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.
- Abstain7.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.9M ₳Rationale
Pains me to not support this one but in the line of sacrifices I'm trying to make/find everywhere, this has got to be one. That said, I am abstaining, not voting No.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
I have supported Rare Evo multiple times in the past.
However, this is not the right time for this type of treasury spending. - No4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança "Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship" (gov_action18a9sytyez02jl8ee4ryz5xu7heg587m5tu6nr7fkd3ex30umnnjqq27e7ey), pois, embora reconheçamos a relevância da Rare Evo e do Rare Dev Gov Day como espaços de encontro, visibilidade e coordenação para o ecossistema Cardano, bem como o histórico de execução apresentado pela Rare Network, avaliamos que o valor solicitado, de ₳2.750.000, é elevado diante do escopo proposto. Em especial, observamos que parte significativa do orçamento está direcionada a patrocínio de evento, mídia, hospitalidade, despesas administrativas, retenções fiscais e até depósito para uma edição futura. Entendemos que iniciativas presenciais podem gerar valor, mas não identificamos, nesta proposta, métricas suficientemente objetivas e vinculantes que demonstrem retorno proporcional ao Tesouro em termos de adoção, desenvolvimento, governança ou crescimento sustentável de longo prazo. Também nos preocupa o fato de que a Rare Evo 2026 ocorrerá independentemente do financiamento do Tesouro, o que reduz a percepção de essencialidade do aporte solicitado. Embora apoiemos ações que ampliem a presença da Cardano em eventos estratégicos, entendemos que os recursos do Tesouro devem priorizar entregas com impacto mensurável, ampla distribuição de benefícios e menor concentração orçamentária em um único operador ou iniciativa. Por essas razões, votamos "NÃO", recomendando que uma eventual nova versão apresente orçamento mais enxuto, contrapartidas mais claras, indicadores de sucesso mais rigorosos e maior alinhamento entre desembolso público e impacto direto para o ecossistema Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action "Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026: Cardano Title Sponsorship" (gov_action18a9sytyez02jl8ee4ryz5xu7heg587m5tu6nr7fkd3ex30umnnjqq27e7ey), because although we recognize the relevance of Rare Evo and Rare Dev Gov Day as spaces for gathering, visibility, and coordination within the Cardano ecosystem, as well as the execution track record presented by Rare Network, we consider the requested amount of ₳2,750,000 to be high relative to the proposed scope. In particular, we note that a significant portion of the budget is directed toward event sponsorship, media, hospitality, administrative expenses, tax withholdings, and even a deposit for a future edition. We understand that in-person initiatives can generate value, but we do not see sufficiently objective and binding metrics in this proposal to demonstrate a proportional return to the Treasury in terms of adoption, development, governance, or long-term sustainable growth. We are also concerned that Rare Evo 2026 will take place regardless of Treasury funding, which reduces the perceived essentiality of the requested allocation. While we support initiatives that expand Cardano’s presence at strategic events, we believe Treasury resources should prioritize deliverables with measurable impact, broad distribution of benefits, and lower budget concentration in a single operator or initiative. For these reasons, we vote "NO", recommending that any future version present a leaner budget, clearer counterparties, more rigorous success indicators, and stronger alignment between public funding and direct impact for the Cardano ecosystem. - No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
I simply do not believe this is a must-have during a year which needs austerity in spending. This event in my mind will mostly be playing to a Cardano bubble and will not help with mass adoption which is the key area I would support spending marketing on.
I'm using the lens of a career as an exec in one of the worlds largest advertising and event marketing firms, and through that lens I believe this will be unlikely to drive enough value during a period of austerity.
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
I like the Rare Evo team and what they do, however I think this is a proposal that would supply both better onboarding results and funding results in a bull market. As I am being very strict with my voting on non-essential spending due to the low price of ADA, I have to vote no at this time. I do not think that summit-type events will help our blockchain's current situation, and the spending would not be good value for ADA in the current market.
- No3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted2.8M ₳Rationale
Let's support a homegrown Cardano business that has a direct focus on this field (Events) and expertise/experience to run a successful event of this nature. Projects need to pick lanes and stay in them if we want Cardano to stand the test of time. Focus is paramount. I will not be voting YES for any proposals with staggered focus. Rare team is very focused and positioned to be the Cardano SME.
I support the Rare Evo team and hope they continue to serve the Cardano community the way they have.
Added Rationale: This proposal is paramount as the FEs seem to no longer be supporting this initiative like they did in the past, very disappointing. It's very alarming that our FEs are competing with companies on chain for the same scope of work. Shows a major lack of focus. https://x.com/RareRandCorp/status/2061764807074746423?s=20
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Let's support a homegrown Cardano business that has a direct focus on this field (Events) and expertise/experience to run a successful event of this nature. Projects need to pick lanes and stay in them if we want Cardano to stand the test of time. Focus is paramount. I will not be voting YES for any proposals with staggered focus. Rare team is very focused and positioned to be the Cardano SME.
I support the Rare Evo team and hope they continue to serve the Cardano community the way they have.
- YesRevoted2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に条件付きで賛成します。Rare Evoは独立運営のマルチチェーンイベントでありながら、長年Cardanoコミュニティと深く結びついてきた重要な接点です。DRep、SPO、開発者、プロジェクト、企業、メディアをつなぐ場として、Cardanoにとって公共財性があると評価します。
さらに今年はCardanoにとって、開発、ガバナンス、外部認知を実際の成長につなげる正念場です。Cardanoは、自らの技術と思想を外部に伝えるナラティブを、自分たちで作らなければならないチェーンです。その意味でRare Evoは、単なるイベントではなく、Cardanoの次の段階を示す国際的接点として活用されるべきです。
一方で、Treasury支援の成果は内部の熱量にとどまらず、外部への波及として示される必要があります。Cardano外への到達、開発者流入、企業・機関との接続、メディア露出、支援対象の選抜透明性、VIPチケット売上からTreasuryへ返還される20%分の実績額などを、定量的かつ公開可能な形で報告すべきです。
以上を条件に、私はYESを投じます。
I conditionally support this proposal. Rare Evo is an independently operated multi-chain event, but it has long been closely connected to the Cardano community. I see it as an important ecosystem touchpoint that connects DReps, SPOs, developers, projects, enterprises, and media, and therefore has public-good value for Cardano.
This year is a critical moment for Cardano to turn development, governance, and external visibility into real growth. Cardano is a chain that must create and communicate its own narrative, connecting its technology and philosophy to the wider industry. In that sense, Rare Evo should not be treated as just another event, but as an international gateway to present Cardano’s next stage.
At the same time, the impact of Treasury support must go beyond internal community enthusiasm. It should be reported transparently and quantitatively through external reach, developer onboarding, enterprise and institutional connections, media exposure, transparent selection of supported participants, and the actual amount of the 20% of VIP ticket sales returned to the Treasury.
On these conditions, I vote YES.
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
私は本提案に条件付きで賛成します。
Rare Evoは独立運営のマルチチェーンイベントでありながら、長年Cardanoコミュニティと深く結びついてきた重要な接点です。DRep、SPO、開発者、プロジェクト、企業、メディアをつなぐ場として、Cardanoにとって公共財性があると評価します。
さらに今年はCardanoにとって、開発、ガバナンス、外部認知を実際の成長につなげる正念場です。その意味でRare Evoは、単なるイベントではなく、Cardanoの次の段階を示す国際的接点として活用されるべきです。
一方で、Treasury支援の成果は内部の熱量にとどまらず、外部への波及として示される必要があります。Cardano外への到達、開発者流入、企業・機関との接続、メディア露出、支援対象の選抜透明性、VIPチケット売上からTreasuryへ返還される20%分の実績額などを、定量的かつ公開可能な形で報告すべきです。
以上を条件に、私はYESを投じます。
I conditionally support this proposal. Rare Evo is an independently operated multi-chain event, but it has long been closely connected to the Cardano community. I see it as an important ecosystem touchpoint that connects DReps, SPOs, developers, projects, enterprises, and media, and therefore has public-good value for Cardano.
This year is a critical moment for Cardano to turn development, governance, and external visibility into real growth. In that context, Rare Evo should not be treated as just another event, but as an international gateway to present Cardano’s next stage to the wider industry.
At the same time, the impact of Treasury support must go beyond internal community enthusiasm. It should be reported transparently and quantitatively through external reach, developer onboarding, enterprise and institutional connections, media exposure, transparent selection of supported participants, and the actual amount of the 20% of VIP ticket sales returned to the Treasury.
On these conditions, I vote YES.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
We assess this event to be primarily appealing to insiders.
While it may be a great community event, it is exactly this:
An event focused on the already existing community with little impact for ecosystem direct growth and opaque synergistic effects.
Given the current market condition, AtlasHub unfortunately does not support this event. - No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this governance action as submitted.
I recognise Rare Network’s long-standing contribution to the Cardano ecosystem, and I see genuine value in Rare Dev Gov Day as a coordination venue for builders, DReps, SPOs, governance participants, and the wider Cardano community. I also appreciate the attempt to include Treasury return mechanics through a share of VIP ticket revenue.
However, I do not believe this proposal is structured in a way that justifies a Treasury withdrawal of ₳2,750,000. My main concern is that it bundles a potentially valuable governance and developer coordination event with a broader title sponsorship and marketing package for Rare Evo 2026. Rare Evo will happen regardless of Treasury funding, so this request appears to be funding an incremental branding and sponsorship layer rather than a clearly necessary public good.
I believe the Cardano Treasury should prioritise proposals with direct, measurable outcomes for protocol development, critical infrastructure, developer tooling, governance capability, adoption, and long-term ecosystem resilience. Event sponsorship can have value, but at this scale it needs a stronger case for measurable impact, tighter scope, clearer success metrics, and a more direct connection to outcomes that justify Treasury funding.
I would be open to reconsidering a revised proposal focused specifically on Rare Dev Gov Day, with a leaner budget, clear deliverables, audited reporting, and defined refund terms. As submitted, I cannot support the bundled request.
- Abstain2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳Rationale
Abstaining as I do not have a strong preference either way.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
This is the single most important event to showcase the Cardano Ecosystem. There is no better way for projects and businesses to get direct exposure to the customer and the ecosystem at the same time.
Amplify and Catalyst have NOT yet paid for past events yet.
Rare Evo 2026 is happening. As of now, what has been cut is everything other than the convention. No Poker Tournament, No opening party, no close out party, no free coffee, cut the live stream of main stage (brings no revenue and was a luxury for those that cant make it), cut down on stage size and design, Dev / Gov day will be severely cut to just some breakout room space if even possible at all. (There is a sponsor looking at the opening party, but not sold yet)The only paid Cardano booths this year are Hosky who has always supported the event & Bank / BetFi Casino.
The rest of the spots have already started to be given away for free to Cardano community so they can be present at the event. That after all, is the whole point of this.
Now, GA tickets are free.
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
I attended both Rare Evo and the Dev&Gov Day in 2025 and greatly enjoyed both events, so this was not an easy vote for me. After careful consideration, however, I have decided to vote NO.
If this proposal were solely for Dev&Gov Day, I would approve it without hesitation. I consider it a highly valuable event that directly benefits the Cardano ecosystem and is well worth funding.
As for Rare Evo, it positions itself as a multi-chain event, so I do not believe it should be funded as a Cardano event. At the same time, as a multi-chain event, I do not believe it is of sufficient scale to justify a standalone treasury proposal, unlike events such as TOKEN2049. Last year, we funded a Unified Events proposal, and I believe it would make more sense for Rare Evo to be considered alongside other events within such a proposal, with attendance decisions made according to the available budget and expected value.
I am also concerned that treasury funding is being used to compensate for the loss of sponsors that previously supported the event. While I understand the challenge, I do not believe the treasury should be expected to fill that gap.Regarding the requested deposit for Dev&Gov Day 2027, I am not convinced it is necessary to commit funds more than a year in advance. The event attracts only a few hundred attendees, which does not seem to warrant such an early commitment, especially before the next edition has even taken place.
We already had a Dev&Gov Day in Las Vegas in 2025 and may have another one there in 2026. We also had a similar event, Day 0, before the Cardano Summit in Berlin in 2025. In the future, we may want to hold such an event in a different part of the world, giving other members of the community a better opportunity to attend. - No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on the Rare Evo and Dev Gov Day 2026 Cardano Title Sponsorship proposal. I recognize Rare Network’s track record and I see real value in Dev Gov Day as a governance and developer coordination event, but I cannot approve this package under current treasury and NCL pressure. The proposal is too broad and too expensive for what is mainly an incremental title sponsorship and visibility layer around an event that will happen regardless of treasury funding. I would be open to a leaner, more focused proposal for Dev Gov Day with clearer outcome metrics, transparent reporting, and no future-year deposit. My NO is therefore not a rejection of Rare Evo’s value, but a call for a more disciplined funding structure.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I'm not really comfortable putting money into a title sponsorship of this size without solid evidence that the extra benefits for Cardano outweigh what Rare Evo would offer on its own. Remember, as the proposal states, the event is going to happen whether we support it or not.
I keep saying this: the Treasury should focus on funding public goods and filling strategic gaps, not act as the premium events and marketing department for the ecosystem or as a bank for loans that never get paid back (like $SNEK!).
**I appreciate what Rare Evo is doing, but I don't think spending ₳2.75M on sponsorship-heavy visibility is a wise use of Treasury funds. **Cardano needs clear signals, but we definitely don't need fancy setups with a blockchain logo right now.
- No971.5K ₳Rationale
We vote NO on this proposal. We want to clearly acknowledge that Rare Evo has been an important event for the Cardano ecosystem over the past years and has created value through community building, visibility, networking, and governance participation.
However, given the current market environment and the limited resources available in the Cardano Treasury, we do not believe that funding a large event sponsorship should be a priority at this time. The requested amount may be reasonable from an event sponsorship perspective, but treasury funds should currently be focused on critical infrastructure, security, scalability, developer tooling, and initiatives with a more direct and measurable impact on adoption.
We appreciate the work Rare Evo has done for Cardano, but in the current phase we do not think the ecosystem has enough available funding to support this type of proposal. For that reason, we vote no.
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted954K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain931.8K ₳No rationale
- No923.6K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted881.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- No861.5K ₳No rationale
- No825.2K ₳Rationale
Pros
Targeted Developer Funnel: Dev Gov Day specifically caters to open-source developers and engineers, creating a direct pipeline to attract technical talent to build on Cardano's core infrastructure.Global Ecosystem Visibility: Title sponsorship ensures maximum brand exposure to institutional investors, enterprise partners, and multi-chain developers outside the current community.
Fosters High-Assurance Ecosystem Growth: Aligning the network's top-tier presence with engineering-focused events supports the broader strategic vision of driving transaction volume and long-term protocol viability.
Cons
Geographic and Benefit Concentration: The physical events are highly concentrated in North America, meaning direct access, networking benefits, and localized economic impact do not naturally distribute to emerging markets.High Capital Outlay with Hard-to-Quantify ROI: Marketing and sponsorship withdrawals demand substantial treasury funds upfront, carrying the inherent risk that high-visibility exposure will not efficiently translate into active on-chain growth or measurable user acquisition.
Final Recommendation
Vote: NO
Rationale
While global brand awareness and developer onboarding are vital pillars for the Cardano 2030 vision, treasury resources must be allocated with extreme fiscal responsibility, maximizing global efficiency and direct utility.Sponsorship proposals of this magnitude must present a clear, decentralized return on investment that justifies the capital flight from the Treasury. This action represents a heavy financial concentration in a single, highly mature geographic region (the United States). Historically, the community has pushed back against massive marketing expenses that lack strict milestone-gated disbursement structures or clear capital-return mechanisms—such as those successfully integrated into enterprise funds or decentralized tooling initiatives.
Because this event structure heavily favors localized, regional attendance without offering structural digital equity or proportional, direct resource allocation to builders in developing ecosystems, it does not represent an optimal or equitable use of community funds at this time.
Latin American Ecosystem Impact
As a DRep dedicated to driving growth, public awareness, and institutional adoption across Latin America, voting NO ensures that valuable treasury capital is preserved for initiatives that offer direct, decentralized access to global markets. Funding highly concentrated US-centric events creates severe entry barriers (such as travel costs and visa restrictions) for LatAm builders and institutions. Rejecting top-heavy, localized sponsorships sets a vital governance precedent: encouraging future event proposals to incorporate decentralized regional hubs, remote developer grants, or direct bilingual educational tracks that actively empower the Latin American community. - No798.4K ₳Rationale
Rare Evo is a credible event with real community value, but the proposal primarily funds marketing, travel, hospitality, sponsorships, and event operations rather than durable infrastructure or protocol improvements. The expected return on treasury capital is significantly lower than competing infrastructure-focused proposals.
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
I've been voting NO a lot lately, and had a hard time deciding which way to go on this one. Ultimately, I decided YES for the following reasons: 1) I've been to RARE before, and I think there is real value in face to face interactions. Of course that is true for onboarding 'new' clients and partners, but it's also true for our internal community. At these market lows and with all of the X strife, it's important to reconnect. 2) I appreciate the folks that put on RARE. They know what they are doing, have experience doing it, and are independent of the FEs that I do NOT appreciate draining the Treasury to do exactly the sort of thing they were chartered to do with genesis funds. 3) US based, organic marketing effort.
- No759K ₳No rationale
- Abstain747.4K ₳No rationale