Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by Intersect
245 DReps voted · 70 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
This was a very difficult decision to make, but I have chosen to abstain from this Budget Info Action. This proposal is undeniably ambitious and represents a tremendous effort by Intersect and the broader community to coordinate funding for 39 initiatives that support the Cardano 2025 Vision and Roadmap — a proposal I previously voted in favor of. I also recognize that at the time of voting, most DReps appear to be leaning toward approval, suggesting a clear mandate to proceed. My abstention should therefore not be mistaken as opposition to progress, but rather as a principled response to the way this proposal has been structured and processed.
I genuinely support many of the individual projects listed — including the IOE Core Development Plan and the Catalyst 2025 proposal — and I want to see them succeed. They are well-aligned with Cardano’s strategic goals, include detailed deliverables and in many cases incorporate smart contract oversight and milestone-based disbursements. The overarching budget proposal itself adheres to Article IV of the Constitution, sets clear temporal scope (73 epochs), identifies an Administrator (Intersect) and does not authorize immediate spending — each Treasury Withdrawal still requires its own governance action.
However, the all-or-nothing bundling of 39 proposals into a single vote is a fundamental limitation that prevents me from supporting or opposing individual initiatives on their own merits. This format forces DReps to overlook important distinctions between project scopes, budgets and execution risks. Furthermore, Intersect’s dual role — both as the intake facilitator and appointed Administrator — from the information currently available lacks sufficient definition of its vetting procedures, dispute mechanisms and long-term accountability. While I respect Intersect’s contributions, this ambiguity raises valid governance concerns.
The proposal also relies heavily on off-chain temperature checks via Ekklesia, which, although anchored on-chain via a hash, remain unverifiable in terms of voter identity and weight. As we evolve our governance systems, more transparency and traceability must be built directly into the on-chain process. Additionally, the 275M ADA requested consumes nearly the entire 350M Net Change Limit currently in effect — leaving limited fiscal agility for emergent or late-year proposals.
In short, my abstention reflects conditional support for the broader vision but urges a higher standard for governance design. Going forward, I would like to see proposals of this nature handled with more granularity, modular voting options, clearly defined administrator roles, and verifiable participation mechanisms. These enhancements would empower DReps to make more informed decisions and strengthen the legitimacy of governance outcomes across the ecosystem.
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
As Wada DRep, we represent a decentralized and globally connected network of Cardano community builders, innovators, and voters; many based across Africa and the diaspora. Our role in constitutional governance is to act in the best interests of the ecosystem while reflecting the priorities of our community and honoring our internal deliberative frameworks.
We have voted YES on the proposal titled “Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget – 275M ADA Administered by Intersect.” This proposal marks a historic step in Cardano’s transition to decentralized governance under the Voltaire era. It represents the culmination of months of community signaling, deliberation, and alignment, bringing together a comprehensive, community-approved set of proposals under a single, well-coordinated treasury framework.
We voted yes because this proposal honors the will of the Cardano community and adheres to the Constitution in both form and spirit. The ₳275.3M budget aggregates 39 community-vetted proposals, each of which surpassed the DRep support threshold (>50%) during the final temperature check via Ekklesia. These proposals represent a wide spectrum of Cardano’s ecosystem needs, from core development, research, and open-source tooling to governance infrastructure, community funding mechanisms, and global outreach.
Importantly, we at Wada had already reviewed and supported the majority of these proposals during our internal budget evaluation process, guided by an internal treasury ceiling of ₳280 million ADA. Supporting this unified budget is therefore not just consistent but a continuation of the signal we already gave through careful review and strategic endorsement of impactful proposals. Voting yes on this aggregate proposal aligns with our previous evaluations and respects the structure and intent of the wider community budget process.
We are especially aligned with the proposal’s administrative design. Intersect’s role as the designated administrator is backed by a constitutionally compliant, smart contract–based fund management system. This includes milestone-gated disbursements, due diligence checks (KYC/KYB), audit and pause-payment mechanisms, and multi-signature oversight involving independent stakeholders. These controls are exactly what is needed to model responsible treasury stewardship in Cardano’s first constitutional budget cycle. The presence of these safeguards gives us confidence that Treasury funds will be managed transparently and only released in accordance with project performance and community expectations.
By voting yes, we are affirming the legitimacy of community-led budget formation. This proposal represents the most coordinated and participatory budget process in Cardano’s history and deserves our support as a model for future funding cycles. Additionally, we recognize and endorse the competence of Intersect to oversee fund disbursement with transparency and accountability. The organization has demonstrated its readiness to fulfill the role of administrator in alignment with the Cardano Constitution and community interest.
This vote also signals our belief that Cardano’s governance system is ready to support proposals from both founding and non-founding entities in a fair, strategic, and verifiable manner. A robust ecosystem must be built on inclusion, legitimacy, and capacity, not on legacy position alone. We believe this proposal successfully integrates contributions from across the community in a way that reflects that principle.
Finally, this vote is a signal to our fellow DReps and community members: we must not fragment our governance process with redundant or competing budget actions. The strength of this proposal lies in its cohesion, as it consolidates a wide array of high-quality proposals under a single, unified administrative track. That clarity and coordination will be essential for maintaining legitimacy and trust as we operationalize decentralized budgeting at scale.
For these reasons, we, the Wada DRep, voted YES on the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget Administered by Intersect. We see it as both a milestone in governance maturity and a foundation for the community to build upon in future funding cycles.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted10.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Abstain9.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に賛成します。すべての個別提案に賛成したわけではありませんが、Cardanoエコシステム全体への貢献を評価するとともに、憲法に準拠した監督体制やスマートコントラクトの活用による透明性と説明責任への取り組みを支持します。\n\nI support this proposal. While I did not agree with every individual item, I value its overall contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and appreciate the commitment to transparency and accountability through constitutional oversight and the intended use of smart contracts.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the proposed 2025 Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget because I believe the total amount requested is too high, especially for the first year of minimum viable on-chain governance.
I also believe that bundling 39 proposals together into a single vote limits DReps’ ability to express the differentiated support that we saw in earlier stages. This approach flattens nuance and imposes an all-or-nothing decision on a diverse set of funding priorities.
I also acknowledge the existence of the three founding entities that were allocated Genesis ADA that are working with different levels of success to improve Cardano according to their original missions. Some of these missions have been nominally completed, some of these missions continue in their original form, some continue in a new form. I do not pretend to know all the nuances.
Still I take that as a factor in my decision-making. Treasury funds should be used judiciously in complement and in awareness of the existence of the entities.
This vote against this Budget in its full size is based on:
- My participation in the DRep voting stage and the level of DRep participation as a whole;
- The level of support that some proposals received relative to others;
- The relative importance of certain proposals vs others and the quality of the teams and their dedication to Cardano’s mission;
- And the expectation that Catalyst will likely gain sufficient support (in this or future budget proposals) to continue to support smaller, experimental, or commercial projects.
While spending from the Treasury is not new (Catalyst has done it before), this is the first major annual on-chain budget, and it sets a precedent.
In my view, the issue is not inflation within the Cardano economy — most ADA will not be used to buy NFTs or FTs. Nor is it simply about a slightly higher disinflation rate. The deeper issue is ADA devaluation due to external sell pressure. Most of the funded ADA will be exchanged for fiat (USD, EUR, etc.), not recycled internally. This adds downward pressure on ADA’s price.
It is a see-saw that has its quirks.In a real-world economy, if you spend more to "jumpstart" the economy, face inflation if the supply of services and goods cannot meet demand.
In a still nascent blockchain economy, spending more essentially means converting the native token for fiat, and the result is devaluation. We are not exchanging ADA directly for Cardano economy goods and services, we are selling it into the real world. The ADA is not recycled internally. This adds downward pressure on ADA’s price.
This devaluation affects everyone:
- The most important funded projects
- The projects that were not funded
- The builders who didn’t ask for funding
- The ADA holders who fund all of it through opportunity cost
Of course, that is unavoidable. Most of the ADA allocated will likely be converted to fiat (USD, EUR, etc.) to pay for services, not retained or reused within the ecosystem. This creates exchange rate pressure, weakening ADA’s value.
The question isn’t whether devaluation will occur — it will. The real question is: Where do we draw the line? Do all 39 proposals in this budget bring more value than the cost of the devaluation they collectively impose? Do we need to bundle them all in one YES/NO budget vote? I think No.
We are approving a large, externally-focused budget at a time when Cardano’s “blockchain economy” and governance mechanism is still immature and internally fragile.
Treasury funds should primarily be focused on critical public goods in different forms. Especially if they are open source; support infrastructure, research, tools, even education, promotion of Cardano. This applies when the goods align with the long-term mission of Cardano as public infrastructure. Yes, there may be exceptions that emerge, but those exceptions are expensive — and others will pay for them.
If we overfund less impactful proposals, we risk undermining the impact of the most critical ones, simply by diluting the value of what they are paid in.
For this reason, I believe a smaller, phased budget focused tightly on foundational public goods would be a better and safer starting point.
I include this rationale as an earnest view of the proposed budget action with the aim of contributing to the process by encouraging the submitter (Intersect) to take more factors into account.
- No7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I'm supportive of most if not all the projects here in the proposal, just not on total spend allocated. That said, I have also signaled my support of a 200M NCL, this this exceeds. I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to wrap my head around the distinction of how the NCL operates and how budgets and their subsequent withdrawals will operate - and they can (and always will) coexist and yet not align completely when it comes to the numbers. I see this budget proposal as a commitment on the improvements and developments we as a community want to see happen for Cardano. There's enough flexibility between the constitution, how the NCL works, the reality of budget and treasury withdrawal timelines that this can still workout whether the NCL is 350M or 200M. The challenge is put towards Intersect to reconcile that as some of these projects extend beyond the actual epoch boundaries of the NCL, and I think that's where success in this comprehensive budget proposal becomes possible, while maintaining a more rigid or conservative control over the treasury. In short, we can control 6-mo net change of the treasury value while supporting a greater budget proposal that spans a year, or more.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
Budget: 275M ADA for 39 Cardano projects.
Community support: 3.8B ADA voted, 70% of active stake.
Projects: Cover tech, marketing, dev tools for Cardano growth.
Oversight: Intersect uses smart contracts, controls to secure funds.
Process: Open to all, top ideas with 50%+ DRep support chosen, including some I voted for. - Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
We vote YES on "Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275 M ADA administered by Intersect" Governance Info Action.
Although we acknowledge the voting process was far from perfect, we believe the proposal reflects the community’s will and received robust input through signaling on Ekklesia voting.
By entrusting Intersect with multi-sig smart-contract oversight, KYC/KYB checks and milestone-based disbursements, this action aligns with our commitment to rigorous stewardship and trustworthy execution.
We see this budget as a statement that Cardano’s growth will be fueled by strategic collaboration, measurable outcomes and ongoing community feedback.
While some proposals in this bundle have not met the 67 % threshold we’d expect for a Treasury Withdrawal GA, since the 39 proposals will most likely be submitted as individual GA, we believe it’s appropriate to tentatively back the info action and keep the momentum going.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳Rationale
🚨Decision Update - Coin Ceylon DRep has voted YES on Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by Intersect - We believe this decision deserves full context.
To understand our position and the rationale behind our vote, read more at -🌐 - https://www.coinceylon.com/drep/#our-rationales - Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "Sim" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1u9x73kwufaxa70lfy59g4ynwyrcsaxdcd0gxzzmh67s9fxq4j8hqqk2phgh), pois houve uma checagem de temperatura por meio de uma votação prévia conduzida pelo Intersect, e as propostas listadas para receber financiamento tiveram boa aceitação pela maioria dos DReps. Além disso, foram apresentadas métricas de controle de qualidade e execução do projeto, de modo a garantir o acompanhamento pela comunidade.
[English]
We chose to vote "Yes" on this governance action (gov_action1u9x73kwufaxa70lfy59g4ynwyrcsaxdcd0gxzzmh67s9fxq4j8hqqk2phgh) because a temperature check was conducted through a prior vote led by Intersect, and the proposals listed for funding were well received by the majority of DReps. Additionally, quality control and project execution metrics were presented to ensure proper community oversight. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.1M ₳No rationale
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
This budget surpasses my personal NCL of 250M ADA. I also do not support omnibus budgets, and a significant amount of proposals that were successfully passed did not meet the on chain threshold of 2.69B ADA. Omnibus budgets are the only way skewed results like this are able to circumvent intended On-Chain guardrails and thresholds. I went through the Ekklesia budget voting process, and could not find enough worthwhile proposals to surpass my NCL of 250M ADA.
- No3M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私はこの提案にYES票を投じます。
この275M ADAの予算提案は、Intersectが主導して調整された39のプロポーザルをまとめたものであり、Cardanoの技術・研究・ガバナンス・マーケティングなど、多岐にわたる分野にバランスよく配分されている点を高く評価します。
特に賛同する理由は次の通りです：- 実行性と正当性の両立 : すべての提案は、EkklesiaでのDRep支持率50%以上という明確な基準を満たしており、Cardano憲法に準拠した形で透明に選定されています。
- 戦略的・包括的な予算設計 : IOGやTWEAGによるコア開発、Intersect運営、ZK技術、Catalystインフラなど、Cardanoの2025年〜2026年の前進に不可欠な分野に重点配分されています。
- スマートコントラクトによる支出監視 : すべての支出は、マルチシグによるスマートコントラクト管理の下で段階的に執行され、進捗報告と監査も行われる予定であり、ガバナンスとしての信頼性も高いです。
この提案は、CardanoのVoltaireフェーズにおいて、分散型・戦略的・透明性のある財政運営を実現する鍵になると確信しています。私はこの方向性に強く賛成します。
I cast a YES vote on this proposal.
This 275M ADA budget proposal consolidates 39 individual proposals coordinated by Intersect and covers a wide range of domains including core development, governance, research, and marketing. I strongly support this comprehensive and balanced approach.
Here’s why:
Legitimacy and Execution Readiness
All included proposals received over 50% DRep support in Ekklesia and were selected through a transparent, constitutionally-aligned process.Strategic Allocation
Funding is directed to critical areas such as IOG and TWEAG’s engineering efforts, Intersect operations, zero-knowledge tech, and Catalyst infrastructure—each essential to Cardano’s roadmap through 2025–2026.Smart Contract-Based Oversight
Disbursements will be managed through multisig smart contracts with milestone-based releases and community-facing reporting and auditability, ensuring a high standard of governance.
This proposal embodies what decentralized, strategic, and transparent treasury management should look like in the Voltaire era. I fully support this direction.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
We need more granularity to ensure proper financial oversight. Each multi-million dollar proposal should stand on its own.
- No2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale