Cardano Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek
183 DReps voted · 65 with a rationale · 8 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No5.9M ₳Rationale
Constitutional hurdles aside, this proposal still needs some additional work and expanded upon. The Snek community and leaders have done some great work and may be deserving of treasury funds to push global listing expansion - but this proposal seems to fall short of it somehow for the funds requested and ultimately the Snek team will need to rise up to meet those expectations.
- No5.8M ₳Rationale
I think suggestions like this should be discussed in Catalyst.
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳Rationale
We recognize the Snek team as one of the most committed and impactful teams in the Cardano ecosystem. Their execution track record, self-funded T1 listings, and contribution to broader CNT adoption are clear. The momentum around $SNEK has brought visibility, cultural traction, and on-chain usage that no other Cardano-native token has matched to date.
However, we are voting NO on this treasury withdrawal in its current form.
We believe exchange listings can play a role in Cardano’s growth. But we draw the line at direct treasury funding for listing fees unless there's a clear path to ROI or ecosystem-wide benefit. Funding a single-token listing without any form of repayment or collective infrastructure outcome sets a precedent that is difficult to sustain long term.We encourage the Snek team to return with a revised proposal. Specifically, one that:
Outlines a more detailed and transparent budget;
Includes a mechanism to repay the Treasury, such as a bond or revenue share based on Snek Network activity;
Or alternatively, builds a shared roadmap for CNT listings/infrastructure that can benefit the ecosystem as a whole.
The Snek team has already delivered value and earned community trust. It’s arguably the project that gave back the most to the treasury, and with a more sustainable structure and alignment with our treasury principles, we would be open to supporting a future version of this initiative.
- No4.8M ₳No rationale
- No4.7M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
While I am not entirely opposed to funding exchanges to list a specific coin, the Snek proposal lacks transparency, accountability, and a clear strategic plan beyond paid advisors. Additionally, I am concerned by the Snek community's tactics, which appear to pressure DReps with their collective voting power, contradicting their claim that the proposal benefits the entire Cardano ecosystem and not only the Snek project. Moreover, as the proposal is unconstitutional, further in depth analysis is unnecessary.
- No4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1fl6r784t2ffw7q96du2znhprw90r3xvrfugvqelgqewgxex42kdqq9tgrd5), pois, embora o projeto SNEK seja a principal memecoin e principal projeto em marketcap da rede, já está listado em algumas exchanges de nível 1, e a proposta parece genérica em não determinar em qual exchange os fundos serão alocados. Nos parece muito mais oportuno que os principais projetos da rede se juntem para submeter uma ação de governança comunitária focada em listar determinados tokens em exchange específica, como a Binance. É a nossa sugestão.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action (gov_action1fl6r784t2ffw7q96du2znhprw90r3xvrfugvqelgqewgxex42kdqq9tgrd5), because although the SNEK project is the main memecoin and the leading project by market cap on the network, it is already listed on some tier 1 exchanges, and the proposal seems generic by not specifying which exchange the funds will be allocated to. It seems much more appropriate for the main projects of the network to join together to submit a community governance action focused on listing specific tokens on a specific exchange, such as Binance. That is our suggestion. - No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
This would amount to picking winners of one among many with public funds. While Snek is a huge asset to the ecosystem, it is a commercial venture capable of standing on its own, and favoring it over others with public funds is inappropriate and should be unnecessary.
That the proposal is also unconstitutional was another reason to look askance at it.
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting NO because I don't believe the treasury should be used for marketing or listings.
My top priorities as a DRep are: prioritizing core engineering, protecting the treasury, decentralizing influence, and investing in real-world assets (RWAs).
Strength and honor.
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
I appreciate what SNEK has done for the Cardano ecosystem to date, and getting listed on two major exchanges as a CNT is a huge win for ADA.
I also see value in community contributions towards getting CNTs listed on major exchanges, as it is a huge issue that is holding our entire ecosystem back.
Without CNT listings, we are not going to overtake Ethereum or Solana (unless they crash and burn). This is something I had expected IOG / Cardano Foundation / EMURGO to facilitate, use genesis ADA for, and build bridges between exchanges and community projects. Sadly this has not happened, and I feel is a huge failure of responsibility on their part.
Despite this, I appreciate that there are builders trying to make CNT listings happen, so thank you.
Here are my concerns and why I have to vote no for now:
- The GA is unconstitutional, and its not something nitpicky that is worth overlooking. Constitutionality nitpickiness is an abuse of power IMO, so as a DRep I also vote based on the spirit of the proposal and how big or small any errors are.
Article IV Section 3: The proposal does not appear to be part of an approved Cardano ecosystem budget. This would be an example of constitutional nitpickiness. There are always going to be proposals submitted that are outside the approved ecosystem budget, and it is our job to review edge cases. What I would expect is some kind of socialization of the proposal before dropping it on chain. Then you will get feedback, and have time to garner support from the community.
Article IV Section 4: No allocation is made for independent audits or defined oversight mechanisms. This is a requirement.
Article IV Section 5: The proposal does not specify that the receiving wallet is undelegated or delegated to the auto-abstain option. This is a requirement.
The ask of 5 Million ADA without clear details or a clear plan/KPIs is too much. Bringing hard data to the table showing the impact of the Kraken and Crypto.com listings will help your case. Having a business plan that can sell this proposal to the community will help even more.
I would expect 5 Million ADA would get us multiple CNT listings for a variety of tokens, not just SNEK. As this is a huge ask for only SNEK, I'd expect some kind of repayment plan or community compensation plan in exchange for the ADA given, since ultimately this will be supporting only one private project token and not the broader community.
The board of directors plan looks stacked, this can be both a good and bad thing. How much of this budget is being allocated to paying them?
Please take this feedback as constructive and resubmit after taking time to socialize your proposal. I'd like to be able to give you a yes with revisions made.
- No3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted2.7M ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
We can't pay for the listing fees of all CNTs, so we shouldn't pay for SNEK's. Additionally, I believe it is in the best interests of Cardano and the crypto industry in general to move past meme coin madness. It tarnishes the reputation of the industry and attracts liquidity and attention away from projects that actually provide value and create sustainability for Cardano long term.
- No2.6M ₳Rationale
この提案はCardano Native Token（CNT）の採用促進に一定の意義はあるものの、特定トークン（SNEK）だけをトレジャリーで支援することは、中立性や公共性の観点から問題があります。
今後の制度的前例となるおそれもあり、より包括的で公平な支援枠組みが整備されるまで、このような個別支援には反対します。
While this proposal may help promote CNT adoption, using treasury funds to support a single token (SNEK) raises concerns about neutrality and public accountability.
It also risks setting an unfavorable precedent. Until a broader and fair framework for token support is established, we oppose such individual funding. - No2.4M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Abstain as it has been indicated this is going to be resubmitted as an info action, possibly with a different approach: https://x.com/goofy_crisp/status/1951735721103925507
- NoRevoted1.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting No. The requested amount is excessively high, and exchange listings—especially for specific tokens—should occur organically through demonstrated market demand, not be subsidized with large Treasury outlays. Funding listings for a single meme coin sets a concerning precedent and offers limited long-term ecosystem value. Treasury resources should prioritize public goods and foundational infrastructure that benefit the broader Cardano community, not individual asset promotion.
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳Rationale
Vote NO – Proposal contains an input error and should be resubmitted correctly.
VOTE0019
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I’m voting NO. SNEK has real momentum and has already paid for big listings itself, but using 5M ADA from the Cardano Treasury to list and market one token isn’t a public-good expense. It sets a precedent for project-specific listing fees, shifts focus off on-chain growth (CEX trading doesn’t require the Cardano network), and diverts funds from things that help everyone—developer tools, ADA/stablecoin liquidity, compliance frameworks any token can reuse, UX, and core upgrades. We’ll get better long-term onboarding from ecosystem work like BOS, Midnight, and later Leios—tech alone isn’t enough, but public money should build foundations, not promote a single ticker. For marketing-style asks, Project Catalyst is the better venue where the whole community (not just DReps) reviews and votes.
Side note for newcomers: if you enjoy the culture, check out Snek and its playful cousin Snok, plus NikePig—they’re part of Cardano’s meme “family” and fun to follow.
(snek.com) (snok.lol) (nikepig.com) - No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted1M ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
No11mo agoSuperseded
- Yes955.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain949.1K ₳No rationale