Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1
186 DReps voted · 62 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 17.1M ₳ Rationale
Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1
- No 16.7M ₳ Rationale
To be clear, I voted YES on the overall 50M ADA DeFi liquidity direction. This NO is about Withdrawal 1 as submitted (800,000 ADA for legal + setup).
I support building proper rails, but I can’t approve this version because the biggest cost item is the legal structure (up to 664k ADA) while key governance details are still not concrete: directors/supervisors are not named, director fees are “estimated”, and conflicts of interest aren’t transparently addressed.
I will vote YES on a revised version if it includes:
- Named directors + supervisor (before disbursement)
- Explicit COI disclosures + recusal policy
- Hard fee caps and clear scope/time commitment for directors
- Stronger cost justification for the chosen legal provider(s)
- No 16.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 13.3M ₳ Rationale
RCADA abstains on this treasury withdrawal as we consider it a strategically significant enabling action that does not yet meet the threshold for full endorsement.
While the proposal is structurally sound and demonstrates improvements in areas such as cost controls, audit provisions, and transparency mechanisms, it is not a neutral funding request. Rather, it establishes the legal, technical, and governance infrastructure required to execute a much larger treasury deployment of approximately 50 million ADA into DeFi liquidity strategies.
This introduces a level of path dependency that warrants careful consideration. Approving this withdrawal would effectively commit the ecosystem to a specific execution model before the broader strategic direction has achieved sufficient consensus or validation.
We acknowledge that increasing stablecoin liquidity and improving routing efficiency are valid objectives, and we recognise that this proposal represents a staged approach designed to reduce risk prior to large-scale capital deployment. However, the effectiveness of treasury-funded liquidity as a mechanism for sustainable ecosystem growth remains debated, particularly in relation to whether liquidity alone can attract meaningful and lasting user adoption.
We also note that this proposal introduces a hybrid governance structure through the creation of a Cayman Islands Foundation Company and a 9-person Interim Committee with delegated authority. While this may be necessary for interacting with off-chain legal and financial systems, it represents a shift away from purely on-chain governance and introduces additional layers of complexity, trust, and centralisation risk.
Importantly, current DRep sentiment reflects a lack of strong consensus on this proposal. While there is support from some major stakeholders, overall participation indicates meaningful division regarding both the implementation approach and the broader strategic direction. This reinforces our view that the proposal has not yet reached the level of maturity or alignment required for approval.
Our abstention should not be interpreted as opposition to the underlying goals of improving Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem. Rather, it reflects a position that further clarity, validation, and consensus are needed before committing treasury resources to this execution path.
RCADA remains open to supporting future iterations of this initiative if concerns around governance structure, strategic justification, and ecosystem alignment are more fully addressed.
RCADA’s full vote assessment can be found here: “https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/
- Yes 12.2M ₳ Rationale
As Wada DRep, we vote yes on the Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget – Withdrawal 1 proposal, recognising it as a necessary and well-structured step toward operationalising a previously supported initiative in a responsible and phased manner.
Our support is grounded in the clear separation this proposal establishes between infrastructure setup (₳800,000 ADA)and the eventual liquidity deployment (₳50,000,000 ADA). This phased approach reflects strong fiscal discipline and aligns with our earlier recommendation to avoid premature exposure of large treasury funds without first validating the legal and technical foundations required for execution. By limiting the current request to preparatory components, the proposal allows governance to assess readiness before committing to full-scale capital deployment.
We also acknowledge the significant improvements made in cost transparency and structural clarity. The proposal provides a detailed breakdown of legal, audit, and setup costs, offering a level of financial visibility that supports informed decision-making. In particular, the articulation of the legal framework, including the rationale for establishing a foundation entity and the associated liabilities it seeks to mitigate, demonstrates a thoughtful approach to ensuring that treasury participation in DeFi activities is both compliant and enforceable.
Additionally, we commend the inclusion of robust fund protection mechanisms, including clearly defined refund conditions, multisig-controlled disbursement (5-of-9), and commitments to ongoing transparency through reporting. These safeguards are essential given the foundational nature of this withdrawal and the larger financial pathway it enables.
Importantly, this proposal reflects responsiveness to prior governance feedback, particularly in its emphasis on phased execution, audit provisioning, and risk mitigation. The decision to separate smart contract development from audit costs, while ensuring independent verification, is also a positive signal of capital efficiency and security awareness.
That said, we note that certain areas would benefit from further refinement in subsequent phases. These include greater clarity around governance structures; particularly the composition and evolution of the interim committee, as well as more explicit articulation of how future withdrawals will be independently evaluated on their own merits. We also encourage continued efforts to ensure cost competitiveness, particularly in legal expenditures, through benchmarking or comparative justification.
On balance, we believe this proposal provides a credible, transparent, and risk-conscious foundation for enabling Cardano’s participation in DeFi liquidity provisioning. Its successful execution would position the ecosystem to deploy capital more effectively in future phases while maintaining appropriate safeguards.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 10.5M ₳ Rationale
The budget is too high for creating a company.
Marshall Islands or BVI is a more cost effective approach. Caymans is a very expensive jurisdiction and there are little to no advantages of opening in Caymans over the others
- Abstain 8.8M ₳ Rationale
本提案は、Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget（Info Action）を前提としたTreasury Withdrawalガバナンスアクションであり、当該Info Actionに対して棄権した際の判断を踏まえ、本提案についても同様に棄権とします。\n\nThis proposal is a Treasury Withdrawal governance action based on the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget Info Action. Taking into account my abstention on the underlying Info Action, I also abstain from this proposal.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I voted NO on the preceding budget info action with a rationale and expressed my concerns. A 73% majority of DRep voting power did support it when it was put forward as a budget info action. The proposal was put forward by Elder Millenial who has built SteelSwap - a Cardano DApp (no token!) that I have used most frequently over the years. This also makes me aware that the proposer does have significantly more extensive experience with Cardano DeFi.
There is some level of pragmatism that is needed if one is acting as a DRep, as was the case with the Pentad proposal. Specifically, pragmatism here for me means I do not wish to stand in the way of something already approved by more than two-thirds of DReps AND proposed by someone who has built an extremely useful and performant Dex Aggregator for ADA holders/users at a high risk as it was NOT coupled with a token sale. A passive abstain (me avoiding to vote) would effectively be counted as a No vote on this treasury withdrawal. An active abstain (me voting Abstain) does not tilt the balance towards a Yes or a No. It allows other DReps who approved the original budget info action to proceed if the current withdrawal request meets their expectations. Taking into account the proposer's unique contribution and experience with Cardano DeFi - I acknowledge my understanding of the proposal might be incomplete for me to confidently vote NO on the withdrawal. TL;DR: The specific constellation of factors for this treasury withdrawal is such that I do not see a blocking vote from me is merited. I wish the proposing team success. - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
I’m voting YES on the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget proposal.
While the Cayman setup is more expensive than some alternatives, this isn’t just about cost. It's well established for crypto already, provides a bit of piece of mind and credibility that will help everyone focus Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem growth - and not legal hurdles. It's not always one dimensional (ie cost) at the end of the day.
The proposed ₳50M allocation is only a small portion of the treasury and will be deployed gradually, making it a measured step toward real liquidity for the ecosystem. Past delays in building these capabilities show why taking this step thoughtfully now is important.
This is a pragmatic and in my opinion measured move to strengthen Cardano’s defi ecosystem.
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
Same rationale as to why I voted for the Budget Information action.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
Having previously voted in favor of the initiative to utilize treasury funds for boosting our ecosystem's liquidity, I support this first stage, which encompasses establishing all necessary legal and technical infrastructure at a reasonable cost of 800,000 ADA.
Let's proceed! - Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting yes on this withdrawal request, as I have already voted yes on the initial proposal.
- No 2.6M ₳ Rationale
While the proposal is clearly written and addresses legal and operational aspects of managing treasury funds, several concerns prevent support at this time.
Most of the requested funds (664,000 ADA) are allocated to establishing a Cayman Islands legal entity. This places the majority of the budget into legal and administrative overhead rather than technical infrastructure or ecosystem development. It is difficult to justify such spending before the practical details and expected impact of the liquidity program itself are clearly demonstrated.
Additionally, the proposal delegates significant operational authority to an interim committee. Although multisig controls and reporting are planned, the structure still concentrates meaningful control over treasury resources in a small group, which raises governance concerns for a fund that may eventually manage much larger allocations.
Finally, the proposal does not yet provide a sufficiently concrete framework for how the future liquidity deployment will generate measurable benefits for the Cardano ecosystem.
For these reasons, it would be preferable to revisit this initiative with a clearer implementation plan, stronger governance safeguards, and a more cost-efficient legal setup. Until then, this withdrawal cannot be supported.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
I am voting yes on good faith that efforts will be made to make things as sustainable as possible. We can't have unbridled spending and wasting of peoples time just to collect some ADA. I'd like to see less ada spent monthly on operations. I will give on the location of the registration which comes with high cost already, but we cant simply add costs beyond what is required by our registration.
- Abstain 2.5M ₳ Rationale
私は以前、Cardanoトレジャリーを活用してDeFi流動性を強化する方向性を検討するInfo Actionに賛成しており、その基本的な方向性には意義があると考えています。本提案も、Cardanoトレジャリーが将来的により戦略的な資金活用へ進む入口となり得る重要案件として評価しています。
ただし本件は、将来のSWF（Sovereign Wealth Fund：国家の余剰資産を長期的に運用し、経済成長や財政安定に役立てる基金）に類する運用モデルや、法的・ガバナンス上の前例となり得る可能性があります。つまり、単なる支出ではなく、トレジャリー資産を外部の金融活動に活用する仕組みの出発点になり得るという点で、極めて重要な意味を持つと考えます。
そのため、通常の支出案件以上に慎重な検討が必要です。特にInterim Committeeの権限と責任、法的構造の妥当性、資金管理の透明性、説明責任の確保について、より明確な整理が求められると考えます。
私は本提案の戦略的意義を認めつつも、Cardanoトレジャリーの将来の資金運用モデルに影響する重要案件であるからこそ、拙速ではなく、十分なガードレールの下で進めるべきだと考えます。
I previously supported the Info Action exploring the use of the Cardano treasury to strengthen DeFi liquidity, as I believe the overall direction has merit. I also recognize this proposal as an important step that could open the path for more strategic use of the Cardano treasury in the future.
However, this proposal may also create a precedent for a treasury deployment model similar to a Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF), where public assets are managed and deployed to support long-term economic growth. In that sense, this is not just a normal expenditure, but potentially the starting point for using treasury assets in broader financial activities.
For this reason, it deserves careful consideration beyond a typical spending proposal. In particular, clearer definitions are needed regarding the authority and responsibilities of the Interim Committee, the legal structure, transparency of fund management, and accountability mechanisms.
While I acknowledge the strategic importance of this proposal, precisely because it could influence the future treasury management model of Cardano, it should proceed carefully with strong safeguards rather than moving forward too quickly.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ Rationale
I support this proposal as a measured, well-structured first step toward addressing one of Cardano’s most critical gaps: DeFi liquidity. Rather than deploying large capital immediately, this withdrawal prudently focuses on establishing the legal, technical, and governance infrastructure required to manage funds responsibly. This staged approach aligns strongly with the Cardano Constitution (Article I, Sections 6 & 7), particularly around transparency, defined terms of withdrawal, auditability, and clear refund conditions.
The proposal demonstrates strong fiscal discipline and risk awareness: development is contributed at zero cost, funds are milestone-based, unused ADA is returned, and there are explicit failure/refund clauses covering legal, technical, and governance risks. The use of a 5-of-9 multisig (Amaru contract), monthly reporting, and independent audit further strengthens accountability and decentralised oversight.
Importantly, this initiative builds on prior community signalling (~67% support) and targets a high-impact area with potential ecosystem-wide ROI. Deep liquidity is foundational for stablecoins, DeFi growth, and broader adoption—without it, Cardano risks stagnation relative to other ecosystems.
While I will expect continued scrutiny in future withdrawals (particularly capital deployment and performance metrics), this initial tranche is proportionate, constitutionally compliant, and strategically sound.
Vote: YES — prudent groundwork for scalable, accountable DeFi growth on Cardano.
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.8M ₳ 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.
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ Rationale
I believe that a comprehensive approach to liquidity is necessary rather than an individual approach.
In other words, rather than betting on one horse, I want to own the racetrack. For this reason, every liquidity/Sovereign wealth type strategy should be used in order to mitigate risk and diversify opportunity for growth. - Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.6M ₳ 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.
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ Rationale
We already supported the previous Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget Info Action. This is the next logical step to move the project forward.