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.
- No161K ₳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.
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes149.8K ₳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.
- Yes138.6K ₳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.
- Yes126.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes122.8K ₳Rationale
Tempo.vote has provided an excellent voting tool that has fascilitated mobile voting. More, high quality tools are essential for governance to grow.
- Yes106K ₳No rationale
- Yes102.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes99K ₳No rationale
- No83.9K ₳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.
- Yes83.4K ₳No rationale
- No77.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes74.5K ₳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.
- Yes69.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.8K ₳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.
- No63.1K ₳No rationale
- No59.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes56.4K ₳No rationale
- No56.1K ₳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.
- Yes51.8K ₳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
- Yes48.7K ₳No rationale
- No48K ₳No rationale
- No45.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.4K ₳Rationale
✅ Vote: YES
📌 Proposal: Tempo.Vote Maintenance & Development (Info Action)
🗳️ Governance Action ID: gov_action1f9d...6ggge9
📅 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
- 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.
- No23.4K ₳No rationale
- No15.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes13.7K ₳No rationale
- No10.7K ₳Rationale
I not vote for this proposal
- No7K ₳No rationale
- No6.8K ₳No rationale
- No5.7K ₳No rationale
- No4.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳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.
- Yes675.6 ₳No rationale
- No379.6 ₳No rationale
- Abstain335.9 ₳No rationale
- Yes52.8 ₳No rationale
- YesChanged13.5 ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No8.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes6.3 ₳No rationale