Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
177 DReps voted · 66 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain8.8M ₳Rationale
私は本提案の趣旨（バグに起因する100,000ADAデポジットの返還）には賛同します。一方で、付随的損失として計上されている3,000ADAについては、補填の必要性が明確ではなく、制度的な前例を生む可能性があると考えます。したがって、本提案の趣旨は理解しつつも、今回は棄権します。\n\nI support the intent of this proposal, which seeks to return the 100,000 ADA deposit lost due to a bug. However, the necessity of the additional 3,000 ADA compensation is unclear and could set an institutional precedent. Therefore, while I understand and acknowledge the purpose of this proposal, I choose to abstain.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
I was one of the many Cardano community members who supported for the reimbursement of the submitters of the Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai governance action. Thanks for being an early tester of Cardano governance. Sad about what happened. I am glad to support your claim - with some advice below - for the Treasury Withdrawal stage.
In general, I do support this motion. I agree that the submitter should not lose one hundred thousand ada, for being an early pioneer of Cardano governance and for the glitch with the submission of governance actions - that did not refund the funds. It was a sufficiently unique case that requires a tailored remedy.
Please note that my final vote on the Treasury Withdrawal will depend on the following:
a. I will vote NO on the Treasury Withdrawal if it does not include verifiable addresses and proof that it was submitted by the same wallet / proposers that submitted the Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai governance action. I do not want to refund the sum to the wrong wallet/persons.From what I can see - (just glancing through explorers, I may be wrong):
Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai - was submitted by Stake Address: stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5
This motion is being submitted by stake address: stake1u8453de8xhhqa9c4ftvylkke8we84tmaq5hz75qwfgaaf2qac45ja
If the original address wasn't staked back then (which caused the problem), then I am not reading the on-chain data well.
So, my point is: the burden of investigating the the chain of events is now being shifted to me as a DRep instead of being provided in a clear and easily understandable way inside the current governance action. Include the addresses from which the Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai governance action was submitted and the address to which you intend to receive the payout. Walk me through why I should be convinced that this is the same person/submitter.
b. I will vote NO on the Treasury Withdrawal if the total compensation sum goes above the 100,000 ADA plus a calculation (not just self-declared) staking rewards. The average staking rewards - from epoch when you submitted to epoch when the withdrawal is roughly approved - should be calculated and the calculation should be included in the Treasury Withdrawal action - and it should be easily verifiable by DReps. Yes, there is some leeway there in terms of precision, but I want to follow the calculation.c. I will vote NO on the Treasury Withdrawal if it asks for further additions, for example "Increasing the compensation sum for Midnight airdrop eligibility and other opportunities" - this will not be acceptable to me as it opens new precedents - which is not necessary here, imho. As any precedent to include additional compensation funds - has to be air-tight. The Midnight airdrop was optional and is not an automatic part of the Cardano protocol - nor have all Cardano participants claimed it. "And other opportunities" opens the way for refunds from the Treasury for other things by others, such as claims towards the treasury - for the a missed ability to provide liquidity to Cardano DeFi... etc..
TL;DR I agree to refund the 100,000 ADA + precisely calculated staking rewards that were missed out on (small variations understandable) - with clear and verifiable proof that the identity of the original proposer / wallets and the current proposer are the same. I do not want to refund the sum to the wrong wallet/persons. If compensation for anything else is included ("airdrop eligibility / other opportunities") I will probably vote No on the treasury withdrawal.
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
There's not much to have to dig into here. A bug resulted in a lost deposit - this simply makes it right and returns funds to the submitter.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
Voting yes as this was part of our 'Oceania' proposal as well to have this reimbursed. Promises made, promised kept.
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners supports this governance action to reimburse the lost deposit from the symbolic “Ikigai” Info Action. The proposer acted in good faith during the early rollout of on-chain governance and was penalized due to a technical bug outside their control. Approving this reimbursement demonstrates integrity in Cardano’s governance system and honors early community participation that helped test and stabilize the process after the Chang upgrade. The requested amount is modest, constitutionally compliant, and poses no fiscal or governance risk. Restoring these funds reinforces accountability and fairness within the ecosystem’s foundational governance phase.
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
Thank you for your work in the early stages and regarding the lost funds, I hope the community will unite in agreeing to facilitate the refund.
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1x2zm0lgd59kjrc9clzgscdlh0ct62l8llr638h6t4a5jj4yqzzyqq2dgc7q), pois ela corrige uma injustiça causada por um erro técnico ocorrido no início da governança on-chain. O proponente não deve arcar com a perda de mais de 100k ADA por ter contribuído simbolicamente para o ecossistema. O reembolso representa o reconhecimento de seu pioneirismo, restaura a confiança no processo de governança e reforça a responsabilidade coletiva da comunidade em corrigir falhas quando elas ocorrem.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action (gov_action1x2zm0lgd59kjrc9clzgscdlh0ct62l8llr638h6t4a5jj4yqzzyqq2dgc7q), because it corrects an injustice caused by a technical error that occurred at the beginning of on-chain governance. The proposer should not bear the loss of more than 100k ADA for having contributed symbolically to the ecosystem. This reimbursement acknowledges their pioneering role, restores confidence in the governance process, and reinforces the community’s collective responsibility to correct mistakes when they arise. - Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
This is an unfortunate situation which happened through proper and expected use of the chain who's underlying technology was changed without the users involvement. Since Ikigai was relying on the chain to function as it should and this didn't happen, not through simply being degraded, but through a bug which locked funds, this seems clearly to point to a failure of the system, and such a loss should be paid for by the system. I realize this raises the question of is this a good precedent to set, taking on losses for ecosystem participants as liability for the protocol itself. Such situations will each need to be evaluated on their own merit, but in this case, it seems that the losses would most justly be covered in full.
- Abstain3.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.4M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged3.1M ₳Rationale
100% yes - participants need to be reimbursed for the Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit. I'm surprised none of the founding entities or Intersect stepped up to make this happen - it's been far too long to fix this mistake.
Thank you for pioneering governance, and for weathering the delays by those that should have acted sooner.
Earlier votes
Abstain8mo agoSuperseded
As I have not yet had time to review this proposal, I have submitted a vote of Abstain for now.
- NoChanged3M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes8mo agoSuperseded
No8mo agoSuperseded
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
YES — 誠実な修復行為を通じて、信頼あるガバナンスを育てるために支持します。
Changハードフォーク直後、最初期のオンチェーン提案「Ikigai Info Action」の提出時に、未登録ステークキーが使用できてしまうノードのバグが存在し、これにより提出者のデポジット10万ADAが自動返還されないままロックされる事態が発生しました。 当時から補償の必要性は広く認識されていましたが、当時はまだトレジャリー引き出し機能が存在せず、対応が保留されていました。 今回の提案はその問題を正式なガバナンス手続きで誠実に修復する行為であり、Cardanoの制度が「個人の損失を無視しない文化」として成熟していることを示しています。 この補償は単なる返金ではなく、信頼あるガバナンスの礎を築く象徴的な一歩といえます。—
YES — I support this proposal as a sincere act of restoration that strengthens trustworthy governance.
Soon after the Chang hard fork, during the submission of one of the earliest on-chain proposals, the “Ikigai Info Action,” a node bug allowed the use of an unregistered stake key, causing the submitter’s 100,000 ADA deposit to remain locked and unrecoverable.
Although the need for reimbursement was widely recognized at the time, the treasury withdrawal mechanism did not yet exist, and thus corrective action had to be postponed.
This proposal represents a sincere and principled effort to resolve that issue through proper governance, demonstrating Cardano’s maturity as a system that does not ignore individual losses.
It is more than a refund — it is a symbolic step toward cultivating a culture of fairness, accountability, and trustworthy governance within Cardano. - Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
It would be travesty not to reimburse them.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Yes. I support this info action to advance to a treasury withdrawal. The original Ikigai action author should be reimbursed, as they were an early pioneer of Cardano governance and lost their deposit because, at the time, an action could be submitted without a staking address. However, I would like the treasury withdrawal to include more information, specifically regarding who submitted this action and their connection to the original author.
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting NO. I agree with others that funding from the Treasury sets a bad precedent. Agree with others voting no, there should be an insurance fund and/or a bug bounty fund for this.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳Rationale
Someone lost 100K ada because of a bug in the node code, not their own mistake. Returning the deposit is simply the right thing to do. The extra 3K for missed staking rewards is fair too. Voting yes.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
I'm not against a reimbursement of the lost funds, because those went to the treasury anyway, but the treasury shouldn't pay for lost staking rewards or airdrops, because those are not paid by the treasury. Only the amount of 100k should be reimbursed.
Also it's not clear who submitted this governance action. Only if they asked for a reimbursement themselves, it should be done. - Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
I support reimbursing the original 100,000 ADA deposit lost due to the governance protocol bug, recognizing the submitter’s pioneering role in Cardano’s on-chain governance infancy. This repayment is a fair acknowledgment that early participants should not be unduly penalized for technical failures outside their control.
However, I firmly oppose the inclusion of the additional 3,000 ADA claimed for staking rewards and opportunity costs. These are speculative losses lacking transparent, auditable justification. Treasury funds must prioritize activities that provide measurable ecosystem value rather than compensating subjective or unverifiable claims.
Beyond this specific reimbursement, it is imperative to establish explicit guardrails within Cardano’s governance framework. The treasury must not be treated as an insurance mechanism for technical bugs or user errors unless clearly codified by governance policy. Approving this reimbursement must be explicitly declared a one-off exception with no precedent for future compensation claims arising from operational faults.
If the community deems an insurance mechanism necessary to protect early testers or contributors from technical risks, such a fund should be created deliberately through a dedicated account funded by transaction fees or other sustainable sources; not ad hoc treasury withdrawals.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale