Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
177 DReps voted · 66 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes949.1K ₳Rationale
Voting yes, as it is the fair thing to do for an early pioneer in the governance era; however, the 3,000 ADA is a very bad look and im sure that they now regret including that in this GA.
Voting yes for now, but will vote no on the TW if its anything more than 100,000 ADA.
- Abstain931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
We support this reimbursment of the deposit that went to the treasury because of a good faith mistake in one of the first governance actions that prevented the funds to be returned.
- Yes820.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
Because it's right!
- Yes759K ₳No rationale
- Yes756.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
I support this. I think it’s fair to reimburse the Ikigai submitter since they lost their deposit due to a bug, not their own actions. We don't get many bugs of this nature, so this is a rare occurrence. Covering the original amount plus a small compensation for missed rewards feels reasonable especially since he found the bug.
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
I fully agree with the refund of the deposit due to an error in the initial governance action, which made it impossible to return the funds.
- No605.7K ₳Rationale
📢 Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit — My Vote
I vote ❌ NO.
💬 Reason:
Reimbursing 103,000 ADA for an old mistake is not ecosystem development — it’s misuse of the treasury. The Cardano Treasury exists to fund technology, infrastructure, and education, not private refunds.
If we start compensating past errors, we open the door to endless refund requests and weaken the integrity of decentralized governance.💡 My proposal:
Instead of ad hoc reimbursements, Cardano should establish a transparent insurance or bug-bounty system to handle such cases fairly and structurally, without emotional decisions.🗳️ I vote NO to protect decentralization and responsible treasury management.
I’m registered as a DRep and ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem.
Optimistic about building the world’s largest digital community.
🖤 My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr
More info: https://t.me/PROCENT666/338 - Yes590.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
We have the ability to fix this error of someone who was actively using the protocol, so we should. This amount is a lot for one person, but not a lot on the scale of the treasury
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
Yes, there needs to be clean proposals and serious inquiries only. I think the 100,000 ADA is a little steep and maybe could be adjusted in the future based on ADA price. It's a good start and a Yes for me. Refunded ADA should absolutely happen.
- Yes520.2K ₳Rationale
Reimbursement is appropriate in this case. While the proposer should have ensured everything was in order, given the early stage and the unfavorable implementation at the time, I vote YES. However, the additional 3000 ADA seems unnecessary, as the proposer is not entirely blameless. It should also be ensured that the ADA is returned directly to the original owner.
- Yes501K ₳Rationale
I support this budget governance action in full.
The deposit was lost due to a protocol bug, not user error.
The submitter acted in good faith at the earliest stage of on-chain governance.
The community at the time recognized the loss was unjust and should be repaired once the mechanism existed. - No499K ₳Rationale
- Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain409.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Abstain381.1K ₳No rationale
- No378.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted328.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
- Yes323.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES!
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I’m voting YES.
This reimbursement should have happened long ago. The submitter of this Info Action lost their deposit due to a code bug; what should have been a milestone for Cardano governance became a personal loss, and it’s only fair to make them whole. Compensation should include the original deposit plus a reasonable 3k ADA allowance for lost opportunities (missed staking rewards and the Midnight airdrop).
This is the right thing to do ethically, practically, and for trust in our governance.
- Yes313.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes300.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
Summery
Last year some people got together and made an info action basically saying “Cardano is pretty cool, Charles is pretty cool”, but they used a fancy Japanese word, Ikigai. It was a special moment and one of the first governance actions.
We were all still learning, and some technical mistake was made, resulting in the group being unable to withdraw their 100k ADA deposit.
In this info action, the proposer suggests withdrawing 103k ADA to compensate for the lost ADA and opportunity.
Conclusion
This is very reasonable. It was part of Cardano’s growing pains, and this loss should not be borne by one person alone. They helped us and, in the process, took some damage. It is only right that we stand with them. That being said, I will only vote to approve the actual withdrawal once I have seen proof that the funds are indeed going to the account/person who supplied the funds for the deposit.
This should not be seen as a precedent for addressing future stuck deposits. This case is unique in that it was one of the very first governance actions.
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
I am supporting the "Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit" Info Action proposal based on the principle that Cardano governance must be accountable, trustworthy, and capable of correcting institutional mistakes affecting good-faith participants. Addressing this historic deposit loss is critical for sustaining trust in Cardano’s evolving governance processes, especially when significant collateral is required to participate in early and untested phases of on-chain proposal submission.
However, my ongoing YES vote for a subsequent formal treasury withdrawal is strictly contingent upon several conditions being met:
Verification of Recipient Authenticity: There must be clear, on-chain or otherwise cryptographically verifiable evidence that the reimbursement is being made either directly to the original Ikigai Info Action proposer or to an officially authorized representative. No unrelated or opportunistic third-party should ever receive these funds. Proper identity confirmation and documentation should be part of the process to prevent misuse or fraudulent claims.
Accurate, Conservative Compensation Calculation: The final reimbursement should be limited to the original 100,000 ADA deposit plus a precisely calculated figure representing only actual lost staking rewards over the relevant period. Any “potential” or hypothetical opportunity costs (such as speculative airdrops or alternate network opportunities) must be excluded from the reimbursement to avoid turning a corrective action into an inappropriate windfall.
Preclusion of Exploitative Precedent: This action should be strictly treated as a one-time remedy for a specific, documented infrastructure failure. It must not become a template for turning process errors into personal profit. The intent here is to make the affected individual whole—and nothing more.
Appropriateness of Process: While some community members have discussed handling this via a future “insurance” or “bug bounty” process, I concur that this unique and isolated event can be satisfactorily addressed via the current Info Action and subsequent Treasury Withdraw mechanism—provided the above criteria are fully satisfied—without unnecessary delay or added procedural burden for the original submitter.
A YES vote is therefore justified as a principled act of rectification and trust restoration, but will only be maintained into the reimbursement stage if there is demonstrable compliance with these transparency and accountability standards. This proposal must not be allowed to devolve into a financial opportunism or process loophole; its legitimacy derives solely from its fidelity to the goal of correcting a protocol-level governance error for the original, directly affected participant.
- Yes260.2K ₳Rationale
This is about correcting a system error and honoring the early contributors who tested and strengthened Cardano's new governance. Fairness and recognizing our pioneers is paramount.
- Yes245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
Reasons I voted Yes
Moral: Punishing the first governance pioneer for a node bug feels not good for Karma.
Precedent: Sounds like BigPey and Atrium ran into similar issue and they got refunded.
Cost: 103k ADA = 0.0003% of the treasury. Rounding error.
Signal: Cardano keeps promises and fixes its own mistakes. - Yes238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes228.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes199K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes150.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain131.9K ₳No rationale