Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025
203 DReps voted · 57 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- 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
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain964.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes949.1K ₳No rationale
- No948.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- No861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes820.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain798.4K ₳No rationale
- No794.5K ₳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.
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- No731.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- No707.1K ₳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.
- Yes705.1K ₳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.
- No705.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain598.3K ₳No rationale
- No590.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳No rationale
- No587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes501K ₳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
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain409.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes385.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Yes381.1K ₳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.
- Abstain370.3K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged365.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No320.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain298.9K ₳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
- No271.8K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged252.9K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
The 380,000 ADA seems to be reasonable for a service that supports the ecosystem’s governance backbone. As a user of their platform, I'm aware this is a tool that keeps Cardano’s decentralized vision alive. Running an independent node and indexer isn’t cheap, and developing new features takes resources too. While we don’t have a detailed cost breakdown, their estimates seem plausible for the scope of work. And given that I am here today voting using their tech, I'm willing to give them a chance given their good track record so far building Cardano voting tools.
- No238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
- No191.1K ₳No rationale
- No185.6K ₳Rationale
I utilize Tempo.Vote to cast my ballots as a DRep. I am willing to pay for the service myself to utilize the friendly and fast interface.
I cannot justify treasury spending for commercial products that are not open source.
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale