Reforming Treasury Governance
141 DReps voted · 48 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain478.3K ₳No rationale
- No466.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain442.9K ₳No rationale
- No431.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - No383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain360.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes341.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain320.4K ₳Rationale
Panda thinks the direction is a good and necessary one (split the budget in categories and such). However in its current form Panda thinks it is premature for a YES.
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
Voting NO on Reforming Treasury Governance
Thoughts
Claims
First, there is a funding impasse. Second, while being pivotal for Cardano's stability and growth, treasury governance is only indirectly addressed and barely supported by the existing governance system.- Claim 1: There is a funding impasse
- Claim 2: treasury governance is not enough to properly govern the treasury.
Are They Advocating For Bureaucracy?
And while treasury governance is crucial for the Cardano ecosystem, there is a lack of guardrails and structures that could provide the process with a strategic direction.guardrails and structures sounds a lot like bureaucracy.
Yes, we have limited resources.
In particular, treasury withdrawal actions from different, but likewise important domains have led to a perceived competition for scarce resourcesWdym "perceived competition"? Of course there is competition between domains! We have to choose what to fund and what not to fund. That's just the nature of having limited resources.
Conclusion
This is just more bureaucracy. No thank you.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood dRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt
@william00000010 on 𝕏
contact@williamdoyle.ca - Abstain294.4K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted279.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on “Reforming Treasury Governance” because, while I agree with many of the concerns it raises and with the proposed multi‑domain budget structure, I do not support the introduction of a single strategic entity and an appointed expert commission as the core mechanism for treasury governance reform. My view is that Cardano should move toward wider, more direct participation, where community members self‑organize into domain‑specific expert groups and vote on proposals they are uniquely qualified to assess, rather than centralizing strategic direction and project selection in a small set of appointed bodies.
I see DReps as an important intermediary in the current phase of governance, but not as the endpoint of Cardano’s decision‑making model. Although I share the proposal’s concerns about NCL‑centric thinking and domain competition, I cannot endorse this particular implementation path and will instead focus on approaches that keep strategic and evaluative power distributed across the community.
- No261K ₳Rationale
Vote: NO
The problems identified in this Info Action are real and deserve attention. Cardano's current treasury governance process lacks strategic coordination, places a significant evaluation burden on DReps, and has contributed to fragmentation and conflict around treasury funding decisions. These issues warrant discussion and future reform.
However, I do not believe this Info Action is sufficiently developed to serve as a non-binding coordination instrument for the ecosystem.
Unlike binding governance actions, the effectiveness of an Info Action depends primarily on its political legitimacy, methodological clarity, and broad ecosystem participation. While this proposal presents several concrete institutional ideas, it does not demonstrate that they were developed through a sufficiently broad collaborative process or supported by a representative group of ecosystem participants.
In particular, the proposed budget structure introduces categories that differ from the recently endorsed Cardano Vision 2030 framework, yet the proposal does not explain how the two frameworks relate to one another. Without that clarification, approving this Info Action could create unnecessary ambiguity by signaling support for an alternative strategic structure without establishing whether it complements, extends, operationalizes, or replaces the existing framework.
The proposal also introduces significant governance concepts, including a strategic entity, an expert commission, thematic budgets, and a new model for approving treasury withdrawals. However, these concepts remain insufficiently specified to justify formal ecosystem endorsement, even as a non-binding signal.
A proposal with the ambition of coordinating treasury governance at the ecosystem level would benefit from broader collaboration before being submitted for on-chain approval. The proposer could engage with groups already working on strategic budgeting, treasury governance, and ecosystem coordination, such as the Intersect Budget Committee, the Ecosystem Funding Working Group within Intersect's Product Committee, and the DRep DAO.
These groups are not the exclusive owners of treasury reform, but they already bring together participants with relevant experience and are actively exploring frameworks and methodologies for budget coordination. Collaboration with them, as well as with other ecosystem stakeholders, could help improve the proposal's structure, clarify its relationship with Cardano Vision 2030, develop stronger institutional safeguards, and provide the broader political legitimacy required for an effective non-binding coordination instrument.
For these reasons, my vote is NO. This should not be interpreted as disagreement with the problems identified or with the objective of improving treasury governance. Rather, this Info Action still requires greater clarity, organization, methodological development, and broader ecosystem participation before it can appropriately serve as a coordination framework at the ecosystem level.
Voto: NÃO
Os problemas identificados nesta Info Action são reais e merecem atenção. O processo atual de governança do tesouro da Cardano carece de coordenação estratégica, impõe uma carga significativa de avaliação aos DReps e tem contribuído para fragmentação e conflitos em torno das decisões de financiamento pelo tesouro. Essas questões justificam discussão e futuras reformas.
No entanto, entendo que esta Info Action ainda não está suficientemente desenvolvida para servir como um instrumento não vinculante de coordenação para o ecossistema.
Diferentemente de ações de governança vinculantes, a efetividade de uma Info Action depende principalmente de sua legitimidade política, clareza metodológica e participação ampla do ecossistema. Embora esta proposta apresente diversas ideias institucionais concretas, ela não demonstra que essas ideias tenham sido desenvolvidas por meio de um processo colaborativo suficientemente amplo ou respaldadas por um grupo representativo de participantes do ecossistema.
Em especial, a estrutura orçamentária proposta introduz categorias diferentes daquelas estabelecidas pelo Cardano Vision 2030, recentemente apoiado pelos DReps, sem explicar de que forma ambos os frameworks se relacionam. Sem esse esclarecimento, a aprovação desta Info Action pode gerar ambiguidade desnecessária ao sinalizar apoio a uma estrutura estratégica alternativa sem definir se ela complementa, amplia, operacionaliza ou substitui o framework existente.
A proposta também introduz conceitos relevantes de governança, como uma entidade estratégica, uma comissão de especialistas, budgets temáticos e um novo modelo de aprovação de retiradas do tesouro. Entretanto, esses conceitos permanecem insuficientemente especificados para justificar um endosso formal do ecossistema, ainda que apenas como um sinal político não vinculante.
Uma proposta com a ambição de coordenar a governança do tesouro em nível de ecossistema se beneficiaria de um processo mais amplo de construção coletiva antes de ser submetida à aprovação on-chain. O proponente poderia colaborar com grupos que já atuam em discussões relacionadas a planejamento orçamentário, governança do tesouro e coordenação do ecossistema, como o Intersect Budget Committee, o Ecosystem Funding Working Group, vinculado ao Product Committee da Intersect, e o DRep DAO.
Esses grupos não são proprietários exclusivos da reforma da governança do tesouro, mas já reúnem participantes com experiência relevante e vêm trabalhando na construção de frameworks e metodologias de coordenação orçamentária. A colaboração com esses espaços, além de outros participantes do ecossistema, poderia contribuir para melhorar a estrutura da proposta, esclarecer sua relação com o Cardano Vision 2030, desenvolver salvaguardas institucionais mais sólidas e proporcionar a legitimidade política necessária para um instrumento não vinculante de coordenação.
Por essas razões, meu voto é NÃO. Isso não deve ser interpretado como discordância em relação aos problemas identificados nem ao objetivo de aprimorar a governança do tesouro. Esta Info Action ainda necessita de maior clareza, organização, desenvolvimento metodológico e participação ampla do ecossistema antes de poder servir adequadamente como um framework de coordenação em nível de ecossistema.
- Yes260.2K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳Rationale
I have a different view of how governance should be refined, which can be read here: https://brockcardano.substack.com/p/cardano-funds-answers-to-questions
- No238.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain234.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes232.7K ₳No rationale
- No215.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- No171.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain142.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain131.9K ₳No rationale
- No129.1K ₳No rationale
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain71.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain69.4K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain10.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.1K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes682 ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged0 ₳History
Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded