Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
173 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain584.2M ₳Rationale
Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.. Yoroi recognises the importance of responsible governance during periods of ecosystem uncertainty.
- Ecosystem Situation: The trust our delegators place in Yoroi requires that we act only when we can do so with full confidence. In light of the current situation, Yoroi is choosing to withhold its vote on this proposal and will reassess our position once conditions allow for a considered decision.
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
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。
- Abstain293M ₳Rationale
EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit., with rationale outlined below.
Given the ongoing situation in the ecosystem, responsible governance requires us to act with full clarity and confidence. Until the current situation reaches resolution, EMURGO prefers to withhold judgment rather than vote without the certainty our mandate demands. We will revisit this proposal once the situation is resolved.
- Yes222.9M ₳Rationale
Lots of Japanese DReps already voted YES, so we assume it's legit. Ping us if it turns out not to be.
- Yes174.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes165.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. This is a straightforward reimbursement for a community member who lost their 100,000 ada governance action deposit.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We support this proposal to resolve a documented technical issue from early on-chain governance. Our support is based on correcting a user error where a 100,000 ada deposit was lost due to the cardano-cli not blocking unregistered stake addresses for governance action deposits. This decision aligns with long-standing community consensus for fair reimbursement, and providing reasonable compensation that covers the principal plus lost staking rewards.
We have previously established the condition in our vote on governance action gov_action1x2zm0lgd59kjrc9clzgscdlh0ct62l8llr638h6t4a5jj4yqzzyqq2dgc7q: the proposer must provide verifiable proof that they are the original affected party to prevent fraudulent claims. Although this reimbursement proposal was submitted from a stake address different from the original Info Action (stake1u8453de8xhhqa9c4ftvylkke8we84tmaq5hz75qwfgaaf2qac45ja), on-chain data satisfies this condition. The 2026 reimbursement action directs the 103,000 ada treasury withdrawal straight to the original reward account (stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5) that lost the deposit. Anyone can independently verify this provenance by checking the raw on-chain data or blockchain explorers.
Because funds deposited into a reward account can only ever be withdrawn using that specific account's private stake key, the payment target itself enforces identity protection. Even though the submission came from a different address, the funds are cryptographically locked to the original 2024 key holder, satisfying our condition for safe and valid restitution.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES on this reimbursement.
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. - Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote YES on the treasury withdrawal to reimburse the lost deposit from the Ikigai Info governance action.
My rationale:
This is a narrow and justified reimbursement. The original Ikigai action was symbolic and submitted very early in Cardano’s on-chain governance era. The loss of the 100,000 ADA deposit was caused by a Cardano node bug that allowed an unregistered stake key to be used, making the deposit unrecoverable.
In my view, the submitter should not be financially punished for acting as an early participant in governance and helping test the system in practice. Reimbursing the deposit is therefore a matter of fairness and accountability.
The requested amount of 103,000 ADA is reasonable. It covers the original lost deposit plus a modest compensation for missed staking rewards. The funds go directly to the affected submitter, there are no operational costs, and the distribution can be verified on-chain.
For these reasons, I support this action.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp - Yes86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES on the treasury withdrawal to reimburse the Ikigai Info governance action deposit.
In September 2024, only weeks after the Chang hard fork brought on-chain governance to Cardano, an Info governance action titled "Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai -" was submitted — a symbolic action that simply asked the community whether it agreed with a statement thanking those who had helped bring Cardano to that point and expressing hope for the future. Because of a bug in the Cardano node that permitted an unregistered stake key to be used in the action, the submitter was unable to recover their 100,000 ADA deposit. The community recognised at the time that the deposit should be reimbursed, but once the ability to do so existed after the Plomin hard fork, no entity budget submission included it, and a later attempt that did include it — through the Cardano in Oceania initiative — was not approved. This governance action resolves that outstanding issue, requesting 103,000 ADA: the original 100,000 ADA lost, plus 3,000 ADA to compensate for staking rewards forgone, calculated at two percent per annum.
SIPO votes Yes for three straightforward reasons. First, this is the remediation of harm caused by a protocol bug, not a discretionary grant. The submitter did nothing wrong; a defect in the node software cost them 100,000 ADA. Making an early governance participant whole for a loss they did not cause is a matter of basic fairness, and it strengthens rather than weakens confidence in Cardano's governance. Second, the request is constitutionally clean: it complies with Article II.7, the recipient has not previously received treasury funds, the amount is within the Net Change Limit, the distribution is direct and fully auditable on-chain, and no administrator custody or oversight budget is required. Third, it is consistent with SIPO's record — SIPO voted Yes on reimbursing the Ikigai deposit before — and at 103,000 ADA the amount is small.
SIPO attaches no expectations to this vote. This is a clean, one-time remediation of a well-documented and unique early case, and the concern that it might set a precedent for other losses is outweighed by the fairness of making this specific pioneer whole. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、Ikigai Info ガバナンスアクションの供託金を返還するトレジャリー引き出しに、賛成（YES）を投じます。
2024年9月、Chang ハードフォークが Cardano にオンチェーンガバナンスをもたらしてわずか数週間後、「Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai -」と題された Info ガバナンスアクションが提出されました。これは、Cardano をここまで導いた人々への感謝と、未来への希望を表明する文に同意するかをコミュニティに問うだけの、象徴的なアクションでした。しかし、未登録の stake key がアクションに使われることを許してしまう Cardano node のバグにより、提出者は供託金 100,000 ADA を回収できませんでした。当時からコミュニティはこの供託金は返還されるべきだと認識していましたが、Plomin ハードフォーク後に返還が可能になった際、どの entity 予算提案にもそれは含まれず、後にそれを含めた試み（Cardano in Oceania initiative 経由）も承認されませんでした。本ガバナンスアクションはこの積み残しを解決するもので、103,000 ADA を求めます。内訳は、失われた元本 100,000 ADA と、逸失した staking 報酬を年率2%で補償する 3,000 ADA です。
SIPO は 3 つの明快な理由から賛成します。第一に、これは裁量的な助成ではなく、プロトコルのバグが引き起こした被害の救済です。提出者に落ち度はなく、node ソフトウェアの欠陥が彼らに 100,000 ADA を失わせました。自らに起因しない損失について初期のガバナンス参加者を原状回復することは、基本的な公平性の問題であり、Cardano ガバナンスへの信頼を損なうどころか、むしろ強めます。第二に、要求は憲法上クリーンです。Article II.7 に準拠し、受領者は過去にトレジャリー資金を受け取っておらず、金額は Net Change Limit の範囲内で、分配は直接的かつオンチェーンで完全に監査可能、Administrator の管理保管や監督予算も不要です。第三に、SIPO の記録と一貫しています ― SIPO は以前も Ikigai 供託金の返還に賛成しており ― 103,000 ADA という金額も小型です。
SIPO は本投票に期待事項を付しません。これは、十分に文書化された固有の初期ケースに対する、クリーンで一回限りの救済です。他の損失の前例になりうるという懸念は、この特定の pioneer を原状回復することの公平性に照らして上回るものではありません。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes84.3M ₳Rationale
I voted "YES" on this last time and it should have passed. It is long overdue that this money be returned to the rightful owner!
- Yes77.7M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted76.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain75.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5M ₳Rationale
I support this proposal.
I view this request not as a typical funding proposal, but as compensation for a loss that resulted from a protocol-level issue during the early stages of Cardano's on-chain governance.
If the submitter did not act negligently and the deposit was genuinely lost due to a node-related bug, it would be unfair for the individual alone to bear the cost. This is especially true given that the governance action was submitted shortly after the Chang hard fork, when governance processes were still new and early participants were effectively helping pioneer the system.
The requested amount is relatively modest, and approving this reimbursement would demonstrate that the Cardano community values fairness and recognizes the contributions of early governance participants.
At the same time, similar cases should not be handled solely through ad hoc decisions. In the future, Cardano should establish clear compensation standards and guidelines so that comparable situations can be addressed consistently, transparently, and fairly.
For these reasons, I vote Yes.
本提案を支持します。
本件は通常の助成金や事業提案への資金提供ではなく、Cardanoの初期ガバナンス段階において発生したプロトコル側の不具合に起因する損失の補償であると理解しています。
もし提出者に重大な過失がなく、実際にノードの不具合によってデポジットを失ったのであれば、その損失を本人だけに負担させることは公平ではありません。特に、Changハードフォーク直後という前例の少ない時期にガバナンスへ参加した先駆的な貢献者に対しては、適切な対応が必要だと考えます。
また、要求額は比較的小規模であり、Cardanoコミュニティが初期ガバナンス参加者を尊重し、公平性を重視する姿勢を示すことにも繋がると考えています。
一方で、このようなケースをその都度個別判断するのではなく、将来的には明確な補償基準やガイドラインを整備し、同様の事案に対して一貫性と透明性を持って対応できる仕組みを構築すべきだと考えます。
以上の理由から、Yesとします。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES. This early governance pioneer lost their 100,000 ADA deposit due to unforeseen technical complications. As a community, we should support those who actively participated in our earliest governance milestones. Reimbursing the original deposit along with 3,000 ADA for missed staking rewards is a fair and equitable way to make this community member whole.
- Yes66M ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes53.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes on the Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit proposal.
The submitter losing their 100,000 ADA deposit wasn't their fault. It was caused by a bug in the Cardano node code. I believe a clear loss stemming from a protocol flaw is something the community should make right. The amount is small, it's paid out immediately, and there are no additional costs involved.
For these reasons, I'm voting Yes.
- Yes50.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes for Ikigai reimburse deposit. This was mistakenly deposited on Treasury especially in early times of on-chain governance. Deposit-risk should not be a barrier to the proposers. [Japanese version follows] ikigai アクションで誤って送金されたデポジットを返金することに賛成票を投じます。これはガバナンス開始時のミスであり、許容されるべきと考えます。このようなミスを恐れることで提案をためらうような仕組みにすべきではない、という意図も含めます。
- Abstain50M ₳Rationale
I fully support returning the lost deposit to its owner. However, I still have some concerns and unanswered questions that I raised in the previous Info Action. So I will abstain.
- No49.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳Rationale
Yes
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We should refund it. Cardanians are good people. We shouldn't let an innocent person bear the cost of a bug.
- Yes37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes36.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes33.5M ₳Rationale
Yes. 103,000 ADA to reimburse the Ikigai Info-action submitter (100K deposit plus 3K foregone staking rewards) after a Cardano node bug allowed an unregistered stake key and made the deposit unrecoverable. Clean Article II compliance, instant on-chain distribution, within the NCL.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Vote: Yes
This withdraws 103,000 ADA to make whole the submitter of one of Cardano's first post-Chang Info governance actions, who lost a 100,000 ADA deposit not through any error of their own but because of a node bug that allowed an unregistered stake key on the action, leaving the deposit unrecoverable. The extra 3,000 ADA covers staking rewards foregone since. The Cardano First framework reads as a clean Yes led by Governance Transparency.
HOSKY is already on record supporting this. We voted Yes on the earlier Ikigai reimbursement Info action that signalled community will to fix this; this is the binding treasury action that actually does it. The principle is also already established in practice: the community previously reimbursed BigPey 100,000 ADA after he made the same mistake, so this action applies a precedent rather than setting a new one.
Pillar Analysis
Governance Transparency (lead pillar)
The withdrawal is about as clean as a treasury action gets. The loss has a documented technical cause (a node bug permitting an unregistered stake key), the amount is fully accounted for (100,000 principal plus 3,000 in foregone staking rewards at a stated 2% rate), and the constitutional checklist is satisfied line by line under Article II.6 and II.7. There is no administrator overhead, no escrow, and no multi-month delivery to monitor: funds go straight to the named stake address on enactment, and the distribution is verifiable on-chain by anyone. A governance system that can cleanly correct its own early infrastructure faults, in public and on the record, is a more trustworthy system than one that lets the cost of a protocol bug sit permanently on an individual.
Economic Sustainability
This is a one-time corrective payment, not a programme or an ongoing liability. At 103,000 ADA it sits trivially within the Net Change Limit, creates no recurring obligation, and the recipient has taken no prior treasury funding. Treating it as a sustainability question, the treasury is not funding new spend so much as returning a deposit it was never meant to keep. The marginal cost is negligible and there is no tail.
Adoption
There is a soft but real signal value. The submitter was an early governance pioneer who participated in good faith weeks after on-chain governance launched and was penalised by a bug in the system itself. Making them whole tells current and future participants that the cost of Cardano's own infrastructure failures will not be left on the people who showed up first. That is the kind of fairness that keeps people willing to engage with governance.
Risks I'm Accepting With This Yes
Reimbursement precedent
Approving a deposit reimbursement invites the question of where the line sits for future claims. I am accepting this because the facts are narrow: the loss was caused by a protocol-level node bug that allowed an unregistered stake key, not by the submitter's carelessness, an expired action, or a normal cost of participation. The line is also already drawn, the community reimbursed BigPey 100,000 ADA for the same class of accidental deposit loss, so this is consistent treatment rather than a novel one. A reimbursement scoped to losses of this kind is a defensible and limited principle, not an open door to refunding ordinary deposit losses.
Bottom Line
A documented protocol-bug loss, a fully accounted 103,000 ADA, a clean constitutional checklist, instant on-chain distribution, and a position HOSKY already signalled. Correcting the system's own early fault is the right call. Yes.
- No31.4M ₳Rationale
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. - Yes30.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
It was a clear accident when the proposal deposit from Ikigai was mistakenly sent to the treasury in September 2024 rather than being returned to the proposer. This vote is an easy YES.
- Yes26.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES to reimburse Ikigai. It's the right thing to do.
- Yes23.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal action “Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.” (d52a4917df4f91c342eaf06ebb4c0a5c3156f6412d137f307cc77eb911f47ab1#0).
This one has been a long running saga in Cardano’s short governance history. The withdrawal stake address matches the stake address that submitted the original info action that lost the funds (donated to treasury). While the 3000 ada “interest” can be questionable, as we cannot guarantee that these funds would have continued to have been held by the ada owner for all of this time. I do feel that it is time to put this particular discussion to bed. It happened early in governance, everyone was still learning at the time and it was a genuine mistake. Let’s correct it and move on.
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
Yes. I support reimbursing the Ikigai Info Governance Action deposit. The submitter should not be punished for being an early governance pioneer affected by a node bug, and I verified on-chain that the treasury withdrawal recipient matches the original proposal’s return stake credential.
- Yes17.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes17.3M ₳Rationale
Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
- Yes16.7M ₳Rationale
We support reimbursing the Ikigai Info Action deposit because the 100,000 ADA loss appears to have resulted from a protocol/tooling issue during early governance, not from normal governance risk.
The request is limited: 100,000 ADA for the lost deposit plus 3,000 ADA for missed staking rewards and opportunity cost.
This should not set a general precedent for reimbursing failed or expired governance actions. We support it only as a specific reimbursement for a technical issue.
- Yes16.4M ₳Rationale
Vote: YES
This is a Treasury Withdrawal (gov_action1654yj97lf7guxsh27phtknq2tsc4dajp95fh7vrucaltjy0502csq7qtkhq), submitted June 9, 2026 with voting closing July 13, 2026, requesting 100,000 ADA to reimburse Ikigai Technologies for a governance-action deposit it can no longer recover. The deposit was trapped by a Cardano node bug that permitted an unregistered stake key to be used in a governance action, so the standard deposit-refund mechanism — which normally returns the 100,000 ADA on ratification or expiry — could not return the funds. The requested amount matches the standard deposit exactly, and the community has signalled since the Plomin hard fork that reimbursing this specific stranded deposit via a treasury withdrawal is the appropriate remedy.
Dracula DAO votes YES. This is not discretionary spending; it is remediation of a protocol failure. Cardano's governance deposit is designed to be fully refundable — that guarantee is what makes it a legitimate anti-spam bond rather than a fee. Ikigai, a long-standing Cardano builder, submitted a governance action in good faith, posted the required bond, and lost access to it solely because of a node-level defect, not through any error or bad faith of its own. When the protocol itself breaks a refund guarantee it made, making the affected party whole preserves the integrity of the deposit mechanism and the credibility of participating in governance at all. The amount is fixed and small — 100,000 ADA, roughly $26,000 at prevailing prices — the recipient and cause are clearly identified, and there is no ADA burning and no open-ended commitment.
The honest concerns are precedent and scope. A treasury reimbursement of a governance deposit must be understood as bounded strictly to funds stranded by a documented protocol bug — not as a general policy of socializing normally-refundable deposits, which would gut the deposit's anti-spam function by removing the submitter's skin in the game. This action reads as the narrow, one-time correction, but the DREP will oppose any future attempt to generalize it into routine deposit reimbursement absent a genuine protocol failure. It is also worth stating plainly that the cleaner long-term fix is at the ledger level, so that stranded deposits are recoverable directly rather than requiring a treasury draw; a treasury withdrawal is the practical remedy available today, not the ideal one.
Dracula DAO's treasury philosophy centers on funding delivered work, not operating budgets, and this action sits outside that frame entirely — it is neither a grant nor a budget but a correction of a bond wrongly withheld by the system. Judged on fairness, low risk, and the health of the governance process, it clears the bar. Dracula DAO supports reimbursing Ikigai's trapped 100,000 ADA deposit and votes YES.
- Yes14.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
RCADA previously supported the principle of reimbursing the deposit lost during one of the very first on-chain governance submissions following the Chang hard fork. The original Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai Info Action was symbolic and community-oriented, thanking those who helped bring Cardano to that point and expressing hope for the future of the ecosystem.
The issue was not ordinary user error or misuse. A Cardano node bug permitted an unregistered stake key to submit the Info Action, but the submitter was then unable to recover the required 100,000 ADA deposit. The submitter participated during the earliest phase of Cardano governance, when tooling and processes were still maturing, and RCADA believes it is fair to correct this unusual outcome.
This Treasury Withdrawal requests 103,000 ADA: the original 100,000 ADA deposit plus 3,000 ADA for estimated lost staking rewards and opportunity cost. RCADA previously considered the additional 3,000 ADA reasonable in context. It is somewhat subjective, but it does not materially change the low-risk nature of the request, and the intent appears to be making the proposer whole rather than creating profit.
This action is modest relative to the Treasury, directly auditable on-chain, and does not involve ongoing delivery risk, administrator custody, project execution, or recurring funding expectations. It is a simple reimbursement to resolve an edge case from the earliest period of on-chain governance.
RCADA also wants to be clear that this vote should not be interpreted as a broad precedent for reimbursing failed governance actions, operational mistakes, or ordinary deposit losses. The support here is based on the unique circumstances: an early governance action, a protocol-side issue, a previously recognised fairness concern, and a narrow one-time remedy.
As a general governance best practice, and without questioning the proposer’s integrity, RCADA continues to believe it would be beneficial for the proposer to sign a simple verification transaction from the original affected address where practical. This would provide clean on-chain confirmation of ownership and could serve as a useful procedural pattern if similar edge cases ever arise in the future. However, this is a suggestion for administrative clarity, not a precondition for supporting this action.
For these reasons, RCADA votes YES. Reimbursing this deposit is a fair and proportionate remedy that helps maintain confidence in Cardano governance while keeping the precedent narrow and clearly bounded.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/."
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
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.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.4M ₳Rationale
Reimbursing owed funds, should be a yes