Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Top-Up ‘Title’ Sponsorship Upgrade
184 DReps voted · 68 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote · 3 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 5 to yes, 1 to no, together voting with 496.9M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on the TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026 Title sponsorship top-up. I support Cardano being present at TOKEN2049, and that is why I support the baseline Platinum proposal, but this extra top-up mainly adds a prestige layer on top of an already meaningful presence. A larger booth, title branding, lanyards, and extra visibility may have some value, but I do not think the marginal benefit is strong enough to justify another 1.77M ADA under current Net Change Limit pressure. The treasury should fund practical ecosystem needs and broadly shared public goods before premium marketing upgrades. If the Cardano Foundation or other major ecosystem entities consider the Title upgrade strategically important, I would prefer them to fund or co-fund that extra layer themselves.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
Yes for marketing
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I voted NO for the base request, I vote NO for the "incremental request."
The idea is understandable but treasury-wise it is deeply unconvincing to spend these funds to buy Cardano a prominent booth and give builders visibility, tickets, stage time, networking access, and media capture. I understand the instinct as somebody who's been in the global media and entertainment markets for 30+ years. Signal matters, presence matters. But what has to be understood here is that treasury governance is not an exercise in buying expensive optics and calling it ecosystem growth. As DReps we're asked to exercise capital discipline, and my central problem is this: the proposal sells exposure as if exposure were impact. It promises visibility, spotlight, institutional access, and “25k+ decision makers,” yet it does not convincingly prove in any way that this event-native marketing spend is the best use of scarce treasury capital versus more targeted builder enablement, developer adoption, regional accelerator support, or measurable GTM programs with lower burn and clearer conversion logic.To me, this is a very costly brand activation dressed up as ecosystem infrastructure with some nice parties and free drinks thrown in.
Cardano already has multiple channels for ecosystem promotion, community events, content distribution, and business development. “Bigger booth, louder signal” is not a feasible adoption strategy. I think the entire proposal shows expensive insecurity in a branded suit.
As such, I don't treasury-efficient value creation. It may be good event marketing, but I certainly do not believe it is good treasury policy nor do I believe it will significantly increase adoption at this crucial stage in the Cardano ecosystem. - Yes966.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- No884.5K ₳No rationale
- No870.3K ₳Rationale
Difficult to justify at current price. Let's do it another year.
- Yes866.3K ₳No rationale
- No829.9K ₳Rationale
As representatives bound by the principles in the Latam Cardano DREP documentation, our primary mandates are to safeguard user trust, guarantee treasury sustainability, and champion long-term ecosystem viability. While we actively supported a Yes vote on the baseline Platinum Sponsorship proposal (gov_action18u8...zmul9z) to secure a prominent, competitive floor presence for Cardano, we cannot justify a supplementary treasury withdrawal for an aggressive branding top-up. The baseline sponsorship already fulfills our objective of global exposure. Consuming additional decentralized community funds for premium marketing upgrades does not align with a strategy of high fiscal responsibility or grassroots empowerment.
Latin American Ecosystem Impact Statement:
Voting 'No' on this top-up upgrade prevents the over-concentration of treasury capital into singular, high-cost international marketing events. Rejecting the proposal preserves vital treasury liquidity, ensuring that funds remain accessible for localized education, regional builder grants, and institutional adoption initiatives that directly expand the transactions and user base within the Latin American Cardano ecosystem. - No796.1K ₳No rationale
- NoChanged792.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the Token2049 title sponsorship top-up.
I support Cardano having a strong presence at Token2049. I am also voting YES on the base proposal because I believe Cardano should be visible in Singapore and represented properly in front of investors, institutions, builders, exchanges and enterprise decision makers.
However, I do not believe the additional title sponsorship top-up is necessary.
The base proposal already gives Cardano meaningful exposure and a credible presence at one of the most important crypto events in Asia. In my view, the extra spend required to move from that level of presence to title sponsorship does not provide enough additional impact to justify the cost to the treasury.
This is where we need to be disciplined.
The treasury should fund activities that create strong ecosystem value, but we should also look for savings where similar outcomes can be achieved with a lower spend. In this case, I believe Cardano can still be present, visible and taken seriously at Token2049 without paying the additional premium for title sponsorship.
The current market conditions also matter. ADA is low, the treasury is being asked to fund many competing priorities, and every extra allocation should clear a high bar. I do not think this top-up clears that bar.
This is not a vote against marketing, events or Cardano being seen globally. It is a vote for a more cost-effective version of the same strategy.
Support the base presence. Save the additional ADA. Use the treasury more carefully.
For those reasons, I am voting NO.
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
Abstain4mo agoSuperseded
- No742.6K ₳Rationale
I voted in favor of the more cost-efficient sponsorship package and do not support this additional expenditure.
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain622K ₳Rationale
I just need to abstain from this proposal, I am not in the best position to either vote YES or NO. My delegators agrees to this decision.
- No604.7K ₳Rationale
I'm voting “No” on this proposal: I will not vote yes on EMURGO treasury withdrawals until the Yoroi wallet governance UI issue is properly remedied. That commitment runs through March 15, 2027. EMURGO has been aware of it. The commitment stands.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I'm voting no on this Title-level top-up for the TOKEN2049 Singapore.
The immediate reason for this particular vote is straightforward, Charles Hoskinson publicly committed, unprompted, using his own resources, to personally top up Cardano's TOKEN2049 presence to Title level. We get the mainstage keynote, and the Title-tier visibility without spending a single ADA from the treasury. Approving this withdrawal would be asking the community to pay for something the founder already volunteered to fund.
What this top-up buys over Platinum is 36 additional square meters of booth space, a 15-minute mainstage slot, a press release mention, and media introductions. Those are brand benefits for Cardano's institutional positioning, a legitimate use of public funds, but not when private capital has already stepped in to cover them. A standing commitment controls the vote. The founder's personal commitment makes it redundant on the merits. Vote no. - No591.1K ₳Rationale
Dont feel this is vital spending, and instead prefer to support critical infrastructure that will put Cardano best in class.
- Yes582.9K ₳Rationale
Cardano is at a turning point. Internally, we are losing talent rapidly as teams struggle to survive; SIDAN Lab is feeling this too, and we are currently downsizing. Externally, the crypto winter is hitting everyone hard, and Cardano is feeling the pressure even more.
We believe that small, safe steps are no longer enough. To survive, we need radical, aggressive action to keep the ecosystem energized. While saving ADA is important, the cost of "doing nothing" is now much higher. From now on, we will aggressively support projects led by teams with the willpower to rescue this ecosystem, even if that means voting against well-intentioned but mediocre proposals. These specific proposals are our chance to secure critical industry integrations and support high-potential projects that can scale globally.
Finally, we have learned that while many DReps act in good faith, the current governance process is often inefficient. SIDAN Lab is now shifting its strategy to prioritize high-impact domain expertise, such as the specific ability of Founding Entities (FEs) to close high-stakes integrations in providing the abnormal catalyst needed to rescue the ecosystem. We trust that the teams behind these proposals have the expertise required to deliver the results necessary to revive Cardano.
For the above reasons, we are voting YES to the 3 Cardano Summit and Token2049 proposals.
- No579.1K ₳Rationale
Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Top-Up ‘Title’ Sponsorship Upgrade — my answer is NO.
This proposal asks for another 1,768,167 ADA from the Cardano treasury.
Not for development.
Not for DReps.
Not for infrastructure.
But for upgrading to a more expensive marketing package at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026.
The proposal upgrades the sponsorship from Platinum to Title Sponsorship.
What does Cardano get for the extra treasury money?
• a larger booth
• a 15-minute keynote on the main stage
• press release mentions
• media introductions
• branded lanyards
• a protein shake station
• extra tickets and VIP accessSo once again, this is mainly about marketing, visibility, branding, networking, and event positioning.
I do not see enough value here to justify spending treasury funds at this scale.
If the baseline proposal is already questionable, then spending even more ADA for a premium sponsorship upgrade makes even less sense.
In my opinion, treasury funds should prioritize real governance work.
DReps work every single day:
• reviewing proposals
• analyzing treasury spending
• voting
• educating the community
• protecting ADA holders’ interestsThe conference will end.
The marketing exposure will fade.
But governance remains.
My vote is — NO.
I registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem. Optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world. 🖤
My DRep ID:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj3...2fg2jrMore info:
https://t.me/PROCENT666/338 - No573.2K ₳No rationale
- No568K ₳No rationale
- No550.1K ₳No rationale
- No501.3K ₳Rationale
- Yes488.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes481.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged438.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
- No393.6K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳No rationale
- No379.3K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted366.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
No3mo agoSuperseded
No4mo agoSuperseded
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
Cardano Foundation's purpose of existence is to fund things like this themselves using the massive amount of genesis ADA they were given, and the staking profits accumulated since.
- No342.8K ₳No rationale
- No330.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes329.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain318.1K ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - No314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO. While I respect EMURGO’s marketing efforts, upgrading to a 'Title' sponsorship has a poor ROI and feels like corporate vanity spending.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
After careful review, I am voting NO on the TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026 ‘Title’ Sponsorship Upgrade. While I supported the baseline ‘Platinum’ sponsorship to ensure Cardano has a solid presence and a stage for our community builders, this expensive top-up brings diminishing returns.
As a DRep committed to responsible and justifiable treasury spending, I share several key concerns raised by the community:
- Poor Onboarding ROI: Spending large amounts of treasury funds for premium branding at investor-heavy events usually results in low retail adoption and a weak return on investment.
- Corporate Vanity & Opportunity Cost: This upgrade risks becoming vanity spending. These funds would be much more productive if deployed toward core infrastructure, developer tools, or protocol scaling.
- Missing Co-funding: The treasury should not completely subsidize commercial marketing. Entities that gain direct commercial upside from these events should co-fund the costs.
A Path to a "YES" Vote:
Charles Hoskinson’s public mention that he is willing to fund a portion of this upgrade is a very positive step toward financial accountability.However, because we do not know the exact details or how much he will commit, the current proposal puts an unnecessary burden on the treasury. If a significant, specific portion of the cost is subsidized (by Charles or even perhaps Emurgo), I will gladly switch my vote to YES before the voting window closes.
- No301.3K ₳Rationale
I do not support funding for Cardano Summit or Token2049 under the current market conditions. At this stage, marketing is not going to lift Cardano or any other cryptocurrency. If anything, we can look at Polkadot as a clear example. They reportedly spent around $37 million on marketing and sponsorships — equivalent to roughly 148 million ADA — and still dropped about seven positions on CoinMarketCap.I do not support this type of spending. This is not a marketing problem, it is a utility problem. I only support proposals that include measurable KPIs and a clear, concrete return to the blockchain. How many times have we attended these kinds of events, and what has been the result? Moving from #8 to #15? Even with significant investment, Polkadot still lost ground. That should tell us something. We should learn from these kinds of mistakes and avoid repeating them.
- No297K ₳Rationale
Voting NO on Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026: Baseline ‘Platinum' Sponsorship Proposa
May 21st 2026
gov_action18u8lpkzge2csxe3plynn9lh4agwtv3nrqkyfwalwj4ykjv7l68jqqzmul9z
Summary
EMURGO requests 3,303,750 ada (currently $821,942.37 USD) to sponsor TOKEN2049. TOKEN2049 is a big party where everyone in the crypto industry gets together and ideas are cross-pollinated.
Conclusion
I'm voting against this proposal for many of the same reasons as last time. This is not a good use of marketing funds. We should be looking to fund efforts which introduce non-crypto users to Cardano.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq...pzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010
contact@williamdoyle.ca - Abstain285.2K ₳No rationale
- No275.2K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on “Cardano at TOKEN2049 Singapore 2026 – Top‑Up ‘Title’ Sponsorship Upgrade” at 1,768,167 ADA.
This proposal is procedurally sound and transparently structured: it is explicitly contingent on the Platinum baseline passing, uses Intersect’s audited TRSC/PSSC framework with auto‑abstain delegation and multi‑sig oversight, and clearly itemises what the extra spend buys—larger booth footprint (144 sqm vs 108 sqm), a 15‑minute mainstage keynote, lanyard and “protein shake station” branding, press‑release inclusion, facilitated media introductions, and slightly higher KPI targets for leads, collaborations, media coverage, and wallet sign‑ups. Those elements would increase Cardano’s visibility at TOKEN2049 and are aligned with Pillars 2 and 4 of the 2030 strategy.
However, I do not see a proportionate incremental return that justifies an additional ~424,000 USD of treasury spend on top of an already large Platinum sponsorship. The upgrade leaves the fundamental nature of the spend unchanged: this remains a short, marketing‑heavy activation at a two‑day crypto conference, aimed primarily at an audience already deep in the industry. The incremental KPI uplift—an extra 30% booth contacts, six more collaborations, 60 additional wallet sign‑ups, modest increases in media coverage—does not convincingly support the cost, especially given the lack of strong evidence that previous TOKEN2049 or EMURGO‑run events have led to durable on‑chain adoption or enterprise deployments commensurate with their price. In the same Net Change Limit window the treasury is already funding large, foundational initiatives (Leios, protocol upgrades, Orion Fund), and multiple DReps have raised credible concerns about turning high‑end sponsorships into recurring, high‑ticket expenditures when measured ROI remains weak. Given these opportunity costs, and my existing NO position on the Platinum baseline, I cannot support allocating an additional 1.77M ADA simply to further upgrade Cardano’s prominence and branding at TOKEN2049.
- No268.9K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted233.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
No4mo agoSuperseded
No4mo agoSuperseded
- No216.4K ₳No rationale