Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.

On-chain governance action (Treasury Withdrawals).

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.

• Proposer return address: stake1u8453de8xhhqa9c4ftvylkke8we84tmaq5hz75qwfgaaf2qac45ja
• Deposit: 100,000 ₳
• Submitted: epoch 649
• Expires: epoch 656

View in explorer

I vote Yes on the Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit proposal.

The purpose of this withdrawal is to reimburse the deposit lost in connection with the original Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai - governance action, after a Cardano node issue prevented the deposit from being recovered.

Importantly, the recipient of the reimbursement is:

stake1uys93fhep4lc2u6lu0q09kcxayxzthasded35c0x0w60ugc9s0cm5

This is the same stake address associated with the original Cardanoの生きがい - Ikigai - action. This provides an on-chain link between the original action and the intended recipient of the reimbursement and addresses the main concern that the funds should go to the party that actually lost the deposit.

For these reasons, I support the reimbursement and vote Yes.

This proposal is one that has yet to pass. I find value in refunding the lost funds to Ikigai. I will once again vote YES for this proposal to return the deposit.

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.

Cant find any difference from the previous proposal so maintaining our NO vote. We support the reumbursment of the deposit, not of the rewards. The time passed was 100% under the proposer's control.

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.

Yes - reasons are the same as my past rationales. Get it done.

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.

Switched from Abstain the last times this came up to No now.

We just had an unsuccessful vote on the same topic. Voting until you like the result sets an awful precedent.

I was never convinced that they should be reimbursed. Like everything in blockchain, they put their deposit up at their own risk. Before signing away 100 kADA, they should have researched what prerequisites there are to get them back. The “bug” was just that the node did not have a soundness check, not that it somehow forced them to lose their deposit.

I'd say it's their own fault.

Have commented on this both previous times I've voted on it. It is just and fair, and thus I approve.

Vote: YES

I support reimbursing the original 100,000 ADA deposit. The loss was caused by a node-level bug that allowed an unregistered stake key to submit a governance action — not by any error on the submitter's part. Reimbursing a loss caused by a protocol defect is a reasonable use of the treasury, and the submitter's status as an early participant in on-chain governance only strengthens the case.

I have reservations about the additional 3,000 ADA proposed as compensation for lost staking rewards. My concern isn't the amount, but the precedent: once the treasury begins compensating opportunity cost alongside principal, future proposals will have grounds to claim similar time-value losses from any bug-related delay, with no clear boundary on how far that logic extends.

I'd have preferred to vote on the principal and the opportunity-cost compensation separately. Since that option isn't available here, I'm voting YES on the strength of the principal reimbursement, while registering that I don't think opportunity-cost compensation should become a standing practice without a clearer, bounded policy for when it applies.

---

DRep Delegation Info

• CIP-1694 DRep ID:
  drep1y28xhrjxe496rnle8ln3slpggnp8leu3mn244ujrhwet0cc2vmte4
• Legacy DRep ID (CIP-105):
  drep13e4cu3kdfwsul7fluuv8c2zycfl70ywu64d0ysamk2m7xrv7rsv