Info Action (4840e305#0)
153 DReps voted · 42 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes478.3K ₳Rationale
It is a coherent and advantageous proposal in all aspects that I have seen.
It serves as a driver for the DeFi environment at a crucial moment for Cardano, with monetary responsibility, ensuring a significant return for the Treasury.
We missed the timing in the last halving due to the reduced number of smart contracts. We cannot miss the current window of opportunity due to lack of liquidity, having great native stablecoins.
- No414.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain409.7K ₳No rationale
- No385.2K ₳Rationale
Krypto Labs as DRep votes NO on the Cardano Treasury DeFi Liquidity Budget. A robust stablecoin ecosystem is organically built through community adoption and developer innovation, not by deploying treasury funds. The inherent yield generated from fiat-backed stablecoin reserves represents a perpetual income stream. Diverting this significant, long-term benefit to commercial entities without a substantial, independent stake in the Cardano ecosystem is fiscally irresponsible. This proposal risks subsidizing external ventures at the community's expense, rather than fostering genuine, self-sustaining growth within our decentralized finance landscape.
- Abstain383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳Rationale
I'm voting No on this governance action because it was submitted with invalid metadata and the proposers already said that they are planning to submit another action with correct metadata. If the proposal would have been technically correct, I would have tended to vote Yes since providing liquidity for stablecoins seems to be one of the less wasteful uses of treasury ADA to me and the proposers are qualified to execute that plan in my opinion.
- Abstain365.7K ₳No rationale
- No332.3K ₳No rationale
- No314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal because of the invalid metadata. We cannot rely on a governance info action where the data is altered after submission. I expect the proposal to be resubmitted so that I can evaluate it again on its merits (not data integrity).
- No313.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting no on this governance action due to concerns about mismatched data and missing key details. Accurate and complete information is essential for informed decision-making, especially when governance actions can have significant implications for the ecosystem. In this case, the discrepancies between data sources and the absence of critical contextual information prevent a clear understanding of the proposal’s feasibility and impact.
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
A lack of stablecoin liquidity has been identified as an area in need of improvement in the Cardano DeFi ecosystem. Thus, it may be wise to invest some portion of the treasury directly as stablecoin liquidity. Unfortunately, I do not think the management solution outlined in this proposal is strong enough in its current form to be implemented.
I encourage the team to refine the concept further and resubmit this proposal.
https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/12_liquidity_budget.md
- Abstain294.4K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
Data integrity is critical to maintaining every aspect of an integrated system, especially with regards to it's governance. An ecosystem as diverse and interconnected as Cardano's, cannot be managed, maintained and expanded without a concrete and reliable foundation for data.
While the proposal itself may be sound, due to the fact that data associated with this info action is missing or altered, post submission, I am not able to support this proposal and have voted NO.
- No261K ₳Rationale
Proposer has publicly stated that he will resubmit the proposal due to a small editing inconsistency, as can be seen in his tweet below. Because of this I vote no.
Link https://x.com/ElderM/status/1920131131581530246
Full text below.
`Post Mortem on the Info Action Hash
Brief recap:
I submitted an info action requesting 50 million ADA to increase liquidity in the Cardano DeFi ecosystem. Almost all of the funds were to go into DeFi protocols, and not to pay any specific person or organization. After submitting, http://gov.tools showed that the document hash was correct while most other tools show it is incorrect.It looks like there were two breakdowns in the process:
- I generated the info action file, and before submitting I looked it over and found that the URL link was too long and there was something to fix in the Rationale section. I regenerated the file and used the Github edit function, which inserted an extra character at the end of the file.
- Gov Tools has a guard rail to check the document at the link. When it does the check, it stripped the last character of the document, which showed a perfect match to the file they generated. Thus, on http://gov.tools the hash is showing it is valid.
I have been talking to the Gov Tools team and they have raised an issue and will be putting a fix in. Unfortunately, I cannot just update the file on Github because I linked to the committed version of the file exactly to prevent this kind of situation (where the file could purposefully or accidentally be tampered with). I will have to resubmit.`
- No252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.6K ₳No rationale
- No235.2K ₳No rationale
- No228.3K ₳No rationale
- No208.3K ₳No rationale
- No202.3K ₳No rationale
- No191.1K ₳No rationale
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain166.4K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- No138.4K ₳Rationale
Allocating 50 million ADA to a liquidity strategy at this scale could jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the treasury. While there is potential for yield, the risk-reward profile remains unclear—especially considering the volatility and immaturity of Cardano's DeFi markets.
The proposed seven-person committee (4-of-7 multisig) centralizes significant control over deployment decisions, liquidity strategies, and oversight. Although the individuals involved are reputable, this structure introduces governance risks in a system that should prioritize decentralized accountability—particularly when managing such a substantial sum.
Cardano’s DeFi protocols are still relatively nascent. Expecting them to deliver meaningful yield back to the treasury may be overly optimistic, especially given the fragmented state of stablecoin liquidity and uncertain adoption. This uncertainty is evident in the proposal itself, as the team uses cautious language like "may" rather than "shall": “Note that up to 35% of funds may be held in ADA to pair with ADA/Stablecoin pairs on DEXs, which will help to alleviate price impact concerns.”
While transparency is promised via a dashboard and monthly reports, there is no guaranteed, enforceable, and independent auditing mechanism from the outset. Relying on Info Actions or future audits is a reactive approach. Treasury stewardship requires a higher baseline of accountability.
Additionally, there is no concrete KPI framework or pre-defined benchmarks to assess whether the liquidity deployment is delivering meaningful ecosystem benefits. Without measurable objectives, evaluating impact—and justifying such a large allocation—becomes difficult.
Recommendation
• Begin with a smaller pilot fund (e.g., 5M–10M ADA), with strict reporting requirements, independently audited returns, and periodic performance reviews before any potential expansion.
• Link treasury proposals in this domain to broader ecosystem KPIs such as user growth, DEX volume, or developer onboarding metrics.
• Establish clear, standardized frameworks for evaluating high-risk DeFi proposals before approving future requests of this magnitude. - No137.4K ₳No rationale
- No136.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain133.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain118.7K ₳No rationale
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳Rationale
I have decided to vote against this proposal for the simple reason that I believe the funding requirement at this early stage is too high. Since this is the first budget round on Cardano many critical funding requirements are being funded and this will absorb most of the funds that I feel we should realistically be spending in one budget cycle. Additionally there seems to be an error with the proposal metadata and the proposal will likely need to be resubmitted regardless. I would suggest for the team to look at resubmitting this proposal for the Q3 2026 budget.
- No55.9K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain49.6K ₳Rationale
ABSTAIN until corrected at source
Data Not Verifiable
The data that was originally used when this Governance Action was created has changed.GovTool uses external sources for Governance Action data, and these sources are maintained by the proposers of the Actions. This error means that the data stored by the Proposer does not match the data when the Governance Action was originally posted.
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes35.2K ₳No rationale
- No30.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain26.7K ₳No rationale
- No15.2K ₳No rationale
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- No12.2K ₳No rationale
- No8.7K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- No5.4K ₳No rationale
- No2.5K ₳No rationale
- No1.7K ₳No rationale
- No1.6K ₳No rationale
- No335.3 ₳No rationale
- No13.8 ₳No rationale