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.
- Abstain131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes118.7K ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes because the Snek Foundation has already proven its ability to deliver Tier 1 exchange listings for Cardano, investing over $4M of its own capital to secure milestones like Kraken and Crypto.com. This proposal builds on that proven track record, asking for similar support from the treasury to expand listings, liquidity, and visibility at a scale that benefits not only SNEK but the entire Cardano ecosystem.
By funding this initiative, we support increased ADA liquidity, greater CNT discoverability, and a reusable compliance and exchange framework that future Cardano projects can leverage. With established credibility, industry-leading advisors, and a clear strategy, this proposal represents a high-impact opportunity to strengthen Cardano’s global presence and competitiveness.
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳Rationale
I am not in favor of this proposal at this time. There are several factors that inform my decision but overall I am not a believer that traditional financial rails on CEXs should be a primary concern for the Cardano community. I prefer that we focus on value creation rather than market exposure. That being said, if there was a very clearly presented ROI including specific tasks being funded and how much those expect to return then this could be re-evaluated. I don't feel that this proposal has enough of this information listed to approve it.
- Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes67.1K ₳No rationale
- No58.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain56.2K ₳Rationale
Appears to be a duplicate
- No55.9K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- No49.7K ₳Rationale
This is effectively a treasury subsidy for exchange listings/market-making of a single token, with limited, non-guaranteed public-good outputs and heavy reliance on centralized exchanges—at odds with decentralization—and no binding KPIs/ROI. The opportunity cost versus funding core infra, tooling, or broad ecosystem programs is high. Note the amount inconsistency (narrative references ₳5,000,000 while the submission shows ₳5)—this must be corrected before any consideration.
Weak alignment with Article III; risks neutrality/fairness guardrails and decentralization tenets by privileging one token without clear ecosystem-wide deliverables and accountability.
Key risk to monitor: Precedent of token-specific subsidies; opaque listing/market-making costs; advisory-board oversight without on-chain accountability; regulatory/compliance uncertainty; and failure to deliver reusable, open artifacts that tangibly benefit other CNTs.
- Abstain49.6K ₳Rationale
This is a proposal best fit for catalyst
- No48.6K ₳No rationale
- No46.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain36.3K ₳No rationale
- No36.3K ₳Rationale
Vote: NO – Snek Global Listing Expansion (5M ADA)
I appreciate the Snek Foundation’s achievements (Kraken, Crypto.com listings, $4M self-funded investment), but I cannot support this treasury withdrawal for the following reasons:
• Single-token focus – Funds are concentrated on SNEK, with benefits to the broader ecosystem indirect and uncertain.
• High cost vs. ecosystem ROI – 5M ADA is a significant treasury outlay for CEX listings, a marketing strategy that often produces short-lived volume spikes without sustainable adoption.
• Centralized exchange dependency – This approach prioritizes CEX access over strengthening decentralized infrastructure, DeFi liquidity, and developer tooling that benefit all projects.
• Opportunity cost – These funds could back initiatives that provide shared infrastructure, onboarding pipelines, and reusable tech for every Cardano builder.
• Market risk – Memecoin-driven strategies can amplify volatility and reputational risk for Cardano if sentiment turns.I believe treasury funds should focus on network-level adoption drivers and foundational infrastructure—not single-token promotion—no matter how strong its community or track record.
- No29.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes29K ₳No rationale
- Abstain26.7K ₳Rationale
I do not know enough about Snek to vote yes to this nor do I traditionally support meme coins. Furthermore, there is controversy around how this proposal was submitted. It seems as if this proposal did not follow established precedent and as a result has garnered a significant amoutn of no votes already. This precedent being related to the socialization of the proposal. For all these reasons I will abstain.
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- No10.6K ₳Rationale
I didn't vote for this proposal.
- No8.7K ₳No rationale
- No8.3K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- No2.4K ₳No rationale
- No1.2K ₳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.
- No977.3 ₳No rationale
- No378.6 ₳No rationale
- No335.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes105.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes8.3 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale