Cardano GovTool Budget - 12 months full active maintenance and development
220 DReps voted · 64 with a rationale · 18 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA is abstaining from voting Yes or No on this Info Action, while signaling general support for the continuation of GovTool as a cornerstone of Cardano’s decentralized governance. This decision is made in the spirit of constructive feedback, intended to encourage improvements before a follow-up Treasury Withdrawal proposal is submitted.
GovTool plays a vital role in enabling open, non-custodial and inclusive participation in on-chain governance. Its development to date has been largely community-led and the proposal’s updated modular budget structure, combined with working group feedback mechanisms, is a step in the right direction. The value provided—both through its interface and API infrastructure—is real and has been critical in onboarding new DReps and participants.That said, I remain concerned about aspects of the proposal’s execution plan. The Level 2 incentives remain too vague in their allocation criteria, lacking specificity around expected outcomes or eligibility. The milestone-based funding disbursements could benefit from stronger definitions of deliverables and while the proposal references smart contract safeguards, it does not make clear how unused funds will be transparently returned. I also remain cautious about the current governance structure of GovTool, which—though community-led in principle—relies heavily on a small, tightly coordinated group of builders. If this is to scale as public infrastructure, decentralizing its stewardship must become a priority.
Importantly, the current DRep approval rate is now over 44%, which is encouraging and suggests growing confidence in the proposal. My abstention is not opposition—it is a constructive request for clarity. With stronger articulation of milestone criteria, incentive logic and guardrails, I would be prepared to vote Yes on a follow-up Treasury Withdrawal.
RCADA Rationale 02.08.2025 - Update:
I would like to thank the GovTool proposers for thoughtfully addressing the concerns raised in my previous rationale. Their clarifications regarding the Level 2 incentives—particularly the use of bounty-based platforms like Andamio for open-source contributions—and their commitment to define clearer milestone-based disbursements ahead of any Treasury Withdrawal proposal are encouraging signs of a responsive governance process.
I also acknowledge their clear intent to decentralize development and scale community participation and I recognize the current modular architecture as a strong foundation for long-term resilience.In light of these clarifications, I am updating my vote to a Conditional Yes, in support of the value GovTool brings to the ecosystem and its importance as public digital infrastructure. However, my continued support for any Treasury Withdrawal proposal remains contingent on follow-through: specifically, the inclusion of measurable deliverables, transparent fund allocation and a clearer roadmap addressing long-term financial sustainability and a strategy for reducing ongoing reliance on Treasury funding. It will be important that GovTool does not become a permanent funding dependency without cost controls or alternatives for long-term maintenance.
I offer this vote as a signal of cautious optimism and constructive collaboration.
Side-note for proposers:
I’d like to recommend that future iterations of this proposal or its roadmap include a structured campaign to address the ongoing issue of low governance participation across the Cardano community.
While GovTool is a vital infrastructure layer, its impact is ultimately limited unless we grow the number of ADA holders actively participating—through delegation, proposal review, and voting.
I encourage the proposers and Intersect to incorporate a community engagement and onboarding strategy within the funding scope or support it as a parallel initiative, possibly via Level 2 incentives.
Addressing this gap will improve representation and strengthen the legitimacy of on-chain decisions.Earlier votes
Abstain11mo agoSuperseded
RCADA is abstaining from voting Yes or No on this Info Action, while signaling general support for the continuation of GovTool as a cornerstone of Cardano’s decentralized governance. This decision is made in the spirit of constructive feedback, intended to encourage improvements before a follow-up Treasury Withdrawal proposal is submitted.
GovTool plays a vital role in enabling open, non-custodial and inclusive participation in on-chain governance. Its development to date has been largely community-led and the proposal’s updated modular budget structure, combined with working group feedback mechanisms, is a step in the right direction. The value provided—both through its interface and API infrastructure—is real and has been critical in onboarding new DReps and participants.That said, I remain concerned about aspects of the proposal’s execution plan. The Level 2 incentives remain too vague in their allocation criteria, lacking specificity around expected outcomes or eligibility. The milestone-based funding disbursements could benefit from stronger definitions of deliverables and while the proposal references smart contract safeguards, it does not make clear how unused funds will be transparently returned. I also remain cautious about the current governance structure of GovTool, which—though community-led in principle—relies heavily on a small, tightly coordinated group of builders. If this is to scale as public infrastructure, decentralizing its stewardship must become a priority.
Importantly, the current DRep approval rate is now over 44%, which is encouraging and suggests growing confidence in the proposal. My abstention is not opposition—it is a constructive request for clarity. With stronger articulation of milestone criteria, incentive logic and guardrails, I would be prepared to vote Yes on a follow-up Treasury Withdrawal.
- Yes12.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
We, the Wada DRep, have voted yes on the “Cardano GovTool Budget – 12 Months Full Active Maintenance and Development” proposal. Our support for this request is based on two core principles: governance maturity and community value. This proposal represents a critical step forward in preserving open access to Cardano’s on-chain governance while also modeling how community-funded initiatives should engage, respond, and evolve based on input from stakeholders.
The GovTool team has demonstrated remarkable responsiveness to the feedback gathered from DReps, contributors, and the broader community during the 2025 budgeting process. After submitting their initial proposal, they undertook several rounds of consultations through the Governance Tool Working Group, community forums, and open development calls. As a result, the final proposal reflects thoughtful, community-aligned adjustments that meaningfully improve both its scope and its strategic value.
One of the most important improvements was the introduction of a tiered funding structure, Levels 1 through 3, which now makes the budget modular and transparent. This allows the community to understand what features and activities are funded at each level of support, from baseline infrastructure maintenance to full-featured active development and incentive programs. This structure reflects a realistic and scalable vision for public goods development under decentralized governance.
Beyond the process, the features that GovTool will deliver under this proposal stand to benefit the Cardano community in tangible, far-reaching ways.
GovTool is the primary open-source frontend for Cardano governance, already used by over 48,000 ADA holders across more than 170 countries, as hinted in the proposal. It powers vital governance actions, DRep registration, delegation, proposal creation, voting, and outcome tracking, and integrates with other public tools such as 1694.io, cardanobudget.com, and governancespace.co, etc. Continued investment in GovTool ensures that every ADA holder, not just the technically fluent, can participate meaningfully in Cardano’s governance era.
The proposal also strengthens the ecosystem by introducing and funding community incentive pools. These include ₳150K for contributors to the GovTool GitHub repository and ₳100K for developers building interoperable tools using GovTool APIs. This move expands the circle of contributors and helps grow a governance developer ecosystem that is open, competitive, and sustainable.
Moreover, the team is committed to open APIs, quality assurance (QA), user experience testing, localization efforts, and enhanced support for wallet integrations and backend reliability. These improvements directly address pain points raised during the beta testing phase and will result in a more robust and user-friendly experience for everyone participating in on-chain governance.
We are also encouraged by the team’s adherence to constitutional best practices. The proposal is administered through Intersect, using milestone-based smart contracts, and includes refund clauses for unused funds. It complies with all relevant sections of the Cardano Constitution, particularly Articles IV.1 to IV.4.
In short, this proposal reflects not just a strong technical project but a governance-aware, community-integrated initiative that has developed through delivery, transparency, and collaboration. It keeps Cardano’s governance layer accessible, protects the neutrality of core infrastructure, and empowers new contributors to build and improve on shared foundations.
For all these reasons, its strategic importance, its transparent evolution based on community feedback, and the wide set of features it will deliver for ADA holders, we have voted yes and encourage others to support this essential proposal.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.8M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted10.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes0y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案は、Cardanoの分散型ガバナンスを支える基盤インフラの維持・発展を目的としたものです。利便性の面では改善の余地がある点は懸念されますが、長期的な視点から見れば極めて重要な取り組みであると考えます。これまでの実績、透明性、そしてコミュニティ主導の運営体制は、十分に評価されるべきです。今後も公共財としてのガバナンスツールを発展させていくため、本提案に賛成いたします。\n\nThis proposal aims to maintain and enhance the foundational infrastructure that supports Cardano’s decentralized governance. While there is room for improvement in terms of usability, I believe it is a critically important initiative from a long-term perspective. Its proven track record, transparency, and community-led management deserve proper recognition. To further develop governance tools as public goods, I vote in favor of this proposal.
- YesChanged8.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on this reworked and improved GovToools proposal.
The original proposal for Cardano GovTool that was rejected by DReps was worth ₳2 million. I voted NO on that previous one (earlier this year) due to concerns about the size of the budget request and a perceived (from my point of view) lack of agility and responsiveness of GovTool to the concerns from DReps who were one of the end user categories of their tool.
My key concern was mainly the inability to vote in a smooth and orderly and uninterrupted fashion over GovTools. The user experience was not there. However, my NO vote was mostly a message - that they need to go back to the drawing board.
I originally voted NO mainly because of: (a) perceived high cost vs what we were using (b) lack of engagement by GovTools team to proactively prevent voting disruptions on their platform.
My impression is that the GovTool team rolled with the punches and managed to turn what was a major loss into a much better proposal and improved approach to how GovTools should be developed (with community feedback).Equally importantly for me - the new budget info action adds up to ₳1.15 million. The Tier 3 (most robust) version encompassing full active dev & maintenance (for ₳1.15 M) delivers the same five-pillar (Proposals Pillar, Delegation Pillar, Voting Pillar, Outcomes Pillar and Budget Discussions Pillar) coverage for 43 % less ADA. Savings mainly come from slimmer FTE assumptions and sharing ops overhead.
They regrouped, refocused, held Twitter spaces and consultations with the community. They now submitted this budget info action - separately from Intersect. Although the details of the administration process are aligned with the structure provided by Intersect as administrator.
The new proposal was drafted with users after four weeks of feedback. It also dedicates funds to grassroots contributors and companion tools. This is an important concession and a strong match for Cardano’s decentralized and participatory ethos. This should remain part of GovTools philosophy as we progress.
I welcome the team's idea to introduce a tiered structure and streamed contracts - allowing DReps to dial spending up or down and stop payment quickly if milestones slip.The explicit grants for projects like 1694.io or Tempo.vote and cardanobudget.com also are encouraging for creating "an ecosystem of complementary front-ends" rather than a single monopoly tool.
As regards the constitutionality of this proposal, I defer the ultimate judgement of this aspect of this proposal to the Interim Constitutional Committee.
- No7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
At the end of the day this tool needs to exist and we should support it to ensure governance in Cardano is sustainable and viable solution for users to use.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners is voting “YES” on the Cardano GovTool Budget Info Action.
GovTool plays a critical role in enabling decentralized on-chain governance. As the main interface for governance participation across Cardano, it has become an absolute necessity for the ecosystem.We appreciate that the team went back to the drawing board, listened to community input, and reduced the original request from 2M to 1.15M ADA. That shows responsiveness, maturity, and willingness to adapt according to community needs.
While we still consider the revised budget relatively high for the number of FTEs involved, the impact and reach of GovTool - especially the number of governance tools and platforms that rely on its APIs - justify continued support at this early stage.
This proposal helps sustain the backbone of Cardano’s governance, while keeping the door open for improvement. With a commitment to open-source code, transparent communication, a dedicated Intersect WG, and an incentivized contribution model, the community can actively shape GovTool’s future and improve on its weaknesses to create an accessible and open platform for everyone to build upon.
- Yes4.8M ₳Rationale
For more in-depth information on our voting rationales you can visit our DRep page at - www.CoinCeylon.com/Drep
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- No4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "Sim" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1n5sn54mgf47a7men2ryq6ppx88kta4wvenz2qkl4f9v6ppje8easqxwm88m), pois o GovTools é a principal ferramenta de participação na governança, fornecendo as funcionalidades que algumas carteiras ainda não têm disponíveis, como a carteira Lace. Portanto, sua manutenção e continuidade são essenciais para o amadurecimento da governança, favorecendo o aumento de participação da comunidade.
[English]
We chose to vote "Yes" on this governance action (gov_action1n5sn54mgf47a7men2ryq6ppx88kta4wvenz2qkl4f9v6ppje8easqxwm88m), because GovTools is the main tool for participating in governance, providing features that some wallets, such as Lace, do not yet offer. Therefore, its maintenance and continuity are essential for the maturation of governance and to foster increased community participation. - YesChanged4M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes3.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
GovTool is essential infrastructure: it's how ADA holders register, delegate, vote, and track outcomes. To keep governance open and accessible, we need to allow the tool to improve, stay secure, and scale with usage.
The requested amount is reasonable given the scope, and it aligns with my manifesto: support for core infrastructure with conservative use of treasury funds.
- No3.4M ₳No rationale
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
Gov.tools remains buggy with minimal features and poor UI/UX when compared to other community governance tools available (tempo.vote, ekklesia). Thankfully there have been some minor improvements, but the service has a long way to go.
The amount requested is extremely high when compared to the budget requested by competitor product tempo.vote . The amount asked for maintenance costs for a gov.tools service that plans to add no features for $330K / ₳412.5K is ridiculous.
I would much rather support competitor services financially when they are willing to continue to maintain their products and add new features for less than this in a 6 month period of time.
Gov.tools still does not even have a proper bug ticketing/reporting system, as there is no way to get email correspondence or follow-up for any bugs that are encountered and not resolved.
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳Rationale
As a developer and DevOps specialist, I believe the requested amount is significantly overestimated and does not reflect the actual needs of a project of this type.
I also run an independent node and indexer. The Medusa cluster consists of 5 servers: one server running cardano-db-sync with 12 cores and 64 GB of RAM; three servers running cardano-node, providing redundancy and data to the db-sync, each with 8 cores and 24 GB of RAM; and a frontend server with 4 cores and 4 GB of RAM. Each server is connected to a reliable 2 Gbps channel.
The cluster operates stably and without interruption, serving around 600 unique users per day on average, with peaks reaching 1,000 at epoch boundaries. While that may not sound like a lot, wallet synchronization happens continuously, and in reality, the cluster processes tens or even hundreds of thousands of requests daily — even when users take no active actions after logging in.
I pay around $100 per month in total for this infrastructure.
You are requesting approximately $27,500 per month for infrastructure and maintenance(I’m not even considering the other items or amounts — only this one), based on the current exchange rate.
Even if all 948 DReps registered in the Cardano network — and we both know that’s objectively impossible — accessed your service and voted, it wouldn’t produce even 1% of the load my cluster handles. That’s assuming they all logged in and voted on the same day, which is also highly unrealistic. Voting events are infrequent and spread over time. Yes, nodes and db-sync do operate between voting periods as well — but so do mine, even when nobody is accessing them. Three nodes and one db-sync — all for $100 per month.
So my answer is “NO.”
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Gov tools is an open source backend used by many other governance interfaces, both open and proprietary. Improving Gov tools seems like a rising tide for all the governance boats in the race.
Some of the features to be added include:
- CC vote history and rationale presentation
- Drep voting history interfaces
-Support for Group / Multi person DReps - Group / Multi person proposers for on-chain actions
- Introduce CoSponsors to Crowdfund ADA for governance action deposits.
- Pre-governance polling, to gauge DRep sentiment before on-chain actions.
- Integration of AI tools to aid in translation, etc to make multi-national involvement in discussion more feasible.
I like what I see here, and while the proposed budget is larger than I would prefer, I think it will be worth it if the teams involved deliver on all these features well.
This is all new; and teams need chances to prove themselves. I am comfortable giving them a year of funding. I will make sure to confirm all these features are delivered before extending their funding next year.
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私はこのInfo Actionに賛成（Yes）します。
GovToolは、カルダノのオンチェーンガバナンスにおいて、DRepの委任、提案、投票、結果確認などを可能にする中核的な公共インフラです。その継続的な開発と保守は、Voltaire期における分散型ガバナンスの実現に不可欠です。
本提案では、コミュニティからのフィードバックを反映した段階的な予算構成と、Intersectによるスマートコントラクトを用いた透明性の高い資金管理が示されています。₳1.15Mという請求額は、対象業務のスコープ、工数、構造に照らして妥当であると判断します。
この提案は、GovToolの維持と進化を通じて、カルダノのガバナンス文化をより開かれたものに育てていくための重要な一歩です。
I support this Info Action with a Yes vote.
GovTool is a core piece of public infrastructure for Cardano’s on-chain governance, enabling DRep delegation, proposal submission, voting, and result tracking. Its continued development and maintenance are essential to realizing decentralized governance during the Voltaire era.
This proposal presents a tiered budget structure that incorporates community feedback, along with a transparent fund management system using smart contracts overseen by Intersect. The requested amount of ₳1.15M is considered reasonable given the scope, workload, and organizational structure involved.
This Info Action represents a crucial step toward strengthening Cardano’s governance culture by ensuring the continued support and evolution of GovTool as an open and inclusive public good. - Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
YES BUILD
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged1.8M ₳Rationale
I am changing my vote on the GovTool proposal from Yes to Abstain. I support GovTool’s mission but believe a smaller budget could cover core maintenance and improvements. I also attempted to use GovTools to vote on treasury withdraws, but encountered errors several times while doing so. Others also reported issues voting. This makes me hesitant to vote yes on additional funding until the product is working as intended. Once these issues have been resolved, I would support a leaner GovTools proposal.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- NoRevoted1.8M ₳Rationale
While I deeply value the intention behind sustaining and expanding open-source governance infrastructure for Cardano, I am voting No on this proposal primarily because it fails to meaningfully integrate or harmonize with the development of Tempo.vote.
Tempo.vote has emerged as a lightweight, efficient, and highly usable interface for ADA holders and DReps alike. It demonstrates clearer design, improved delegation flows (particularly for hardware wallet users), and a stronger focus on transparency and accessibility for end-users. Despite this, the GovTool proposal does not recognize Tempo.vote as a foundational pillar in the broader governance UX ecosystem, nor does it propose coordinated development pathways or shared architecture.
Cardano’s governance tooling should be modular, interoperable, and responsive to actual community usage patterns. A continued siloed approach—where parallel tools are developed independently without shared planning, funding, or architectural coherence—risks fragmentation, wasted treasury spending, and stagnation in UX innovation.
Until proposals like this actively align with promising ecosystem tools like Tempo.vote and build toward an interoperable, composable governance UX stack, I believe treasury funding should be withheld. I strongly encourage a revised proposal that recognizes Tempo.vote not just as a dependent or adjacent application, but as a core strategic component of Cardano’s governance infrastructure.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
GovTool is not fully open source. We should instead be supporting open source initiatives.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale