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.
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳Rationale
While this is likely to pass, I will not vote for a proposal that i believe contains wasteful spending. Governance should be laser focused on scaling right now.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
My votes for the currently active budget governance actions are as follows:
- ✅ YES on the 275M Intersect Budget
- ✅ YES on the Amaru Node Development Budget
- ❌ NO on the 7.5M Community Builders Budget
The Intersect budget includes a broad set of proposals that are generally positive for the Cardano ecosystem. While I may have reservations about some individual proposals, approving the budget doesn't automatically release funds. I can re-evaluate specific items later when the associated treasury withdrawal actions are submitted on chain. I strongly recommend avoiding overly grouped treasury withdrawals, bundling too many proposals together can result in good initiatives being blocked due to a few contentious ones.
As for the Amaru Node Development Budget, if it had been included in the recent Ekklesia vote, it likely would have passed, and I would have supported it then as well. That's why I will support it now too. For better clarity, I recommend including the requested budget amount in the governance action title next time.
I would've preferred to vote on the Community Builders Budget after seeing the outcome of the Intersect budget. If that last one were to fail, I might have considered supporting the community one, but since it was submitted beforehand, that option is off the table now. More importantly, this budget doesn't include the proposals from founding entities and there are no separate gov actions for those. It doesn't make sense to fund only this subset of proposals in isolation imho. So for now I can only assume the Intersect one will pass, which renders this budget unnecessary. Additionally, this budget appoints Intersect as the administrator, yet includes the Starstream proposal, which will not use Intersect as an administrator. For these reasons, I cannot support the Community Builders Budget at this time.
I'm aware that some of my reasons for voting NO on the community budget could also apply, to some extent, to the Amaru budget. However, the Amaru budget doesn't overlap with another Budget.
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳Rationale
YES Vote Rationale
I support the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget Info Action proposing an aggregate allocation of 275,269,340 ada administered by Intersect over 73 epochs. While the process was not without its imperfections, I believe it represents a good-faith effort toward participatory budgeting under constrained conditions. We should acknowledge these limitations while also recognizing the importance of continuity and collective progress.
This proposal is constitutionally compliant and aligns with the current Net Change Limit (NCL), fulfilling both the procedural and fiduciary standards expected of on-chain governance.
The 39 included proposals each surpassed the >50% support threshold and requested Intersect as their Administrator, adding further coherence and administrative accountability to the aggregate action. Although voting yes on this proposal, I'm looking forward to revisiting the 39 proposals as an extra layer in the treasury withdrawal actions following this one.
The budget supports mission-critical areas across the ecosystem necessary to sustain Cardano’s roadmap, governance evolution, and broader ecosystem momentum. I also hope Intersect, as the Administrator, will implement appropriate safeguards to manage potential selling pressure from large Treasury disbursements, maintaining stability and confidence in the ecosystem.
VOTE0013
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES because this single, on-chain budget translates the broad DRep mandate expressed in Ekklesia—more than 70 % of active stake—into an executable plan that remains beneath the 300 M ADA Net Change Limit I already endorsed. By grouping the thirty-nine proposals that cleared the 50 % support threshold and explicitly asked Intersect to act as administrator, we avoid a patchwork of separate withdrawals, reduce deposits that smaller teams cannot afford, and give the community one clear point of oversight. Each project will still face its own due-diligence, milestone, and smart-contract escrow before funds leave the treasury, so low-quality work can be halted without jeopardising the rest. Approving the budget now keeps treasury outflows roughly in line with expected inflows, prevents decision-making gridlock, and lets builders focus on delivering the 2025 roadmap while DReps retain the right to scrutinise every withdrawal. For these reasons, and to maintain momentum under the constitutional process we helped create, I support the Intersect aggregate budget.
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I voted NO to Intersect’s approach to coordinating and funding these projects, there are many initiatives lacking sufficient support for treasury withdrawal approval. Many proposals are more suitable for other means of funding. Also the proposed total funding exceeds a prudent target of 200 million ADA, as outlined in my prior governance action rationales. I woulld like to see a comprehensive review of the emergent budget process to develop a streamlined, efficient method that better supports Cardano’s treasury withdrawal proactices.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
As a dREp I voted YES on the 275M ADA Budget administered by Intersect. My vote does not mean that I agree with funding all of the proposals contained herein. Voting YES is an acknowledgement of due process and a signal to support furthering Cardano Governance and budgeting for 2025. Each proposal contained herein will have a Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action submitted separately: each with a 67% approval threshold, and I will vote YES to the ones I agree with. If proposals for Withdrawal should be clumped together in a way that I deem unacceptable I will vote NO on those that are.
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The proposal to allocate a 275 million ADA budget in one consolidated on-chain action raises fundamental concerns that strike at the heart of Cardano’s long-term monetary and governance strategy. While the ambition to fund critical technical development is understandable, the conflation of essential projects with discretionary or even questionable expenditures undermines the clarity and discipline required for sustainable treasury management.
Cardano’s fixed supply and disinflationary emission schedule are not mere marketing points—they are pillars of our network’s integrity and competitive advantage. Unlike traditional fiscal budgeting, treasury disbursements on Cardano must be approached as a form of monetary policy intervention, with profound implications for inflation and token value. The analogy to Bitcoin’s sub-1% inflation rate is instructive: protocols that fail to maintain stringent control over supply risk market devaluation and loss of confidence. Cardano’s current sub-2% inflation is already a delicate balance; introducing large, loosely vetted expenditures threatens to destabilize this equilibrium.
The governance process itself reveals critical weaknesses. Bundling diverse proposals into a single, massive budget obscures granular scrutiny and forces DReps into an all-or-nothing vote. This approach disenfranchises the community’s ability to engage meaningfully and erodes trust in the decision-making framework. Proper governance demands transparency, segmented voting, and rigorous application of spam filters to prevent dilution of focus and resources on non-essential initiatives.
Moreover, the absence of a clearly defined spending ceiling prior to proposal consideration inverts responsible budgeting principles. We must first establish how much the treasury can sustainably allocate without compromising network health, then apply stringent selectivity to proposals based on strategic alignment and demonstrable impact. The fear that the Network Control Limit (NCL) is being treated as a target rather than a constraint is not hypothetical—it is manifesting in real-time and must be addressed with urgency.
From my extensive experience navigating complex, technology-driven ecosystems, I assert that unchecked treasury spending is the single greatest existential risk Cardano faces today. We must recalibrate our governance approach to prioritize cautious, business-minded stewardship of resources, ensuring that every ADA spent advances Cardano’s foundational vision of a decentralized, scalable, and scientifically grounded blockchain.
I stand firmly against this haphazard spending trajectory and call upon our community and fellow DReps to adopt a more disciplined, transparent, and strategic framework for treasury governance. Our protocol’s future stability depends on it.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale
- No964.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes955.7K ₳No rationale
- No949.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes948.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
We are voting YES to Intersect's budget proposal. It provides resources to keep working on some of the highest priorities to keep moving Cardano's ecosystem forward. Some level of consultation was done and supported by an offchain temprature check with dreps.
- Yes798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
The community signaled support for the projects that comprise this budget. While I am not in favor of some of them, and I find the scope of the budget excessive, I'm not convinced that we should get bogged down here and insist on a more granular collection of budget definitions. I will NOT, however, approve of any Treasury withdrawal at this scale and scope.
- YesChanged763.4K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No763.4K ₳No rationale
- No759K ₳No rationale
- No731.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes707.1K ₳Rationale
We, the Dutch Drep, vote "Yes" on this proposal. The context in which this proposal finds itself is an important determinant of this decision.
Primary Supporting Arguments
Contextual Necessity: The proposal is situated within a context that demands progress. The current stage of development and the needs of the ecosystem make it important to move forward with the budgetary process. Productive community builders find themselves lacking funds.
Need for Budgetary Progress: It is widely recognized that advancing the budgetary process is essential. Delays or stagnation would hinder the growth and effectiveness of the Cardano ecosystem.
Strong Community Participation: There has been substantial participation from the active voting stake. This high level of engagement demonstrates broad community interest and legitimacy in the decision-making process.
Primary Concerns
Script Witnesses Not Included: The off-chain voting process did not include script witnesses, which impacts a measure of the true will of the community (the Dutch Drep was not able to participate in the Ekklesia vote).
Administrator Role Lacks Context: The administrator role, as currently defined, does not have sufficient context or clarity, which could lead to challenges in effective oversight and governance.
Risk of Aggregating with 'low-impact' Projects: By aggregating proposals, there is a risk of including projects that may fall under fraud, waste, or abuse. Although not directly visible, such a "poison pill" effect is a serious concern, as it could undermine the integrity of the funding process.
Recommendation
Include Script witnesses capability for off-chain voting.
Improve the administrator oversight transparency including how milestones shall be assessed and by which persons, teams, committees, or subcontractors.
The risk of low-impact proposals bundled with effective proposals is significant, and may require additional time, effort and loss of funds from the teams involved. Collaboration and transparency can help mitigate this issue, teams are encouraged to assess with prudent risk management with whom they submit proposals and verify with experts before entering into such bundled constructs.
Conclusion
On balance, the need for progress and the strong community participation outweigh the identified risks. We are voting "Yes" on this proposal, with the expectation that the community and administrators will work together to resolve outstanding concerns.
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
After thorough consideration of Interests Budget Info Action for the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem, I cast my vote in favor of this proposal. While I initially advocated for a Net Change Limit preserving maximal treasury reserves, I find the withdrawal of 275,269,340 ADA to be a measured compromise. This allocation—distributed across 39 rigorously vetted initiatives spanning core development, governance, marketing, and innovation—reflects the collective will of our community, as demonstrated by the participation of over 3.8B ADA in stake-weighted signaling. My endorsement stems from profound appreciation for the contributors behind these proposals. Their dedication to advancing Cardano's infrastructure (e.g., Optimistic Rollups, ZK Bridges, decentralized funding models) and ecosystem tools (from PyCardano to hardware wallet maintenance) exemplifies the ingenuity that sustains our blockchain. The multi-sig oversight framework and milestone-based disbursements further ensure responsible treasury stewardship. This budget embodies the maturation of Cardano's governance: community-driven, constitutionally aligned, and strategically focused on delivering the 2025 roadmap. I commend Intersect for facilitating this transparent process and trust in their administration of these funds.
- Yes705.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes on the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by Intersect. While I do not support each individual proposal encapsulated, I do understand the absolute urgency in moving the process forward and getting funds administered. The total amount requested (275 million ADA) is within the range set forth by the supported Net Change Limit Info Action. The proposals included in this budget were approved by the majority of voting power of DReps who participated in the Ekklesia off chain polling process. The funds are needed to continue important work which should not be delayed given this critical period in Cardano's development. The budget brings together 39 initiatives focused on development, infrastructure, and marketing, which all align with Cardano’s 2025 roadmap. Furthermore, this is not a direct request for funds but a recognition that the combined budget is approved so that future Treasury Withdrawals for each 39 project can be submitted and approved individually. In summary, the Intersect budget includes a broad set of proposals that are generally approved by the Cardano ecosystem, and while I may have reservations about some individual proposals, approving the budget doesn't automatically release funds, because DReps can re-evaluate specific items when the associated treasury withdrawal actions are submitted on chain. It is essential to not delay treasury expenditures any further.
- Yes616.3K ₳Rationale
Lalkul is voting YES on this budget proposal to ensure continuity of key ecosystem activities such as Project Catalyst, Cardano Summits, and other essential initiatives. While there is room to improve the budget planning process, rejecting this proposal at this stage would cause unnecessary disruption and delay.
Rather than halting momentum, we support moving forward with this budget while committing to work collaboratively on process improvements for future cycles. - No605.7K ₳No rationale
- No590.5K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged587.6K ₳Rationale
I vote Yes because this Info Action promotes transparency, accountability, and better governance. Splitting the treasury request into 39 separate governance actions allows voters to assess each item on its own merit.
This modular approach ensures:
Informed decision-making by the community
Avoidance of bundled approval of unrelated or less-supported items
Simplified auditing and tracking of treasury spending
Improved alignment between community values and funding outcomes
Cardano governance should move toward more granular and democratic practices like this. I fully support this direction.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes559.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain501K ₳Rationale
I’m abstaining on this one.
Not because I think the proposal is bad, I actually don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. The community clearly signaled support for these projects, and I respect that. If people voted to fund them, then yes, let them go ahead. That part makes sense to me.
But here’s the thing. I’ve been pretty consistent about wanting treasury spending to stay closer to 200 million ADA. If you twist my arm, maybe 250 million...but this budget takes us to 275 million, and that just feels like too much. Even if I think the proposal itself is technically fine, voting yes would contradict everything I’ve already said about staying within limits.
Also, each of these proposals will still go through treasury withdrawal. Nothing gets funded automatically. They’ll be scrutinized one by one, so I don’t see this Info Action as make-or-break. It’s more procedural than anything.
So while I support the spirit of this and I’m not voting no, I’m also not going to vote yes just to stay in line. I’d rather abstain and be honest about where I stand. - Yes499K ₳No rationale
- Yes478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes467.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes450.2K ₳Rationale
I voted YES on the Budget Info Action because it is a procedural step to advance the budgeting process under the Constitution, it does not itself allocate funds. Actual funding will require Treasury Withdrawal proposals, passing a high 67% threshold. That provides enough protection against unvetted spending.