Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
177 DReps voted · 66 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes584.2M ₳Rationale
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.
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
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。
- Yes332.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO DRep votes YES on the Budget Info Action to reimburse 100,000 ADA related to the “Cardanoの生きがい (Ikigai)” Info Action.
Rationale
We support reimbursing the original 100,000 ADA deposit because it was lost due to a protocol bug during the very early phase of on-chain governance, not due to user misconduct. Restoring the deposit aligns with community sentiment at the time and reflects fairness toward early governance participants.
However, the proposal does not clearly establish who is submitting this reimbursement request, what their relationship is to the original Ikigai author, nor whether the original author explicitly wishes to have the deposit returned. We would like to see explicit confirmation from the original proposer, or a clear proof of continuity before any withdrawal is executed.
The community has discussed Ikigai reimbursement for a long time, yet this request (especially the extra 3,000 ADA) is only coming now, raising concern that the longer someone waits, the more “missed opportunities” they can claim, potentially incentivizing strategic delays in future cases. While we will still vote YES on the proposal as submitted, our expectation for similar cases in the future is clearer identification of the claimant and a concrete, data-based justification for any amount that exceeds the original deposit.
- Yes222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1x2zm0lgd59kjrc9clzgscdlh0ct62l8llr638h6t4a5jj4yqzzyqq2dgc7q;
We are all for returning the funds. But adding 3k ADA on top is just an annoying detail to be honest. The owner could have proposed to withdraw the 100k ADA way earlier. And 3k for 14 months is kind of a premium rewards amount. Anyway, we vote YES.
- Yes165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes YES on this budget info action. Reimbursing the proposer who lost 100'000 ada deposit due to a protocol issue is straightforward. Our support for the subsequent treasury withdrawal is contingent on the funds being sent to the original, affected stake address.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This proposal aims to correct a well-documented technical issue from the first weeks of on-chain governance. The Cardano Foundation supports this action based on the following:
- Correcting a Protocol-Level Flaw: This is not a typical funding request, but a reimbursement. An early pioneer of the governance system lost their deposit due to a bug in the node that allowed an unregistered stake key to be used, a flaw that has since been fixed. We reject the counterargument that this was simple user error; the technical requirements were not documented in an accessible way for the community at the time. Upholding the integrity of the governance system means making this user whole.
- Community-Aligned Action: There has been widespread, long-standing community agreement that this reimbursement is the right and fair thing to do. Voting "yes" aligns with this community consensus and strengthens trust in the governance process.
- Reasonable Compensation: The request for 103,000 ada is reasonable. It covers the 100,000 ada principal and a modest 3,000 ada to compensate for lost staking rewards and other opportunities. This additional amount is a fair calculation to fully restore the user to the position they would have been in.
Condition for Treasury Withdrawal
Our support for this budget info action is given with one clear condition for the subsequent treasury withdrawal: the proposer must provide verifiable proof that they are the original, affected party.
This current proposal was submitted from a different stake address (stake1u8453de8xhhqa9c4ftvylkke8we84tmaq5hz75qwfgaaf2qac45ja) than the one that lost the deposit (stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5). To prevent a fraudulent claim and ensure the correct party is reimbursed, the proposer must, at the treasury withdrawal stage, provide definitive proof of identity.This proof could be provided in one of two ways:
- Direct Payout: The treasury withdrawal is submitted with the payout address set to the original, affected stake address (
...c9s0cm5). - Cryptographic Proof: The proposer provides a message signed by the stake key associated with the original (
...c9s0cm5) address, confirming their identity and directing the funds to the new address.
Without such proof, we will not support the final treasury withdrawal.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. This is a necessary corrective measure to maintain fairness and trust in the protocol. We support this budget with the explicit condition that the final reimbursement is verifiably sent to the original stakeholder who incurred the loss.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - Abstain92.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote YES for the Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit Reimbursement.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The deposit loss was caused by a bug in the Cardano node. The submitter could not have predicted the deposit loss. Moreover, it was the first governance action after the Chang hard fork. No one had experience submitting governance actions.
I considered how I would vote in a case where funds were lost due to a hack in DeFi. In such a case, I would probably vote NO, because the blame would be on the third-party team and security auditors. Treasury should not be used to cover damages in DeFi.
In the case of the Ikigai Info Governance Action, there was a bug on the Cardano protocol side, so the responsibility lies with the IOG team and the community. It is legitimate for the submitter to ask DReps to consider reimbursement.
I understand that the submitter lost staking rewards and other opportunities, but in my opinion the submitter should have only requested 100,000 ADA. Asking for an additional 3000 ADA seems a bit unreasonable to me, considering that the reimbursement could have been requested a long time ago.
Nevertheless, the proposal is acceptable as submitted.
From the governance action, I cannot verify whether the same entity that submitted the Ikigai Info Governance Action is requesting reimbursement. If anyone has any doubts, please contact me before submitting a withdrawal.
- Abstain88.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep Statement on “Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit”
As SIPO, I voted Yes on the “Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit” proposal.
I believe this proposal represents an important step toward strengthening the integrity and fairness of Cardano’s on-chain governance system.The original “Ikigai” Info Action, submitted shortly after the Chang hard fork in 2024, was a symbolic governance proposal.
It didn’t request funding or technical changes, but simply expressed gratitude to everyone who helped bring Cardano this far and hope for the future.
It was a gesture that captured the community’s spirit — the idea that Cardano is not only a technology, but a shared journey built on human trust and collaboration.Unfortunately, due to a node bug that allowed an unregistered stake key to be used, the proposer of the Ikigai Action lost their 100,000 ADA deposit permanently.
At the time, many community members agreed that this deposit should be reimbursed, as it was lost not through user error, but through a software fault during the earliest stage of Cardano’s governance.
However, the treasury reimbursement capability did not yet exist then.
Now that this capability has been introduced through the Plomin hard fork, it is both fair and responsible for the community to finally resolve this unfinished issue.This reimbursement proposal is not about rewriting history, nor about reversing the blockchain.
It does not attempt to roll back any transaction or modify the immutable ledger.
Instead, it uses the legitimate constitutional process — an on-chain treasury withdrawal — to correct a past injustice in a transparent and auditable manner.
It is a clear example of how Cardano’s governance can act with compassion and fairness while preserving immutability and rule of law.From a DRep perspective, this proposal is constitutionally sound and technically safe.
It has clear parameters (a fixed reimbursement amount of 103,000 ADA), complies with the current Net Change Limit, and specifies DReps as administrators for execution oversight.
Funds are distributed directly to the affected individual, allowing full on-chain transparency and community auditability.Supporting this proposal also sets an important precedent for the future.
It demonstrates that our governance framework can respond to legitimate errors in good faith — not by changing the past, but by taking responsible action within the rules of the system.
In this way, Cardano shows that governance on a blockchain can be both human and principled.As SIPO, I support this proposal not only as an act of fairness, but also as a symbolic gesture that honors the early pioneers of Cardano governance.
The “Ikigai” proposal expressed the soul of our ecosystem — gratitude, hope, and shared purpose.
Approving this reimbursement is a way of keeping that spirit alive, showing that Cardano’s governance is built on empathy as much as it is on code.Therefore, I, SIPO, have voted Yes — to uphold the integrity of our governance, to close a chapter that began with goodwill, and to remind ourselves that Cardano’s true strength lies in its community’s sense of justice and care.
⸻
SIPOはこの「Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit（Ikigai提案デポジット返還）」提案に対して、Yes（賛成）を投じました。
この提案は、カルダノのオンチェーン・ガバナンス制度における誠実さと公正さを取り戻すための、大切な一歩だと考えています。もともとの「Ikigai」Info提案は、2024年のChangハードフォーク直後に提出されたもので、技術的変更や資金請求を目的としたものではなく、
「カルダノをここまで築いてきた全ての人への感謝」と「未来への希望」
をコミュニティに共有する、象徴的なメッセージ提案でした。
それはカルダノが単なる技術ではなく、「人の信頼と協働によって築かれる旅」であるという精神を体現したものでした。しかし当時、ノードコードのバグにより未登録のステークキーが使用できてしまい、提案者はデポジットとして支払った 100,000 ADA を失いました。
これはユーザーのミスではなく、カルダノ・ガバナンスの初期段階で発生したソフトウェア上の不具合によるものでした。
多くのコミュニティメンバーが「このデポジットは返還すべきだ」と賛同したものの、当時はトレジャリーからの払い戻し機能がまだ存在していませんでした。
そしてPlominハードフォークでその機能が実装された今、未解決のまま残してきたこの問題を制度として正しく処理することが、私たちコミュニティの責任だと感じます。この返還提案は、ブロックチェーンを巻き戻すものではありません。
過去のトランザクションを改ざんすることも、不変性を損なうこともありません。
むしろこれは、憲法に基づいた正当な手続き──すなわちオンチェーンのトレジャリー支払い──を通じて、
透明かつ監査可能な形で過去の不正を是正する行為です。
カルダノが「不変性」と「人間的な公正さ」を両立できることを示す好例だと思います。DRepの立場から見ても、この提案は憲法的に正当で、技術的にも安全です。
請求額（103,000 ADA）は明確に定義され、ネットチェンジリミットを超えず、DRepが実行監視の管理者として指定されています。
資金は直接受取人に支払われ、オンチェーン上で完全に透明に監査可能です。さらに、この提案を支持することは今後への重要な前例になります。
カルダノのガバナンス制度が、誤りや不具合に対して「過去を書き換える」のではなく、
「制度の中で誠実に修復する」ことができるという証明になるからです。
それはつまり、ブロックチェーン・ガバナンスが“人間的でありながら原則的”であることを示す実例です。SIPOは、この提案を単なる補償措置としてではなく、
カルダノ・ガバナンス初期のパイオニアたちへの敬意を込めた象徴的な行為として支持しています。
「Ikigai」提案が示したのは、カルダノの“魂”──感謝と希望、そして共に進む意志です。
その精神を引き継ぐためにも、この返還を承認することは大きな意味を持ちます。
それは、カルダノが「コードだけでなく、人間の誠実さの上に成り立っている」ことを世界に示す行為でもあります。だからこそSIPOとして Yes を投じました。
それは、制度の誠実さを守り、希望と感謝から始まったこの物語をきちんと完結させるための一票です。
カルダノの本当の強さは、コードや技術だけでなく、コミュニティが示す「正義と優しさ」にこそあると信じています。 - Yes84.3M ₳Rationale
Please see X.com post of the same date related to this vote.
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES.
This governance action seeks to resolve the loss suffered by an early and sincere participant in Cardano governance, caused not by their actions but by a protocol implementation bug.
It is natural that those who step forward first take on some risk.
However, when unfair, system-originated risk is left unaddressed, it discourages others from stepping forward and ultimately stalls governance itself.For Cardano to advance, participants must trust that good-faith contributions are properly protected.
This is not a personal benefit but a reasonable and minimal remedy to restore what was lost due to a system failure.
It reflects the values and integrity we want our governance culture to stand on.In respect for those who took the first steps —
and to support those who will take the next —
I vote YES.僕は YES に投票します。
Cardanoガバナンスの初期段階で、誠実に行動した参加者がノード実装のバグによって不当に損失を被った問題を解決するための提案です。
「先に進む者が一定のリスクを負うのは当然」です。
しかし、バグによる 制度外の不条理なリスクを放置してしまえば、次に続く人を阻むメッセージとなり、ガバナンスは停滞します。Cardanoのガバナンスが発展するためには、正しく行動した者が正しく守られるという信頼が土台であるべきです。
これは単なる金銭補償ではなく、コミュニティの信義とガバナンス文化の健全性を守る選択です。
この提案は、利益供与ではなく、
システム起因の損失を公平かつ最小限に回復する合理的な提案です。先に進もうとした人への敬意として、そして次に進もうとする人の背中を押すために、僕はこのコミットメントを尊重します。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I'm voting YES. Trust in our governance system is essential. This early pioneer lost their deposit due to a critical flaw in the governance tooling, not their own error. This should have been caught in testing before launch. Making this user whole is non-negotiable for ecosystem integrity.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting a strong YES. My vote is built on a non-negotiable principle: trust in our governance system is essential for it to be used.
This community member was an early pioneer of governance, and they lost their deposit due to a critical flaw in the tooling provided to submit governance actions, not user error. This is a failure of the system's readiness, and it should have been caught in testing before governance went live. These early pioneers deserve our full support. Making this right is a fundamental test of our ecosystem's integrity and sustainability.
- Yes66M ₳Rationale
That's a no brainer for me to reimburse a loss that happened due to a error in the code
- Yes62.7M ₳Rationale
Yes, get this done. It should have been done ages ago. This person has been very patient.
- Yes53.8M ₳Rationale
Since this issue stems from an early Cardano governance submission bug, I do think reimbursing the deposit is the right thing to do. However, it’s important to verify that the refund is actually going to the original proposer. I also have doubts about adding an extra 3,000 ADA as compensation. If additional reasons such as the Midnight airdrop are included for further reimbursement, I’ll be voting against this proposal.
- No50M ₳Rationale
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.
- Abstain49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳Rationale
This should be a no brainer.
- Yes38.1M ₳Rationale
I support this proposal. It’s fair to reimburse the lost deposit caused by a bug.
- Yes37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.3M ₳Rationale
We voted in favor of this proposal. This proposal addresses a technical issue that occurred during Cardano’s early governance phase and ensures fairness within the governance process. We understand that the additional 3,000 ADA requested represents reasonable compensation for staking rewards and minor opportunity costs from that period, though similar measures should be considered with appropriate caution in the future.
- YesRevoted33.5M ₳Rationale
Reimburses early governance participant for a protocol bug loss, fulfilling Cardano’s fairness and value preservation principles while adhering to Info Action and Treasury standards. Strengthens community trust in decentralized governance.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Reimbursing the Ikigai Info Action deposit honors early governance participation and corrects a protocol-induced loss, aligning with Cardano’s Tenets of fairness, preservation of value, and community recognition. The proposal follows constitutional Info Action requirements and responsibly requests a modest Treasury allocation, reinforcing trust in Cardano’s decentralized governance.
Earlier votes
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
Reimburses lost deposit from unstaked wallet, consistent with prior BigPey incident.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Voting yes. This is a simple reimbursement that’s been pending for over a year. The deposit was lost because the action was submitted with an unstaked wallet, not due to any protocol fault. The community already supported making the submitter whole, and we’ve set this precedent before with BigPey. This just finishes what should have been done long ago.
Yes9mo agoSuperseded
Voting YES to v2.3 update for simplifying governance and budget processes, removing unnecessary complexity, and strengthening efficiency, accountability, and sustainability across the Cardano ecosystem.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
The Cardano Constitution v2.3 update simplifies the governance and budget processes while maintaining alignment with the ecosystem’s core principles of decentralization, transparency, and fiscal responsibility.
This revision removes unnecessary complexity and redundant sections, improving readability and operational efficiency without weakening constitutional safeguards. The streamlined budget process enhances accountability and enables more agile decision-making in the management of community resources.
By focusing on clarity, sustainability, and efficiency, the v2.3 update strengthens Cardano’s governance framework and supports long-term ecosystem growth. Therefore, the vote is YES.
- Yes31.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes30.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
This proposal is an instant YES from me. Ikigai was one of the first entities to submit a governance action on mainnet and as a pioneer were the first to discover this unfortunate bug/mistake resulting in the loss of 100k ADA. I only wish that they could have been refunded much sooner.
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES because what matters is what's in your heart, and it's ok to be retarded
- Yes23.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the budget info action to reimburse the proposers of the Ikigai info action (59fd353253eb177e2104e8f23ea4c63e3d32ef95c7865d03e90d3884424dc1db#0) with the funds that were lost due to a bug that allowed an unregistered stake key to submit a governance action. As a result, the governance deposit was sent to the treasury and not returned the proposer. The anonymity of the author or this proposal does give a reason for pause, however, provided that any subsequent treasury withdrawal action identifies the same address as was used to submit the Ikigai info action (59fd353253eb177e2104e8f23ea4c63e3d32ef95c7865d03e90d3884424dc1db#0) then I see little reason to vote NO on this proposal.
- YesRevoted21.4M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes8mo agoSuperseded
Yes8mo agoSuperseded
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
I support the idea of reimbursing the Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit. The user should not be punished being a pioneer. Before approving the actual withdrawal action, I would need to see proof though that the actual person who lost the funds wants this and receives those funds and this withdrawal does not go to an unrelated entity. E.g. the funds should go back to the same address they originally came from.
- Yes17.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes17.3M ₳Rationale
Mochiron!
- Yes16.7M ₳Rationale
This proposal corrects an early governance bug that caused the Ikigai Info Action submitter to lose their 100,000 ADA deposit through no fault of their own, as documented in the abstract and motivation sections. Reimbursing the deposit, plus a modest adjustment for lost rewards (total 103,000 ADA), upholds fairness for early participants and reinforces trust in Cardano’s governance process. The amount is small, constitutionally compliant, and directly resolves a long-standing issue acknowledged by the community.
- Yes16.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on this governance action. This proposal seeks to reimburse the deposit lost during one of the very first on-chain governance submissions following the Chang hard fork, where a Cardano node bug allowed an unregistered stake key to submit an Info Action but prevented the deposit from being recoverable. The loss was not due to user error or misuse; it resulted directly from a protocol-side issue during the earliest days of governance. The community has long acknowledged that this should be corrected once Treasury mechanisms allowed for it.
Now that the tooling and processes are in place, this action provides a straightforward and fair remedy. The requested amount is modest relative to the Treasury, fully constitutional, and immediately auditable. Compensating for the protocol-caused loss reinforces trust in the governance system and honors the individuals who participated at a time when risks were higher and the tooling was still maturing. Addressing such outliers strengthens the legitimacy of governance rather than setting a broad precedent.
Although the additional 3,000 ADA for lost staking rewards and opportunity cost is somewhat subjective, it is reasonable in context and does not materially alter the low-risk nature of the request. The total amount remains small, and the intent is clearly to make the proposer whole rather than to profit.
As a general governance best practice, and without questioning the proposer’s integrity, I believe it would be beneficial for the proposer to sign a simple verification transaction from the original affected address. This would provide on-chain confirmation of ownership and serve as a clean procedural pattern if similar edge cases ever occur in the future. However, this is a suggestion for administrative clarity, not a precondition for supporting the action.
Given the unique circumstances, the clear fairness of the remedy, and the need to maintain confidence in the governance process, RCADA votes Yes.
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
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.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.4M ₳Rationale
Seems reasonable ask. Although I think that 3k ADA shouldn't be included.