Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
On-chain changes
- 103,000 ₳paid tostake1uys...gc9s0cm5
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 included it.
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 treasury withdrawal is 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 also lost staking rewards. This request therefore includes an additional 3,000 ADA to compensate for staking rewards at a rate of 2% per annum.
Constitutionality Requirements
Article II.6 - Governance Action Metadata: This governance action has been submitted in a standardised, legible format with the minimum content required and a hash of the content.
Article II.7.1 - Treasury Withdrawal Terms:
- Purpose of the withdrawal: To reimburse the lost deposit for an Info governance action.
- Period of delivery: This will be instantly performed as part of the governance action’s enactment on-chain.
- Relevant costs and expenses: There are no costs or expenses associated with this treasury withdrawal.
- Circumstances under which the withdrawal might be refunded to the Cardano Treasury: There are no circumstances for refunding to the treasury.
Article II.7.2 - Prior Treasury Funding: The recipient of this reimbursement has not previously received funds from the treasury.
Article II.7.3 - Net Change Limit Adherence: The requested amount does not exceed the current Net Change Limit.
Article II.7.4 - Independent Audits and Oversight Metrics: As the funds will be made available directly to the intended recipient, the Cardano community will be able to audit the distribution on-chain. Therefore, no amount of ADA is required for audits and oversight metrics.
Article II.7.5 - Treasury Withdrawal Administrator: 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 II.7.6 - Administrator Custody: The funds will not be held by an Administrator, so no compliance regarding the wallet’s delegation is required.
Rationale highlights
Why some of the largest DReps voted for and against, in their own words.
YES. This may not be a protocol bug, but it was at least due to poor design. Let's give the funds back.
YES。これはプロトコルのバグではないかもしれませんが、少なくとも不親切な設計が原因でした。資金を返してあげましょう。
Lots of Japanese DReps already voted YES, so we assume it's legit. Ping us if it turns out not to be.
I vote NO. I recognize the value and importance of the work presented in this proposal. However, given the current Treasury balance and the remaining Net Change Limit, I cannot support funding for initiatives that are not essential to Cardano’s operational...
I vote NO.
I recognize the value and importance of the work presented in this proposal. However, given the current Treasury balance and the remaining Net Change Limit, I cannot support funding for initiatives that are not essential to Cardano’s operational continuity.
To preserve long‑term financial sustainability, I must vote against this proposal.We acknowledge the underlying issue described in this proposal and remain sympathetic to the request for reimbursement. If a governance participant lost a 100,000 ADA governance action deposit due to an early implementation defect rather than personal error,...
We acknowledge the underlying issue described in this proposal and remain sympathetic to the request for reimbursement. If a governance participant lost a 100,000 ADA governance action deposit due to an early implementation defect rather than personal error, there is a reasonable argument that governance should consider remediation.
However, our concerns from the previous iteration of this proposal have not been sufficiently addressed.
While the proposal provides additional context regarding the loss and offers a rationale for the requested reimbursement amount, it still lacks important procedural details regarding how the reimbursement will be executed in practice. Specifically, the proposal does not clearly define the recipient verification process, the mechanism by which the treasury withdrawal will be directed to the rightful beneficiary, or the safeguards that ensure the funds are returned to the address associated with the original governance action. For treasury-funded reimbursements, these details are essential for transparency, auditability, and accountability.
We also remain unconvinced by the additional 3,000 ADA compensation component. Although the proposal now references foregone staking rewards as justification, it does not provide a sufficiently detailed methodology, timeframe, or calculation that would allow DReps and the wider community to independently verify the amount. Compensation requests should be based on transparent, reproducible assumptions rather than broad estimates.
Our vote should not be interpreted as opposition to reimbursement in principle.