Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship
152 DReps voted · 61 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes YES on "Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship" as a practical investment in Cardano's ecosystem visibility and governance coordination.Rationale
• Established platform with a track record.
Rare Evo has consistently delivered well-organised events that bring the Cardano community together at scale. Supporting a known entity with demonstrated execution capacity is a lower-risk use of treasury funds than backing an unproven initiative of comparable cost.
• Governance Day adds substance beyond sponsorship.
Rare Dev Gov Day provides dedicated space for governance discussion and developer coordination that complements the broader event. For Yoroi, this is a meaningful part of the value proposition, not an afterthought.Conclusion
Rare Evo is an established platform and the scope of this sponsorship is well-defined. Yoroi believes this is a sound use of treasury resources for ecosystem presence and community coordination. - No435.8M ₳Rationale
I vote NO to "Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship."
I couldn't glean any information about past ecosystem outcomes from the proposal.
Similar to Cardano Summit, while it may excel as an internal event, it suffers from weak or inability to measure external ecosystem engagement.
The feedback from the communities and projects I know who attended Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day is similar to that of Cardano Summit; everyone agrees that it was a fun event with a strong gathering of Cardano community members and projects. However, a calm reflection on what the event actually accomplished and what impact it had on the ecosystem presents a difficult problem. In short, the only opinions I hear are, "It was fun, but the attendees were mostly familiar faces, and I think the return to the ecosystem was probably limited."
I previously voted "Abstain" for Cardano Summit, considering the potential external inflow effect compared to past summits, given that Singapore Token2049 was taking place nearby. However, RareEVO doesn't seem to have a comparable trigger. Therefore, I'm voting "NO."
Feedback is welcome.
私は「Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship」にNOを投票します。
過去のエコシステムに対するアウトカムに関する情報が提案書から読み取れませんでした。
これに関してはCardano Summitと同様で、内部的なイベントとして優れている可能性がありますがエコシステム外部からの流入が弱いか、あるいはそれが計測できないという問題があります。
Rare Evo や Dev Gov Dayに参加した私が知る範囲のコミュニティやプロジェクトの声はCardano Summitと似ています、Cadranoコミュニティメンバーやプロジェクトが確かに集まっており楽しいイベントであることを誰も疑っていません。ただし、冷静に振り返ってそのイベントが何の役に立ったのか、エコシステムにどのようなインパクトを与えたのか振り返ると難しい問題が生じます。一言で言うと「楽しかったが、参加者はほぼ顔見知りで、おそらくエコシステムへのリターンは限定的だと思う」という意見のみを聞きます。
Cardano SummitはシンガポールToken2049が周辺で行われていたことを加味し、過去のサミットとは異なる外部流入効果がある可能性を加味してAbstainとしましたが、RareEVOの場合はそれに匹敵するトリガーはあまりないようです。よってNOの投票をします。
フィードバックを歓迎しています。
- Abstain332.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as a DRep votes YES on the treasury withdrawal titled "Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship", with rationale outlined below.Rationale
Rare Evo has established itself as one of the most consistent community-led gatherings in the Cardano calendar, bringing together developers, governance participants, and ecosystem builders in a format that few other events replicate. Title sponsorship secures Cardano's position on the main stage and global livestream, which represents meaningful visibility at a moment when external perception of the ecosystem matters.The inclusion of Rare Dev Gov Day is equally relevant. Dedicated space for governance discussion and developer coordination is not incidental to this proposal; it is part of what makes the investment worthwhile beyond brand exposure alone. EMURGO views the 2.75 million ADA request as proportionate for a title sponsorship of this scope, and supports this as a reasonable use of treasury resources for ecosystem presence. For these reasons, EMURGO votes YES.
- Abstain222.9M ₳Rationale
EDC is neither for or against this proposal.
- Yes165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. We recognize the value of Cardano Dev Gov Day and a Cardano title sponsorship at Rare Evo.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The Cardano Foundation recognizes Rare Network’s experience and multi-year record of executing events. Rare Evo 2025 reported 2,500 attendees and 40+ Cardano projects, and the inaugural Cardano Dev Gov Day drew roughly 500 participants, providing publicly accessible governance and developer onboarding. Our YES vote reflects the following:
- A Public-Good Core We Value: Dev Gov Day's free governance and developer programming, livestream, complimentary access, and contributor travel support align directly with the Accessibility, Education, and Governance principles set out in "Our Cardano." A dedicated Cardano-focused day is a venue we can use to amplify ecosystem coordination and the latest developments on Cardano, and to host governance-improvement workshops.
- Strategic Visibility at a Reasonable Price: A title sponsorship of an established, multi-chain conference with strong Cardano roots positions the ecosystem prominently during a market contraction. Building on existing venue relationships, production capability, and sponsor networks reduces execution risk relative to a new initiative, and 2,750,000 ada for two events of this value to the community is, in our view, a defensible cost.
- Concerns We Hold But Do Not Block On: Our YES is not an endorsement of every line item. The budget is pegged at a $0.24 ada valuation that may not reflect market conditions at execution; a meaningful share of the request covers overhead, a kickoff party, withheld taxes, and a deposit for an as-yet-unapproved 2027 event rather than 2026 Cardano programming; and the complimentary booth benefit may overlap with Catalyst-funded provisions. We would have preferred these tightened before submission.
- Why We Vote YES Regardless: With the event scheduled for July 28–31, 2026, there is no longer a realistic window to revise and resubmit. We judge that the public-good value of Dev Gov Day and a Cardano title sponsorship, with the marketing exposure it brings, outweighs these shortcomings.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. The Dev Gov Day public good is real, the proposal is feasible, and the strategic value of a Cardano title sponsorship justifies our support.
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 have decided to vote NO on the proposal Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship.
My rationale:
The team is trustworthy and has shown in the past that it can organize high-quality ecosystem events. Rare Evo is undoubtedly useful for networking, community building, and Cardano visibility. My concern is that this proposal is too broad, too expensive, and not strong enough in terms of measurable ROI.
In the context of previous Catalyst funding, this proposal raises a clear concern. Rare Evo has already received Catalyst-related support before, including event-related funding. A new direct-treasury proposal should clearly explain why this funding is incremental and not simply another subsidy for the same event infrastructure.
Rare Evo previously received ₳200K from Catalyst for event-related support. Now the same event ecosystem is asking for ₳2.75M from the Treasury, representing a nearly 14x budget increase. This request packages sponsorship, access, hospitality, travel support, admin costs, tax costs, and future-year costs into one proposal.
Even if the scope is larger, DReps should ask whether this increase is justified by measurable new outcomes, not only by more benefits and higher visibility. This is especially true since the proposal explicitly states that Rare Evo 2026 will occur regardless of treasury funding, meaning this massive request is strictly for premium branding upgrades and perks rather than the survival of the event infrastructure itself.
I also don't think the "free access" argument is sufficient on its own. Making a commercial event free for part of the Cardano community may be popular, but Treasury money should not mainly be used to subsidize attendance, food, drinks, hotels, or VIP perks. Looking at the breakdown, allocating over ₳312,000 for a single Happy Hour/Kickoff party and over ₳208,000 for event catering sets an unsustainable precedent for how Treasury funds should be deployed, favoring luxury hospitality over core development.
The community has pushed the Cardano Foundation to make the Cardano Summit more self-sustainable. I believe the same standard should apply here. For a commercial event, I would rather see a standard ticket model than a large Treasury request.
I am also uncomfortable with including a ₳208,333 venue deposit for 2027 inside a 2026 event proposal, especially when the proposal suggests that another Treasury request may follow. This feels like a weak fiscal precedent that attempts to lock the Treasury into future commitments before next year's proposal is even formally voted on.
The proposal says that 20% of VIP ticket sales will return to the Treasury, but without a projected VIP ticket volume, historical sales data, or a minimum guaranteed return, this is more symbolic than financial. A $900 VIP ticket sounds meaningful, but 20% of unknown sales is not a strong recovery mechanism.
Rare Evo 2026 appears to have multiple revenue streams, including tickets, sponsors, exhibitors, partners, and possibly premium/VIP/whale-pass revenue. Before the Cardano Treasury pays ₳2.75M, DReps should see a transparent financial breakdown for the whole event and the percentage of the total event budget Cardano is being asked to cover.
Cardano is being asked to buy a very large sponsorship package inside a commercial multi-chain event, but the proposal does not disclose enough information for DReps to know whether the price is fair or whether Cardano is disproportionately subsidizing an event that already has other sponsors, revenue streams, and private profit margins.
The wider governance context also matters.
DReps have already shown that they are not simply "anti-event," since TOKEN2049 was approved. At the same time, DReps rejected the Cardano Summit. If a Cardano-native flagship event was rejected because of cost, unclear ROI, or concerns about large event spending, then approving Rare Evo at ₳2.75M requires a strong justification.
In addition, there are other marketing-related proposals in the Intersect Budget process that have a chance to be approved, which makes a standalone request of this magnitude even harder to support without deep financial clarity.
Treasury-funded sponsorships must be judged as marketing investments, not as general community support. Before approving ₳2.75M, DReps should understand whether Cardano is buying fair marketing value or subsidizing private event revenue.
For these reasons, I cannot support this proposal in its current form. I would strongly welcome a revised, leaner proposal that focuses strictly on technical and governance infrastructure without anchoring it to high-cost commercial sponsorships and hospitality subsidies.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp - No86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes NO on Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship.
Governance Action ID: gov_action18a9sytyez02jl8ee4ryz5xu7heg587m5tu6nr7fkd3ex30umnnjqq27e7ey
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): 3f4b022c9913d52f9f39a8c82a1b9ebe5143fb745f3531f9366c7268bf9b9ce4#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-10SIPO begins with respect. Rare Network has organised Cardano community events for five consecutive years, growing Rare Evo from a grassroots gathering into one of North America's largest independently operated, Cardano-rooted conferences, and creating Dev Gov Day — a free, openly accessible day of governance and technical coordination for DReps, SPOs, builders, and community members. SIPO attended Rare Evo in 2025 and values the community connections the event fosters. The 20% return of VIP ticket revenue to the Treasury offered here is a constructive precedent, and the proposal's administration — the Intersect-administered Treasury Reserve Smart Contract with five-party oversight and return of unused funds — is process-clean. This vote is not a judgement on the event, the team, or their execution capability.
SIPO votes No on the structure of this ₳2,750,000 treasury withdrawal, for reasons consistent with the line SIPO has drawn across all event-sponsorship actions this cycle.
First, marginal utility. The proposal states plainly that Rare Evo 2026 will occur regardless of treasury funding. What the Treasury would buy is therefore not the event, nor community access to it, but the incremental branding delta of a title-sponsorship position on an event that is already Cardano-rooted and where Cardano is already the central presence. SIPO cannot verify that this delta justifies the ask.
Second, category and consistency. SIPO has drawn a consistent line: protocol and node diversity, capital formation, governance institutions, and critical integrations are categories the Treasury should fund; brand marketing and event title sponsorships are categories it should not. SIPO voted No on the Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 sponsorship actions on this basis. The core of this request — title sponsorship, main-stage branding, livestream visibility — sits in the same category, and the offered KPIs (attendance, impressions, media coverage, viewership) are awareness metrics whose causal link to usage, transactions, TVL, or enterprise adoption remains unverified.
Third, fiscal discipline and recurrence. At current market prices the request approximates the annual operating cost of a major ecosystem wallet serving its users year-round — for a four-day conference presence. Roughly 18% of the ask is not 2026 event delivery at all: it includes withheld taxes and a venue deposit for Dev Gov Day 2027, which the proposal states will be followed by another treasury proposal — an explicit recurrence signal. SIPO also evaluates this request together with the same team's parallel Amplify Cardano proposal in the Intersect budget process, a combined exposure of roughly ₳11.33M to one events-and-marketing team across two venues.
Fourth, bundling. Dev Gov Day — the component with the clearest public-good character as a free governance-coordination platform — is bundled into a single governance action with the title sponsorship and the 2027 deposit, leaving no way to support it separately.
SIPO's position is constructive. SIPO would welcome and seriously consider: (1) a narrowly scoped, standalone proposal for Dev Gov Day as a free governance-coordination event, with builder- and community-facing costs as the funded core; (2) commercial or ecosystem sponsors for the title-sponsorship layer, which the event's own viability suggests is achievable; (3) future-year commitments brought as their own actions rather than embedded as deposits in the current ask; and (4) outcome metrics oriented to onboarding and usage rather than impressions. The 20% VIP revenue-return commitment is a good pattern worth carrying into any such resubmission. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、本提案「Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship」に反対（NO）を投じます。
Governance Action ID: gov_action18a9sytyez02jl8ee4ryz5xu7heg587m5tu6nr7fkd3ex30umnnjqq27e7ey
Legacy Governance Action ID (CIP-105): 3f4b022c9913d52f9f39a8c82a1b9ebe5143fb745f3531f9366c7268bf9b9ce4#0
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-06-10SIPO はまず敬意から始めます。Rare Network は 5 年連続で Cardano コミュニティイベントを運営し、Rare Evo を草の根の集まりから北米最大級の独立運営・Cardano ルーツのカンファレンスへ育て、DRep・SPO・builder・コミュニティのための無料のガバナンス/技術調整の場である Dev Gov Day を生み出してきました。SIPO は 2025 年の Rare Evo に実際に参加しており、このイベントが育むコミュニティのつながりに価値を認めています。本提案が提示する VIP チケット売上 20% の Treasury 返還は建設的な前例であり、資金管理 — Intersect 管理の Treasury Reserve Smart Contract・5 社の oversight・未使用分の返還 — もプロセスとして clean です。本投票は、イベント・チーム・実行能力への評価ではありません。
SIPO は、この ₳2,750,000 のトレジャリー引き出しの構造に対して反対します。理由は、SIPO が今期すべてのイベントスポンサーシップ案件に対して引いてきた線と一貫しています。
第一に、限界効用です。提案自身が「Rare Evo 2026 は Treasury 資金の有無にかかわらず開催される」と明言しています。したがって Treasury が買うのはイベントでも、コミュニティのアクセスでもなく、既に Cardano ルーツであり Cardano が中心にいるイベントの上に載せるタイトルスポンサーの「ブランディングの差分」です。SIPO は、この差分が要求額に見合うことを検証できません。
第二に、カテゴリと一貫性です。SIPO は一貫した線引きをしてきました — プロトコル・ノード多様性、資本形成、ガバナンス制度、重要統合は Treasury が資金を出すべきカテゴリであり、ブランドマーケティングとイベントのタイトルスポンサーシップはそうではない、という線です。SIPO は Cardano Summit 2026 と TOKEN2049 のスポンサーシップ案件にこの基準で反対しました。本要求の核 — タイトルスポンサーシップ・メインステージブランディング・配信露出 — は同じカテゴリに属し、提示された KPI（参加者数・インプレッション・メディア掲載・視聴数）は認知指標であり、実利用・トランザクション・TVL・企業導入への因果は未検証のままです。
第三に、財政規律と恒常性です。現在の市場価格では、本要求額は主要エコシステム wallet がユーザーに 1 年間サービスを提供する年間運用費とほぼ同額 — それが 4 日間のカンファレンス露出に充てられます。さらに要求額の約 18% はそもそも 2026 年のイベント実施費ではありません — 税源泉と、Dev Gov Day 2027 の会場デポジットが含まれ、提案は「来年も別の Treasury 提案が続く」と明記しています。明示的な恒常化シグナルです。SIPO はまた、同一チームが Intersect 予算プロセスに並行して出している Amplify Cardano 提案と合算で評価します — 1 つのイベント/マーケティングチームに対する 2 つの場をまたいだ合計約 ₳11.33M のエクスポージャーです。
第四に、束ねの問題です。無料のガバナンス調整プラットフォームとして最も公共財的性格が明確な Dev Gov Day が、タイトルスポンサーシップと 2027 デポジットと共に単一の governance action に束ねられており、それだけを切り出して支持する方法がありません。
SIPO の立場は建設的です。SIPO は次の形であれば歓迎し、真剣に検討します：(1) Dev Gov Day を、builder・コミュニティ向けコストを資金の核とする、無料ガバナンス調整イベント単体の絞り込まれた提案として出すこと、(2) タイトルスポンサーシップの層は商業/エコシステムスポンサーで賄うこと（イベント自体の存続力がそれを可能と示唆しています）、(3) 来年分のコミットメントはデポジットとして同梱せず、独立したアクションとして出すこと、(4) 成果指標をインプレッションではなくオンボーディングと実利用に向けること。VIP 売上 20% 返還のコミットメントは、再提出の際にも引き継ぐ価値のある良いパターンです。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- No84.3M ₳Rationale
I will echo what I wrote in my recent vote rationale related to the Token 2049 event proposal. I am ever-weary of expenditure levels that would exhaust the Cardano Treasury inside of 10 years. Interest in crypto is also currently incredibly low. These types of events seem like we're marketing to already-converted crypto insiders when we need to reach the mainstream. We need to present a value prop to soccer moms, not Solana bros. I am unpersuaded there is sufficient ROI at many of these events. For those reasons, I am unconvinced that this would be a wise use of funds at this time.
- Yes76.8M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged75.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded
- No74.5M ₳Rationale
I have decided to vote NO on this proposal.
I appreciate the contributions that Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day have made to the Cardano community over the years. These are established events with a proven track record, and I recognize their value in supporting community engagement, networking, and ecosystem visibility.
However, considering the current Treasury environment and the Net Change Limit (NCL), I believe there are higher-priority areas that should be funded first.
At this stage, I believe Cardano's most urgent needs are expanding liquidity, increasing user adoption, accelerating business adoption, and growing real economic activity. While this proposal may contribute to awareness and community growth, I do not believe it sufficiently demonstrates how those outcomes will translate into long-term adoption or measurable economic value for the ecosystem.
I also believe some areas of the proposed budget warrant closer scrutiny from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
For these reasons, I am voting NO based on prioritization and cost-effectiveness considerations.
僕はこの提案にNOで投票します。
Rare EvoおよびDev Gov DayがこれまでCardanoコミュニティの成長や交流に貢献してきたことは高く評価しています。また、実績のあるイベントであり、新規プロジェクトではない点も評価しています。
しかし、現在のTreasury環境とNet Change Limit（NCL）を考慮すると、私はより優先順位の高い分野が存在すると考えています。
現時点のCardanoにとって最も重要なのは、流動性の拡大、ユーザー獲得、事業採用、そして実際の経済活動の増加です。本提案は認知度向上やコミュニティ形成には貢献するものの、それらの成果がどのように長期的な採用や経済的価値へ結び付くのかは十分に示されていないと感じました。
また、一部の予算については費用対効果の観点から慎重な評価が必要だと考えています。
そのため、今回は優先順位と費用対効果の観点からNOで投票します。
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
I am formally registering a NO vote on the Rare Network treasury withdrawal request on behalf of my delegates.
While I highly respect the team, their contributions towards Cardano, and recognize the value Rare Evo brings to the ecosystem, it is difficult to justify a sponsorship of this scale under current market conditions. Especially when I have to strategically allocate funds while remaining fiscally responsible with a lot of other pending proposals, I must direct our limited treasury capital toward core protocol infrastructure and development at this time.
I wish the Rare Network team a highly successful event.
- Yes69.4M ₳No rationale
- No66M ₳No rationale
- Abstain62.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain53.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting Abstain on the Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship proposal.
First, I'm not denying the value of this proposal itself. With our own Summit now cancelled, I believe Cardano's ecosystem visibility and marketing matter more than ever. In particular, Rare Dev Gov Day isn't just a marketing event but a venue where actual governance coordination takes place, covering things like Constitution 2.0 and treasury panels, and I see the structure of returning 20% of VIP ticket sales to the treasury as a positive.
Even so, the reason I can't vote Yes comes down to budget allocation priorities. The current 2026 NCL (a 350M ADA ceiling) is filling up quickly with this cycle's large proposals, and the remaining treasury headroom is limited.
In other words, this proposal isn't wrong in itself. It's that, under the current constrained NCL conditions, it is competing for the same funds as other core infrastructure and product proposals. I recognize the importance of marketing, but if we are to allocate a limited budget efficiently, I find it hard to actively support committing headroom to an event sponsorship at this point.
I therefore support the intent and value of this proposal, but in light of the current NCL conditions and budget priorities, I choose to Abstain rather than vote in favor.
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. This year's Net Change Limit (NCL) has been set well above the level I consider sustainable. Under my published voting framework, an appropriate NCL is roughly 15% of the previous year's staking rewards (on the order of ₳82M), whereas the NCL currently in force is several times that amount. Because the treasury is already authorized to disburse far beyond my personal NCL threshold, I am voting No on all treasury withdrawal proposals until aggregate withdrawals are brought back within a sustainable limit — regardless of the individual merits of any single proposal. This vote reflects a position on total treasury spend, not a judgment on the value of your specific project. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/ [Japanese version follows] 本提案に反対票を投じます。今年のNet Change Limit（NCL）は、私が持続可能と考える水準を大幅に上回って設定されています。公開済みの投票フレームワークでは、適正なNCLは前年のステーキング報酬の約15%（₳82M程度）ですが、現行のNCLはその数倍に達しています。トレジャリーは既に私のpersonal NCL（個人として許容する上限）を大きく超える出金が認められている状態にあるため、出金総額が持続可能な範囲に戻るまで、個別提案の良し悪しに関わらず、すべてのトレジャリー出金提案に反対票を投じます。本投票はトレジャリー支出全体に対する立場の表明であり、貴提案の価値そのものを否定するものではありません。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Abstain50M ₳Rationale
I haven't had the chance to review this proposal yet, and I'm going to do that a bit later. For now, I'm voting Abstain in case I don't manage to get to it before the deadline, just to allow the proposal to move forward.
- Yes49.5M ₳No rationale
- No47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- No38.1M ₳Rationale
After listening to feedback and opinions from community members, I have decided to vote No.
- Abstain36.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.6M ₳Rationale
これをやるならシンガポールの方でしょうね。
- No31.4M ₳Rationale
I appreciate the value this event brings to the community, but the proposal does not align with the top‑priority criteria for financial sustainability. Its outcomes focus mainly on off‑chain visibility rather than measurable on‑chain adoption, and the cost is significant relative to the expected impact. For these reasons, I am unable to support it at this time.
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
Having attended last year's Rare Evo Dev & Gov day and planning to attend this year's, I do see the value add. However, with the current price of ADA trending even lower than what this proposal is using as a reference, I don't think the ROI is worth the spend at this time. I think there are more critical ventures that the treasury should be used to support instead. For these reasons I am voting NO.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳Rationale
This one is relatively easy for me, I was at the last one and even though it was steered a little to heavy by Joel Telpner as chair of the event (not sure if he had been given this role or just handled the Executive function topic portion) surrounding the executive function topic. This along with other topics which included each table coming up with problem statements and clearly defining what seemed to be a major problem and what in our minds as a collective that wasn't. I did find it very informative and if your were there you would clearly see what the overarching feeling from most in the room was needed right then.
There was a management team there collecting all of the data from the event as we wrote everything down as we worked thru what we thought were the major problems that we faced and how we intended on working together to fix them. I did review Yutas rationale for no vote and I think he would best served to talk to Murasaki and other Japanese representatives and dreps and then review his NO and also rewrite his rationale as it clearly doesn't capture what happened in the room that day.
To be clear not everything produces fruit right away but it was one of the more enlightening day long workshops I have been a part of and I am using parts and pieces from that for multiple different strategies, based on both open discussion and internal discussions while talking separately with others during the day. This needs to be funded as it does have value, it has proven to be productive and for those voting no and it still is held, I would suggest going this year and being present for the event, arm chair quarterbacking from the sideline isn't going to cut it when attempting to rationalize your no vote.
- Yes23.5M ₳Rationale
Let's go!
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the proposal “Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship” (3f4b022c9913d52f9f39a8c82a1b9ebe5143fb745f3531f9366c7268bf9b9ce4#0).
Similar to my 5am.earth rationale, we cannot continue to build, build, build, without any marketing. Cardano already suffers from a chronic perception problem and hiding behind “fiscal responsibility” to vote down every growth and marketing effort while approving hundreds of millions for infrastructure is going to leave us all in a cathedral with no windows or doors.
Rare Evo began as a Cardano event. When the wider ecosystem still tried to shun Cardano, Rare Evo helped put it on the map. It eventually growing into a multi-chain event then gave the Cardano ecosystem exposure to the wider market. We can sit here and nitpick over the value of Summits and conferences like this but you honestly cannot put a value on the importance of in-person events. As someone who began a stake pool in rural UK, an ada holder since 2018, I probably wouldn’t still be in this ecosystem if it was not for the friendships and working relationships forged through in-person events. They are so important. If no one knows we are here, what are we even doing.
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
I was torn about this, I have never attended a Rare Event but heard good things about it. They seem to finally have managed to get other ecosystems to join the conference and given the Cardano Summit 2026 proposal failed, I am supporting this so they continue the momentum they gained and to have this year at least one major US (Las Vegas, Rare) and Asian (Singapore Token2049) presence for our ecosystem. We need marketing and this one of the few marketing focused proposals.
- Yes17.3M ₳Rationale
Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship
- No16.7M ₳Rationale
Rare Evo has been meaningful for the Cardano community, and we do see value in giving builders, DReps, and community members a place to meet. We would also enjoy seeing many familiar people there again.
However, we do not think a ₳2,750,000 treasury sponsorship is the right use of funds in the current environment. Crypto attention is low, and events like this mostly speak to people who are already inside the ecosystem. Cardano’s bigger challenge is reaching new users, businesses, developers, and institutions outside the existing crypto bubble.
We still support community gatherings, but they need to be much leaner and more targeted: smaller meetups, builder sessions, side events, online showcases, or low-cost regional formats. At this budget level, we would need stronger evidence of concrete outcomes beyond visibility and community presence.
- No16.4M ₳Rationale
Vote: NO
This proposal requests treasury funds for Cardano to serve as title sponsor of Rare Evo 2026, a blockchain and AI conference held in Las Vegas, alongside a co-located Dev Gov Day event. The proposal is a direct marketing and event spend with no infrastructure deliverable, no treasury repayment, and no on-chain accountability mechanism tied to outcomes.
Vampyre Fund votes NO.
The Vampyre Fund DREP does not support treasury funds being used for short-term marketing efforts. A conference title sponsorship is precisely that — a brand spend whose value is measured in impressions and attendee counts over a single event cycle. It does not build infrastructure, does not return value to the treasury, and does not compound over time. The 6.89% DRep support this proposal has received as of June 2026 reflects broad community alignment with this assessment.
The inclusion of a Dev Gov Day component does not change this judgment. Governance education and developer outreach are worthwhile goals, but they do not require treasury-funded conference sponsorship to achieve. Community-led governance events have historically operated without top-tier sponsorship budgets. Bundling a developer day with a Las Vegas conference sponsorship does not transform the proposal into infrastructure spending.
Vampyre Fund's position is consistent: treasury funds should be reserved for long-term foundational work. Event sponsorships, regardless of the event's quality or the sincerity of the organizers, are not the appropriate use of ADA held in trust for the long-term benefit of the Cardano ecosystem.
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes ABSTAIN on Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship.
RCADA recognises Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day as valuable Cardano ecosystem events with a meaningful track record. Rare Network has been active in the Cardano ecosystem since 2020, Rare Evo has operated for five consecutive years, and the 2025 event reported strong participation across attendees, exhibitors, speakers, livestream reach, social impressions, Cardano projects, and enterprise participants. RCADA also recognises the value of Dev Gov Day as a dedicated Cardano-focused technical, governance, and community coordination event.
The proposal includes several positive elements. Free General Admission access for the Cardano community, complimentary booth space for selected Cardano projects, governance and technical workshops, livestream access, media coverage, and broader ecosystem visibility all have potential value. RCADA also appreciates the proposal’s transparency around budget categories, event deliverables, milestone structure, Intersect administration, oversight, refund conditions, and the commitment to return 20% of VIP ticket sales to the Treasury.
However, RCADA cannot fully endorse the proposal as presented.
The core concern is not whether Rare Evo has value. It does. The concern is whether this specific ₳2,750,000 Treasury package is the right allocation of public funds in the current environment. The event will occur regardless of Treasury funding, so this proposal is primarily an amplification and sponsorship request rather than a continuity requirement for essential infrastructure.
RCADA is especially cautious about the budget composition. Some funding is directed toward important ecosystem access and programming, but significant portions are also allocated to items such as food and beverage, happy hour and kickoff party sponsorship, travel and lodging, media sponsorship, tax withholding, and a Dev Gov Day 2027 venue deposit. These may be normal event costs, but they make the proposal harder to support from the Treasury when compared with more direct technical, infrastructure, governance, or developer needs.
The 2027 venue deposit is a particular concern. RCADA does not want to create a soft standing order from the Treasury for recurring event funding. Future event proposals should stand on their own merits, with fresh community review, clear impact data, and no implied continuation from prior deposits.
RCADA also remains concerned about fairness and precedent. Supporting one major title sponsorship can be perceived as favouring one event organizer over others. Rare Evo has a strong Cardano history, but Treasury funding should be careful not to crowd out other community-led events or create expectations that large sponsorship packages will become a regular Treasury expense.
For these reasons, RCADA votes ABSTAIN. We value Rare Evo, Dev Gov Day, and the work Rare Network has done for Cardano, but the current proposal includes too many non-essential or precedent-setting elements for RCADA to fully support.
A revised proposal would be easier to support if it were smaller and more tightly focused on the highest-impact public-good components: Dev Gov Day programming, livestream access, free community participation, selected project booths, governance and developer workshops, transparent selection processes, and measurable post-event reporting — without hospitality-heavy expenses or future-year deposits.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
This proposal aligns strongly with our governance priorities for 2026, particularly those focused on ecosystem growth, governance participation, community coordination, developer engagement, and Cardano's external visibility. While we recognize that event sponsorship proposals can be difficult to evaluate through traditional ROI frameworks, we believe the value of established ecosystem coordination mechanisms should not be underestimated.
Rare Evo has consistently demonstrated its ability to execute large-scale events that bring together builders, governance participants, entrepreneurs, community leaders, and ecosystem stakeholders. Unlike many proposals that rely on future assumptions regarding delivery capacity, Rare Evo possesses a proven operational track record and has repeatedly shown that it can successfully organize and deliver complex, multi-day conferences that provide meaningful opportunities for collaboration, education, and ecosystem exposure.
We acknowledge several concerns raised during due diligence, including the scale of the budget, the inclusion of hospitality-related expenditures, the limited use of outcome-based performance metrics, and the presence of future-planning costs within the budget structure. These are valid considerations and should continue to inform future treasury funding standards for ecosystem events.
However, in balancing these concerns against the proposal's strengths, we place significant weight on execution certainty. The proposal is being advanced by a team with demonstrated experience, established infrastructure, existing industry relationships, and a clear history of delivering similar events. In our assessment, the risk of non-delivery is low.
We also recognize the important role that physical events continue to play in Cardano's governance and ecosystem development. Governance participation is not solely an on-chain activity; it also depends on relationship building, education, coordination, and opportunities for direct engagement among stakeholders. Rare Dev Gov Day and Rare Evo provide an established venue for these interactions at a scale that is difficult to replicate through purely digital means.
- No10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain9.6M ₳No rationale
- No9.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
私はこの提案に賛成します。Rare Evoは、Cardanoコミュニティ内部のイベントにとどまらず、企業、投資家、開発者、他チェーン関係者が集まるマルチチェーンイベントとして開催されており、Cardanoエコシステム外部への新規露出や認知拡大につながる機会を提供すると考えています。また、Rare Dev Gov Dayを通じて、ガバナンスや技術分野におけるコミュニティ内外の交流や知識共有を支援する点にも意義があると考えています。一方で、イベント関連提案については、イベント期間中の参加者数や視聴数だけでなく、その後にどのような成果が残ったのかが重要であると考えています。リード獲得、パートナーシップ、開発者や企業との継続的な関係構築、オンボーディング、およびエコシステムへの長期的な貢献について、透明性のある報告が行われることを期待します。以上の点を踏まえ、私は本提案を支持します。\n\nI support this proposal. Rare Evo is not limited to being an event for the Cardano community itself, but is organized as a multi-chain event that brings together enterprises, investors, developers, and participants from other blockchain ecosystems. I believe it provides an opportunity to increase Cardano’s visibility and attract new participants from outside the ecosystem. I also see value in Rare Dev Gov Day as an initiative that supports knowledge sharing and interaction both within and beyond the community on governance and technical topics. At the same time, for event-related proposals, I believe it is important to evaluate not only attendance and viewership during the event itself, but also what remains afterward. I would expect transparent reporting regarding lead generation, partnerships, ongoing engagement with developers and enterprises, onboarding outcomes, and long-term contributions to the ecosystem. With those considerations in mind, I support this proposal.
- No8.1M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting ABSTAIN as I am developing a more structured approach to Commercial and Hybrid proposals
I'm working on my own rulebook (+ scoring framework) for assessing Commercial (and Hybrid) Treasury Withdrawal requests.
I need more structure.
I will change my votes to Abstain on all such active proposals at this moment.
Sharing latest rulebook v4 doc (link in tweet below):https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xp9jkdT23bVy1igj4HeCVKjdHvAcPhjtM1zlMtKzGUo/edit?usp=sharing
Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded
I do recognize the enormous effort by Rare to help the visibility of Cardano. We have had multiple event proposals this season: Cardano Summit, Token 2049 sponsorships, and this sponsorship. I have voted No on the preceding ones. We have had several proposals and I am actually unable to say why one should gain precedence over the other - when it comes to Treasury funding. They all have a claim to relevance and importance, but as I am being asked to help release Treasury funds - I am unable to say Yes as I still remain to be convinced the Treasury should finance sponsorships and Summits as annual occurrences.