseded
Abstain8mo agoSuperseded
Yes8mo agoSuperseded
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale