Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
173 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain9.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.2M ₳No rationale
- No8.8M ₳Rationale
私は本提案に反対します。ガバナンスアクション提出時に失われた100,000ADAのデポジットを返還するという考え方については理解できます。提案本文によれば、この損失はCardanoノードのバグによって発生したものであり、提出者が初期のガバナンス参加者であったことも考慮すべき事情であると考えます。一方で、本提案には当初失われたデポジットに加え、失われたステーキング報酬の補償として追加の3,000ADAが含まれています。私は、失われたデポジットの返還とステーキング報酬の補償は区別して考えるべきであり、Treasuryから機会損失まで補償することには慎重であるべきだと考えます。そのため、本提案には反対します。\n\nI am voting No on this proposal. I understand the rationale for reimbursing the 100,000 ADA deposit that was lost when the governance action was submitted. According to the proposal, this loss resulted from a bug in the Cardano node, and I believe the fact that the submitter was an early participant in Cardano governance is a factor that should be taken into consideration. However, this proposal includes an additional 3,000 ADA as compensation for lost staking rewards on top of the original deposit. I believe reimbursement of the lost deposit should be considered separately from compensation for staking rewards, and I am cautious about extending Treasury funding to cover opportunity costs. For this reason, I am voting No on this proposal.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged7.6M ₳Rationale
Previously I voted NO, as the proposer did not include easy instructions for me to verify it is the same proposer (as I asked in the governance info action that I voted YES on).
I've seen a few helpful posts on X confirming that the proposer of this Treasury Withdrawal controls the same stake address as the proposer of the Ikigai proposal. However, there were too many proposals this time around and I didn't have a simple way of independently verifying it fast.
The easiest way to verify that the same address was used to submit the original Ikigai action and the current treasury withdrawal was sent to me by the Tempo Vote team.- The Stake address used to submit the original Ikigai proposal is
stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5
This can be verified on AdaStat (older design) at:
https://adastat.net/governances/59fd353253eb177e2104e8f23ea4c63e3d32ef95c7865d03e90d3884424dc1db00 - The stake address to submit this current Treasury Withdrawal is also
stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5
This can be verified on Tempo.Vote on the following link (click on the Metadata tab):
https://tempo.vote/governance-action?governanceActionId=d52a4917df4f91c342eaf06ebb4c0a5c3156f6412d137f307cc77eb911f47ab1%230
Shoutout to DRep LongHo of the Tempo vote who took the time to explain to me how I can verify it independently. He added: "It would be an oversight not to point this out, as it may help the original proposer recover funds that they should have received back months ago. Thank you 🙏"
So, as this may help other DReps, I am including the instructions above - allowing a simple verification by every DRep.
Long Ho is a DRep:
https://forum.cardano.org/t/long-h-individual-introduction/143212
His DRep ID: drep166gcv68vrh3qmgeprvzxkjqnpc5a5nuzu56xa8fauydyvmllfnv
Using Tempo.Vote to change my vote to YES
Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded
Mistakenly voted YES moments ago, as I wrongly read it was a Governance Info action. Actually it is a Treasury Withdrawal - so I have to look carefully whether this was really submitted by the same people who submitted the Ikigai Info Governance Action and their deposit was not returned.
As not voting is counted as a No, I will return to that default position - until I can carefully confirm that these is the same team that submitted Ikigai.
From what I see this Treasury Withdrawal proposal was submitted from
addr1q9554w6rn7apjl8qae6zp6vvk650z56sdxcm6mn9eu7rmv0tfzmjwd0wp6t32jkcflddjwaj02hh6pfw9agquj3m6j5qg2nq0a
The Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai - info action was submitted from
addr1q9fn0s96ashd8n24gfqgax6yzmxfx3ejsvqk8rcve8kvudfqtzn0jrtls4e4lc7q7tdsd6gvyh0mqmjmrfs7v7a5lc3snzl48c
In my YES vote on the Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit INFO ACTION from October 2026 I included a rationale stating:
Please note that my final vote on the Treasury Withdrawal will depend on the following factors:
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.
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
I already voted on a similar Info Action named "Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit" that was active between end of October 2025 and end of November 2026. The info action then received 68.83% YES votes from DReps AND was considered constitutional with 4 CC YES votes.
I voted YES then with this rationale below. I am copying my old the rationale as I don't feel writing a new one all over:
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. \n\nIn 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. \nPlease note that my final vote on the Treasury Withdrawal will depend on the following:\na. 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. \n\nFrom what I can see - (just glancing through explorers, I may be wrong):\n\nCardanoの生きがい - Ikigai - was submitted by Stake Address: stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5\n\nThis motion is being submitted by stake address: stake1u8453de8xhhqa9c4ftvylkke8we84tmaq5hz75qwfgaaf2qac45ja\n\nIf the original address wasn't staked back then (which caused the problem), then I am not reading the on-chain data well. \nSo, 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. \nb. 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. \n\nc. 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.. \n\nTL;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. - The Stake address used to submit the original Ikigai proposal is
- Abstain7.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
Let's not over complicate this. Yes.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit" (gov_action1654yj97lf7guxsh27phtknq2tsc4dajp95fh7vrucaltjy0502csq7qtkhq), pois compreendemos que esta proposta busca corrigir uma situação excepcional ocorrida nos primeiros momentos da governança on-chain da Cardano, quando uma ação informativa de caráter simbólico foi submetida e, em razão de uma falha técnica no código do node, o depósito de 100.000 ADA não pôde ser recuperado pelo proponente. Avaliamos que o submitter não deve ser penalizado por ter atuado como pioneiro durante um período inicial de transição e experimentação do novo modelo de governança, especialmente considerando que a ação apresentada possuía caráter comunitário, simbólico e contribuía positivamente para o ecossistema. Também apoiamos o voto "SIM" por entendermos que o reembolso representa uma medida justa, proporcional e alinhada ao princípio da boa-fé na participação em governança. A inclusão de 3.000 ADA adicionais, referente à compensação estimada pelas recompensas de staking que deixaram de ser recebidas durante esse período, também nos parece razoável diante do tempo decorrido e do impacto financeiro causado. Assim, entendemos que a aprovação desta retirada do Tesouro contribui para preservar a confiança da comunidade nos processos de governança, corrigir uma falha operacional excepcional e reconhecer adequadamente aqueles que contribuíram de forma construtiva desde os estágios iniciais da governança on-chain da Cardano.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit" (gov_action1654yj97lf7guxsh27phtknq2tsc4dajp95fh7vrucaltjy0502csq7qtkhq), because we understand that this proposal seeks to correct an exceptional situation that occurred during the early stages of Cardano’s on-chain governance, when a symbolic informational governance action was submitted and, due to a technical issue in the node software, the 100,000 ADA governance deposit could not be recovered by the proposer. We believe the submitter should not be penalized for acting as a pioneer during the initial transition and experimentation period of the new governance model, particularly given that the submitted action was community-oriented, symbolic in nature, and intended to benefit the broader ecosystem. We also support a "YES" vote because we consider the requested reimbursement to be a fair and proportionate remedy, consistent with the principle of good-faith participation in governance. The inclusion of an additional 3,000 ADA to compensate for the estimated staking rewards that could not be earned during this period also appears reasonable given the elapsed time and the financial impact caused by the incident. For these reasons, we believe approving this Treasury withdrawal helps preserve community trust in Cardano’s governance processes, corrects an exceptional operational failure, and appropriately recognizes those who contributed constructively during the earliest stages of on-chain governance. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
I have previously voted that this was a good-faith action on the part of Ikigai while participating in governance which due to technical failures on the part of the chain, this ADA was lost to them. For that reason, I see it as the responsible thing to do to reimburse these fees, especially that they have substantially declined in value since that point. We are not making up for their opportunity cost due to declining price, but only reimbursing for lost funds. This seems fair and just.
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私は前回のInfo Actionにも賛成しており、今回のTreasury Withdrawalにも賛成します。
これは一般的な個人損失の補填ではなく、Cardano governance初期のプロトコル／ノード側不具合に起因する、オンチェーンで確認可能なdeposit喪失に限った例外的救済と考えます。
I supported the previous Info Action, and I also support this Treasury Withdrawal.
This is not a general compensation for private losses. I regard it as an exceptional remedy limited to an on-chain verifiable deposit loss caused by an early Cardano governance protocol/node issue.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Why is this so difficult?!! lets refund them already. this is a no-brainer.
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
This should have been resolved by our official entities long ago.
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this Treasury Withdrawal to reimburse the Ikigai governance action deposit.
My rationale is that this appears to be a narrow and exceptional restitution case arising from an early Voltaire-era governance/node issue, where a good-faith participant lost the ability to recover a ₳100,000 governance action deposit. I do not view this as normal treasury funding, nor as a precedent for reimbursing failed proposals, user error, rejected actions, or ordinary opportunity cost.
The requested amount is small, fixed, and clearly scoped. Supporting reimbursement here helps maintain trust in Cardano governance during the early implementation phase, especially for participants who engaged constructively and were affected by technical edge cases outside their control.
I support this action on the basis that it is a one-off correction for a specific governance implementation issue, not a general policy of compensating governance participants for unsuccessful or unrecovered deposits.
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳Rationale
We propose an ABSTAIN vote on this refund proposal to demonstrate the necessary caution in financial governance.
On the one hand, we fully support the core objective of the proposal, which is to refund the initial 100,000 ADA deposit locked due to a system error (node bug) beyond the user's control. This ensures fairness and protects the network's reputation.
On the other hand, we decided not to vote YES because the proposal contains several technical ambiguities: firstly, the additional 3,000 ADA compensation for missed opportunity costs and staking is speculative, lacks a transparent calculation model, and could set a bad precedent for ad-hoc compensation claims; secondly, the proposal document does not clearly verify the identity of the actual beneficiary or their relationship to the original author.
Our abstention from voting allowed us to avoid hindering the community's legitimate efforts to rectify early systemic errors, but at the same time sent a clear message that budget proposals from the Treasury must meet higher standards of data transparency and procedural verification.
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
The loss of the deposit was due to a bug, it should be returned.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
I agree that Ikigai should be reimbursed for the mistake they made, as the tooling at the time did not prevent this user error as it should have.
This TWGA withdraws to the same stake address that was used as the receiving address for the deposit of the original governance action, which is an important requirement for me. That address was also registered only a few weeks ago, indicating that Ikigai still had access to it at that time (assuming the private key has not been compromised). However, I believe it would have been preferable to include this address as a required signer to the TWGA, as that would have demonstrated both Ikigai's support for the reimbursement and continued control of the key at the time of signing.
I will vote NO, however, because this TWGA also includes an additional 3,000 ada for "lost staking rewards". I do not believe the treasury should cover this amount because: (1) ada held in the treasury is not staked, and (2) while the reimbursement itself is justified, the loss ultimately resulted from user error rather than from a bug or issue that could not have been avoided.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.4M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES to reimburse the 100,000 ADA deposit lost in this early governance action case, because this appears to be a narrow restitution issue caused by an implementation or tooling failure rather than ordinary proposal risk. I am less convinced by the additional 3,000 ADA for missed staking rewards, since normal governance action deposits do not receive interest and this should not become a precedent for open-ended opportunity-cost claims. However, given the small size of the extra amount and the importance of correcting a clear early-governance edge case, I support resolving this case now. Future reimbursement requests should require clear recipient verification and stronger guardrails.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale