Cardano Treasury DeFi Liquidity Budget
153 DReps voted · 44 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to no, together voting with 63.2M ₳ of voting power.
- No441.6M ₳Rationale
This proposal is planned to be resubmitted by the proposer, so I am voting NO to prevent the proposal from being adopted twice, before and after the resubmission.
この提案書は提案者により再提出が予定されています。そのため、再提出前と再提出後で二重に提案書が採択されるのを防ぐため、NOを投票します。
- Abstain350.3M ₳No rationale
- No216.7M ₳No rationale
- No170.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain105.9M ₳No rationale
- No96M ₳No rationale
- No93.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO because the governance action is invalid and will reportedly be resubmitted.
- No89.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes89.1M ₳No rationale
- No55.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain43.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.3M ₳No rationale
- No40.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain38.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain37M ₳No rationale
- No34.3M ₳No rationale
- No30.6M ₳Rationale
We are voting "No" on this proposal due to invalid metadata.
- Yes28.7M ₳Rationale
This is a good example of utilizing treasury fund for ecosystem grow, these fund are not spent but are kept to grow DeFi ecosystem, which can be recalled back to treasury anytime through an Info Governance Action.
- Abstain28.1M ₳Rationale
I support the principle of deploying some treasury funds to deepen stablecoin liquidity on Cardano, but for a first-time request of this nature, the 50M ADA ask plus relatively high management stipends feels a bit oversized. I would prefer a smaller pilot to validate the model and trim administrative costs. In addition, naming a seven-person multisig exposes those individuals to heightened physical-security and cyber-risk that is difficult to mitigate. It is also worth noting that due to tooling errors, this proposal will likely be re-submitted in the future. For these reasons I will vote ABSTAIN and look for a leaner, better-protected iteration when it is re-proposed in the future.
- No25.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal. Could have been cool but the metadata is invalid.
- No23.6M ₳No rationale
- No22.4M ₳No rationale
- No21.7M ₳Rationale
I vote “NO on the proposal for a DeFi Liquidity Budget after an error in the submission process means that the hash values of the submitted proposal and accessible file do not match. This is an important part of the proposal process in order to ensure integrity of the voting process. The issue was identified early on and the proposer has already stated their intention to resubmit the proposal in the future once this one expires and the governance action deposit is returned. Therefore, this is a quick and easy decision in this instance.
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No17.2M ₳Rationale
Cardano treasury funds should not be used to speculatively provide extra funding liquidity to chosen lending apps and DEXs, nor should treasury funds be used to purchase fiat backed stable coins. Selling treasury Ada for fiat backed stable coins will negatively impact the Ada price as well as negatively impact Cardano decentralisation through dependence upon the stable coin issuer.
- No16.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain15.3M ₳Rationale
After careful consideration, I would like to register my abstention. While I acknowledge that the proposal addresses a genuine ecosystem need and offers a valuable framework, I believe that certain elements require further refinement to secure broader support.
Specifically, I would appreciate additional detail on:
Eligible DeFi protocols – Which projects will qualify for the liquidity budget, and what selection criteria will the committee apply?
Dashboard specifications – Which metrics and features will the tracking tool include to guarantee full transparency and robust oversight of deployed funds?
I look forward to these clarifications so that I may revisit my position with a more comprehensive understanding.
- No14.2M ₳No rationale
- No12M ₳Rationale
このガバナンスアクションは、Invalid metadataです。\n\nThis governance action has invalid metadata.
- No11.9M ₳No rationale
- No11.1M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted10.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No9.5M ₳Rationale
There will be a resubmit by the proposer.
- No8.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on the proposal for a DeFi Liquidity Budget due to a critical procedural flaw: the hash values of the submitted proposal and the linked content do not match. This hash mismatch breaks the integrity of the proposal process and violates the governance standards established to ensure accountability and verifiability on-chain. The Constitutional Committee has already deemed the action unconstitutional, and the proposer has acknowledged the issue, stating their intention to resubmit the proposal once this one expires. Given this context, the decision to vote No is straightforward and procedural, not a judgment on the merits of the proposal itself.
- Abstain7.6M ₳Rationale
I abstain from this vote as the proposers have indicated on social media that they intend to resubmit the proposal with some changes or adjustments to it.
- Abstain7.3M ₳No rationale
- No6.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.1M ₳No rationale
- No5.1M ₳Rationale
No data available to read - therefore a no vote has been cast.
- Abstain4.9M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "Não" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1fpq...l5lauu), pois não foram estabelecidas as métricas de controle de qualidade que o seriam utilizadas para acompanhar a execução da proposta, bem como os condicionantes para liberação dos recursos solicitados.
[English]
We chose to vote "No" on this governance action (gov_action1fpq...l5lauu) because the quality control metrics that would be used to monitor the execution of the proposal were not established, nor were the conditions for the release of the requested funds. - No3.9M ₳No rationale
- No3.9M ₳No rationale
- No3.6M ₳Rationale
Action not complete in the correct format, which therefore makes it overally difficult for people to understand what it is about. This could influence the vote and therefore cannot vote yes in good consciousness