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.
- No584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes NO on the governance action to fund the Cardano Global Listing Expansion initiative by the Snek Foundation.
Rationale
The proposal highlights a proven and driven team with a history of delivering Tier 1 listings and building CNT adoption. These contributions have brought visibility to Cardano that is rare among community-led projects.The current request, however, lacks a clear funding structure that ensures tangible returns for the ecosystem or a framework that other projects can directly reuse. Treasury resources should prioritize proposals with both specific deliverables and lasting community benefits.
The listed withdrawal amount of 5 ADA is clearly insufficient for the stated goals, indicating the need for a corrected submission.
Conclusion
We encourage the proposers to return with an updated plan that outlines realistic costs, defines ecosystem-wide benefits, and includes mechanisms that provide lasting value beyond a single asset. Yoroi would welcome the opportunity to review such a resubmission on its merits. - No435.8M ₳Rationale
I will always be grateful for the enormous contributions made by the Snek project.
This proposal will not pass anyway due to its unconstitutional nature, but even so, I am voting NO because I believe the following points are necessary:
As Charles pointed out, I recommend adding a treasury repayment plan here, as well as KPIs and target values and related historical analysis.
Since the exchange has already been listed on Kraken, I think it would be effective to analyze the impact of the listing on the ecosystem and attach the results of that analysis.
For each of the "Ecosystem Benefits" listed, I would appreciate it if you could provide an analysis of KPIs and target values, showing how much each value has increased as a result of the Kraken listing, and how much further you expect it to increase with the additional exchange listings listed. This will allow us to grasp quantitative information about the benefits the ecosystem will gain from this proposal.
Then, when the proposal is completed, we will be able to compare those target KPIs with the actual values and determine whether the proposal was ultimately a success or failure.
(Not just whether the promise was formally fulfilled, but whether it ultimately had an impact on the ecosystem worth 5 million ADA)私はSnekプロジェクトの巨大な貢献にいつも感謝しています。
この提案書は憲法違反のためいずれにせよ通ることはありませんが、それを差し引いても次のような点が必要だと思うためにNOを投票します。
チャールズさんの指摘するように、ここにトレジャリーへの返済計画を追加し、かつ、KPIとターゲット値およびそれに関する過去の分析を追加することを推奨します。
すでにKrakenへの上場が行われているため、その上場によるエコシステムへの効果を分析し分析結果を添付することが効果的だと思います。
「Ecosystem Benefits」に列挙される各々は、Krakenの上場により各々どの数値がどの程度上昇しており、追加で列挙されている取引所の上場により、さらにどれほど上昇することを見込んでいるのか、KPIとターゲット値の分析を設定していただけると幸いです。そのようにすることで、この提案書でエコシステムがどのような利益を得るのか定量的な情報を把握することができます。
そしてこの提案書の実行が終了した時、それらの目標KPIターゲットと実際の値を見比べて、この提案書が結果的に失敗したのか成功したのかを判断することができます。
（形式的に約束を果たしたかどうかだけではなく、結果的にエコシステムに５M ADAに見合うインパクトを与えたのかどうか） - Yes332.2M ₳No rationale
- No293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as DRep votes NO on the governance action to fund the Cardano Global Listing Expansion initiative by the Snek Foundation.
Rationale
The Snek team has demonstrated exceptional execution capability, securing Tier 1 listings through self-funding and driving unmatched adoption for a Cardano native token. These achievements are commendable and recognized. However, EMURGO maintains a principle that treasury allocations for exchange listings should be tied to clear, measurable benefits for the broader ecosystem, either through collective infrastructure, demonstrable long-term ROI, or repayment to the Treasury. In its current form, this proposal focuses on a single-token listing without such mechanisms in place, creating a precedent that may be difficult to sustain.
Conclusion
We invite the Snek team to submit a revised version that: Provides a corrected, transparent budget
Establishes either a repayment model or a shared infrastructure plan
Aligns deliverables with measurable ecosystem-wide outcomes
With such adjustments, EMURGO would be open to reassessing support.
- No222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted NO on gov_action1fl6r784t2ffw7q96du2znhprw90r3xvrfugvqelgqewgxex42kdqq9tgrd5;
See second withdrawal action.
- Yes165.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes ABSTAIN on both treasury withdrawal proposals submitted by the Snek team. As the proposals are substantively identical, this rationale applies to both.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We recognize that the Snek team is actively revising their initiative into a new proposal that addresses community feedback. We are currently voting abstain on these two governance actions to give them space to complete this work, and we look forward to reviewing their revised submission soon.
We strongly support and continue to work on the goal of expanding exchange access for Cardano Native Tokens (CNTs) and recognize Snek's significant contributions. The Snek team has achieved impressive market traction to secure the first Tier 1 exchange listings for a CNT, a milestone for the entire ecosystem. They have succeeded because of the strong user interest their project has generated and the related business opportunity it offers for exchanges.
However, our vote on any treasury proposal must be based on the quality, structure, and accountability of the action itself. The current proposals leave several areas open for clarification, particularly regarding financial detail, a sustainable funding model, and constitutional validity. These considerations prevent us from casting a YES vote at this time.Conclusion and Path Forward
Rather than voting NO on the two governance actions, we are voting ABSTAIN to signal our clear support for the Snek team on their journey to refine their initiative. We understand they are incorporating feedback and preparing a new proposal. This is a process we wish to encourage.
We believe Snek is well-positioned to address the challenge of CNT listings, and we are eager to review and support a revised proposal that aligns this important goal with the high standards of accountability and sustainability that the Cardano community deserves. We look forward to the new submission. - AbstainChanged92.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I’ve voted NO on the proposal to pay listing fees for Snek. I don’t believe this expense is justified.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I’m happy to see meme coins emerging on Cardano. I appreciate the Snek project and its vibrant community—they represent grassroots creativity and a unique social experiment.
That said, I don’t believe meme coin projects should seek ADA from the Treasury. Here’s why.
Meme coins should drive on-chain activity. Listing them on centralized exchanges (CEXs) works against that goal—users can buy and sell there without interacting with the Cardano network, meaning no fees or engagement on-chain.
While CEXs are a key entry point into crypto, only a small percentage of users actually create on-chain wallets. Despite hundreds of millions registered on CEXs, only about 1–5% become on-chain users.
If meme coin teams believe CEX listings benefit their project, they’re free to pursue that path—but it shouldn’t be funded by the Cardano Treasury.
Snek has around 40,000 users, while Cardano has over 1.3 million ADA stakers. ADA remains the primary onboarding asset, and we shouldn’t downplay its central role. Snek might help onboard some users, but its impact on Cardano’s overall success is limited.
As for marketing, spending 5 million ADA on listing fees isn’t the best use of funds. There are already marketing-focused proposals among the 39 withdrawals that offer better value.
On liquidity, our goal should be to strengthen ADA/stablecoin pairs (like USDM, USDA), not ADA/SNEK. That’s a more strategic path for Cardano’s growth.
Snek’s current market cap is $244 million. The team has reportedly reserved 10% (currently, around $24 million) for marketing, partnerships, and CEX listings. That’s a substantial budget for a meme coin. Given these resources, additional funding from the Cardano Treasury isn’t necessary.
One current withdrawal proposal requests ₳3,126,000 to support listings on top-tier CEXs: “Ecosystem Exchange Listing and Market Making service.”
I suggest the Snek team collaborate with this group to support CEX listings across the entire Cardano ecosystem, rather than pursuing separate funding.
Paying listing fees from the Cardano Treasury sets a problematic precedent. CEXs typically charge each project individually—it’s not a technical hurdle, it’s a business model. If we fund Snek’s listing, other projects will expect the same, leading to unsustainable demands on Treasury funds.
We must be clear: the Treasury is not meant to cover listing fees. Projects should plan and fund these efforts independently.
I understand that my perspective may disappoint members of the Snek community, and I genuinely regret that. However, DReps have a responsibility to think long-term when it comes to Treasury spending. Decisions must be strategic—not driven by popularity or short-term excitement.
Cardano is being built as a decentralized global financial and social operating system. Meme coins like Snek absolutely have a place in that vision, but they are not the core priority.
I also hope the community gives the same level of attention and scrutiny to the other 39 current withdrawal proposals as they have to those submitted by the Snek team. Every proposal deserves thoughtful consideration.
- No86M ₳Rationale
SIPO votes No on the proposal “Cardano Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek”.
The primary reason is that SIPO does not believe it is an appropriate use of the Cardano Treasury to finance centralized exchange listings of a single community token, regardless of its current popularity or trading volume. Treasury funds are a collective resource meant to strengthen the long-term foundations of Cardano’s ecosystem — governance, core technology, open-source tooling, education, and public goods — not to subsidize individual token marketing or exchange negotiations.
While SIPO recognizes the achievements of the Snek Foundation in securing Tier 1 listings and building community traction, the proposed withdrawal of 5,000,000 ADA represents a significant allocation of community funds to support what remains essentially a private project with its own treasury and revenue streams. The fact that Snek has already invested over $4 million from its own resources demonstrates that it has the capacity to pursue its strategy independently, without drawing from the shared treasury.
Moreover, using treasury funds to support a single token risks setting a precedent where other projects also request similar subsidies for exchange listings. This would open the door to repeated withdrawals that benefit specific tokens rather than the ecosystem as a whole. Such a path could dilute treasury resources, diverting them away from investments in infrastructure and innovations that serve all Cardano users and developers.
SIPO also notes that centralized exchange listings are inherently uncertain and dependent on third-party business decisions. Even if funded, there is no guarantee of lasting ecosystem benefit beyond temporary visibility. True adoption of Cardano should come from building decentralized infrastructure, user-friendly applications, and sustainable economic models, not by relying on speculative meme-driven visibility campaigns.
In summary, SIPO votes No because:
1. Treasury funds should prioritize ecosystem-wide public goods, not private token promotion.
2. Snek has demonstrated capacity to self-fund and should continue to do so.
3. Approving this request sets a problematic precedent for future treasury withdrawals.
4. The impact of CEX listings is uncertain and not aligned with Cardano’s decentralization-first vision.SIPO appreciates the cultural and community role of Snek, but maintains that the Cardano Treasury must remain dedicated to collective, infrastructure-level progress rather than individual token expansion strategies.
⸻
SIPOは提案 「Cardano Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek」 に対して 反対（No）票 を投じます。
最大の理由は、カルダノ財務（Treasury）を用いて、特定のコミュニティトークンの中央集権取引所上場を資金援助することは適切ではないと考えるからです。財務資金はカルダノ全体の長期的な基盤強化──ガバナンス、コア技術、オープンソースの開発ツール、教育、公共財の提供──のために活用されるべきであり、個別トークンのマーケティングや取引所交渉の補助に用いるものではありません。
SIPOは、Snek財団がTier 1取引所への上場を実現し、コミュニティで一定の成果をあげてきたことを評価します。しかしながら、500万ADAという多額の財務資金を、事実上は独自の財源や収益を持つプロジェクトの戦略支援に割り当てることは妥当ではありません。Snekはすでに4百万ドル以上を自ら投じて戦略を進めてきており、今後も独立して取り組む能力を有しています。
さらに、もしこの提案を承認すれば、他のトークンプロジェクトも同様に取引所上場のための財務資金支援を求める前例となりかねません。その結果、財務資源が個別トークンごとの要望に分散し、本来投資すべき基盤インフラやエコシステム全体に資する革新から資金を奪う危険があります。
また、中央集権取引所への上場は第三者の商業判断に依存しており、財務から資金を投じても長期的にエコシステム全体に利益が保証されるわけではありません。カルダノの真の採用拡大は、分散型インフラ、ユーザーフレンドリーなアプリケーション、持続可能な経済モデルの構築から生まれるべきであり、投機的なミーム的関心に頼るべきではないとSIPOは考えます。
まとめると、SIPOが反対票を投じる理由は以下の通りです。
1. 財務資金は公共財的なエコシステム全体の利益を優先すべきであり、個別トークンのプロモーションに使うべきではない。
2. Snekはすでに自己資金で取り組んできており、今後も独立して継続可能である。
3. この提案を承認すると、他プロジェクトが同様の補助を求める前例となる危険がある。
4. CEX上場の効果は不確実であり、カルダノが掲げる「分散型優先」の理念と必ずしも一致しない。SIPOはSnekが果たす文化的・コミュニティ的役割を尊重しつつも、カルダノ財務は個別トークンの拡大戦略ではなく、あくまでエコシステム全体に資する基盤整備に集中すべきであると判断します。
- No84.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳No rationale
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
I am a huge supporter of Snek, its team, and community. However, I am voting NO. When the treasury is asked to fund a project's growth, there must be a clear pathway for value to be returned. Lacking a repayment or profit-share model, I cannot support this precedent for treasury use.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am a huge supporter of SNEK, its team, and what they contribute to Cardano. Their self-funded success is exemplary. However, I will be voting a principled NO on this proposal.
My reasoning is crucial for treasury sustainability: when public funds are used for a project's commercial growth, a clear pathway for treasury replenishment must be included. This proposal lacks such a mechanism. I fully support SNEK's mission, but I cannot support a funding model that socializes costs without a plan to return value to the community.
- No69.4M ₳No rationale
- No66M ₳Rationale
Having $snek listed on CEXs should not be funded by the treasury but by the project itself.
- Abstain62.7M ₳Rationale
Large spend focused on one token with indirect ecosystem benefit. Oversight is mentioned but KPIs and budget detail are missing. Abstaining avoids blocking while signalling the need for clearer accountability and measurable outcomes before approving similar requests.
- Abstain53.8M ₳No rationale
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
This proposal does not sufficiently meet the Governance Action standards as regulated by the current Cardano Constitution. It lacks the required details and must be re-submitted with proper information to ensure compliance and legitimacy. [Japanese ver.] 本提案は、現行のカルダノ憲法で規定されているガバナンスアクションの基準を十分に満たしていません。必要な詳細情報が欠けているため、適切な内容を備えたうえで再提出されるべきです。
- No50M ₳Rationale
I have already supported a broader budget proposal that addresses the listing of multiple tokens. While I do think that exchange listings can benefit the Cardano ecosystem as a whole, I am voting No here since this proposal targets only one specific token.
- No49.5M ₳Rationale
Although a supporter of the project the ecosystem treasury should be only deployed for efforts that benefit all and not specifically one project even if 2nd order effects do benefit the community. Winners and losers cannot be selected through this process
- No48.6M ₳No rationale
- No42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- No37.8M ₳No rationale
- No34.6M ₳No rationale
- No34.3M ₳Rationale
We voted No. Please see our comment on the withdrawal proposal for details.
- No33.5M ₳Rationale
Cardano Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek Rationale
Summary
SNEK is a successful and high-impact community token within the Cardano ecosystem. However, this treasury withdrawal request does not meet constitutional requirements. While my vote as a DRep is not based on constitutionality alone, I also serve on the Interim Constitutional Committee and take that perspective seriously. For that reason, I will vote NO on this proposal.
Rationale Statement
This vote is not a dismissal of anything the Snek team has accomplished. On the contrary, the achievements listed, Tier 1 exchange listings, perpetual integrations, physical products, and millions in self-funded investments, demonstrate they are a highly capable and successful project.
That success raises a question: Why is this request for public treasury funding even necessary? Treasury funds should be reserved for initiatives that meet clear constitutional standards and provide open, ecosystem-wide benefit.
While as a DRep I am not responsible for determining constitutionality, I also serve on the Interim Constitutional Committee, and in that role, I do evaluate the constitutional compliance of proposals. This one fails on several fronts:
- Article IV Section 3: The proposal does not appear to be part of an approved Cardano ecosystem budget
- Article IV Section 4: No allocation is made for independent audits or defined oversight mechanisms
- Article IV Section 5: The proposal does not specify that the receiving wallet is undelegated or delegated to the auto-abstain option
These are not optional details. They are requirements designed to protect the treasury and uphold decentralized governance.
For these reasons, I cannot support this request. Treasury governance must remain aligned with constitutional constraints and ecosystem-wide priorities.
Snek is clearly a leading Cardano token. But projects with strong private funding should not be the first in line for public treasury spending, especially when the proposal fails to meet the fundamental requirements for constitutional compliance.
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
I appreciate what SNEK has done for the Cardano ecosystem but I find a 5M ADA ask to support SNEK listing on exchanges to be a bit too much. I'm personally more skeptical of memecoins than most, but I also think that our focus should really be on stablecoin liquidity and exchange listings more than any other CNT.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- No23.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
This is a combined rationale for the two treasury withdrawal governance actions submitted by the Snek Foundation, with the action ID’s: “4ff43f1eab5252ef00ba6f1429dc23715e3899834f10c067e8065c8364d5559a#0” and “1d6aea56e6a523b13e03ae30ff24ebf9852543b4f7d415c7e50f55f6baaa4e3d#0”. A combined rationale is provided to give further context to the “NO” vote submitted here.
First and foremost, this is not a reflection of my views regarding Snek’s achievements, their position in the ecosystem to date, or whether treasury funds should be used for project listings and is an assessment of the handling of the submission of these two proposals.
While constitutionality is the remit of the Constitutional Committee and not DReps, it plays a role in assessing the handling of these two proposals. On August 2 2025, two treasury withdrawal actions were submitted less than an hour apart, with a combined governance action deposit of 200,000 ada. It appears as though the second action was submitted in haste following an input error that resulted in the first proposal requesting only 5 ada instead of 5 million ada. This is the first and foremost issue with the first governance action and any DRep voting yes without recognising this fact raises questions about their levels of due diligence when it comes to voting. Constitutional or otherwise, the on-chain treasury withdrawal request is for 5 ada and not the proposed 5 million ada in the proposal text.
A deeper assessment of the timeline of events raises further questions (times in UTC+1). The provided withdrawal address was first funded at 13:13:24 on August 2 2025 with the stake key registered and delegated to a DRep at 13:14:12, breaking the first constitutional requirement for treasury withdrawals before the proposal was even submitted (https://cardanoscan.io/address/addr1q9gcxfl9fe9ulluvtc2sxj6xux7jfa49zzq4aheyywqm0k3gudvqrjyfk4nqpvscu2ggqg67x9e0dk5l5p4s6msvkpys6qv4v6). This address was then funded with the 100,000 ada deposit funds at 13:15:55 with the first governance action submitted at 13:46:02 (https://cardanoscan.io/govAction/gov_action1fl6r784t2ffw7q96du2znhprw90r3xvrfugvqelgqewgxex42kdqq9tgrd5).
Less than an hour later, likely after noticing the 5 ada not 5 million ada error, the provided address was funded with a second round of 100,000 ada at 14:21:48 and a second action submitted at 14:34:22 with the correct 5 million ada value instead of 5 ada (https://cardanoscan.io/govAction/gov_action1r44w54hx553mz0sr4cc07f8tlxzj2sa57l2pt3l9pa2ldw42fc7sq5q3rtn). In the meantime, at 17:43, the Snek X account tried to make light of the situation claiming that this submission was intended for testnet (https://x.com/snek/status/1951685280462749958), despite a mainnet wallet being funded twice with 100,000 ada which is more than just a “button clicking error”. This post was a display of incompetence at best, deception at worst, and should have just honestly owned up to the mistake.
Following further feedback on social channels about constitutionality, the stake address was then delegated to the auto-abstain DRep at 18:13:19 in order to correct that constitutional requirement but with the absence of a previous budget info action, among other shortcomings, the damage there had already been done.
People can claim that “governance is still new” in defence of the handling of these proposals however, with 15 info actions (5 general, 4 NCL, 6 budget), 3 protocol parameter updates, 1 update constitution action. 1 hard fork initiation, 40 treasury withdrawal actions and 1 update constitutional committee action all on-chain prior to these proposals being submitted, that defence is wearing thin. We have plenty of precedents for these things that potential proposers can now look back on and see why actions may or may not have passed / been deemed constitutional/unconstitutional. We also have testnets exactly for this reason, use them! Not only can they help get things right first time but it also allows an opportunity to socialise the proposal and receive any feedback for any potential failings before committing 200,000 ada in deposits.
The submitters of these proposals should have waited after the first one, despite the 5 ada error, as it would have still allowed chance for feedback on other areas before hastily committing to another deposit. Additionally, it was short-sighted also to rush, in the wider context of the epoch timing, the epoch ended 3.5 hours after the second submission, voting periods are measured in epochs and by submitting so late in the epoch they actually sold themselves short of up to 116 hours additional voting time than had they submitted earlier in the epoch.
All-in-all the hasty mishandling of this situation raises questions for me, especially when requesting 5 million ada from the treasury while so nonchalantly throwing 200,000 ada at governance action deposits, now locked for the full voting period with a pair of ill-prepared governance actions.
- No21.4M ₳Rationale
I recognize the cultural contributions Snek has made to the Cardano ecosystem. However, I cannot support a 5 million ADA treasury withdrawal to fund listings for a single community token.
Key reasons:
1. Misaligned with the purpose of treasury funds:
Token listings on centralized exchanges are speculative and high-risk investments, typically funded by the project or its supporters. Treasury funds are meant to serve the broader ecosystem, not individual tokens.2. Lack of measurable impact data:
The proposal does not provide any analysis of past listings (e.g., Kraken, Crypto.com), lacks clear KPIs, targets, or a repayment plan. This makes it difficult to assess the real benefit to the ecosystem.3. Non-compliance with the Cardano Constitution:
Under Article IV, the proposal is not part of an approved ecosystem budget, lacks provisions for independent auditing, and does not clarify the staking status of the receiving wallet—all of which are mandatory to protect the treasury.4. Problematic precedent:
Funding exchange listings for a specific token could set a harmful precedent, encouraging similar requests from other projects. This undermines neutrality and fairness in treasury allocation.Treasury funds should prioritize open infrastructure, decentralized tools, and initiatives that serve long-term public value—not marketing and listings for individual tokens.
Vietnamese
Tôi ghi nhận những đóng góp của Snek trong việc lan tỏa văn hóa và hình ảnh Cardano. Tuy nhiên, tôi không thể ủng hộ việc rút 5 triệu ADA từ công quỹ để tài trợ cho việc niêm yết một token cộng đồng duy nhất.
Lý do chính:
1. Không phù hợp với tiêu chí sử dụng công quỹ:
Việc niêm yết một token cụ thể trên các sàn giao dịch là khoản đầu tư mang tính đầu cơ và rủi ro cao. Đây thường là trách nhiệm của dự án hoặc cộng đồng sở hữu token, không nên trích từ quỹ công vốn được thiết kế để phục vụ lợi ích hệ sinh thái nói chung.2. Thiếu thông tin định lượng để đánh giá hiệu quả:
Đề xuất không cung cấp phân tích tác động từ các lần niêm yết trước (như Kraken, Crypto.com), cũng không có KPI rõ ràng hay kế hoạch hoàn trả ngân sách. Điều này khiến việc đánh giá lợi ích thực tế mà hệ sinh thái nhận được trở nên mơ hồ và chủ quan.3. Không đáp ứng các yêu cầu hiến pháp:
Dựa trên các điều khoản trong Điều IV của Hiến pháp Cardano, đề xuất không thuộc ngân sách đã được thông qua, không có cơ chế kiểm toán độc lập, và không làm rõ tình trạng staking của ví nhận tiền — đây đều là những điều kiện bắt buộc để đảm bảo tính minh bạch và an toàn cho ngân quỹ.4. Tiền lệ nguy hiểm:
Việc tài trợ niêm yết cho một token riêng lẻ có thể tạo tiền lệ không lành mạnh, khiến các dự án khác kỳ vọng nhận tài trợ tương tự. Điều này đe dọa nguyên tắc công bằng và tính trung lập của hệ sinh thái.Tôi tin rằng công quỹ Cardano nên ưu tiên cho hạ tầng mở, công cụ hỗ trợ toàn hệ sinh thái, và các sáng kiến thúc đẩy tính phi tập trung lâu dài — không phải các đề xuất mang tính thương mại cho token cá nhân.
Japanese
Snek が Cardano エコシステムにもたらした文化的貢献は評価していますが、単一のコミュニティトークンの上場に 500 万 ADA を拠出することには賛成できません。
主な理由：
1. 財務資金の目的と合致しない
中央集権型取引所でのトークン上場は、通常プロジェクト自身が負担すべき高リスクな商業投資です。Cardano の財務資金は、個別のトークンではなく、エコシステム全体に利益をもたらす公共財に使われるべきです。2. 定量的な効果分析が不足
KrakenやCrypto.comの過去の上場による効果についての分析がなく、KPIや目標値、返済計画も示されていません。このため、エコシステム全体への実際の効果を評価するのが困難です。3. Cardano 憲法との非整合性
憲法第 IV 条によると、この提案は承認済みのエコシステム予算に含まれておらず、監査体制も明記されていません。また、受け取りウォレットのステーキング状況についても不明です。これらは財務資金の保護に必須の条件です。4. 危険な前例となる可能性
特定トークンの上場に財務資金を使用することは、他のプロジェクトにも同様の期待を生み出し、不公平な前例となる恐れがあります。Cardano の財務資金は、オープンインフラ、分散型ツール、長期的な公共利益に資する取り組みに優先的に使われるべきです。個別トークンのマーケティングや上場ではありません。
- No21.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No17.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain17.3M ₳No rationale
- No16.4M ₳No rationale
- No14.2M ₳No rationale
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA has chosen to abstain at this time while reserving the option to review and update this vote prior to the voting deadline. This approach allows RCADA to allocate focus where immediate evaluation is most impactful, particularly on proposals that are close to threshold or raise significant procedural or constitutional concerns. If this proposal reaches the approv-al threshold prior to our review, the abstention will stand as a neutral signal of deferral, not op-position. Should further analysis be warranted, RCADA will update this vote accordingly.
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
Wada values the energy SNEK brings to Cardano, but this proposal requests a very large treasury withdrawal without constitutional compliance, clear accountability, or measurable success indicators. We also could not support the other SNEK treasury withdrawal proposal (gov_action1r44w54hx553mz0sr4cc07f8tlxzj2sa57l2pt3l9pa2ldw42fc7sq5q3rtn), and our rationale there outlines in greater detail why we think initiatives of this kind do not align with responsible treasury stewardship.
- NoRevoted10.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
- No10.8M ₳Rationale
I believe that it is the outlined Cardano-wide benefits of this proposal are natural consequences of building within the Cardano ecosystem, through genuine organic efforts of projects that choose to build within the ecosystem. Therefore, it is not the responsiblity of this treasury to fund the pursuit of these benefits as an auxillary impact of the proposal's approval. This dRep prioritizes proposals that directly benefit the entire Cardano ecosystem as core deliverable and primary intention.
- No10.8M ₳No rationale
- No8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案に反対します。現行の憲法上、この提案は違憲となるため可決は難しいと考えます。さらに、SNEKの上場支援は特定トークンに偏っており、Cardano全体への還元効果は限定的であると判断します。\n\nI vote No on this proposal. Under the current Constitution, this proposal is unconstitutional and therefore unlikely to be approved. Furthermore, supporting the listing of SNEK is overly focused on a single token, and I believe its benefits to the broader Cardano ecosystem are limited.
- Abstain8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
This proposals has requested just 5ADA in the field for the withdrawal amount- it is unlikely they will achieve the goals with 5 ADA, so I have to presume it is a likely typo. Hence, I vote NO.
The constitutionality of the proposal will be assessed by the Interim CC. There are some signs that there might be some possible issues for consideration in terms of constitutionality.