Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
91 DReps voted · 44 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote yes, as I did last time, for the same reason.
"The 100k ADA repayment is of course a given. I gladly agree to the interest rate."
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on "Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit" because the 100,000 ADA deposit was lost in an early governance tooling failure rather than through ordinary proposal risk. The withdrawal credential matches the credential of the original Ikigai InfoAction, so the principal is technically traceable to the affected address. I consider the extra 3,000 ADA for estimated staking rewards a weak and opportunistic addition, since normal governance deposits do not earn staking rewards. Still, this small amount should not block a narrow correction; it must not create a precedent for interest, price-loss, or opportunity-cost claims.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
Compensation for unrecoverable deposit for an info action caused by teething problems with the early governance system. Previous efforts seeking a refund of the deposit did not receive enough support from the community. Lost staking rewards should be refunded as recompense for the shameful apathy of the community to this issue.
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
This is the third or fourth time I have assessed the same 100K ADA loss. The destination is legitimate, the original deposit is unrecoverable through the normal protocol path, and the loss resulted from an early node defect involving an unregistered stake key. Cardano’s governance design treats the deposit as refundable once an action leaves the live state. The submitter should not be sentenced indefinitely for the protocol’s childhood mistakes.
I remain unconvinced by the additional 3K ADA. Staking rewards vary, yet the proposal applies a tidy 2% annual assumption to funds that were never available for delegation. Compensating opportunity cost would create a precedent future claimants will quote with admirable persistence.
The choice is approving a modestly inflated reimbursement or prolonging a dispute whose governance cost already exceeds the disputed 3K ADA.
Cardano should repay the deposit, record the exception, and stop convening parliament over a rounding error.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes928.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes925.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes877K ₳No rationale
- No830.8K ₳Rationale
We previously voted no on this same proposal and can't find any differences in the content so we will maintain our position. We do not support creating the precedent of paying for the rewards. The time passed since the original proposal is purely the proposer's responsibility.
Having said this we do support reimbursing the 100k deposit. - Yes800.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes795.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes627.2K ₳Rationale
- Yes623.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes on this proposal because it’s fair to reimburse the depositor’s 100k $ADA that was lost due to some errors in the code during the early stages of Cardano’s onchain governance.
- Yes590.1K ₳No rationale
- No436.1K ₳Rationale
There was an unsuccessful governance action with the same goal just a few epochs ago. Please refrain from voting until you like the result.
The proposers of the silly symbolic Ikigai info action that glorified some really horrible people, Hoskinson among them, should have known the risks and researched what they have to do before putting their deposit up. Like everywhere in blockchain, it's their and only their responsibility.
- Yes409.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes347.7K ₳Rationale
As last time - this is a reimbursement of funds so it is an exception to my policy of treasury protection.
- Yes287.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes282.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes246K ₳Rationale
This reimbursement is long overdue. Send the deposit plus its lost staking rewards back to the original address and let it be done.
- Yes236.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.1K ₳Rationale
I voted YES on the proposal to reimburse the Ikigai governance action deposit.
I initially withheld my vote because I did not believe the proposal, on its own, provided enough evidence to justify reimbursement from the Cardano Treasury. When treasury funds are involved, especially in cases involving an individual loss or mistaken transaction, I believe DReps should require clear and independently verifiable evidence before approving reimbursement.
Following additional discussion, supporting information was provided that clarified the relationship between the original governance action, the deposit address, and the relevant withdrawal activity. After reviewing that information, I believe there is sufficient evidence to establish that the reimbursement request is legitimate.
It is also important to distinguish between a protocol failure and user error.
Based on the information provided, this does not appear to have been a Cardano protocol bug or a failure of the governance system itself. Rather, the loss appears to have resulted from user error within functionality that is operating according to the current CIP-1694 design and specification.
That distinction materially affected my decision.
I do not believe the Cardano Treasury should become an automatic insurance mechanism for mistakes made by users. Establishing such an expectation could create an unhealthy precedent in which ordinary operational errors are routinely transferred to the broader community.
However, governance also requires judgment. Not every situation can be reduced to a rigid rule without considering the specific facts involved.
In this instance, the circumstances have been documented sufficiently, the relevant transactions and addresses can be examined, and the amount being requested corresponds to the governance action deposit involved. I therefore believe reimbursement is reasonable and proportionate.
My support should not be interpreted as establishing a general policy that every lost governance deposit should be reimbursed. Future requests should continue to be evaluated individually and should meet a meaningful evidentiary standard.
At minimum, I believe reimbursement requests should demonstrate:
A clearly identifiable governance action and deposit.
Verifiable transaction history linking the funds to the claimant.
A credible explanation of how the funds became inaccessible or were lost.
Evidence sufficient for independent review by DReps and the community.
A reimbursement amount directly tied to the demonstrated loss.
No indication of fraud, manipulation, or an attempt to shift ordinary financial risk onto the Treasury.This proposal now satisfies those concerns sufficiently for me.
An important part of responsible governance is also being willing to change a preliminary position when new evidence becomes available. My initial concern was the absence of adequate supporting information. Once members of the community provided additional context and evidence, continuing to oppose the proposal simply because I had previously expressed skepticism would have served no useful governance principle.
DRep voting should be based on evidence, not attachment to an earlier position.
For those reasons, I believe approving this reimbursement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with responsible treasury governance.
Vote: YES
- Yes189.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes184.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.5K ₳Rationale
It is the right thing to do, give them their ADA back.
- Yes125.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes104.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes86.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes73.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes62.6K ₳Rationale
The destination is correct. The withdrawal target of this proposal is stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5, which is exactly
the return address recorded on the original action.The money goes back to the party that actually paid the deposit and to no one else. That key was registered in April 2026, so unlike in 2024 the payout can now be received.
- Yes51.8K ₳Rationale
I vote YES for this proposal
- Yes14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain6.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2K ₳Rationale
Abstain
- Abstain292 ₳No rationale
- Yes167.7 ₳Rationale
Voting YES on Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit (₳103k). As elected Cardano Civics Committee member and Unified Cardano Student Club President in Nigeria, I support correcting this early post-Chang technical issue. A 100k ADA deposit was lost due to a node bug, not user error. Reimbursing the original depositor (plus modest compensation for lost rewards) to the verified original reward account is fair, transparent, and builds trust in our governance system. Small amount, clear justification, and longstanding community sentiment in favour. Let’s show that Cardano treats early pioneers and good-faith participants justly.
- Yes10.8 ₳No rationale