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.
- No381.1K ₳Rationale
No! This budget is much too large for the little that has been delivered so far and especially in comparison to other tools that provide the same, often even better functionality in governance portals as well as just as additional functionality of wallet apps. It's just not worth it. This is an example of a project that has grown way out of reasonable proportion when everything was centralised at IOG and Intersect. Let's scratch that!
- Yes370.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES because this proposal strengthens an already functional and essential governance platform—GovTool—through clear, community-led improvements.
It enhances user experience and reliability based on real feedback, and introduces dedicated development across key governance areas: proposals, delegation, voting, outcomes, and budget discussions. It also adds full end-to-end testing and continues to follow an open, transparent development model.
GovTool is vital for inclusive governance—without it, participation risks becoming fragmented or limited to closed systems. This proposal ensures continued access, usability, and clarity for all Ada holders.
The platform’s open-source nature offers ecosystem-wide benefits. Its code and APIs are already used by other tools, and ₳250k is earmarked to support external contributors and open governance tools building on it.
Funding is structured through tiered levels and smart contracts, ensuring transparency, cost-efficiency (nearly 50% lower than earlier proposals), and responsible allocation. Unused funds will return to the Treasury.
For these reasons—continued platform improvement, increased governance efficiency, and ecosystem-wide open-source value—I strongly support this proposal and vote YES.
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes346.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes332.3K ₳No rationale
- No320.4K ₳Rationale
Exorbitant Infrastructure Cost of 200k ADA for 6 months
- Yes313.4K ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes to support this proposal because I believe maintaining and developing open governance tools like GovTool is essential for Cardano’s ecosystem.
This proposal meets the criteria outlined in the Constitution, including Article III Section 4, which connects to the ecosystem budget, and Article IV Section 1, which supports tools that maintain and grow the blockchain ecosystem. It also contributes directly to participatory and decentralized governance, which is at the heart of Article III overall.
GovTool is a public good. It’s not owned by a company, it’s not commercial, and it exists to make Cardano governance accessible and fair for everyone. It’s open source, built with input from the community, and designed to be reused and built upon. That approach takes more time and coordination, but it's the right one for a decentralized ecosystem.
The proposal includes a clear breakdown of costs, covering 12 months of work across all environments (Dev, QA, Preview, PreProd, Mainnet). It also explains how funds are allocated and provides historical cost data for transparency. Most of the real effort sits in the backend and infrastructure that powers not just GovTool’s interface, but many other governance tools in the ecosystem too.
This funding will help ensure that GovTool remains a reliable, community-owned platform for participation.
I also note that any unused funds will be returned to the treasury, which shows good practice.
For all these reasons, I believe this is a fair and necessary proposal that strengthens Cardano’s ability to govern itself.
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
GovTools is starting to succumb to feature creep. The scope of GovTools should be restricted to proposing and voting on governance actions. A much more modest budget is appropriate.
- Yes279.3K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted271.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Abstain261K ₳No rationale
- Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
By voting "yay" I am supporting the allocation of ADA from the Treasury to fund GovTool’s development and maintenance for the next 12 months. This investment ensures that Cardano’s governance infrastructure remains robust and accessible, which is vital for the ecosystem’s success. The requested ₳1,050,500 seems reasonable given the proven track record of what they have delivered so far. If it wasn't for GovTools I wouldn't be here voting today as that's how I got onboarded as a DRep.
- No238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes208.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes185.6K ₳Rationale
GovTool is a critical component to our governance system. Most of the other governance tools rely on the APIs of GovTool to function.
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.4K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain138.4K ₳Rationale
Although GovTool has laid the foundation for DRep registration and delegation, and play a crucial role in the implementation of CIP-1694, I am unable to support this proposal due to the amount being requested.
Requesting 1.5m ada for 12 months of maintenance and continued development in my view is excessive. While I acknowledge the importance of improving GovTool’s UI and UX, the size of the budget and the duration of funding are the primary reasons for my decision.
As a DRep who has consistently advocated for smaller NCL this year and has already approved a budget of approximately 280m ada within an NCL of 300m, I will **abstain **from this vote and leave the decision to my fellow DReps.
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain131.9K ₳Rationale
The BAT Community DRep Committee has voted ABSTAIN of the Cardano GovTool Budget - 12 months full active maintenance and development, and ABSTAIN for the Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025.
Both proposals seek to enhance DRep infrastructure and broaden its accessibility, we believe that the domain of DRep voting should ultimately rest in the capable hands of innovative builders. This vision remains in its nascent stages—for instance, as evidenced by the Lace wallet's ongoing development of integrated infrastructure—yet it demands additional time for other creators to cultivate and refine. Consequently, a difficult choice between victors and contenders as both options support the DRep community. In light of this dilemma, we chose to ABSTAIN as we are in the early midst of DRep and the proliferation of DRep accessibility within the Cardano ecosystem. We love both options and support the outcome chosen by those with conviction.
- Yes118.7K ₳Rationale
We need these governance tools and GovTool has been instrumental in this first iteration.
- Yes117.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of approving this proposal. At first glance the budget seems high, but it is significantly lower than the initial proposal, which was made during the intersect proposal process. Additionally, there are good explanations with this proposal on why the funds requested are required, and this comes from a significant amount of community interaction, which answers most open questions not answered by the first proposal. For anyone interested, check the full long-form proposal, as it has many additional details that helped me make an informed decision. The most important consideration for me, however, is simply one of protecting the integrity of the Cardano voting system. There are no monetary incentives at this stage for anyone to build governance tools. Therefore, having a treasury funded, community based, open source system is very important. It may be that as time goes on this need will no longer be there, but for now this is the prudent option, and I believe it is well worth the costs outlined.
- Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- No94.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes69.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes67.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.9K ₳Rationale
Solid team and good progression/ show of commitment and skill of team to deliver, but waaaaaay waaaaaayy too expensive. However, given lack of alternatives (tempo.vote exists, but its proposal is too bad to consider serious), and lack of history, this is ok as a start in the first year. Would not vote on the same amounts again next year though.
- Yes53K ₳Rationale
Ferdz has been using the Cardano GovTool for his DRep activities, so I would naturally vote Yes for this tool in support to its community builders.
- No52.4K ₳Rationale
I do not support the GovTool budget proposal in its current form for the following reasons:
- I think the budget is too high for the complexity of the project
- I think some of the things that are being proposed in the budget do not justify their cost
- I believe the GovTool team's past performance and that of their competition (namely Tempo.vote) demonstrates that there are more competitive teams out there capable of building more stable and usable alternatives at a lower cost for Cardano.
- Yes50.5K ₳Rationale
In general I am of similar mind to others who have voted yes here. Governance needs to get better in general and I think supporting this will make everything easier in the future. The more support governance gets the better it is for Cardano overall.
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- No46.5K ₳Rationale
On behalf of CASIA team, I’m voting no on this proposal — not because I don’t support GovTool (I do), but because the ₳1.15M ask feels too high right now (~ 100k ada/ month)
I get that a lot of work has gone into it, and the team clearly cares, but jumping straight to the top funding tier without trying a more phased or leaner approach first just doesn’t sit right. Especially with Treasury funds, I think we need to be a bit more cautious.
Would love to see a trimmed-down version, maybe start with just maintenance + community incentives, then build up from there based on progress. That would make a yes vote much easier.
Plus cost benchmarking to prove value for money for community is a plus point
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
GovTool is mission-critical open‑source infrastructure for Cardano governance. This proposal is well‑structured, community-led, and cost‑optimized. I strongly support funding it at Level 3 to ensure robust maintenance, feature development, and contributor incentives.
- Yes29.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes29K ₳No rationale