Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
173 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- No988.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because early participants in Cardano governance should not be punished for bugs in the system.
The original Ikigai governance action was submitted very early after on-chain governance became available, and the deposit loss was caused by a technical issue rather than malicious behavior or misuse of the governance process. In our view, reimbursing the affected submitter is fair and sends the right signal to early contributors who helped test and use Cardano governance in practice.
We also do not see a meaningful risk of this creating a problematic precedent, because the issue can be verified on-chain and is tied to a specific historical bug. This makes the case clearly distinguishable from ordinary failed or expired governance actions.
For these reasons, we support reimbursing the lost deposit.
- YesRevoted954K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes923.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- No825.2K ₳Rationale
We support the refund but we are voting NO for two reasons:
1- It is unclear the author is the legitimate recipient. The Gov Action should clearly state that the address that payed the deposit is the same recieving the reimbursment.
2- The long time that has passed is responsability of the proposer. We do not agree with the 3k Ada asked to compensate lost rewards. This reumbusrment should have been asked for a long time ago.
We will vote YES is those two points are adressed. - Yes798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes759K ₳No rationale
- Yes747.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
Yes
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
- Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
Thanks to the twitter person who verified that this is indeed the same person who lost the deposit
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes545.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
Return the funding to the rightful owner.
- Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain431.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Abstain381.1K ₳No rationale
- No365.7K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged360.3K ₳Rationale
This apparently needs explaining, but the concept of ownership is as follows - this amount does not belong to the treasury so it should be returned.
It is a clear exception to my dRep statement and mission to prevent excessive spending. Other possible exceptions for a YES vote are:
- Loans with BTC/Stable-coin collateral
- Burning treasury funds
- Setting NCL to the amount of YoY treasury income.
All the best and happy voting.
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes341.4K ₳Rationale
The €100k repayment is of course a given. I gladly agree to the interest rate.
- Yes320.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES to reimburse the 103,000 ADA deposit to the submitter of the Ikigai Info Action. Their deposit was lost due to a node code bug, and making them whole is a matter of basic fairness and maintaining community trust in our governance system.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES to finally resolve this outstanding issue and make this governance pioneer whole. The submitter lost their original deposit entirely due to an on-chain node code bug. Approving this request for 103,000 ADA correctly returns the 100,000 ADA deposit along with 3,000 ADA to compensate for missed staking rewards. Returning these funds is simply the right thing to do ethically and practically to safeguard trust in our ecosystem.
- No313.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
I can't believe we didn't do this back in October!
- Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted279.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on “Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit” because it is a narrowly scoped, corrective withdrawal that reimburses 100,000 ADA lost due to a documented node bug affecting an early Info governance action, with a modest 3,000 ADA top‑up to approximate missed staking rewards. The proposal is transparent, constitutionally compliant, and sends funds directly to the original submitter without administrator custody or additional overhead, which makes it a simple and proportionate way to resolve a long‑standing issue and reinforce trust in Cardano’s governance system.
- Yes261K ₳Rationale
Governance Action Report [EN]
1. Introduction
This governance action requests a treasury withdrawal of 103,000 ADA to reimburse the submitter of the “Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai -” Info governance action. The original action was submitted in September 2024, shortly after the Chang hard fork introduced on-chain governance, and asked the community to agree with a symbolic statement thanking those who helped Cardano reach that stage and expressing hope for the future.
A bug in the Cardano node allowed an unregistered stake key to be used in the governance action. As a result, the submitter was unable to recover the original 100,000 ADA deposit. The current withdrawal request includes the 100,000 ADA deposit plus an additional 3,000 ADA to compensate for lost staking rewards at a rate of 2% per year.
The action states that delivery would occur instantly through on-chain enactment. It also states that there are no associated costs or expenses, no refund circumstances, no prior treasury funding for the recipient, and no need for separate administration or custody because the funds would be distributed directly. DReps are nominated as the Administrator only to satisfy the relevant constitutional requirement.
2. Governance Action Analysis
Positive aspects
The concern over the recipient of the reimbursement was sufficiently clarified by the verification that the same stake address is linked to the original action and to the current treasury withdrawal.
The reimbursement of 103,000 ADA is justified as a specific correction for an objective loss that occurred at the beginning of on-chain governance and was caused by a technical failure of the system itself.
Risks and concerns
The central concern was confirming whether the reimbursement recipient is the same participant affected by the loss of the Ikigai governance action deposit.
Denying this reimbursement would create an unfair precedent for participants who legitimately used governance mechanisms and were harmed by a failure outside their control.
3. Vote and Rationale
Vote: YES.
The final position is YES. The central concern was confirming whether the reimbursement recipient is the same participant affected by the loss of the Ikigai governance action deposit. This doubt was sufficiently clarified by the verification that the same stake address is linked to the original action and to the current treasury withdrawal.
Given this, the reimbursement of 103,000 ADA is justified as a specific correction for an objective loss that occurred at the beginning of on-chain governance and was caused by a technical failure of the system itself. Denying this reimbursement would create an unfair precedent for participants who legitimately used governance mechanisms and were harmed by a failure outside their control.
Therefore, the vote is YES.
4. Conclusion
The decisive point is that the reimbursement recipient was sufficiently verified through the link between the same stake address and both the original governance action and the current treasury withdrawal. The 103,000 ADA reimbursement is supported as a specific correction for an objective loss caused by a technical failure outside the participant’s control.
Relatório de Ação de Governança [PT]
1. Introdução
Esta ação de governança solicita uma retirada do tesouro de 103.000 ADA para reembolsar o proponente da ação de governança informativa “Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai -”. A ação original foi submetida em setembro de 2024, pouco depois do hard fork Chang introduzir a governança on-chain, e perguntou à comunidade se concordava com uma declaração simbólica de agradecimento àqueles que ajudaram Cardano a chegar até aquele ponto e de esperança para o futuro.
Uma falha no código do Cardano node permitiu que uma stake key não registrada fosse utilizada na ação de governança. Como resultado, o proponente não conseguiu recuperar o depósito original de 100.000 ADA. A retirada atual inclui o depósito de 100.000 ADA mais 3.000 ADA adicionais para compensar recompensas de staking perdidas a uma taxa de 2% ao ano.
A ação afirma que a entrega ocorreria instantaneamente por meio da promulgação on-chain. Também afirma que não há custos ou despesas associadas, não há circunstâncias de reembolso ao tesouro, não houve financiamento prévio do tesouro para o destinatário, e não há necessidade de administração ou custódia separada porque os fundos seriam distribuídos diretamente. Os DReps são nomeados como Administrador apenas para cumprir o requisito constitucional relevante.
2. Análise da Ação de Governança
Aspectos positivos
A preocupação sobre o destinatário do reembolso foi suficientemente esclarecida pela verificação de que a mesma stake address está vinculada à ação original e à treasury withdrawal atual.
O reembolso de 103.000 ADA é justificado como uma correção pontual por uma perda objetiva ocorrida no início da governança on-chain e causada por uma falha técnica do próprio sistema.
Riscos e preocupações
A preocupação central era confirmar se o destinatário do reembolso é o mesmo participante afetado pela perda do depósito da Ikigai governance action.
Negar esse reembolso criaria um precedente injusto para participantes que utilizaram legitimamente os mecanismos de governança e foram prejudicados por uma falha fora de seu controle.
3. Voto e Fundamentação
Voto: YES.
A posição final é YES. A preocupação central era confirmar se o destinatário do reembolso é o mesmo participante afetado pela perda do depósito da Ikigai governance action. Essa dúvida foi suficientemente esclarecida pela verificação de que a mesma stake address está vinculada à ação original e à treasury withdrawal atual.
Diante disso, o reembolso de 103.000 ADA é justificado como uma correção pontual por uma perda objetiva ocorrida no início da governança on-chain, causada por uma falha técnica do próprio sistema. Negar esse reembolso criaria um precedente injusto para participantes que utilizaram legitimamente os mecanismos de governança e foram prejudicados por uma falha fora de seu controle.
Portanto, o voto é YES.
4. Conclusão
O ponto decisivo é que o destinatário do reembolso foi suficientemente verificado pelo vínculo entre a mesma stake address e a ação de governança original e a treasury withdrawal atual. O reembolso de 103.000 ADA é sustentado como uma correção pontual por uma perda objetiva causada por uma falha técnica fora do controle do participante.
- Yes260.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes245.5K ₳Rationale
This reimbursement is long overdue. Send the deposit plus its lost staking rewards back to the original address and let it be done.
- Yes238.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain234.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.2K ₳No rationale
- No232.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes215.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes171.1K ₳No rationale