Cardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth.
162 DReps voted · 64 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes to ABSTAIN on the governance action to fund Cardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth.
Rationale
We appreciate the proposer’s transparency and the good-faith action to reimburse the ₱ 100,000 Ikigai deposit, demonstrating accountability to the community.
While regional engagement is important, the proposal’s focus on events, hackathons, and community activities seems better suited for Project Catalyst. Catalyst provides a collaborative environment to test, refine, and scale these types of initiatives, giving them the best chance to thrive and deliver meaningful impact.
For these reasons, Yoroi DRep chooses to abstain from this governance action. - No435.8M ₳Rationale
"Cardano in Oceania" is an inspiring, community-led initiative, and I deeply respect the team’s passion. However, I voted No, as I believe it would be more appropriate to start with a smaller budget through Catalyst.
While the vision is compelling, its success heavily depends on the team’s execution. Factors such as content quality, DRep development, business partnerships, and local transaction growth are all difficult to forecast and require significant trust.
Many similar initiatives have received funding in the past, yet few have delivered clear, measurable outcomes. Therefore, I recommend starting small and building up success incrementally.https://cardano-in-oceania.github.io/how/
KPI-related Concerns:
- Tracking wallets and transactions specific to Oceania seems difficult and potentially impractical.
- The goal of onboarding three new Catalyst participants feels modest compared to the ecosystem’s scale.
- Government or partner collaborations should be proposed with specific scopes and budget allocations.
- BD training plans should identify candidates, their backgrounds, and expected results up front.
- Since Oceania is largely English-speaking, global outreach in English may be more effective than region-specific campaigns.
「Cardano in Oceania」は、地域コミュニティ主導の素晴らしい取り組みであり、チームの情熱に深く敬意を表します。しかし私は、Catalystを通じてより小規模な予算で始める方が適切だと考え、反対票を投じました。
この提案のビジョンは魅力的ですが、成功はチームの実行力に大きく依存します。コンテンツの質、DRepの育成、ビジネス連携、ローカルのトランザクション増加など、どれも予測が難しく、信頼が前提となります。
過去にも同様の提案が資金提供を受けましたが、明確で測定可能な成果を上げた事例は多くありません。そのため、まずは小さな規模で始め、実績を積み重ねるアプローチを推奨します。https://cardano-in-oceania.github.io/how/
KPIに関する懸念点：
- オセアニア地域に限定したウォレット数やトランザクション数の追跡は、現実的に困難と思われます。
- Catalyst参加者3社という目標は、エコシステム全体の規模に対して控えめに感じられます。
- 政府や団体との連携は、具体的な内容と予算を明記した形で提示すべきです。
- BD人材の育成については、候補者のプロフィールや期待される成果を事前に示すことが望ましいです。
- オセアニアは主に英語圏であるため、地域特化よりグローバルな英語圏全体を視野に入れた発信の方が効果的かもしれません。
- Abstain293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as DRep votes to ABSTAIN on the governance action to fund Cardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth.
Rationale
We deeply appreciate the effort and intention behind this proposal, which is well-prepared, transparent, and aligned with Cardano’s values. Regional initiatives like this are important in strengthening Cardano’s global presence, and we value the proposer’s commitment to community building and adoption in Oceania.
At the same time, EMURGO is currently advancing a unified global marketing initiative aimed at creating consistent and cohesive branding for Cardano worldwide. We believe the activities described in this proposal, such as events, storytelling, and community engagement, would thrive as part of that unified effort. For this reason, we highly recommend that the proposer connect with the GMC of Intersect to explore opportunities for consolidation and integration into the unified marketing plan for 2026.
Conclusion
By abstaining, EMURGO acknowledges the strong value of this initiative and encourages closer collaboration with the broader marketing framework to maximize impact and ensure a globally unified Cardano presence.
- Abstain222.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes YES on the "Cardano in Oceania" budget info action. We believe the initiative is strategically sound and deserves a principled vote.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This proposal is a professional and grassroots effort to create a regional hub for Cardano. The plan to develop a repeatable model for ecosystem growth is a valuable strategic objective. We also note the inclusion of a milestone-based funding model and a framework for KPIs, which demonstrates a commitment to accountability. The team consists of active and credible community members.
Recommendations for a Treasury Withdrawal Proposal
While we support the direction of this info action, a subsequent treasury withdrawal proposal or revised info action should be significantly strengthened by addressing the following areas:
- A More Focused Scope: The current strategy is broad, aiming to deliver initiatives across multiple verticals (government, enterprise, non-profits) at once. Our recommendation is to narrow the focus of this proposal to one or two key areas where the team has existing networks. This would likely yield faster, more tangible results and build a stronger foundation for later expansion.
- Establishment of Baseline Data: The proposal outlines KPIs for growth but lacks baseline data on the region's current status (e.g., DRep participation, developer activity). To accurately measure the impact of the initiative, we would expect a treasury withdrawal proposal to include this starting-point data.
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes YES to signal our support for this type of strategic, community-led initiative and to encourage the proposers. We are confident that a more focused plan with clear baseline metrics would present a compelling case for funding, and we look forward to reviewing a revised proposal at the info action or treasury withdrawal stage.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - Abstain92.2M ₳No rationale
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote NO for the proposal: Cardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Recently, 37 out of 39 proposals were approved, which means a significant portion of the budget has already been allocated. Many of these proposals focused on booths, marketing, and support for local communities. Meanwhile, Fund14, where hackathon-related proposals could be submitted, has just closed.
While I appreciate the intent behind this new proposal and believe it could have a positive impact, I think projects within the same category should be submitted and reviewed together. That way, they can compete on equal footing, making it easier to select the strongest ideas and manage total spending for the year.
In my view, this proposal should have been submitted earlier, alongside the others that were recently approved. As it stands, it feels like it overlaps with initiatives that have already received Treasury funding.
As a DRep, I’ve committed to prioritizing support for builders over marketing initiatives. Rejecting this proposal aligns with that commitment, especially during the first year of on-chain governance.
Soon, a major proposal will request 50M ADA to inject liquidity into Cardano DeFi—and possibly another to support Bitcoin DeFi. These initiatives are far more critical to ecosystem growth. With this year’s NCL set at 350M ADA, we need to be selective and strategic. I’d strongly prefer not to see us approach that limit too quickly.
I’d prefer to see this proposal submitted next year, once the new NCL is approved and we begin planning the 2026 budget. That timing would allow it to be properly evaluated alongside other initiatives and ensure more strategic allocation of funds.
Until then, the team can think about using Catalyst Fund15.
- No84.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳No rationale
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
This is a very well-structured proposal. However, I'm cautious of the total amount of funding I've supported so far and must be selective. Therefore, I am voting NO. The high cost for a single-region pilot feels less efficient than a global framework, making this a difficult but necessary no.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I want to credit the team for this excellent proposal, which has made this a difficult decision. However, I will be voting a reluctant NO out of fiscal prudence.
Having already supported a number of proposals, I am cautious about the total budget being approved. While I support regional growth, the high cost of this single-region pilot makes it a less efficient use of funds than a global framework. Given the need to be selective with the remaining budget, I cannot justify this particular expenditure at this time, despite its merits.
- Yes62.7M ₳Rationale
This is the info action side of things, and I'll vote it through to get it to the next stage of treasury withdrawal.
I have full confidence in the team. I am a part of it too, but in the next phase I'd be abstaining from the vote as its a clear conflict of interest voting for a proposal that I am a part of for funding the business development and growth here in Oceania.
- No53.8M ₳No rationale
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
Cardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth → No
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting "No" on this Governance Action. While the proposal outlines objectives, it does not provide clear and verifiable information about who will ultimately receive and manage the funds. Without explicit identification of the responsible entity, the transfer of treasury resources cannot be evaluated with confidence. Transparency and accountability are essential for any funding decision, and the lack of clarity in this case poses an unacceptable risk. For this reason, I cannot support the proposal in its current form. [Japanese version follows] 私はこのガバナンスアクションに対して 反対（No） を投じます。提案の目的自体は示されていますが、最終的に誰が資金を受け取り、管理するのか が明確に記されていません。責任主体が特定されていない状況では、トレジャリー資金の移転を安心して承認することはできません。資金に関する透明性と説明責任は不可欠であり、この点が不透明である以上、現状の提案には賛成できません。
- AbstainChanged50M ₳Rationale
I find the Info action 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 Abstain just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote. It's worth noting that I voted Yes on this proposal earlier, for the reason mentioned above. However, after several discussions within the team and with other DReps, I came to the conclusion that Abstaining is the more appropriate option in this case. A Yes vote might create the false impression that I fully support the proposal, which isn't necessarily true. I simply don't want to take part in the preliminary vote, but at the same time I don't want the default No from non-voting DReps to negatively affect the proposal.
Earlier votes
Yes10mo agoSuperseded
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.
- No49.5M ₳Rationale
Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai - Deposit Reimbursement should be a separate proposal and not bundled with this proposal. Need estimate ROI on ADA spend based on data from similar activities to justify.
- Abstain48.6M ₳No rationale
- No47.6M ₳No rationale
- No42.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain38.1M ₳Rationale
While the proposal presents a well-structured regional strategy, I find it difficult to clearly measure the real impact of community events, hackathons, and marketing activities. Without stronger, quantifiable KPIs tied to adoption and on-chain results, it is challenging to evaluate whether the requested budget will achieve sustainable outcomes. Therefore, I choose to abstain.
- No34.6M ₳Rationale
2年もやっていて統合マーケティングとストーリーテリングにおける総件数が少なすぎる。
またかかるコストが不明瞭で各事項の責任者の実名も記載がない。規模的にかなりローカルな気もする。 - Abstain34.3M ₳Rationale
We abstained on this proposal. It presents a comprehensive regional strategy with clear accountability mechanisms. While recognizing its value, we chose to remain neutral at this stage to allow further community evaluation of its long-term impact.
- Yes33.5M ₳Rationale
This proposal funds a regional strategy to grow Cardano in Oceania through grassroots activation, hackathons, education, and partnerships. It aligns with the HOSKY Cardano First platform by strengthening decentralization, driving adoption, and ensuring responsible treasury use.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
t is time Cardano focuses on areas it has previously neglected. Supporting this proposal directs attention and resources to Oceania, an underrepresented region where community-driven growth can flourish. This aligns with the HOSKY DRep Platform’s commitment to decentralization by ensuring diverse voices and geographies contribute to Cardano’s global resilience.
The initiative invests in education, pilots, and storytelling that showcase tangible use cases, consistent with HOSKY’s emphasis on adoption through real-world solutions rather than speculative or vanity projects. By engaging universities, businesses, and civic organizations, it brings new expertise and partnerships into the ecosystem.
Fiscal conservatism is upheld through milestone-based funding, transparent reporting, and independent auditing, ensuring resources are allocated responsibly with measurable outcomes. This reflects HOSKY’s core principles of accountability, sustainability, and prudent treasury management.
By funding this work, Cardano corrects its imbalance by focusing on a region it has long overlooked, creating inclusive growth that strengthens decentralization, adoption, and long-term sustainability.
For these reasons, I will vote YES on this proposal.
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
Cardano is a global network, and treasury spending should be guided by neutral, impact-first criteria. Not geography. This proposal targets one region without a convincing strategic rationale (e.g., binding partnerships, regulatory advantages, or meaningful co-funding) that justifies prioritizing Oceania over any other region. I worry that approving it would set a precedent for generic regional asks from everywhere. For these reasons, I am voting no on this proposal.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain26.1M ₳Rationale
I do feel as though this proposal mirrors a few others already funded but it does come from a very good team and I do not doubt their competency level. With that said I will be abstaining on this proposal and wish the team all success in this and future endeavors.
- No25.3M ₳Rationale
I have voted NO on the current proposal to fund Cardano in Oceana. A proposal like this should follow in-depth community discussion to use the treasury to scale a viable model - proven out prior via Catalyst or some other means
- No22M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the budget info action proposal for the Cardano in Oceania 2025-2026 strategy and budget. The proposal seeks funding for greater co-ordination of Cardano outreach efforts across the Oceania region, building upon previous experiences and efforts in the space. I appreciate the provision of a website that outlines the “Why, What, How and Who” in more detail, I particularly like the provision of the git commit used to build the website as it provides a level of immutability and a point of reference for the proposal content and ensures that any future alterations can be checked against the information provided for this proposal.
The site provided in the supporting links of the proposal (https://cardano-in-oceania.github.io) provides detailed team, supporters and administrator info, along with a detailed budget breakdown, implementation timeline and milestones.
I was fortunate enough to have been able to meet a number of individuals associated with this proposal during the Constitutional Convention, including Jo Allum and Peter Horsfall (Community Leaders), Nathan Barkell, Engie Matene and Corinne Phillips (Supporters & Contributors), as well as Mark Byers from Selfdriven Services (Administrator). In addition to these individuals, the proposal also lists other prominent community educators (Peter Bui) and governance advocates (Phil Lewis), SPOs (46S and ECO), a wallet (Tokeo) and DEX (VyFi) amongst its Sponsors and Partners.
I have had little contact with these individuals since the Constitutional Convention so there is no undue influence here but my experience online and offline is that this proposal has a very accomplished and professional team behind it and reflects the vibrant ecosystem that exists across the Oceania region. It draws on backgrounds such as technical, educational, legal, governance, and financial, and is well-rounded in this regard, putting the initiative in good stead to pursue and achieve its goals.
For those that say this proposal should go to Catalyst, you simply cannot achieve the goals set out in a proposal such as this with Catalyst funding. The budgets for associated rounds are too small for a co-ordinated effort on this scale and we as an ecosystem need to move beyond this knee-jerk reaction of “try Catalyst” for marketing and outreach. We have already witnessed another community outreach initiative, Discover Cardano, put up significant sums of their own money to represent Cardano at events where there was otherwise no representation, to great success, and still be twice rejected at the Catalyst level. It was only thanks to a big community push on socials that they even passed their recent treasury withdrawal proposal. We as a community often complain that founding entities are not doing enough of this work but when genuine and serious community actors step up to fill a gap we seem equally as hesitant.
- No21.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain17.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes14.1M ₳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 approval threshold prior to our review, the abstention will stand as a neutral signal of deferral, not opposition. Should further analysis be warranted, RCADA will update this vote accordingly.
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
We have reviewed “Cardano in Oceania” through the same conservative lens we apply to every governance action and find that the strategic upside comfortably outweighs the manageable risks, warranting our Yes vote. Oceania already ranks among the world’s most crypto-curious regions, about 32 percent of Australians have owned digital assets and that figure is projected to climb sharply this year. Governments and enterprises in both Australia and New Zealand are issuing policy papers and funding pilots on supply-chain traceability, digital identity and social-impact finance, creating fertile ground for Cardano solutions. The proposal’s mix of advanced markets and Pacific island communities offers a sandbox where real-world use cases can be proven locally and then exported globally, positioning the region as a bridge for wider adoption.
Execution strength is evident in a fully doxxed leadership bench. Jo Allum, Peter Bui, Peter Horsfall and Phil Lewis each bring years of Cardano community work and professional credentials in venture building, developer education, banking technology and enterprise architecture. Their visibility and prior delivery record reduce the execution-risk premium we normally attach to regional growth pilots. The Year-1 budget of 778 k ADA is tightly itemised; no single line exceeds 175 k ADA, and is phased against quarterly milestones such as convening a 100-person hackathon, publishing a map of at least 100 regional actors and securing three enterprise pilots. For less than half a percent of the treasury’s annual planning envelope, we obtain a replicable blueprint for business-development capacity, community activation and governance literacy that mirrors the programmes Wada already runs in West Africa and thus amplifies our own mission alignment.
Two weaknesses merit attention. First, Selfdriven Services is slated as sole fund manager and milestone verifier, which concentrates administrative authority and introduces key-person risk; second, 100 k ADA of the ask is earmarked to reimburse a past governance-action deposit, a use that could invite reputational scrutiny if not transparently ring-fenced. We recommend scheduling mid-year and end-year external audits to complement Selfdriven’s oversight, publishing partner letters of intent before funds are drawn, and moving the reimbursement into a separate address with a public transaction hash to keep operational optics clean.
With these safeguards in place, the phased budget, seasoned team and clearly defined KPIs give us confidence that the programme can deliver measurable ecosystem growth while preserving fiscal discipline.
- No10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.2M ₳No rationale
- No8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案に反対します。オセアニアでの活動は価値があるものの、財務資金を投じる優先度としては限定的だと考えます。予算の大部分は基盤技術やガバナンス強化など、Cardano全体に直接波及する取り組みに優先して使われるべきです。\n\nI vote No on this proposal. While community-building in Oceania has value, I believe the treasury should prioritize initiatives that directly strengthen Cardano’s core infrastructure and governance. The budget allocation here offers limited ecosystem-wide impact compared to higher-priority needs.
- Abstain8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
No more YES votes from me in the first budget year of minimum viable governance (MVG).
The majority of DRep power approved ₳272 million in treasury withdrawals in the first budget year of MVG. This effectively ties my hands for the rest of the budget year - apart from emergencies.
Why? I set a personal DRep limit to approve up to ₳200-250 million of spending in 1st year of MVG. I personally voted YES to approve treasury withdrawals totalling around ₳172 million so far.
As things stand, the upcoming @cardano_govtool proposal (if good and if submitted) could be my last YES vote to a Treasury Withdrawal this budget year, I see that as a necessity/emergency under MVG.
"The Cardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth" info action does not fit the bill of what I would deem an emergency. So, I vote NO.
I have to add that I am naturally disinclined to vote YES for regional-based proposals, bar exceptional circumstances and the weight of providing overwhelming evidence in favour of such an approach will be on the proposer.
Hence, I am already indicating to the proposers of "The Cardano in Oceania: A community-led strategic plan for investing in growth" info action that it is unlikely that I will support this proposal IF it is resubmitted in the following budget year. - Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
Voting yes on this proposal for a few key reasons. Instead of a broad or sweeping growth initiative it's focused on a region, Oceania. From there this team has put forth a clear proposal on the who, what, how, and why. The funding ask, 778K ADA, to me seems to be about as lean as possible. I reached out to the team for feedback on this and it's intentional - minimum required to get the tasks completed. Ultimately, this proposal should help to establish putting down roots in the region and overall awareness for Cardano. We should be able to support this localized initiative for Cardano for these costs and look forward to 2026-2027 budgeting to determine if it's something we want to continue.
One line item that would have seen this proposal come down another 100K, which did raise an eyebrow, was the 100K reimbursement for the Ikigai action. I personally had thought that issue was resolved but if not, it should be reimbursed - just not sure it needed to happen bundled with this proposal. However, given the team involved I don't have any concerns around this line item - it's the right thing to do - and up to this point it has not been addressed by anyone else.
Over time, I've come to not want to vote no anymore on any project that could have gone another avenue for funding (ie. Project Catalyst). The reason being is that it pigeon holes it to a specific process that not everyone may be using or want to. The treasury is more open and available to all in my opinion, so I will always review a proposal as is.
- No5.8M ₳No rationale
- No5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES. This proposal establishes a strong foundation for Cardano's growth in Oceania through a well-structured Year 1 pilot, with clear quarterly timelines, accountable stage gates, and measurable KPIs such as doubling community size and securing pilots in key sectors. The 778,000 ADA budget is thoughtfully allocated and phased, emphasizing transparency with quarterly reports, audits, and potential savings returns. Notably, it fulfills a community request by reimbursing 100,000 ADA for the "Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai" governance deposit, reinforcing trust and shared values while enabling regional innovation without undue risk.
- Abstain5.3M ₳Rationale
We see strong strategic value in this proposal. It lays out a credible, milestone-gated plan to expand Cardano’s presence in Oceania, build BD capacity, and run meaningful pilots. The team is competent with deep roots in Cardano, and the design is transparent, which lowers execution risk.
However, this request lands late in the 2025 budget cycle and somewhat overlaps with ecosystem activation initiatives that were just funded. Committing another 778k now could dilute focus and compress treasury runway, particularly when higher-impact funding (e.g., liquidity injection for DeFi growth) is imminent.
We are abstaining to signal support for the concept but recommend resubmission for the 2026 budget cycle, ideally after broader community discussion and early pilot results (potentially via Catalyst). This would allow the community to socialise the plan, prioritise alongside other regions, and scale with stronger evidence of ROI.