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.
- Yes166.4K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳Rationale
Tempo was developed out of passion and a commitment to support Cardano’s on-chain governance, entirely without funding from the Cardano Treasury. As a DRep, I’ve used Tempo to cast all my votes. Its simple and intuitive UI has made it easy for non-technical DReps like myself to actively participate in on-chain decision-making. I believe the time is right to support the team behind Tempo so they can continue building and maintaining this valuable tool for the benefit of the entire Cardano ecosystem.
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes136.7K ₳No rationale
- No134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain131.9K ₳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.
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes118.7K ₳Rationale
Tempo.vote has provided an excellent voting tool that has fascilitated mobile voting. More, high quality tools are essential for governance to grow.
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳Rationale
Although I appreciate the utility that Tempo brings to the Cardano governance space, I am unable to vote in favor of this proposal because there is insufficient information provided in the proposal. To feel comfortable voting in favor of this proposal, I would like to see how Tempo is positioning itself as a public good accountable to the community. As it stands, this tool is a private venture from what I can tell, and there is no information showing otherwise in the proposal. I do find that Tempo brings utility, and I believe that with a reformulation of the proposal, I would likely vote in favor in the future.
- Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- No92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes71.3K ₳Rationale
Tempo brings users convenience, simplification, and an improved user experience. In addition, governance tools should offer more options rather than being limited to just one.
- Yes69.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳Rationale
I support this initiative in general, although I'd like to see a bit more transparency and cost breakdown on the requested budget.
- Yes65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.7K ₳Rationale
Voting Yes. Today, GovTool is the only interface for participating in Cardano governance, and it is maintained under the oversight of the Cardano Foundation. Tempo.vote offers an independent and complementary platform that improves visibility and usability of governance data through features like temperature checks, and their own indexer and node infrastructure.
This proposal directly supports ecosystem redundancy and resilience — both of which are critical in decentralized governance. By avoiding reliance on a single portal or infrastructure provider, we improve robustness and reduce systemic risk.
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳Rationale
Look.. i like tempo, im using it rn (also on purpose) to vote, but this proposal is atrocious and unacceptable. Please include some accountability and dont expect a blank check.
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
This is a slight yes for us to encourage the Tempo platform. However, we are more inclined towards suggestions for them to resubmit a better and clearer version.
Plus points:
- Tempo offers a 100k loan to propose a GA
- The proposal is considered more cost-effective then that of Gov.tools
Need improvement
- Self-driven is completely new and lacks the how to manage accountability for the community
- Imagine it as a proper catalyst proposal, which would require more well-planned and detailed articulations for the community (Timing/phasing/team resource/cost breakdown). A product development sprint (time/task/human resource + cost breakdown) would make it more convincing as a strong yes from the community
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Vote: YES
📌 Proposal: Tempo.Vote Maintenance & Development (Info Action)
🗳️ Governance Action ID: gov_action1f9da8n2yaf4updxzmwc7fnw8ug2gwnpvqays5n3yw6nz0mu3z2qqq6ggge9
📅 Period Covered: August 2025 – January 2026
💰 Planned Future Treasury Ask: ₳380,000Rationale:
Tempo.Vote is one of the most accessible and effective tools we have today for engaging in Cardano governance. It provides mobile-native access, clear visuals, and real-time vote tracking — lowering the barrier for ADA holders to participate meaningfully on-chain.By running its own node and backend infrastructure, Tempo ensures governance data is accurate and not reliant on third-party APIs. That kind of independence deserves support.
The proposed roadmap — including governance UX enhancements and a Lending Pool to help new proposers overcome the 100K ADA barrier — is highly aligned with decentralization and inclusivity.
Supporting Tempo now helps secure the future of intuitive, decentralized governance for Cardano.
- Yes29.3K ₳No rationale
- No29K ₳No rationale
- Yes26.7K ₳Rationale
I have personally met with members of tempo.vote and I have full confidence in their ability to create a second voting platform (alternate to gov.tools) that will provide redundancy in our government. This redundancy will strengthen our ecosystem by providing alternate options for voting and therefore layers of security. Security steming from not relying on one single point of possible failure.
- No15.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes13.3K ₳No rationale
- No10.6K ₳Rationale
I not vote for this proposal
- No7K ₳No rationale
- No6.7K ₳No rationale
- No4.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5K ₳No rationale
- No1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2K ₳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.
- No378.6 ₳No rationale
- Abstain335.3 ₳No rationale
- No13.8 ₳No rationale
- YesChanged13.5 ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
- No8.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes6.3 ₳No rationale