Reimburse Ikigai Info Governance Action Deposit.
Discussed in the Governance Review for epochs 650 to 652.
132 DReps voted · 60 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 2 to no, together voting with 40.2M ₳ of voting power.
Voting concentration
6 of 132 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 13.4%, top 5 combined 49.6% of 3.4B ₳ voted.
The 19 largest voters together held as much voting power as the 67.0% threshold required in yes votes.
- Yes275.2K ₳Rationale
This proposal reimburses the 100,000 ADA deposit lost by the submitter of the early Ikigai Info governance action because an early Cardano-node defect permitted an unregistered stake credential to be used as the deposit-return address, preventing normal recovery of the refundable deposit. The 103,000 ADA request consists of the lost principal plus a modest stated allowance for foregone staking rewards. The payment is immediate, direct, and publicly auditable on chain, with no continuing operational obligation or administrative custody. This is a proportionate resolution of a discrete loss caused by early governance-system behavior rather than proposer misconduct, and I therefore vote Yes.
- Yes260.8K ₳Rationale
Voting YES. Fair reimbursement for an early governance pioneer who lost their deposit due to a verified node bug.
- Abstain257K ₳No rationale
- Yes236.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes225.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes210.1K ₳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
- Yes189.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes185K ₳No rationale
- Yes169.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.5K ₳Rationale
It is the right thing to do, give them their ADA back.
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes149.8K ₳Rationale
Just to stay consistent with my previous votes on related matter
- Yes142.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes104.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes95.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes63.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7K ₳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.
- Yes56.4K ₳Rationale
I vote YES for this proposal
- Yes56.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain6.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2K ₳Rationale
Abstain
- Yes688.8 ₳No rationale
- NoChanged293.8 ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain21d agoSuperseded
- Yes167.1 ₳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