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.
- YesChanged584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary:
Yoroi DRep votes YES on the governance action to fund Cardano GovTool – Budget for 12 months of full active maintenance and development.
Rationale:GovTool is a critical, open-source governance infrastructure that supports the full on-chain process from DRep registration to proposal submission, voting, and outcomes. It aligns closely with Cardano’s CIPs, community-first ethos, and does not pursue commercial interests.
The team responded transparently and promptly to recent bugs, expanding test coverage, refactoring outdated modules, and improving debugging workflows. These improvements, combined with a growing contributor base, reflect clear lessons learned from past challenges.Conclusion:
Yoroi DRep acknowledges that GovTool still has areas for improvement, particularly in delivery structure and operational clarity. However, we support this proposal because we believe in its mission, its community alignment, and its evolving commitment to reliability and transparency.Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Summary
Yoroi votes YES on the governance action to fund ZK Bridge administered by Intersect.Rationale
Interoperability boost – This proposal addresses a critical gap by enabling trustless cross-chain interactions, which could drive both liquidity and user expansion for Cardano.
ZK-native advantage – A modular ZK bridge positions Cardano to catch up with and eventually rival ecosystems like Ethereum in privacy and scalability features.
Strong team backing – Led by Eryx, a team with deep expertise in zero-knowledge cryptography and Aiken, the project shows strong potential for timely and reliable delivery.
Conclusion
Despite the complexity, Yoroi sees this as a strategically important step to strengthen Cardano’s Layer 2 future. - Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
I voted YES for the Govtool proposal.
Here are the reasons:
There are still very big concerns about the barriers to participation in Cardano governance. In particular, the majority of Cardano wallets are reluctant (low priority) to improve governance functions. As a result, a large number of DReps are abstaining and governance participation rates are declining. This needs to be resolved.
In particular, only Eternl, Typhon, and Gero wallets meet all of the following criteria.
Display list of DRep in wallet
DRep Name Search Delegation UI
4 clicks + under 30 seconds DRep delegationOf these, only Typhon meets DRep Neutrality.
To implement these features within the wallet, cooperation from wallet providers is essential, but it may be possible to speed up implementation using Govtool's API and services.
In addition, there are few DRep search tools in use. After all, most ADA holders delegate to DReps they have seen on social media or DReps recommended by their wallet providers. A neutral tool to improve these situations is needed.
Also, most DReps do not attach the reason for voting, which is related to UI issues. DRep is busy.
Govtool has promised to manually prioritize the implementation of these features based on DRep/community feedback. I think the cost is not cheap, but considering that Govtool currently provides the most features, there is a high risk of eliminating this.
I want to ensure that feedback on feature implementations is collected and prioritized to some extent before Treasury Withdrawals.
ーーー
私はGovtool提案書にYESを投票しました。
理由は次のとおりです。
Cardanoのガバナンスの参加障壁は非常に大きな懸念が残っています。特にCardanoウォレットの大多数はガバナンス機能の充実化に消極的（優先順位が低い）です。結果として大量の棄権DRepの発生とガバナンス参加率の低下が起きています。これを解決する必要があります。
特に、次の全てを満たすウォレットはEternl、Typhon、Geroのみです。
Display list of DRep in wallet
DRep Name Search Delegation UI
4 clicks + under 30 seconds DRep delegationDRep Neutralityを満たすのはその中で、Typhonのみです。
これらをウォレット内部で実装するためには、ウォレットプロバイダーの協力が不可欠ですが、Govtool のAPIやサービスなどで実装を早めることが可能である可能性があります。
また、結局DRepの検索ツールで使われているものはまずありません。結局のところほとんどのADAホルダーはSNSなどで見かけたDRepまたはウォレットプロバイダーが推奨するDRepに委任しています。これらの状況を改善する中立的なツールが必要です。
また、投票理由をほとんどのDRepが添付していませんが、これはUI上の問題が関係しています。DRepは忙しいのです。
Govtoolはこれらの機能実装をDRep/コミュニティのフィードバック手動で優先順位づけすることを約束しています。コストは安くないと思いますが、しかし現状で最も多くの機能を提供しているのがGovtoolであることを考えると、これを廃止するリスクの方が高い状況にあります。
私は、トレジャリー引き出しまでに一定程度、機能実装に関するフィードバックが収集され、優先順位づけされていることを確認したいと思います。
- Abstain293M ₳Rationale
Summary:
EMURGO as DRep abstains from the governance action to fund Cardano GovTool – Budget for 12 months of full active maintenance and development.
Rationale:
We recognize that GovTool plays a vital role in shaping Cardano’s on-chain governance experience. The proposal outlines clear intentions and presents ongoing improvements in transparency and accessibility. However, there are still areas that need deeper clarity, particularly regarding execution risk and delivery accountability.The timing of this proposal coincides with a pivotal moment in Cardano’s governance development. While the team behind the proposal is respected and has been involved since the tool’s inception, this context places even more importance on demonstrating operational resilience and clearly defined milestones. As it stands, the proposal leaves room for doubt regarding whether the team can sustain momentum and meet expectations in this critical phase.
We abstain from voting at this time, not out of opposition, but out of caution. We invite the proposers to strengthen their narrative around execution strategy and delivery assurance to ensure lasting trust in Cardano's foundational governance infrastructure
- NoChanged254.7M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
Gov Tools is virtually impossible to use with other groups already building superior alternatives.
- Abstain222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted ABSTAIN on gov_action1n5sn54mgf47a7men2ryq6ppx88kta4wvenz2qkl4f9v6ppje8easqxwm88m; The requested amount is way too high for the proposed work and what has beed delivered so far. Eternl could help hosting gov.tools in it's current state, if no other solution is available.
- No174.6M ₳Rationale
The user interface has always been confusing and burdensome. It's a lot of money to ask for a product which I think has delivered a bad experience - especially when there are alternatives that I think work better
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes YES on the budget info action titled “Cardano GovTool Budget - 12 months full active maintenance and development” (gov_action1n5sn54mgf47a7men2ryq6ppx88kta4wvenz2qkl4f9v6ppje8easqxwm88m).
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
While acknowledging valid concerns, this is a pragmatic decision based on GovTool’s strategic importance as an open-source public good, ensuring accessibility to Cardano's decentralized governance model.
Rationale Statement
This decision follows a detailed review of the governance action and consideration of diverse viewpoints within our governance advisory team. Our support is based on a pragmatic assessment of GovTool’s role in the ecosystem, balanced against its acknowledged areas for improvement.
Reasons for a YES Vote:
- Strategic Importance for Governance Accessibility: A core principle in "Our Cardano" is Accessibility, ensuring participation in governance is open to all. GovTool is the primary, non-commercial tool that currently fulfills this mission, providing a neutral and open-source public good for every ada holder to engage in governance. Maintaining its viability at this time, while governance is in a critical stage, is important for Cardano’s governance model, as it prevents reliance on proprietary, closed-source alternatives.
- Commitment to Open Source and Ecosystem Growth: The proposal reinforces a commitment to open-source principles, which prevents vendor lock-in and fosters a competitive environment. Furthermore, the budget’s Level 2 funding earmarks 250,000 ada for direct community contributions and to support other open-source governance tools, an approach that should benefit the entire ecosystem.
- Pragmatic Support for a Proven and Improving Team: While the tool has known user experience and technical shortcomings, the consortium has a proven track record of consistently delivering and maintaining this infrastructure. They have demonstrated responsiveness to feedback and a commitment to improvement. For lack of better alternatives, supporting this established team represents the most viable path to retaining and enhancing the value GovTool provides.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. While we acknowledge the concerns regarding the proposal's cost and the process by which it was formed, we believe the strategic importance of maintaining a functional, neutral, and open-source public good for governance currently outweighs these issues. This is a pragmatic decision to support important infrastructure, not a blanket endorsement of the proposal in its entirety. We expect the Cardano GovTool Consortium to address the community feedback outlined in this rationale. We will advocate for more transparent, competitive tender processes for all future ecosystem infrastructure funding.
- Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes91.5M ₳Rationale
I’ve decided to vote YES on the Info GA proposal for GovTool.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Initially, I was leaning toward voting NO or Abstain, as the request for 1.15 million ADA (approx. $920,000) to fund 5.75 FTEs seemed quite steep for a community-driven open-source project. This concern appears to be shared by many, based on discussions I’ve followed across X.
It’s worth asking whether maintaining and evolving a single governance tool should really cost $1 million per year—especially when multiple governance tools are now in development. Each of these projects will likely request funding from the Treasury. In that context, I believe $1M should be enough to support several tools, not just one.
I believe that as these tools mature and stabilize, their maintenance costs will naturally decrease.
More broadly, I think the development of governance infrastructure needs better coordination. Without it, we risk fragmentation and inefficient use of resources.
In the end, I chose to support the proposal.
Governance is still a relatively new component of our ecosystem, and early-stage support is essential. Many tools are still in development—some are incomplete, others don’t function as expected, and improvements are clearly needed.
Effective on-chain governance depends on robust infrastructure. Cardano has committed to building governance on-chain, and to succeed, we must bring its infrastructure to a mature, reliable state.
I recall that navigating budget proposals in GovTool was noticeably less intuitive compared to Ekklesia. We saw governance actions submitted incorrectly. Many DReps don’t provide rationales for their votes, and technical hurdles may be a contributing factor.
All that is evidence that the tooling isn’t yet where it needs to be.
Better-designed tools can encourage stronger engagement from DReps and delegators.
Another reason I support this project is its commitment to being fully open-source. In a decentralized ecosystem, open access is key to building trust.
One final reason I’m supporting the proposal is simple: GovTool is my go-to platform for governance. It’s the tool I rely on most, so it feels natural to stand behind something I actively use.
That said, I’d really like to see the team optimize GovTool over time so that it becomes less costly to maintain. As the platform matures, I hope its upkeep will become more efficient. - Yes88.6M ₳Rationale
It has become an indispensable tool for the development of Cardano governance. Therefore, it is essential to continue its development.
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
Statement from SIPO DRep
Why I Intend to Vote YES — with Conditions — on the Cardano GovTool Budget Proposal
GovTool is a critical piece of public infrastructure for decentralized governance on Cardano. I believe it plays an essential role in realizing our shared vision of democratic, participatory, and transparent governance. Supporting its continued development is a necessary step as we move into the next phase of Cardano 2.0.
In reviewing this proposal led by Intersect, I recognize several important strengths:
• The formation of a new GovTool Consortium that brings together active developers and contributors
• A strong commitment to open-source, reusable, and community-led development
• Deep integration with the broader ecosystem, including tools like 1694.io and budget.cardano.africaI also note that this proposal comes at a pivotal moment: the Intersect Board has, for the first time, reached a majority of elected members. This signals the beginning of a truly community-governed institution. I believe now is the time to take the next step.
Therefore, I intend to vote YES, with the following conditions:
Conditions for My Support:
1. Clear KPIs and Roadmap
I would like to see well-defined, measurable KPIs for each development pillar under Level 3, along with a transparent roadmap and quarterly progress reports.
2. Midterm Review at 6 Months
While this is a 12-month proposal, I believe a formal midterm evaluation at 6 months is essential to assess progress and maintain accountability for the second half of the funding period.
3. Transparent Allocation of External Incentives
The process and criteria for distributing the ₳100k for external governance tools and ₳150k for individual contributors should be clearly documented and publicly available to ensure fair and open access.To me, GovTool is not just a frontend—it’s the civic gateway to Cardano’s on-chain governance. It must remain open, neutral, and collectively governed by the community it serves.
I will continue to advocate for a governance system that reflects these values: transparency, inclusion, and accountability. This vote is one step in that direction.
—
SIPO
Delegated Representative (DRep)
Cardano Governance⸻
SIPO DRep声明
GovTool開発予算提案に対するSIPOの判断について（条件付き賛成）
カルダノの分散型ガバナンスの中核インフラとして機能するGovToolは、我々が目指す「参加型・透明性・公共性を備えた民主的ガバナンス」の実現において不可欠な社会的基盤であり、その維持・拡張はCardano 2.0時代への移行にとって重要なステップです。
SIPOとしては、Intersectが主導するこの提案が、以下の点において前向きな方向性を示していると判断します：
• ガバナンスツール群を構成する開発者・団体による新たな「GovToolコンソーシアム」の発足と透明性の高い提案構造
• オープンソース・再利用性・分散開発を重視した公共財モデルの継続
• 1694.ioやbudget.cardano.africaなど既存エコシステムとの高い相互運用性また、Intersectが選挙で選ばれた理事が初めて過半数を占める新体制に移行したこのタイミングは、カルダノが真に「分散型で自律的な意思決定構造」へと踏み出す出発点であり、GovToolの維持・発展を通じて、その動きに確かな実行力を与えるべきだと考えます。
よって、SIPOは以下の条件を付した上で、本提案に賛成票を投じます。
【条件事項】
1. KPIとロードマップの明示
L3レベルにおける各ピラーの進捗や成果を定量的に可視化するKPIを設定し、四半期ごとの進捗報告をコミュニティに対して行うこと。
2. 中間レビューの制度化（6ヶ月時点）
12ヶ月満額支出の中で、6ヶ月経過時点での中間レビューを実施し、後半の資金執行に対するガバナンス的チェックポイントを設けること。
3. 外部貢献者支援の配分透明性
提案内に含まれる ₳100k（外部ツール支援）および ₳150k（個人貢献者支援）の評価基準・配分ルールを文書化し、申請者にとって公平性が担保される仕組みを設けること。GovToolは、カルダノの未来における市民的参加を保証する「公共アクセスインフラ」です。私たちはそれを単なるアプリケーションではなく、分散型民主主義を体現するプラットフォームと捉えています。
SIPOは今後もこの理念を支え続け、DRepとしてコミュニティの信託に応えるべく、積極的な監視・対話・改善提案を行ってまいります。
—
SIPO
DRep（Delegated Representative）
Cardano Governance - Yes77.7M ₳Rationale
这是一个由多个长期参与 Cardano 治理工具建设的开发者组成的联盟发起的提案，目标在未来 12 个月内持续开发和维护 GovTool 这套开放式治理工具系统。
GovTool 致力于为 Cardano 提供一个中立、可扩展的 DRep 治理界面，降低普通用户参与治理的门槛，并减少当前对钱包推荐和社交曝光的依赖。 此次提案还规划了多项功能更新，包括 DRep 投票历史展示、群体 DRep 支持、联合发起治理提案（CoSponsor）、预投票调查机制，以及支持多语言参与的 AI 工具，都旨在提高治理透明度和 DRep 参与率。
预算方面相较此前版本有所缩减，并引入模块化结构，便于阶段性评估和监督。
有反对者主要指出：当前已有其他替代平台，且预算偏高，部分基础设施支出被认为高于市场平均水平；也有声音呼吁更强的财政控制，建议缩减后再提交。
但综合考虑 GovTool 的中立性、开源，以及未来在推动治理参与方面的潜力，我认为利大于弊，因此投出赞成票。
- Yes76.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on this proposal.
GovTool is the primary interface for decentralized governance on Cardano and a critical public good. This proposal ensures 12 months of continued maintenance and development, led by a trusted consortium of community builders under an open, transparent, and modular funding model.
The budget is well-structured, cost-reduced from previous versions, and backed by Intersect’s smart contract-based fund management. It also supports external contributors and open-source tools through clear incentive pathways.
For Cardano governance to remain inclusive, neutral, and accessible to all, investing in GovTool is not optional—it’s essential.
僕はこの提案にYES票を投じます。
GovToolはCardanoにおける分散型ガバナンスの主要なインターフェースであり、重要な公共財です。この提案は、信頼あるコミュニティ主導のコンソーシアムにより、今後12ヶ月のメンテナンスと開発を継続するものです。資金設計は透明性が高く、前回提案からコスト削減されており、Intersectによるスマートコントラクト制御付きで運用されます。
また、外部貢献者や他のOSSツール支援も含んだ柔軟な資金設計となっており、コミュニティ主導の開発がより拡張される基盤になります。Cardanoのガバナンスを中立的かつ誰もが参加可能な形で維持するには、GovToolへの投資は不可欠です。
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
Govtool's current unreliability impedes effective governance, undermining trust and hindering Cardano's growth and sustainability. Prioritizing stability before further funding is crucial.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Govtool Funding Proposal: Vote No
Govtool's current unreliability directly impedes effective governance participation, thereby undermining trust and hindering Cardano's overall growth and sustainability. Prioritizing stability and proven reliability before further funding is crucial for the long-term health of the ecosystem.
- Abstain69.4M ₳No rationale
- No66M ₳No rationale
- Yes50.4M ₳Rationale
Although GovTool needs more UI improvements, I agree with that our ecosystem must have a non-profit form governance tool development. However, this still needs more explanation on the budget detail that require the large amount of funds.
- Yes50M ₳Rationale
Same as with any other preliminary Info action: I find this step adds unnecessary delays and confusion, given that 67% approval is already required at the final vote. But since it's now a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Yes just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote. Also, I believe that a more detailed cost breakdown would help address some of the DReps' concerns and improve the chances of reaching the required threshold.
- Yes49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6M ₳No rationale
- No47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.9M ₳No rationale
- No40.1M ₳Rationale
I believe the requested funds are too high.
- Abstain38.1M ₳No rationale
- No37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.3M ₳Rationale
We cast a YES vote on this proposal.
This proposal supports 12 months of maintenance and development for GovTool, a key public infrastructure enabling participation in Cardano’s on-chain governance. It has been jointly submitted by developers including LidoNation, ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, and DQuadrant, and takes into account interoperability with other governance tools.
Its tiered budget structure, provision for unused fund returns, and smart contract–based fund management and audit mechanisms coordinated by Intersect contribute to decentralization and transparency.
We believe this proposal is a vital step toward strengthening Cardano’s decentralized governance culture, while also encouraging wider interoperability and open contribution to governance tooling. Therefore, we support it.
- No33.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes31.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes31.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes30.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
This was a tough vote for me. Initially I was inclined to vote NO due to the steep asking price and the history of UX issues. After some more thought, I started to lean toward ABSTAIN because the UX issues have improved substantially and because GovTools happens to be one of few open-source governance platforms on Cardano. I also think that GovTools having a budget of its own is overkill and that it would be better suited as part of another budget such the OSC's (Open Source Committee). But after reading through the longer, detailed version of the proposal linked at the end, I've come to understand a few more key features that may justify the higher price tag.
In particular, the integration with CoSponsor to develop a smart contract solution to crowdsource governance action deposits is sorely needed. That development on its own is likely to require a substantial amount of effort beyond developing and maintaining the GovTools site. Other features like performing multiple votes in a single transaction and improvements to the proposal discussion section are also in the works.
Given these additional considerations, I am casting a vote of YES on this info action on the condition that the features proposed are delivered adequately, and that any future asks from the Cardano treasury are significantly smaller in scope.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged26.3M ₳Rationale
Tempo voting system has been developped quickly and is really good. No sure GovTool competes with Tempo.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- YesRevoted26.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No25.3M ₳Rationale
I have voted NO on the current proposal to fund GovTool.
The proposal addresses areas well-beyond foundational maintenence, and into needs not yet defined by the community. Furthermore, lights-on maintenence should cost sub ~$50k anually with adequately scalable serverless infrastructure. GovTool failing to support CLI-based voting out the gate reveals a great deal of incompetance around Cardano governance and inconsideration for our community and ethos. Hard NO fam.
- Yes23.5M ₳No rationale
- No22M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted21.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
No0y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES in support of the proposed budget for 12 months full active maintenance and development of GovTool.
As a cli-based DRep, I have no need for a user-interface like GovTool. If it disappears, I will still be able to check proposals on-chain and vote on-chain as I have done for the past year and a half (including SanchoNet). However, I am able to appreciate the importance of the role it has and can continue to play in Cardano governance, beyond the user-interface that we all see on the website.
GovTool has been there since the beginning, during the days of the Cardano governance testnet “SanchoNet”. While many apps and wallets appeared to wait until governance was on mainnet before putting in the work, GovTool was there building the foundations so that access was made easy for new DReps from day one of mainnet governance and arguably, we wouldn’t have the DRep registration numbers that we have today without it.
While new platforms have emerged alongside GovTool, they do not diminish the need for GovTool. The support for Mainnet, PreProd and Preview networks is rare across all governance platforms and allows access for developers and DReps who want to test out governance proposals in a safe environment without putting real world funds at risk. I may be a cli-based DRep who has submitted protocol parameter updates to both SanchoNet and Preview using the cli but without GovTool support for the Preview network, it would have been much harder to get Preview DRep participation and pass the proposal to fix the dRepActivity and govActionLifetime mismatch earlier this year (see https://preview.gov.tools/outcomes/governance_actions/35b81b424956f018bb4a4bb9e160375c1921a3b40b60a1efc539bcd6b5b20159#0).
The GovTool platform provides increased accessibility to Cardano governance, the main site hosts features like the DRep Directory, Budget Proposals, Governnace Actions (Proposals, Live Actions and Outcomes) as well as hosting documentation for Guides and an FAQs section. Less visible is the constitution sub-domain (https://constitution.gov.tools) that host the Cardano Constitution in an accessible format, Constitutional Committee Members page, ICC/CC voting updates page and the recent CC election portal. Furthermore, GovTool also provides free and open APIs used by many other tools and service providers in the ecosystem that would struggle if the APIs were to disappear.
In conclusion, while many may feel that GovTool needs much improvement, it does already provide much value to the ecosystem and the maintenance of open and accessible governance is vital for Cardano while governance is still essentially in its infancy. I vote to fund GovTool for 12 more months after which the community can reassess the state of Cardano governance once it has had chance to mature properly.
- Yes21.4M ₳Rationale
I vote YES for the following reasons:
1.** GovTool remains core infrastructure:** Despite UI limitations, GovTool's API is still referenced by tools such as 1694.io and cardanobudget.com. Maintaining GovTool ensures continuity for existing services built on top of it.- **The revised budget is more transparent and cost-effective: **Compared to the previous ₳2M proposal, this version reduces the budget by 43%, introduces a tiered structure, and uses milestone-based smart contracts to improve transparency and control.
3.** Community feedback has been integrated: **After 4 weeks of consultations, the proposal now includes support for open contribution and funding for complementary governance tools — not just GovTool itself.
Supporting this proposal does not imply GovTool is perfect, but acknowledges its current role in governance infrastructure and the need to maintain it while improvements continue.
Vietnamese
Tôi bỏ phiếu YES vì các lý do sau:
GovTool vẫn là hạ tầng cốt lõi: Dù còn bất tiện về giao diện, API của GovTool hiện vẫn được nhiều nền tảng như 1694.io và cardanobudget.com tham chiếu. Việc duy trì GovTool đảm bảo sự ổn định cho các dịch vụ đang hoạt động.
Ngân sách được điều chỉnh rõ ràng, minh bạch hơn: So với đề xuất ₳2M trước đây, phiên bản mới giảm chi phí 43%, chia theo các cấp độ và sử dụng hợp đồng thông minh theo mốc, giúp tăng tính minh bạch và khả năng kiểm soát.
Tiếp thu phản hồi cộng đồng: Đề xuất đã được chỉnh sửa sau 4 tuần tham vấn, có cơ chế hỗ trợ đóng góp từ cộng đồng và tài trợ cho các công cụ bổ trợ khác – không chỉ riêng GovTool.
Việc ủng hộ đề xuất này không có nghĩa GovTool đã hoàn hảo, mà là sự công nhận vai trò hiện tại của nó trong hạ tầng quản trị và nhu cầu duy trì hoạt động trong khi tiếp tục cải tiến.
Japanese
以下の理由により、YESに投票します：
①GovToolは依然として中核的なインフラです。UXに課題はあるものの、GovToolのAPIは現在も1694.ioやcardanobudget.comなどのガバナンスツールで使用されています。GovToolを維持することで、既存サービスの継続性が確保されます。
②予算構成が改善され、透明性が向上：以前の₳2M提案に比べて、コストは43%削減され、階層化された構造とマイルストーンベースのスマートコントラクトが導入されています。これにより、資金管理の透明性と柔軟性が向上します。
③コミュニティからのフィードバックを反映：本提案は4週間の意見収集を経て修正され、外部貢献者の支援やGovTool以外のツールへの資金提供も含まれています。
この提案を支持することはGovToolが完璧であるという意味ではなく、ガバナンスインフラにおける現在の役割を認め、改善を進めながらも維持する必要があることを示すものです。
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain18.2M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged17.3M ₳Rationale
I have change my mind after reading more into their work, i still think its really expensive but i have also to recognize the service they provide.
with good faith and with respect i will change my vote to yes from my original response.Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No16.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3M ₳No rationale