Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025
203 DReps voted · 58 with a rationale · 8 changed their vote · 4 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 6 to yes, 2 to no, together voting with 61M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES for this budget Info Action.
Tempo operates its own Cardano node and indexer, ensuring data integrity without relying on third-party infrastructure. Many DReps have used Tempo and found it offers useful governance features, a user-friendly UX/UI, and full independence from other governance tools or APIs.
While this proposal does not include a detailed budget breakdown, it specifies that Selfdriven will serve as the administrator for fund management. Compared to other proposals, this adds a layer of accountability. I expect a clearer budget and financial oversight process in Tempo’s follow-up Treasury Withdrawal proposal.
I support this proposal based on Tempo’s tangible value to Cardano governance today and its continued development goals.
This support acknowledges both Tempo’s current contributions and the areas that require further refinement.
Vietnamese
Tôi bỏ phiếu YES cho đề xuất này.
Tempo vận hành node và indexer riêng, không phụ thuộc bên thứ ba, giúp đảm bảo dữ liệu bỏ phiếu on-chain được chính xác và sẵn sàng phục vụ người dùng. Nhiều DRep đã trải nghiệm Tempo và đánh giá cao tính năng tiện ích, UX-UI thân thiện, hoạt động độc lập, không sử dụng API từ bên ngoài.
Mặc dù đề xuất này chưa đính kèm bảng ngân sách chi tiết, Tempo đã chỉ định Selfdriven làm đơn vị quản lý tài chính. So với một số đề xuất khác không nêu rõ đầu mối tài chính, đây là điểm thể hiện phần nào tính minh bạch. Tôi kỳ vọng các đề xuất rút ngân quỹ tiếp theo của Tempo sẽ bao gồm bảng ngân sách cụ thể và quy trình quản lý rõ ràng.
Việc ủng hộ đề xuất này thể hiện sự ghi nhận với những đóng góp hiện tại của Tempo, đồng thời cũng thừa nhận rằng vẫn còn nhiều điểm cần hoàn thiện thêm.
Japanese
本提案に賛成票を投じます。
Tempoは、Cardanoノードとインデクサーを独自に運用しており、第三者に依存せず、ガバナンスデータの正確性と可用性を確保しています。多くのDRepが実際にTempoを使用した経験があり、UX・UIが直感的で使いやすく、APIや外部サービスに依存しない点が評価されています。
今回の提案には詳細な予算表が添付されていませんが、財務管理者としてSelfdrivenが指名されており、一部の提案に比べて財務管理体制に一定の透明性があると考えられます。今後のTreasury Withdrawalにおける提案では、具体的な予算と支出計画が提示されることが期待されます。
この提案への支持は、Tempoが現在果たしている役割を評価すると同時に、改善が必要な点が依然として存在することも認識するものです。
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
A mobile governance platform like Tempo.Vote could be a game-changer for Cardano. Mobile is where most people live their digital lives, and if governance is to be truly inclusive, it has to meet users where they are. By making it easier for people to participate in governance from anywhere, this project could significantly widen the circle of active voters and contributors. While they have not yet delivered a funded Catalyst project, this also means they are hungry to prove themselves — and the scope of this proposal suggests they’ve thought big about what’s possible. Their vision for integrated mobile governance and a lending pool for governance participation is bold and could inspire more innovation in this space. The requested budget, though substantial, reflects the complexity of building secure, reliable, and scalable governance infrastructure. Investing in a team willing to push Cardano governance into mobile-native territory could yield long-term dividends in participation, decentralization, and adoption. The features outlined — especially mobile-first governance actions and a governance-focused lending mechanism — show ambition and an understanding of gaps in current tooling. Backing them now could accelerate the pace at which governance on Cardano becomes truly global and always-accessible. In short, this proposal represents a high-upside bet on expanding participation, experimenting with new governance incentives, and positioning Cardano as the most user-friendly blockchain for decentralized decision-making.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on the proposal to withdraw funds for “Tempo for Cardano Governance – Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025.” While governance tooling is important, this proposal presents an overly high operational budget without sufficient justification or demonstrated cost-efficiency. It raises a broader concern about whether ongoing operational expenses—like hosting, maintenance, and staffing—should be funded by the Treasury at all, rather than focusing Treasury resources on ecosystem development and innovation. Additionally, the proposal lacks a clear, enforceable commitment to open-source licensing and transparency, which are essential for community governance tools. Without strong guarantees around accessibility, reuse, and decentralization of the platform, I cannot support this request.
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I would like to raise a few points of concern from a strategic governance perspective regarding the request by Tempo.Vote for 380k ADA over six months.
I do not dispute the importance of an independent infrastructure to ensure data integrity and not depend on a centralized provider. However, the cost of the proposed infrastructure (200k ADA) is too high and far from the industry standard for similar blockchain node and backend indexing services. We need to be more business-minded in our approach to treasury spending. We need to ask ourselves if this cost is realistic or if it is a slippery slope that will lead to the treasury being depleted without any accountability. Running a Cardano node and an indexer is not a walk in the park but it should not cost hundreds of thousands of ADA per month in fiat terms. **With a good developer earning about 120k USD per year, the 180k ADA development budget over six months is also something we should ask ourselves if it is justified. **Especially without a detailed list of deliverables that are directly linked to measurable results.
The insistence on withdrawing the funds in ADA instead of a stablecoin pegged to fiat currency is also adding a lot of volatility risk to the budgeting and treasury management. **The ADA price can have a huge impact on the actual value of the funds that are being allocated and that will undermine the stability and predictability of the treasury. A stablecoin disbursement mechanism would be a much better way to protect the treasury's purchasing power and to align it with the real-world operational costs. **
Tempo.Vote's desire to make governance more accessible is laudable and the feature roadmap (improving UX, optimizing governance voting, and innovating with a lending pool to facilitate governance action submissions) is promising. But we need to be careful and not let ambition take over. Without a detailed list of costs and performance metrics, it is hard to approve such a large withdrawal of ADA and that will erode the trust of the community and put the long-term sustainability of Cardano's treasury at risk.
I appreciate the contribution of Tempo and I have been using their platform over others. I must however firmly reject this proposal as it is. We are the guardians of a fixed and disinflationary treasury and we need to be prudent in our stewardship. We cannot allow the treasury to be depleted with high infrastructure costs and withdrawals in ADA without any accountability. We need to demand responsible and transparent spending that protects Cardano's future and respects the scientific rigor of this protocol.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain966.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes951.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- No920.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes888K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- No866.3K ₳No rationale
- No796.1K ₳Rationale
I love what Tempo has been providing, and want to support them going forward. At the same time, this proposal seems very expensive for what is being provided, especially in terms of Infra.
- Yes765.6K ₳No rationale
- No760.2K ₳No rationale
- No742.6K ₳No rationale
- No663.8K ₳Rationale
We, the Dutch DRep, vote No on this Budget Info Action.
While we appreciate the early contributions of the Tempo.Vote team—especially during a time when governance tooling on Cardano was still nascent—we believe this proposal does not meet the standards now expected for public funding.
The quality of the current tooling remains limited, and there is no commitment to open-source the platform. In a decentralized ecosystem, transparency and composability are critical—especially for infrastructure intended to serve the governance process. Closed-source tools create silos and limit community trust, innovation, and auditability.
Furthermore, the gap Tempo.Vote initially helped fill has now been addressed by other governance tooling efforts. Proposals such as the gov.tool Info Action and the AdaStat/Cexplorer Treasury Withdrawal present more robust, transparent, and collaborative pathways for advancing Cardano governance infrastructure. These initiatives are better aligned with the community’s evolving standards for openness and usability.
We recommend that Tempo.Vote consider submitting a proposal for Project Catalyst, with a focus on improving its open-source approach to better align with community values and expectations.
We believe the Treasury should prioritize open, auditable, and broadly integrated tooling. As such, we cannot support this proposal in its current form.
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes604.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes591.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes579.1K ₳No rationale
- No574.2K ₳No rationale
- No573.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain564.6K ₳No rationale
- No550.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes503.6K ₳Rationale
If we want people to actually participate in Cardano governance beyond the hardcore enthusiasts, we need tools that meet them where they are , on their phones, in their daily workflows. Tempo does that.
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes379.5K ₳Rationale
Yes! Tempo has proven to deliver a governance portal that is in many ways even better than GovTool purely as a passion project. They should get the funds to sustain these developments. The funding request is much more reasonable and motivated well.
- Abstain371.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain371K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged366.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
This platform needs to mature a lot more before becoming treasury-funded. It is full of inaccuracies in its dApp tracking. It may benefit from removing all subjective and human-updated verdicts, moving to a purely on-chain-data-driven approach. It should be applying to be included in the Intersect budget rather than seeking direct treasury funding.
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- No321.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes318.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain297K ₳Rationale
The deposit lending protocol has the potential to generate transactions on the L1 while making governance more accessible. However, the budget seems high. I particularly struggle with the infrastructure costs of 200k Ada for only six months of operation. That seems significantly higher than it should be. I am abstaining from voting on this project's budget due to having mixed feelings about it.
https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/17_tempodotvote.md
- No272.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain268.9K ₳Rationale
The BAT Community DRep Committee has voted ABSTAIN of the Cardano GovTool Budget - 12 months full active maintenance and development, and ABSTAIN for the Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025.
Both proposals seek to enhance DRep infrastructure and broaden its accessibility, we believe that the domain of DRep voting should ultimately rest in the capable hands of innovative builders. This vision remains in its nascent stages—for instance, as evidenced by the Lace wallet's ongoing development of integrated infrastructure—yet it demands additional time for other creators to cultivate and refine. Consequently, a difficult choice between victors and contenders as both options support the DRep community. In light of this dilemma, we chose to ABSTAIN as we are in the early midst of DRep and the proliferation of DRep accessibility within the Cardano ecosystem. We love both options and support the outcome chosen by those with conviction.
- Yes252.7K ₳Rationale
I support this initiative in general, although I'd like to see a bit more transparency and cost breakdown on the requested budget.
- No236.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes236.8K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged217.1K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes201.5K ₳No rationale
- No189.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes185K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.5K ₳No rationale