Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by Intersect
245 DReps voted · 72 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote · 3 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 3 to yes, together voting with 65.7M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes457.4M ₳Rationale
Yoroi, as a DRep, votes Yes on this Info Action regarding Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by Intersect (e14de8d9dc4f4d...91ee00) based on the rationale below
Rationale
Coordinated and Accountable Budgeting: The Info Budget Action presents a clear structure for organizing and signaling support for ecosystem-critical initiatives through 39 proposals backed by the Cardano community, while preserving accountability in how treasury funds are released and monitored.
Secure Fund Oversight: With Intersect as the administrator, built-in controls like multisig wallets, milestone tracking, and due diligence strengthen transparency and protect treasury resources.
Support for Ecosystem Growth Including DeFi: Many proposals within this budget aim to improve infrastructure, scalability, and developer tools, laying the groundwork for future DeFi innovation on Cardano.
In conclusion, Yoroi sees this as a major milestone in Cardano’s journey toward transparent, decentralized governance, and is proud to support this step forward.
- Yes441.6M ₳Rationale
I voted YES for the 7.5M and 275M budgets, including requirements that I would like met before treasury withdrawals could be made.
*Even if all of these conditions are met, I would not necessarily automatically vote YES on the Treasury Withdrawal governance action.
Treasury withdrawal governance actions must be performed in reasonably granular chunks. This is a requirement, and any unreasonably aggregated Treasury withdrawal governance actions will be immediately voted NO.
Please have it reviewed by the relevant committee. (In particular, milestone setting, KPIs and target values, and their feasibility (including technical reviews if necessary) ) This does not necessarily mean getting "approval" from the committee. Please attach the review results from the committee (even if they are negative).
For each proposal, I outlined the requirements I wanted them to meet before the treasury drawdown could take place. In particular, I would like the following to be implemented for proposals that include large budgets with multiple contents:"Please rationally break down the contents of the proposal, hold a DRep vote on each one (off-chain voting is also acceptable), and reflect the voting results in the treasury withdrawal governance action."
At the time of submission of this vote
https://github.com/cardanoz/drep/blob/822355afa4b4bb0c22a0f7f1b70529d0209f2229/ga/cardano_budget_yuta_public%20-%20Cardano%20Budget%202025_Conditions.pdf
If there are any changes, they will be reflected in the next sheet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M8JAuAntJOa7Z6j3GfC2hWFl4kbZLkzEel_cN4-kymw/edit?usp=sharing
ーーー
トレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションまでに満たして欲しい要件を添えた上で、7.5Mと275MのBudgetにYESを投票しました。
*これらの条件がすべて満たされたとしても、必ずしも自動的にトレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じるわけではありません。
トレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションは、合理的に細分化された単位で実施する必要があります。これは必須要件であり、不合理に集約されたトレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションは、直ちに反対票を投じます。
関連する委員会によるレビューを受けてください。（特に、マイルストーンの設定、KPIと目標値、そしてそれらの実現可能性（必要に応じて技術的なレビューを含む）について。)これは必ずしも委員会からの「承認」を得ることを意味するものではありません。委員会によるレビュー結果を添付してください（否定的な結果であっても）。
各提案について、トレジャリー引き出しガバナンスアクションを実施する前に満たすべき要件を概説しました。特に、私は金額が大きく複数の内容のBudgetを含む提案書に関して、それらを合理的に細分化して細分化された単位でDRepからの投票による需要調査をしてほしいと考えています。
この投票の提出時点：
https://github.com/cardanoz/drep/blob/822355afa4b4bb0c22a0f7f1b70529d0209f2229/ga/cardano_budget_yuta_public%20-%20Cardano%20Budget%202025_Conditions.pdf
変更があったら次のシートに反映：
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M8JAuAntJOa7Z6j3GfC2hWFl4kbZLkzEel_cN4-kymw/edit?usp=sharing
- Yes304.6M ₳Rationale
Rationale:
This budget info action represents a constitutionally required checkpoint under Cardano Constitution, and its passage is a prerequisite for any treasury withdrawal. As such, EMURGO supports this budget info action not only for its content but also for upholding the governance framework that ensures decentralized, accountable, and transparent use of the Cardano Treasury.
The budget info action reflects months of collaborative effort across the Cardano community. It includes structured, community-driven submissions that span core infrastructure, governance tooling, open-source development, marketing initiatives and critical ecosystem services. We recognize the collective diligence demonstrated through multiple public AMAs, forums, and voting platforms, culminating in proposals that have met the quality standards expected of this process.
EMURGO acknowledges Intersect’s role as the designated Administrator, as well as the adoption of oversight mechanisms, including smart contract-based fund flows and audit requirements. These safeguard measures strengthen our confidence in the transparency and execution of the budget.
Ultimately, we believe this budget lays a solid foundation for Cardano’s next phase of growth. EMURGO supports this Info Action as a necessary and constructive step toward sustainable treasury allocation and the long-term vision of the Cardano blockchain.
- Yes216.7M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1u9x...k2phgh. Proposals on the list of this budget info action can POTENTIALLY get funding. If individual withdrawal actions are submitted, the threshold for each proposal to actually get funds will be 67%. That's restrictive enough, and this budget info action is just pro forma to further the budget process as per the Constitution.
- Yes182.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes170.6M ₳No rationale
- No105.9M ₳Rationale
最初にNCLを定めた上で、提案を分割・提出する形式が理想的だと考えます。その順番によって、DRepは各提案に対して明確な責任を持って投票でき、支持の有無も透明に示せるからです。1つの巨大なパッケージでは、それが不可能になります。Voltaire期において重要なのは、支出そのものだけではなく、支出プロセスの正当性です。それが整えば、結果的に市場の信頼にもつながります。
I firmly believe that we should define the NCL first—before evaluating proposals. Once the budget ceiling is set, proposals should be submitted in smaller, categorized groups, allowing DReps to vote responsibly and transparently on each one. This process strengthens the legitimacy of our governance decisions. During the Voltaire era, it’s not just about what we fund—but how we fund it. A clear, disciplined process will build long-term trust and stability for Cardano.
- Yes96M ₳No rationale
- No93.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget of 275M ADA, administered by Intersect.
Rationale:
I strongly oppose bundling all proposals into a single package for DReps to approve.
Critical proposals are grouped with less important or unnecessary ones, many of which belong to Catalyst.
Budget responsibility requires making decisions on individual proposals or smaller bundles, not one large one.
Proposal Breakdown:
• In Ekklesia, I voted YES for 35 proposals totaling 213.3M ADA—which is 62M ADA lower than the collective DRep-approved budget in Ekklesia.
• A separate GA exists for six of the proposals I supported—these are top-tier projects that most DReps agree will positively impact the ecosystem.
• Intersect’s GA includes 19 projects, totaling 204.2M ADA, including four IOG projects with a combined budget of 194M ADA.
• At the same time, 14 projects totaling 65.5M ADA were proposals I did not support in Ekklesia.
Assuming that IOG is able to submit its own GA for their proposals, I am talking about supporting 15 projects with a total budget of 10M ADA that I want to support.
Against this are 14 projects with a budget of 65.5M that I do not want to support.
As a DRep, I cannot accept it.
In my case, this imbalance makes the bundled approach unacceptable. I believe that many DReps will struggle with this as well.
Preferred Alternative:
I urge teams to submit their own GAs or ask Intersect to structure proposals by category or threshold.
• On-chain voting for individual proposals would be ideal, though the 100K ADA deposit for GA submissions is a challenge for many projects.
• Smaller, more focused GA bundles would allow better decision-making.
Net Change Limit (NCL) Concerns:
The current NCL is unclear, making a 275M ADA budget approval premature. There are two active GAs regarding NCL:
- 200M ADA NCL that expires May 29, 2025.
- 300M ADA NCL that expires June 8, 2025.
The existing NCL received strong support, but many DReps may have backed it simply to keep the budget process moving—not because they favored a high limit.
Until DReps align on the NCL, approving such a large budget makes little sense.
This GA expires June 13, 2025. If both active NCL GAs fail, confirming the current NCL, I will still have one epoch to reconsider my vote.
Next Steps & My Position:
I urge DReps to vote on the NCL GAs as soon as possible.
I continue to believe that budgetary responsibility is best maintained by voting on individual proposals rather than relying on an NCL. Let’s handle this on-chain.
My NO vote is a signal to Intersect that I support a process change. I do not want to approve one large bundle worth 275M ADA—I prefer individual votes or smaller proposal bundles.
However, my support for the projects I voted YES for in Ekklesia remains firm. I will vote YES if they submit their own GA.
I am also open to reconsidering all proposals, as long as they come through proper GA submissions.
Ultimately, I believe the ideal NCL should be around 250M ADA, with 10M ADA kept as a reserve for emergencies.
Balancing monetary policy protection and ecosystem investment is a challenge—we must minimize selling pressure while funding growth.
The solution is ensuring that only projects with a positive long-term impact receive ADA from the Treasury.
In my view, some proposals in the current bundle are unnecessary.
- Yes89.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes89.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes83.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes80.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes78.6M ₳Rationale
这项提案并非直接拨款，而是为接下来的提款设定预算上限。未来每个项目仍需单独提交提款请求，并接受DRep审议与投票，门槛高达67%，确保资金使用透明、可控。同时，Intersect将采用智能合约和多签托管，加强资金安全与交付追踪。这是推动Cardano治理落地的重要一步，因此投赞成票
- NoRevoted75.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the proposed "Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by Intersect" because I believe the total amount requested is too high. More importantly, I believe this process has failed to meet the standards of decentralized governance.
I’m disappointed that the vote was not conducted fully on-chain. As a DRep, I cannot support off-chain processes that lack transparency, auditability, and decentralization.
Bundling 39 proposals into a single vote is misleading, non-transparent, and enables manipulation. It forces DReps into a binary, all-or-nothing choice despite significant differences among the proposals.
The proposal also relies on unverifiable off-chain metrics, such as the claim that "More than 3.8B ada in voting stake participated, representing over 70% of actively delegated stake (excluding pre-defined voting options)." Without on-chain data, such figures cannot be independently verified or trusted and as a result I believe does not support this proposals accuracy.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
I am voting NO on the proposed "Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget - 275M ada Administered by Intersect" because I believe the total amount requested is too high. More importantly, I believe this process has failed to meet the standards of decentralized governance.
I’m disappointed that the vote was not conducted fully on-chain. As a DRep, I cannot support off-chain processes that lack transparency, auditability, and decentralization.
Bundling 39 proposals into a single vote is misleading, non-transparent, and enables manipulation. It forces DReps into a binary, all-or-nothing choice despite significant differences among the proposals.
The proposal also relies on unverifiable off-chain metrics, such as the claim that "3.92B was cast in Ekklesia—72% participation." Without on-chain data, such figures cannot be independently verified or trusted and as a result I believe does not support this proposals accuracy.
- Yes69.8M ₳No rationale
- No55.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting “No” on the Ecosystem Budget 275M proposed by Intersect.
While I recognize that some of the proposals may bring value to our ecosystem, this does not imply that I support all of them — particularly not the amounts being requested.
I do believe that certain projects are important for Cardano’s growth, but we must seriously question whether the requested amounts are truly necessary, especially considering the impact on the overall ADA supply in such a short timeframe.
For any currency, supply control is far more critical than technological advancement.
A currency must preserve value and maintain trust in transactions.
Large-scale ADA withdrawals from the treasury could significantly harm the value of ADA, potentially undermining the entire Cardano ecosystem.
To safeguard the resilience of ADA’s value, we must keep budget allocations minimal and ensure that treasury spending is balanced and benefits all holders.
I urge all projects to revise their funding requests, aiming to minimize withdrawals and adopt a more conservative, long-term approach to treasury utilization. - Yes50.8M ₳Rationale
I think this step mostly adds delays and confusion, since 67% is already needed in the final vote. But since it's part of the process now, I'm voting Yes to let projects move forward.
- Yes43.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes41.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes37M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.3M ₳Rationale
I support the intent behind this budget and recognize the effort that went into gathering community input through the signaling process. However, I am abstaining due to concerns about the overall structure and lack of clarity around how funds will be prioritized and measured for impact. While some proposals may offer real value, others are harder to evaluate without more transparency and clear milestones. This abstention reflects support for the community's role in shaping the budget, while also calling for stronger oversight and clearer ROI alignment in future treasury planning.
- Abstain32.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes31.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes30.6M ₳Rationale
We support this proposal and will vote in favor.
This budget proposal allocates 275,269,340 ADA across 39 initiatives related to the maintenance, development, research, marketing, and governance of the Cardano ecosystem. It follows a community-driven submission process and was shaped by DRep support through a formal signaling process. Intersect will act as the Administrator and oversee the distribution of funds, with plans to introduce transparent mechanisms such as smart contracts and multi-signature controls where applicable. All treasury withdrawals will require approval through separate governance actions and must remain within the scope of the active Net Change Limit.
We believe this proposal represents an important step toward realizing Cardano’s 2025 roadmap. From the perspectives of transparency, sustainability, and decentralization, we find its structure sound and well-justified, and thus we support its approval.
- No28.7M ₳Rationale
DReps should be given a chance to vote on individual budget proposal as much as possible, not lumped together in an omni-bus proposal like this. Many of proposals included here do NOT achieve the 2.6B ADA vote required to cross 50% voting power threshold.
- Yes28.7M ₳No rationale
- No28.1M ₳Rationale
While I appreciate the ambition behind this budget, the 275M ADA allocation feels large for a first cycle under a still-maturing governance process. Including 39 different proposals in a single budget adds significant administrative overhead, especially when several projects may struggle to reach the 67% withdrawal threshold later on. A more modest budget with fewer proposals would allow us to refine our procedures and iteratively improve for the next cycle. For these reasons, I will be voting NO on this proposal.
- Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes25.9M ₳Rationale
I have voted YES on the current proposal to set the Cardano Blockchain Ecosytem budget to 275M ada.
While I do not support each individual proposal encapsulated, I do understand the absolute urgency in moving the ball forward.
There are a number of encapsulated initiatives I strongly believe should not be funded and will address those at the relevant treasury withdrawal stages.
I do believe core development, strategic scaling initiatives and Intersect should all be funded
- No25.8M ₳No rationale
- No25.4M ₳No rationale
- No23.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes22.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.7M ₳Rationale
I vote “YES” in favour of the proposed Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Budget of 275,269,340 ada that would be administered by Intersect. While I may not agree on the high ada valuation of this budget I am fully aware that we are now in the month of June 2025 and fast approaching a critical window for funding the development and maintenance of the Cardano blockchain and its wider ecosystem. It is also an ada value that leaves some room in the currently active net change limit of 350 million ada for other projects who do not wish to appoint Intersect as their administrator to still be able to propose their own separate budgets.
The proposal is well constructed and has been informed by numerous off-chain processes, including initial project applications through Intersect, followed by voting on the Ekklesia platform, using live DRep voting stake, in order to narrow down the projects included in this proposed budget.
Treasury withdrawal and fund management processes are outlined in the proposal and also serve as a reminder that, even if this budget is approved, it does not automatically guarantee funding for the projects listed within. Projects will still be subject to due diligence and oversight throughout the budget period. Treasury withdrawal proposals will also have to pass with the consent of DReps and the ICC/CC, passing this budget would allow corresponding treasury withdrawals to be proposed as mandated by the Constitution. It would be a progression in the Cardano governance process and not necessarily a guarantee that the proposed budget limit would be reached or required.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- No17.2M ₳Rationale
I will individually approve many of these budget items but I don't approve of commingling service providers and bundling all this as an omni-bus budget proposal.
- No16.3M ₳Rationale
The budget process itself is flawed. Features need to be decoupled from budget amounts using an Agile approach as described here: https://github.com/Dracula-DAO/cardano-drep/blob/main/blog/2025/2025-04-24.md
- Abstain15.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes12M ₳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.
- Yes11.9M ₳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.
- YesRevoted10.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes9.5M ₳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.