Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1
186 DReps voted · 62 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.2M ₳ 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.
- Abstain 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.2M ₳ Rationale
This gov action was a very tough one for me to decide on. I’ve generally been a proponent of the proposal and even stated after the invalid one that I intended to approve it.
However, things have changed since the budget info action back in September, so after careful consideration I’ve decided to vote NO on this one.There are two main reasons:
1/ Originally, the treasury withdrawals for this proposal were meant to happen under last year’s NCL. Due to delays, they would now take place under a new NCL term. Approving this proposal could leave too little room for other proposals I want to support this year. While the NCL could be increased, that’s not guaranteed.
This also highlights a flaw in the current NCL concept: the timing of proposals can influence approval decisions, which ideally shouldn’t be the case.2/ Given the current ada price, the impact of this proposal may be limited, making the conversion of ada to stablecoins less efficient. There may be more effective ways to boost stablecoin liquidity, such as incentivizing third-party liquidity providers via smart contracts, which could deliver more volume per ada spent with lower overhead.
Additionally, the introduction of USDCx on Cardano changes the landscape and may naturally improve liquidity over time. - No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 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!
- Yes 1M ₳ 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.
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 920K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 881.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 804.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 762.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 749K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 738.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ Rationale
YES. This is a reasonable initial step to enable broader DeFi liquidity deployment. I support it.
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 654.5K ₳ 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:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jrYou 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
- Yes 651.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 624.8K ₳ 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. - Yes 601.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 589.2K ₳ Rationale
Approving - It's important to open the gateway for more on-chain activity.
- No 536.5K ₳ Rationale
Nop, no bottom selling
- Yes 534.3K ₳ Rationale
Liquidity is desperately needed in the Cardano ecosystem. Another great boost for Cardano while other chains continue to strain.
- No 481.5K ₳ Rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 438.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 426.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 409.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 324.4K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 321.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ 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.
- No 313.1K ₳ 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.
- Yes 298.6K ₳ 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
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010 - Yes 295.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 279.5K ₳ Rationale
Sorry, can't see the Legal Structure cost justified
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- No 258.6K ₳ Rationale
Governance Action Review
Governance Action:
Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1I am voting NO on this Treasury Withdrawal at this stage.
This vote should not be interpreted as a rejection of the proposal itself or of treasury funding in principle. My concern relates primarily to the timing and coordination of treasury allocations under the current governance environment.
At present, the ecosystem still lacks a sufficiently clear view of the full pipeline of proposals that may seek funding within the current NCL window.
Approving Treasury Withdrawals before proposers have had a meaningful opportunity to participate in a broader coordination process risks reinforcing an uncoordinated funding dynamic, where requests are assessed in isolation rather than in relation to the wider ecosystem’s needs, trade-offs, and budget constraints. My concern is not with individual submissions as such, but with the absence of a more collaborative and comparative process through which scope, budget, and priority can be better optimized across the current funding cycle.
Given the expectation that Intersect’s budgeting process may surface a broader set of requests in the coming weeks, I believe a short delay would likely improve decision quality and reduce the risk of inefficient allocation.
Approving withdrawals too early may also create downstream pressure to expand the NCL in order to accommodate proposals that emerge later but may prove strategically more relevant.
This should not be read as an attempt to block funding or paralyze governance. The ecosystem has already had roughly a full year to learn from the weaknesses of the previous cycle and to build a more credible coordination layer for the next one. That response has progressed more slowly than it should have.
I was willing to accept greater urgency last year because continuity of development mattered and the system was still in an early transition phase. But if we never reach the point where dReps are willing to demand greater accountability, coordination, and rigor, then the ecosystem simply carries the same loose standards into yet another funding cycle.
I do not consider that acceptable after the time already available to improve the process.
For these reasons, I believe it is preferable to delay approvals temporarily rather than normalize allocation decisions under incomplete and uncoordinated information.
This vote reflects a preference for better coordination and prioritization of treasury spending, not opposition to the goals of
Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1.
Revisão de Ação de Governança
Ação de Governança:
Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1Estou votando NÃO nesta Treasury Withdrawal neste momento.
Este voto não deve ser interpretado como uma rejeição da proposta em si ou do financiamento via tesouro em princípio. Minha preocupação está principalmente relacionada ao timing e à coordenação das alocações do tesouro no atual ambiente de governança.
No momento, o ecossistema ainda não possui uma visão suficientemente clara do conjunto completo de propostas que podem buscar financiamento dentro da janela atual de NCL.
Aprovar Treasury Withdrawals antes que os proponentes tenham tido uma oportunidade real de participar de algum processo mais amplo de coordenação corre o risco de reforçar uma dinâmica de financiamento descoordenada, na qual pedidos são avaliados isoladamente, em vez de serem analisados em relação às necessidades mais amplas do ecossistema, aos trade-offs existentes e às restrições orçamentárias.
Minha preocupação não é com submissões individuais em si, mas com a ausência de um processo mais colaborativo e comparativo por meio do qual escopo, orçamento e prioridade possam ser melhor otimizados ao longo deste ciclo de financiamento.
Considerando que o processo de orçamento conduzido pela Intersect pode trazer à tona um conjunto mais amplo de solicitações nas próximas semanas, acredito que um pequeno atraso provavelmente melhoraria a qualidade das decisões e reduziria o risco de alocações ineficientes.
Aprovar retiradas muito cedo também pode gerar pressão posterior para expandir o NCL, a fim de acomodar propostas que venham a surgir depois e que eventualmente se revelem mais relevantes do ponto de vista estratégico.
Isso não deve ser interpretado como uma tentativa de bloquear financiamento ou paralisar a governança. O ecossistema já teve aproximadamente um ano inteiro para aprender com as fragilidades do ciclo anterior e desenvolver uma camada de coordenação mais sólida para o próximo ciclo. Essa resposta avançou mais lentamente do que deveria.
No ano passado eu aceitei um maior senso de urgência porque a continuidade do desenvolvimento era importante e o sistema ainda estava em uma fase inicial de transição. No entanto, se nunca chegarmos ao ponto em que os dReps estejam dispostos a exigir maior accountability, coordenação e rigor, o ecossistema simplesmente carregará os mesmos padrões frouxos para mais um ciclo inteiro de financiamento.
Depois do tempo que já tivemos para melhorar o processo, não considero isso aceitável.
Por essas razões, acredito ser preferível adiar temporariamente as aprovações em vez de normalizar decisões de alocação baseadas em informações incompletas e descoordenadas.
Este voto reflete uma preferência por maior coordenação e melhor priorização do gasto do tesouro, e não uma oposição aos objetivos da
Cardano Defi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1. - No 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 215.5K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
I largely agree with the thoughtful concerns raised by ArmyofSpies in his earlier vote rationale (https://x.com/ArmyofSpies/status/1977565495302996409). Additionally, the IOG-led Pentad is already executing a more coordinated and promising set of initiatives to boost liquidity and DeFi infrastructure on Cardano, most notably through the Critical Integrations Budget, which has successfully delivered USDCx and related stablecoin infrastructure. We should focus our limited resources on supporting and scaling these existing efforts rather than creating parallel structures with extra overhead.
- No 198.8K ₳ Rationale
fuck you for taking 800k just for a legal company!!