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.
- Abstain931.8K ₳No rationale
- No861.5K ₳No rationale
- No825.2K ₳Rationale
Requested amount does not match what is stated in the Abstract.
- Abstain798.4K ₳Rationale
See the duplicate action
- No794.5K ₳Rationale
gov_action1fl6r784t2ffw7q96du2znhprw90r3xvrfugvqelgqewgxex42kdqq9tgrd5
- No782.8K ₳Rationale
Treasury Withdrawal: Cardano Global Listing Expansion (SNEK)
I am voting NO on the proposed 5,000,000 ADA treasury withdrawal for SNEK exchange listings. While exchange presence for Cardano native tokens presents legitimate challenges, this proposal represents a concerning use of community funds that could establish problematic precedents for treasury governance.
My Decision Framework
My opposition to this proposal rests on three fundamental concerns:
1. Inappropriate Use of Community Treasury
The treasury exists to fund public goods and ecosystem infrastructure, not to subsidize the commercial activities of individual tokens. SNEK has already invested $4 million of its own funds into exchange listings—demonstrating both the ability to self-fund and the primarily private nature of these benefits. The proposal's claim that SNEK listings will meaningfully drive ADA adoption lacks supporting evidence and ignores that users can already purchase ADA directly on these platforms.
2. Dangerous Precedent for Future Governance
Approving this withdrawal opens the treasury to any token claiming indirect "ecosystem benefits." Without clear criteria distinguishing public goods from private ventures, we risk a flood of similar proposals. The advisory board structure, while featuring respected names, provides no binding oversight or clear success metrics. This undermines our responsibility as stewards of community resources.
3. Questionable Return on Investment
At approximately $2 million per major listing (based on their stated costs), the efficiency of this approach is highly questionable. The proposal provides no concrete metrics for measuring ecosystem impact—no targets for new user acquisition, ADA volume increases, or timeline-bound deliverables. The benefits appear concentrated among SNEK holders while costs are socialized across all ADA holders.
Conclusion
I recognize the SNEK team's achievements and their desire to expand Cardano's exchange presence. However, the appropriate path forward involves continued self-funding or traditional capital raising, not community treasury allocation. I encourage future proposals to focus on genuine public infrastructure—such as open-source CNT integration tools that any project could utilize—rather than subsidizing individual token listings. Our treasury governance must maintain high standards that reflect Cardano's position as a leading blockchain ecosystem.
- No763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes759K ₳No rationale
- No731.5K ₳No rationale
- No717.5K ₳No rationale
- No705.1K ₳Rationale
I vote No because this proposal asks the treasury to assume significant risk for a highly speculative outcome with zero guarantees. While the Snek Foundation's past achievements are commendable, funding future listings is fundamentally different; exchange negotiations are opaque, and success is never certain, regardless of budget or past track record. The proposal's own text seems to contain a critical typo, referencing a "5 ADA" amount in the conclusion, which undermines confidence in the meticulousness of the proposal's creation and the seriousness of its financial governance. Investing 5 million ADA of community funds into a single memecoin project, no matter how popular, sets a precarious precedent and could divert crucial resources from more foundational, less volatile ecosystem development like core protocol upgrades, developer tooling, or educational initiatives. The potential benefits for ADA liquidity and visibility, while appealing, are theoretical and disproportionate to the concrete, non-recoverable cost of listing fees and marketing campaigns. The existence of an advisory board does not mitigate the core risk that this is a gamble with community funds on a specific asset's success, which is not the treasury's purpose.
- Abstain625.9K ₳Rationale
I am voting to abstain on this proposal, not from opposition to SNEK's mission, but from a commitment to strict principles in treasury management. As both a SNEK holder and Cardano ecosystem supporter, I believe in measuring, testing, and proving value before large-scale investment.
The time to test an investment is before you spend your money. SNEK has proven concept with $4M self-investment and successful major exchange listings, but we need controlled testing of smaller treasury allocations with measurable results before committing 5M ADA to unproven returns.
The only purpose of treasury investment is to generate ecosystem value. It is profitable or unprofitable according to its actual returns. What are the measurable benefits to the Cardano ecosystem per ADA invested? The current proposal lacks commitment to repay or share profits with the treasury. This fails the fundamental standard that public investments should generate quantifiable returns.
SNEK drives trading volume and user engagement, but it remains unproven whether 5M ADA investment yields proportional ecosystem benefits. We lack controlled data comparing exchange versus decentralized trading impact on Cardano fees. Never fund campaigns where the public takes all the risk while private interests take all the profits. Here, the treasury risks 5M ADA with no repayment clause while the SNEK team benefits from enhanced token liquidity, exchanges profit from listing fees and trading revenue, and ecosystem benefits remain indirect, unmeasured, and unguaranteed.
Instead of a 5M ADA grant, offer this as a loan repayable from listing success, with trading fee percentages returned to treasury, aligning private profits with public benefit.
Before any funding, establish baseline metrics for current Cardano transaction fees, trading volumes, and wallet creation. Define success through minimum ecosystem ROI thresholds and require monthly transparent impact reports with verifiable data. Answer the fundamental questions: What exact results do you expect per dollar spent? How will you measure success versus failure? What controlled test proves this works? Who profits from this investment?
I abstain because I believe in SNEK's potential but demand rigor in treasury allocation. The Cardano ecosystem deserves measured, tested, profitable investments, not hopeful gambles with public funds. Test small, measure carefully, prove value scientifically, then scale with confidence. This builds a sustainable, profitable ecosystem benefiting all stakeholders, not just token holders.
Apply scientific principles to treasury management. Protect the ecosystem while enabling genuine innovation to flourish through proven, measurable success. When investments generate verified returns, everyone profits. When they fail rigorous testing, everyone is protected. - No605.7K ₳No rationale
- No589.7K ₳Rationale
While I applaud the initiative, I dont see the value to use the treasury to support this meme.
- No520.2K ₳Rationale
I voted no because the proposal lacks the required Budget Info action and therefore cannot pass. Beyond that, the stated ecosystem benefits are not supported by a clear, KPI-backed delivery plan, making it difficult to assess value for money, accountability, and most importantly how the benefits would reach other projects and the wider community. I would support a resubmission as a Budget Info action, along with a concrete roadmap, measurable KPIs, detailed budget and beneficiary pathways, risk-mitigation and governance arrangements, and open deliverables to ensure broad, equitable impact.
- Yes501K ₳Rationale
This is absolutely the most controversial proposal I’ve voted yes on, and honestly I’m as surprised as anyone. Six months ago, if you told me I’d be supporting 5M ADA to fund a snake meme coin’s exchange listings, I would have checked your temperature and recommended therapy.
Yet here we are. And here I am.
I’ll be brutally honest … this feels wrong in every traditional governance fiber of my being. Using treasury funds to boost a specific token’s exchange presence is supposed to be everything we shouldn’t do. But sometimes the most uncomfortable votes are the right ones, and the reality is that other ecosystems figured out that meme coins aren’t just jokes… they’re user acquisition funnels. DOGE brought more people to crypto than any white paper ever did. SHIB and PEPE have been Ethereum’s accidental ambassadors to retail. Cardano’s problem isn’t technology , it’s that nobody outside our bubble knows we exist.
SNEK isn’t asking for free money , they’ve already burned $4M of their own cash and delivered actual Tier 1 listings. Name another Cardano native token that could realistically get on Binance or Coinbase tomorrow?
I’ll wait.The harsh reality is that SNEK might be our only viable ticket to mainstream CNT adoption, and every SNEK listing creates ADA trading pairs while potentially bringing new users who discover Cardano through a snake meme but might stay for the DeFi, governance, or infrastructure. It’s undignified, but it might actually work.
I have to be transparent about something that’s bothering me… seeing Emurgo on the advisory board is actually a bit of a red flag for me. Emurgo’s track record with community relations and ecosystem development has been… let’s call it “mixed.” Their involvement makes me wonder about the real motivations behind this proposal and whether there are backdoor deals or conflicts of interest I’m not seeing. But I’m choosing to overlook this concern because the core proposition still makes sense despite my skepticism.
Cardano’s biggest problem isn’t technical capability, it’s cultural relevance. We built the most rigorous blockchain and somehow forgot to make it cool. This sets a precedent that might haunt us, it feels like picking winners with public funds, and exchange listings don’t guarantee success. This could spectacularly backfire and make us look ridiculous. But sometimes you take the shot that makes you slightly uncomfortable because the alternative continued irrelevance in mainstream crypto culture might be worse.
I’m voting yes on the theory that SNEK has proven they can deliver, the ecosystem benefits are plausible, and frankly, we need something to break through the noise. Is this dignified? Absolutely not. Might it work? Unfortunately, yes. Don’t @ me if this ages poorly, but also don’t @ me if SNEK ends up being Cardano’s secret weapon. - No499K ₳No rationale
- No478.4K ₳No rationale
- No478.3K ₳No rationale
- No466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- No385.2K ₳Rationale
This is not the way to propose a treasury withdraw as it is unconstitutional according to Cardano constitution.
Looking forward to read an Gov info action with a budget, administrator and KPI's - No381.1K ₳No rationale
- AbstainRevoted365.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain11mo agoSuperseded
- No325.4K ₳Rationale
I believe the treasury should not fund centralized exchange's listing fees.
- No314.4K ₳Rationale
I'm voting NO because this proposal is unconstitutional, wrongly submitted (wrong requested amount) and due to fairness & sustainability concerns that I analyse in my rationale below.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I'm voting No on this proposal based on the following rationale:
A Treasury withdrawal without a preceding Info Action is unconstitutional under the current Constitution. This means the submission isn't valid right from the start.
In addition, this proposal seeks to withdraw 5 million ADA from the Cardano Treasury. However, it has been submitted incorrectly, making it appear as though only 5 ADA is being requested. This discrepancy seems to come from confusion between Lovelace and ADA units.
I acknowledge the valuable work of the Snek team and recognise their need for support as they work toward getting their token listed on exchanges. Snek is indeed one of the most actively traded tokens on Cardano, with consistent performance and strong trading volumes within our ecosystem. That said, using Treasury funds directly for exchange listings raises serious fairness and sustainability concerns. If we choose to subsidise Snek's listing, then logically we would need to extend the same support to other tokens in the Cardano ecosystem. This is something that would be neither feasible nor financially sustainable for the Treasury.
In my view, the better path is for Snek to pursue listings gradually, driven by community support, organic demand, and natural market growth.
As a final point, I’d like to add that I would be far more open to supporting a similar proposal if it included a sustainable element, for example by replenishing the Treasury gradually through a share of future profits. That kind of mechanism could then be replicated across other CNTs in the ecosystem, making such proposals more balanced and responsible.
- No313.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting no on this proposal as it does not seem ready, or fully thought through as yet.
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
I just don't feel good about this one.
- No271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
This proposal is substantially the same as 'Withdraw ₳5M for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek' aside from the title and what appears to be an error or placeholder in the amount metadata (₳5 vs ₳5M). These 2 proposals appear to be duplicates or near-duplicates submitted twice—potentially one draft and one finalized, or a re-submission due to a metadata error.
Despite the slight differences, the underlying issues remain the same and as such I'll use the same rationale as I did in the other proposal.
After careful review, I am unable to support this proposal in its current form due to multiple critical constitutional and operational shortcomings relating to Cardano’s governance standards for treasury disbursement.
Key issues necessitating a NO vote:
Constitutional Noncompliance
No Named Administrator: The proposal does not specify an Administrator (such as Intersect or Cardano Development Holdings) responsible for the contractual, fiduciary, and oversight duties associated with Cardano Treasury withdrawals, as required by Article IV of the Cardano Constitution.
No Legal Contract Commitment: There is no explicit commitment to a legal, off-chain contract with defined milestones, deliverables, dispute resolution, and reporting. This is mandatory for all treasury withdrawals to ensure enforceability and accountability.
Lack of Milestone-Based Escrow: The proposal does not establish milestone-based, smart contract–gated disbursement. Funds appear poised for full or discretionary release, with no clear controls to ensure payment only upon delivery of new exchange listings or defined KPIs.
Lack of Third-Party Assurance and Oversight: The proposal leaves out provisions for an independent oversight agent—such as Cardano Foundation, DQuadrant, or NMKR—to serve as milestone verifier and ensure funds are released only when contractual obligations are met.
Operational Risks
No Smart Contract Controls or Delegation Policy: There is no commitment to use the Sundae Labs Treasury Reserve Smart Contracts (TRSC/PSSC) or multi-signature custodial controls; nor is there any assurance that funds will be delegated only to an auto-abstain DRep (not to a Stake Pool Operator), violating best practices in treasury security.
No Process for Vendor KYB/KYC: The proposal does not affirm that the Snek Foundation (or principals) will provide pre-funding verification, Know-Your-Business (KYB) or Know-Your-Customer (KYC) documentation.
No Refund/Clawback or Unused Funds Handling: While there is mention of returning unused budget, there is no contractual guarantee, escrow mechanism, or refund process described for unsupported, failed, or incomplete listings.
Transparency and Overlap
Risk of Duplication: The proposal does not clarify coordination or non-overlap with existing, already-funded Cardano exchange listing and market-making pools (e.g., Flowdesk). There is risk of duplicated listing efforts or double fee payments.
Inadequate Public and On-Chain Reporting Commitments: While intent for transparency is stated, there is no binding provision for on-chain metadata, announcement of exchange targets, or progress tracking following the established Cardano treasury reporting practice.
In summary:
While the proposal is high-impact and the vendor has strong credentials, Cardano’s constitutional governance exists to prevent treasury capture and enforce stewardship. Treasury funds must be administered only under named, contractually bound, multi-party and externally assured processes. In the absence of these basic protections, a YES vote would undermine decentralization, transparency, and accountability for the entire ecosystem.I am therefore compelled to vote NO until these core operational and constitutional deficiencies are remedied.
- NoRevoted260.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
While SNEK has driven community engagement and secured notable exchange listings, its memecoin-driven approach risks prioritizing speculative hype over sustainable ecosystem growth. Cardano’s treasury should fund serious proposals with broader ROI—such as developer tooling, real-world adoption, or infrastructure scaling—that deliver long-term value to all projects, not just a single token. Allocating 5M ADA to a memecoin, even one as prominent as SNEK, may replicate volatile ‘casino’ culture seen elsewhere, diverting resources from initiatives that strengthen Cardano’s fundamentals and global competitiveness.
- No238.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain235.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain233.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes200.5K ₳No rationale
- No185.6K ₳Rationale
Other teams in the community are also completing this work, without treasury funds. It is no doubt an important task, but one that is happening organically.
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- No174.5K ₳No rationale
- No166.4K ₳Rationale
Huge ask for something that should happen organically when volume is high enough.
- No159.6K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes145.9K ₳No rationale
- No138.4K ₳Rationale
Due process is central to on-chain governance, and this proposal skipped the “info action” step that allows for community input. Approving it would set a negative precedent against the Cardano Constitution.
While I acknowledge the important role of the Constitutional Committee in raising such matters, I believe it is necessary as a DRep to highlight this concern. I also note that SNEK is already listed on KuCoin and Kraken, which could serve as case studies when seeking Cardano treasury funding for broader exchange listings.
I want to commend the SNEK team for their incredible achievement of becoming the first CNT to be listed on centralized exchanges. However, I am voting NO on this proposal due to the lack of sufficient data supporting its expected outputs and the returns it would bring to the Cardano treasury.
- No137.4K ₳No rationale
- No134.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain133.7K ₳No rationale