Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
On-chain changes
Informational action. No on-chain effect; the vote signals opinion only.
Abstract
In September 2024, only weeks after the Chang hard fork to introduce on-chain governance, an Info governance action titled Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai - was submitted. This was only a symbolic governance action, as it simply asked the community whether they agreed with a statement thanking those that helped get Cardano to this point and expressing a sense of hope for the future.
Unfortunately, due to a bug in the code of the Cardano node that permitted an unregistered stake key to be used in the governance action, the submitter was unable to recover their deposit of 100K ada. While the community expressed at the time the importance of reimbursing this deposit via a treasury withdrawal; once the ability to do so became available, following the Plomin hard fork; unfortunately none of the entity based budget submissions have included this.
The Cardano in Oceania initiative did include the deposit reimbursement in their budget Info governance action, however their governance action was not approved. This governance action therefore aims to resolve this outstanding issue.
Motivation & rationale
There was significant sentiment at the time that the Ikigai Info governance action deposit should be reimbursed. It was considered that the submitter should not lose one hundred thousand ada, for being an early pioneer of Cardano governance.
This is a budget Info governance action requesting an amount of 103,000 ada. In addition to the original 100,000 ada the Ikigai Info governance action submitter lost, they have since lost staking rewards, Midnight airdrop eligibility and other opportunities. This budget therefore includes an additional 3,000 ada to compensate for additional losses.
Constitutionality checklist
Article III.5: The process of on-chain governance - This governance action has been submitted in a standardised, legible format with the minimum content required and a hash of the content.
Article IV.2: Funds administration - While funds administration is not required, as the funds are being immediately distributed, in order to comply with this requirement the DReps are nominated as the “Administrator”, as they will be responsible for executing the distribution.
Article IV.3: Net-Change Limit - The requested amount does not exceed the current Net-Change Limit.
Article IV.4: Auditor - As the funds will be made available directly to the intended recipient, the Cardano community will be able to audit the distribution on-chain.
Rationale highlights
Why some of the largest DReps voted for and against, in their own words.
Yoroi DRep votes YES on the governance action titled “Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.” The original Ikigai Info governance action was submitted soon after Chang, during the very early phase of on-chain governance, and the 100,000 ADA deposit...
Yoroi DRep votes YES on the governance action titled “Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.”
The original Ikigai Info governance action was submitted soon after Chang, during the very early phase of on-chain governance, and the 100,000 ADA deposit was lost because of a node bug, not the user's fault.The Cardano community has repeatedly expressed support for reimbursing this deposit once technically possible, which aligns with fairness toward early governance participants.
However, this proposal does not clearly state:
Who exactly is submitting the request now.
What is their relationship to the original Ikigai proposer.
Without this information, there remains a possibility (even if small) that the original author may have chosen to treat the deposit as a voluntary contribution to the Treasury.
The proposal also requests an additional 3,000 ADA for lost staking rewards, Midnight airdrop eligibility, and other opportunity costs, but provides no methodology for how this number was derived.
Conclusion:Yoroi DRep decided to vote YES on this budget info action to reflect the community’s intent to fairly reimburse funds lost due to a protocol bug. However, we expect the following Treasury Withdrawal to clearly confirm the original proposer’s consent, clarify the claimant’s identity and relationship to them, and clarify how the additional 3,000 ADA was calculated.
It would be a good idea to repay Ikigai's governance action deposit that was involuntarily sent to the treasury. Of course, it is true that this was due to a lack of checks on the part of the governance action proposer, but it was undesirable that governance...
It would be a good idea to repay Ikigai's governance action deposit that was involuntarily sent to the treasury.
Of course, it is true that this was due to a lack of checks on the part of the governance action proposer, but it was undesirable that governance actions could be sent without registering a staking address, and this has now been fixed.
It should be possible to repay Ikigai's governance action deposit by simply returning it to the address to which it was sent.
However, there is some room for debate as to whether staking rewards and compensation for midnight are necessary, as it is true that the governance action proposer lacked checks in their practice of sending governance actions.
However, I believe that the 100,000 ADA should be repaid as soon as possible, so after considering all factors, I will vote YES at this stage.
不本意にトレジャリーに送付されてしまったIkigaiのガバナンスアクションデポジットを返済することは良いことでしょう。
もちろん、これはガバナンスアクション提案者の確認不足であることは事実ですが、ステークアドレスを登録せずにガバナンスアクションが送信できる状態であったことは望ましくない状態であり、これは修正されました。
Ikigaiのガバナンスアクションデポジットを送付したアドレスにそのまま返済すれば確実に本人に返済することは可能なはずです。
ただし、ステーキング報酬やミッドナイト分の補償までが必要なのかは少し議論の余地があるでしょう。ガバナンスアクション提案者のガバナンスアクションの送付実務において確認不足があったことは事実であるためです。
ただ、10万ADAはなるべく早く返済されるべきと考えるので総合的に考慮して現段階でYESを投票します。
Although I fully support the idea of refunding the deposit for the Ikigai proposal, in this particular case I voted No, because I have no clear understanding of who exactly is submitting this proposal and what relation they have to the original author of the...
Although I fully support the idea of refunding the deposit for the Ikigai proposal, in this particular case I voted No, because I have no clear understanding of who exactly is submitting this proposal and what relation they have to the original author of the Ikigai proposal - this is not specified anywhere in the description. It is also unclear whether the author of the Ikigai proposal actually wants the deposit to be refunded. Since the author has never directly requested it (even though the community generally supports the idea, as it has been discussed multiple times), there is a possibility that the deposit was not lost by mistake but intentionally left as a donation to the treasury. Therefore, I would like to see confirmation from the original author of the Ikigai proposal that they indeed wish to have the deposit returned. I'll be happy to change my vote to Yes once I get clarification on these points.
We have reviewed the governance action seeking to reimburse the deposit lost by the submitter of the original Ikigai Info Governance Action from September 2024. As Wada DRep, we remain fully supportive of the principle that the ecosystem must reimburse the...
We have reviewed the governance action seeking to reimburse the deposit lost by the submitter of the original Ikigai Info Governance Action from September 2024. As Wada DRep, we remain fully supportive of the principle that the ecosystem must reimburse the 100,000 ADA deposit that was locked due to a protocol-level issue. This loss occurred through no fault of the proposer but resulted from a technical weakness that allowed an unregistered stake key to submit a governance action and prevented the deposit from being returned. Reimbursing this amount is not only fair but reinforces accountability and trust in Cardano’s governance infrastructure.
We also note that the Ikigai issue has been discussed at length across the ecosystem and we believe that we do not need to know the identity of the individual proposer to resolve the matter. In a decentralised environment, identity is irrelevant. The correct approach is to return the 100,000 ADA to the recipient address originally submitted with the Ikigai governance action itself, which is publicly recorded and cryptographically tied to the proposal. This protects privacy, avoids unnecessary off-chain verification processes, and cleanly resolves the issue using on-chain information alone.
However, while we support the reimbursement in principle, the current proposal is generic and lacks essential information about how the funds will be returned to the original address in practice. It does not clearly state the exact return mechanism, the treasury contract path, or any safeguards that ensure the funds are transferred precisely to the address that appeared in the original submission. Without these procedural details, the community cannot confidently execute an action of this nature.
We further note that the additional 3,000 ADA proposed as compensation appears unsubstantiated. Although we agree that the proposer may have missed out on staking rewards, airdrop eligibility, or other opportunities had the 100,000 ADA been returned in 2024, the proposal provides no model, data, or timeframe to validate 3,000 ADA as an appropriate figure. Any additional compensation should be based on measurable approximations, such as staking reward estimates for the relevant epoch range; rather than an arbitrary number. Applying a guessed figure creates the risk of setting a weak precedent for future compensation-type proposals.
Given both the historical significance of this issue and the need to resolve it correctly, we believe this matter would be best handled through the Intersect Steering Committee. They can formally reference the original Ikigai governance action, extract and verify the associated recipient address, and collaborate with the community to submit a complete and technically precise reimbursement action. Such a proposal should specify the exact address, confirm the on-chain record, define the distribution method, and present a transparent model for calculating any supplementary reward: if justified.
For the reasons elaborated above, we vote no on this governance action while encouraging Intersect to guide a complete and accurate resolution process so that the reimbursement is executed cleanly, transparently, and conclusively.