Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1
186 DReps voted · 74 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote · 4 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 4 to yes, 1 to abstain, together voting with 28M ₳ of voting power.
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted1.3M ₳Rationale
While we support the initiative as a whole and see value in DeFi (specifically stablecoin) liquidity, we cannot justify the overhead costs that accompany the liquidity management. For legal formation with a limited 1 year of regulatory oversight, we foresee potential complications arising after the first year. Ultimately, we are not confident that the DeFi Liquidity budget as a whole will be successful in its mission of creating organic trading activity, and the overhead described in the first withdrawal further decreases our confidence in an effective deployment of these funds.
Earlier votes
No6mo agoSuperseded
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this treasury withdrawal. The choice here is whether to fund legal and operational setup now for a broader DeFi-liquidity program, or to keep treasury spending focused on priorities I see as more clearly shared public goods. I acknowledge a real improvement in this version: the proposal is more structured, with clearer audit, contract controls, and refund paths. The downside I cannot ignore is that approving this step still advances a treasury direction I do not support in principle.
- AbstainChanged1.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget – Withdrawal 1 after careful consideration of concerns raised by CardanoYoda, particularly regarding the anonymity of directors overseeing the initiative. While I recognize the potential value of improving DeFi liquidity on Cardano, the lack of transparency around key decision-makers introduces accountability and governance risks that are difficult to justify at this funding level. Treasury-funded initiatives should meet a high standard for openness and verifiability, especially when entrusted with significant capital. Until clearer disclosure and accountability mechanisms are in place, I do not believe this proposal meets the bar required for responsible Treasury allocation.
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
**I voted "No" before, I vote "No" again. **Everything seems to be duplicated in the Cardano ecosystem. Why do it once if you can do it twice?
The necessity case here remains underdeveloped. The proposal argues that DeFi liquidity should be boosted and that this withdrawal is needed to set up the legal and on-chain components. Fine, but I still need proof that this is the best path, not merely a path. I do not see a convincing demonstration here that the ecosystem lacks existing mechanisms, existing committees, existing legal wrappers, or alternative lower-cost structures that could achieve the same preparatory objective. An Amaru multisig and a legal entity may be useful, but usefulness is not necessity!
Sundae Labs asks the treasury to finance pre-deployment overhead before proving constitutional clarity, genuine necessity, and superiority over lower-cost alternatives. Process language is not enough. If a proposal cannot make the case for why this setup must exist, why this structure must be funded now, and why the Constitution is unquestionably satisfied, we should not unlock treasury funds!
- Yes987.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes969.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes966.3K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted929.9K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this treasury withdrawal.
If we as a community are not willing to invest in our own DeFi ecosystem, it is difficult to expect external capital and builders to do so. Strengthening on-chain liquidity is a critical step toward making Cardano more competitive, functional, and attractive for real-world usage.
We also recognize that this proposal is led by experienced and competent individuals who are familiar with both Cardano’s ecosystem and the operational requirements of deploying capital responsibly. This significantly increases our confidence in the execution of the proposed plan.
In addition, the proposal provides a high level of transparency and structure, with a detailed breakdown of how the requested funds will be used, clear deliverables, defined timelines, and explicit refund conditions. This level of specificity is essential, as it allows the community to hold the responsible parties accountable against clearly defined expectations.
From our perspective, this is a well-structured initial step to establish the necessary legal and technical foundation for a broader DeFi liquidity strategy.
For these reasons, we support this proposal.
Earlier votes
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes870.3K ₳No rationale
- No827.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes792.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes765.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes742.6K ₳Rationale
YES. This is a reasonable initial step to enable broader DeFi liquidity deployment. I support it.
- Yes637.5K ₳Rationale
I am a proponent of investing in our own ecosystem with our own funds. However, at currently prices and trading volume levels, this proposal will not make a difference in todays market. Please up the withdraw to 90mil ADA, and use it to increase the volume of daily trade activity for each pairing, and report "revenue" to the treasury as fees paid. Since Sundae is leading this proposal, would be wise for them to lower fees on specified trading pairs. This will boost their trading volume ratio in the ecosystem and increase LP fee ratio. So Cardano sees an uptick in TVL, on-chain transactions, fee collection and DeFi gets higher liquidity and LP rewards.
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- No604.7K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no because this withdrawal allocates 800,000 ADA, roughly 83% of the total ask, to establishing a Cayman Islands legal entity and administrative overhead before deploying a single ADA into DeFi liquidity. That's backwards prioritization: legal structure consumes the budget while the actual liquidity problem remains unfunded. The proposal lacks named directors, explicit conflict-of-interest disclosures, hard fee caps on director compensation, and transparent justification for choosing the Cayman Islands over more cost-effective jurisdictions like Marshall Islands or BVI that deliver equivalent legal protection at significantly lower expense.
The committee structure concentrates meaningful control over treasury resources in a small group with 5-of-9 multisig authority but insufficient governance safeguards. Directors aren't identified before disbursement, their time commitments and responsibilities aren't clearly defined, and potential conflicts with Cardano projects that could benefit from liquidity allocation decisions aren't disclosed or managed. Without knowing who these individuals are, I can't evaluate whether $664,000 in legal setup costs are proportionate to their actual scope of work or ability to manage what may eventually become a much larger fund.
The proposal also doesn't provide a sufficiently concrete framework for how future liquidity deployment will generate measurable ecosystem benefits or create organic trading activity. I'm skeptical that treasury-subsidized inorganic liquidity provision with excessive overhead costs is the right strategy when we should be incentivizing organic liquidity through attractive yield opportunities that bring capital from other DeFi ecosystems, especially now that we have an official USDCx bridge. With ADA at low prices and the treasury under pressure, spending 800,000 ADA on legal formation and administrative setup without delivering immediate liquidity feels misaligned with current priorities.
I support building proper DeFi rails and acknowledge improvements in this version, like clearer audit processes, contract controls, and refund paths. But I can't approve a withdrawal where the majority of funds go to overhead before demonstrating practical impact. Finally, I believe Cardano's DeFi infrastructure needs fundamental architectural rethinking before we commit treasury capital to subsidizing liquidity in the current model. The DeFi Kernel, a suite of fully peer-to-peer protocols developed by fallen-icarus including Cardano-Swaps (order book settlement), Cardano-Loans (credit markets), Cardano-Options (options trading), and Cardano-Aftermarket (secondary markets), all demonstrate an alternative approach that preserves user custody, delegation control, and voting rights while enabling trustless composability across DeFi primitives. This architecture treats Layer 1 as a censorship-resistant settlement layer where deep liquidity gravitates naturally, with Layer 2 solutions handling high-throughput trading while tapping into shared L1 liquidity. The current proposal locks 800,000 ADA into legal overhead for a liquidity model that forces users to surrender delegation rights to pooled smart contracts, an existential threat to Cardano's proof-of-stake security and on-chain governance. Before funding inorganic liquidity provision through expensive legal entities, we should exhaust peer-to-peer, self-custodial alternatives that align with Cardano's architectural strengths and constitutional principles. The DeFi Kernel protocols are live on testnet, currently undergoing auditing, and offer a path to capital-efficient DeFi without the overhead, centralization risks, or delegation sacrifice this proposal requires. - Yes591.1K ₳Rationale
Approving - It's important to open the gateway for more on-chain activity.
- YesRevoted582.9K ₳Rationale
Vote: YES
Disclosure: SIDAN Lab is a named contributor — we are contributing the UI for the governance smart contract at zero cost to the treasury. DeltaDeFi would also benefit indirectly from deeper ecosystem liquidity.
SIDAN Lab is voting YES. We voted YES on the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget info action last year. This withdrawal sets up the infrastructure to execute it. Voting against setup for something we already approved would be inconsistent.
Seed liquidity solves the cold-start problem — every functioning market needs initial capital before organic participation follows. We have reservations on whether the 50M deployment will be used in the most capital-efficient way, but experiments like this are how the community learns. We're contributing services at no cost to help move it forward. Whether the deployment is effective is something we'll judge from actual data once capital is live.
This proposal meets every constitutional standard we've applied in past votes: named administrators, named auditor (Invariant0 LLC), 5-of-9 multisig, monthly reporting, refund conditions, and tDAO oversight with DRep impeachment power.
The 800K ADA is scoped and itemised. The 50M deployment will require a separate vote we'll evaluate independently.
For these reasons, SIDAN Lab votes YES.
Earlier votes
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
- No579.1K ₳Rationale
📌 Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget: My Decision as a DRep
A vote is currently underway on Withdrawal 1, proposing to withdraw 800,000 ADA from the Cardano Treasury to establish the legal and technical infrastructure for a future DeFi liquidity fund.
This is the next step following the earlier discussion about allocating 50,000,000 ADA from the treasury to boost stablecoin liquidity within the Cardano ecosystem.
🔎 Proposal Summary
The proposal requests 800,000 ADA from the Treasury to:
• establish a Cayman Islands Foundation Company as the legal structure
• conduct a smart contract security audit
• deploy the Amaru multisig contract to manage funds
• prepare the infrastructure for a potential DeFi liquidity fundIn practice, this is a preparatory stage for the potential 50M ADA liquidity program.
⚠️ Why I Vote NO
I previously voted NO on the 50M ADA liquidity budget, and my position remains consistent.
Reasons:
• the proposal ultimately leads to very large treasury allocations
• funds would be managed by a committee of 9 individuals
• the structure relies on an offshore legal entity in the Cayman Islands
• DeFi infrastructure inherently carries smart contract and liquidity risksEven this preparatory withdrawal is directly connected to a plan that may deploy tens of millions of ADA from the treasury.
🗳 My Vote
I vote NO on the proposal “Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget – Withdrawal 1.”
Reason:
The Cardano ecosystem indeed needs stronger stablecoin liquidity, but treasury usage must be gradual and conservative to minimize risks for the entire network.
🖤 My DRep ID:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj3...2fg2jrYou can find me under the name MREDGARCROSS.
I registered as a DRep and am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem.
Optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world.More details 👉 https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
- Yes568K ₳Rationale
Liquidity is desperately needed in the Cardano ecosystem. Another great boost for Cardano while other chains continue to strain.
- Yes550.1K ₳No rationale
- No501.6K ₳Rationale
Nop, no bottom selling
- No501.3K ₳Rationale
- Yes481.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes379.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes371.7K ₳No rationale
- No358.6K ₳Rationale
fuck you for taking 800k just for a legal company!!
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
800,000 ADA and no liquidity provided is off to a terrible start. I do not believe in this strategy of inorganic liquidity provision with excessive overhead costs. We should be incentivizing organic liquidity instead, which would require no expensive legal entity and would directly bring in liquidity from other DeFi ecosystems, as the yield would be attractive. Especially now that we have an official bridge for USDC<>USDCx.
- No338.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes327.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain321.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this Withdrawal Action, which is in accordance with my previous votes on both the broader treasury budget and the original DeFi Liquidity Info Action.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES on this Withdrawal Action, which is in accordance with my previous votes on both the broader treasury budget and the original DeFi Liquidity Info Action.
While I consistently advocate for conservative and highly scrutinized treasury spending, I view this 800,000 ADA withdrawal not as a sunk expense, but as a mandatory security investment. Establishing a formal legal entity (Cayman Islands Foundation) to protect the community and committee members from liability, alongside funding rigorous, independent smart contract audits, are non-negotiable prerequisites before we deploy larger liquidity pools into the ecosystem.
Ultimately, this ensures we have the necessary legal accountability and technical guardrails in place, providing a secure, resilient, and professionally managed foundation to responsibly scale Cardano's DeFi landscape.
- No313.8K ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this Treasury Withdrawal because the proposed costs feel too high relative to the immediate value being delivered. Most of the requested funding is allocated to legal setup and administration before any meaningful liquidity is deployed.
I understand the need for structure and oversight, but dont think the proposal provides enough detail to justify these upfront costs or demonstrate clearly how they will translate into measurable ecosystem benefit.The proposal has made improvements, but the high overheads and limited evidence of delivery, I am taking a cautious approach and do not feel comfortable supporting a YES vote.
- Yes301.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes297K ₳Rationale
Voting YES on Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1
Summary
This action withdraws 800k ada to set up the legal and smart contract infrastructure for a stablecoin DeFi investment fund.
Additional Context
On September 22nd, 2025 I voted in favor of the referenced budget. The on-chain vote can be found here.
Conclusion
Since September, when I and many other dReps voted for the referenced budget, the price of ada has fallen from $0.85 to $0.24. We are now facing serious challenges funding the projects we need to fund. The Cardano treasury needs diversification, and this proposal moves us in that direction. I am voting for this withdrawal.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq...pzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010 - Abstain291.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes285.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes272.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.9K ₳Rationale
We need regulatory compliance and protective legal structures that work in the traditional world, and following the models proven by those who have gone before us is a shrewd approach. I'm happy with the proper governance infrastructure of this proposed committee, executive, supervisor approach. Ultimately the DAO vote will determine the spending of funds, meeting the primary objective.
I'd prefer participants in these legal structures to have proven stake in the success of Cardano, but hopefully these will emerge with time.I trust the teams involved in the smart contract portions of the plan and am pleased to see external audit budgets considered.
The overall costs seem high, but that should hopefully cater for the volatility of our asset and ensure delivery and/or refunds.
- Yes189.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes185K ₳No rationale