Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Baseline ‘Platinum' Sponsorship Proposal
184 DReps voted · 60 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 12.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting YES on governance action 3f0ff0d848cab1036621f92732fef5ea1cb6466305889777ee95496933dfd1e4#0.
First, I know of no potential conflict of interest here. I will receive no funds, free tickets, or anything else from this proposal. I'm not even sure whether I'll be able to attend the event this year or not.
With that out of the way, I feel comfortable voting YES on this proposal, as it focuses directly on placing Cardano into arena's where it is usually not. A presence at events where we have a chance to attract new businesses and advocates is, in my opinion, neccesary (if not sufficient) for our survival and growth as an ecosystem. If we continue to focus on events or spending that simply amplify and excite those who already believe in Cardano, we will surely expire in a dazzling conflagration.
The presence at this event should focus relentlessly on:
- Successful, high volume dApps and opportunities. The current star of the show is Strike, but there are many other unsung gems, and new products such as RealFi
- Capability upgrades. Leios, Peras, Better UX through Aiken
- Existing advantages. UTxO, Determinism, Uptime
- Collaboration over competition. Midnight, LayerZero, USDCx.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Abstain 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.5M ₳ Rationale
I voted YES on the revised TOKEN2049 Singapore Platinum proposal.
EMURGO has a mixed history and event spend should always be scrutinized. I voted yes because they listened
- the proposal was separated from the larger bundle,
- reduced from Title to Platinum
- and EMURGO has now said it will forgo the 15% management fee and refund it to the treasury
That directly addresses one of the biggest concerns. At this size, the proposal is easier to justify as a builder platform - large booth, Cardano stage, builder tickets, showcases, networking and content capture
This is still NOT risk free - execution matters, KPIs are still partly marketing heavy and EMURGO should be held to a high reporting standard. But the revised version is materially better, and the willingness to remove the management fee was one of the main reasons I moved to YES.
- Yes 9.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
私はこの提案に賛成します。私は現在、Cardanoエコシステム外部への新規露出や流入を特に重視しています。その観点から、TOKEN2049 シンガポールのように、企業、機関投資家、他チェーン関係者、Web3開発者が世界規模で集まる場において、Cardanoが大規模かつ明確な存在感を示すことには意義があると考えています。特に、シンガポールはアジアの金融・Web3 ハブであり、今後の企業採用やクロスチェーン領域での露出を考える上でも重要な地域だと考えています。一方で、イベント系提案においては、「イベント後に何が残ったのか」が最も重要だと考えています。そのため、リード獲得、パートナーシップ、イベント後のオンボーディング、オンチェーン活動などについて、継続的かつ透明性のある追跡と報告が重要だと考えます。その点も含め、Cardanoをより外へ広げていく取り組みとして、本提案を支持します。\n\nI support this proposal. I currently place particular importance on expanding Cardano’s exposure and attracting new participants from outside the ecosystem. From that perspective, I believe it is meaningful for Cardano to establish a large and visible presence at a global gathering such as TOKEN2049 Singapore, where companies, institutional investors, participants from other chains, and Web3 developers come together from around the world. In particular, I view Singapore as an important financial and Web3 hub in Asia, especially in terms of future enterprise adoption and cross-chain exposure. At the same time, for event-related proposals, I believe the most important question is “what remains after the event is over.” Therefore, I believe it is important to provide continuous and transparent tracking and reporting regarding lead generation, partnerships, post-event onboarding, and on-chain activity. With those considerations in mind, I support this proposal as an effort to further expand Cardano’s presence beyond its existing ecosystem.
- No 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I am using the CF voting tool and it forces me to use this summary field "The summary field is mandatory". So this is just filler. Rationale is below.
I see a lot of unfinished business on Cardano itself that probably needs addressing relatively urgently now. SPO sustainability, scalability, overall chain sustainability, governance participation / hardening, delivery of all critical integrations and then their proper integration by projects building on Cardano, improving the end user experience for Cardano users, lowering the costs of the Haskell node work through competition, possibly BTC DeFi, among others. I just don't feel comfortable spending funds on marketing until fundamental issues are sorted out properly. Cardano seems semi-finished for a new user, trying to copy narratives from other chains where they might be implemented better, and that is probably one reason why users are leaving. Right now, maybe even later, I do not see Treasury funds being used for event sponsorships as a wise use of the Treasury. Maybe it would make sense when Cardano is ready to offer a new, unique narrative and a new set of services to the crypto world while being ready to absorb a wave of new users. Right now we seem to be in a transition period during which Cardano is seeking how to carve out its role in the crypto world - and it is struggling. Part of the difficulty is related to decentralized governance and its ability or inability to coalesce around a strategic vision. I would prefer to wait until a clear message on what Cardano is doing well - can be sent, before we just market and promote Cardano - just because marketing is a thing to do.
Separately from the merits of this specific proposal, I have a standing platform commitment to vote NO on EMURGO-related treasury withdrawals until March 15, 2027. That commitment is tied to unresolved concerns around the Yoroi wallet governance UI issue and the accumulation of DRep power through that soft nudging of wallet users. I acknowledge the announced effort by EMURGO and Yoroi to address this, but it has taken too long. The first Voltaire vote took place back in September 2024. As a result, I will use a sufficiently long period to assess whether this issue has been remedied properly. - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes to both Baseline and Title Sponsorship proposals.
If we are going to show up at an event like TOKEN2049, we should do so with intention and make it count. This is one of the few opportunities to position Cardano in front of a global, external audience at scale, and a fragmented or minimal presence risks being lost entirely.
I view these proposals together as a single strategic decision around representation. While this level of spend requires scrutiny, the alternative—underinvesting and failing to stand out—undermines the purpose of being there at all. If we believe external visibility and ecosystem expansion matter, then we need to commit to it meaningfully.
That said, support here comes with expectations. This must translate into a structured pipeline—engagement, follow-up, and measurable outcomes—not just exposure. Future proposals in this category should be evaluated based on what is actually delivered from this effort.
This is a “make it count” moment. We need to show up with clarity, intent, and execution.
- Abstain 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
STORM Partners votes YES on Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Baseline ‘Platinum’ Sponsorship Proposal.
We previously had concerns with the combined Summit and TOKEN2049 proposal, particularly around total cost and bundling. This revised baseline proposal is narrower, more disciplined, and more directly focused on giving Cardano builders visibility at one of the most important crypto events globally.
We also acknowledge EMURGO’s public clarification that it will waive the 15% management fee and return it to the treasury, and that future unified event proposals in this budget cycle will exclude a management fee. That materially improves the cost profile and addresses part of the community concern around economic alignment.
Cardano needs more than infrastructure funding. It needs credible visibility, institutional conversations, builder showcases, and adoption-facing activity. This proposal is not a complete adoption strategy, but it is a bounded and measurable step in that direction. We vote YES while expecting clear post-event reporting on leads, builder participation, partnerships, media outcomes, and any surplus returned to the treasury.
- No 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 3.8M ₳ Rationale
As a former marketing exec, I don't see this as likely to significantly move the important needles for Cardano.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I do not currently view this as a high-priority treasury allocation relative to other ecosystem needs.
I understand the strategic rationale for maintaining a flagship Cardano summit presence, particularly in Singapore given its regional positioning, business environment, and relevance within the broader digital asset industry. Large ecosystem events can provide real value through coordination, relationship-building, visibility, and institutional signaling.
However, I believe treasury governance should distinguish carefully between strategically useful ecosystem activity and genuinely critical public infrastructure.
At the current stage of ecosystem development, Cardano’s more immediate bottlenecks remain concentrated around liquidity, application density, interoperability, developer adoption, and sustainable economic activity. A large conference may indirectly support some of those goals, but it does not address them directly in the way protocol, tooling, or infrastructure investments potentially can.
I am also cautious about normalizing ongoing treasury support for large ecosystem events because conference spending is inherently difficult to evaluate rigorously. Attribution of ecosystem growth, partnerships, or adoption to event activity is often speculative, and event proposals can easily drift toward weak accountability, prestige spending, and soft-power concentration around ecosystem institutions.
Additionally, flagship summits inevitably shape ecosystem narratives, visibility, and access structures, which makes them governance-relevant beyond simple event organization.
This does not mean the summit lacks value. It likely does provide ecosystem benefits. But treasury capital is finite, and I am not currently convinced this proposal represents sufficiently urgent or strategically indispensable infrastructure relative to other competing priorities.
- No 3.7M ₳ Rationale
I have supported EMURGO for years and consistently voted in favor of their Catalyst initiatives. However, I have now lost faith in this founding entity for reasons that extend beyond the scope of this particular vote.
While I believe it is important for Cardano to maintain a presence at Token2049, I do not trust EMURGO to manage these funds responsibly. The requested amount remains excessive, especially given current market conditions and the price of ADA.
Before seeking additional treasury resources for events and travel, EMURGO should first demonstrate their value by putting their own genesis ADA to productive use. If they have not done so already, there is little reason to believe they will begin now. - Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.5M ₳ Rationale
gold is maybe good enough but ill abstain
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
私は、「Cardano自身がVC的・市場形成的な役割を持つ必要がある」という視点から、本提案に賛成します。ただし、通常のVCは株式・トークン取得権・IPO・M&A等を通じてリターンを回収しますが、Cardano Treasuryでは直接的な出資リターンを回収する仕組みが限定的です。この制約を踏まえると、単なる支出ではなく、透明な選定、成果測定、余剰返還、事後追跡を通じて、Treasury資金が採用・流動性・開発・オンチェーン活動へ循環する市場形成モデルが必要です。本提案は、Cardanoが研究・技術中心から実需市場へ進むうえで、透明で循環型のVC化をどのように実装できるかを検証する試金石になると考えます。
登壇・展示対象となるCardanoプロジェクトチームの選定の公平性、初回資金解放の大きさ、成果測定の難しさには課題がありますが、支出明細、未使用額返還、KPI報告、6か月後の成果追跡を前提に支持します。
I support this proposal from the view that Cardano itself needs to take on a more VC-like and market-forming role. However, unlike traditional VC funds, which recover returns through equity, token rights, IPOs, M&A, or secondary sales, Cardano Treasury has only limited mechanisms to directly recover investment returns.
Given this constraint, Treasury spending should not be treated as simple expenditure. It should move toward a market-forming model where funds circulate back into the ecosystem through transparent selection, measurable outcomes, surplus returns, and follow-up reporting, leading to adoption, liquidity, development, and on-chain activity. I see this proposal as a useful test case for how Cardano can implement a more transparent and circular VC-like model as it moves from a research- and technology-focused chain toward real market adoption.
There are still important challenges, including the fairness of selecting Cardano project teams for presentation and exhibition opportunities, the large initial fund release, and the difficulty of measuring outcomes. However, with detailed cost reporting, return of unused funds, KPI reporting, and a six-month follow-up on actual results, I support this proposal.
- Abstain 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- No 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
While I’m skeptical on whether the immediate benefits outweigh the costs (I haven’t seen evidence that a significant number of builders or users come to Cardano through these events) it’s still important to maintain a presence to ensure the brand is represented within the broader crypto community.
Cardano’s unique selling points are its security, resilience, decentralisation, and evidence-based approach – I’d argue this is exactly what the industry needs right now. Let’s use the opportunity at TOKEN2049 to show why Cardano matters.
- Abstain 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I'm not sure why I'm even being allowed to vote. Did I miss something? Didn't this proposal already expire?
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale