Tempo for Cardono Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025
Discussed in the Governance Review for epochs 576 to 578.
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.
- Yes477.4M ₳Rationale
I will vote YES for the Budget, provided that the following points are included when withdrawing treasury funds:
- Plans for open sourcing are included.
- Further details on costs and a roadmap are provided.
- There have been some concerns about Tempo's IPFS metadata, which will be largely unusable if Tempo removes the PIN. I would be happy if those concerns are reasonably alleviated in some way.
- DRep filtering functionality (labeling of DRep, such as the following) - By selecting about five filtering items, 1,000 DReps are narrowed down to about 10 or less. The delegator can click five times and then choose the DRep they like from these 10, so there is no need to observe all 1,000 DReps or check their social media.
トレジャリー引き出し時に次の点が含まれていることを前提としてYESをBudgetに投票しようと思います。
・オープンソース化の計画が含まれている。
・費用のさらなる詳細とロードマップが記載されている。
・TempoのIPFSメタデータについて、TempoがPINを解除した場合ほとんど利用不可能になることを懸念している声がいくつかありました。その懸念について何らかの手段で合理的に軽減されていると嬉しいです。
・DRepフィルタリング機能 - フィルタリング項目を5つ程度選択することで、1,000件のDRepが10件程度以下に絞り込まれます。委任者は5回クリックするだけで、この10件の中から気に入ったDRepを選択できるため、1,000件すべてのDRepを観察したり、ソーシャルメディアをチェックしたりする必要はありません。 - No404.6M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep casts a NO vote on the Budget Info governance action titled Tempo for Cardano Governance – Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025.
Rationale
Yoroi DRep values the spirit behind Tempo. Its focus on independent infrastructure and commitment to creating smoother, mobile-first governance experiences is something we believe the Cardano ecosystem needs more of. That said, this particular proposal lacks the transparency and structure required for us to signal support at this time.
There is limited visibility into the team behind the project, no clear accountability framework, and no explanation of how Selfdriven will govern and report on the use of treasury funds.
We see the potential in Tempo.Vote, but cannot endorse this iteration. Yoroi DRep encourages the team to resubmit with a more transparent, community-accountable approach so the broader Cardano ecosystem can confidently evaluate and support it.
- No300.7M ₳Rationale
Summary:
EMURGO as DRep votes NO on the governance action to fund Tempo for Cardano Governance – Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025.
Rationale
EMURGO appreciates and acknowledges Tempo.Vote’s intention to enhance Cardano governance accessibility, particularly its efforts in running independent infrastructure and offering mobile-friendly governance tools. These contributions align with Cardano’s long-term vision for decentralization and user empowerment.
However, as this proposal functions as a Budget Info Action, which signals community intent for future treasury withdrawal, we believe it must meet a higher threshold of clarity and accountability. At this stage, the proposal falls short in several key areas:The budget requested lacks sufficient justification. No clear roadmap, milestones, or timeline have been provided to track the proposed deliverables.
Details regarding the development team, their past contributions, or their public accountability mechanisms are missing.
There are no stated metrics for success or community impact, making it difficult to evaluate outcomes.
Although Selfdriven is listed as the fund administrator, no governance process for fund management has been described.While we support the proposed features, such as mobile-friendly governance action creation and improved UX, the absence of structural elements and execution clarity limits our confidence in the proposal as a credible basis for future funding.
Conclusion
We encourage Tempo.Vote to revise and resubmit with stronger documentation, clearer financial breakdowns, and robust transparency mechanisms. The Cardano ecosystem benefits from tools like Tempo, and we look forward to seeing a future iteration that the community can confidently support. - Yes218.3M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted YES on gov_action1f9d...6ggge9; While the infrastructure cost is kind of high, we support further development of tempo.vote. This vote signals support for tempo, even if this very info action might be deemed unconstitutional by the CC. Submit a corrected action and we will vote YES again.
- Yes178.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes141.6M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes YES on the budget info action for "Tempo for Cardano Governance - Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025" (gov_action1f9d...6ggge9).
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This is a pragmatic decision based on the strategic importance of fostering a competitive and diverse governance tooling landscape. While the proposal has flaws in its quality and detail, we believe the risk of creating a tooling monoculture currently outweighs these concerns.
Rationale Statement
This decision reflects a careful balance between the project's potential strategic value and the valid critiques of the proposal itself. Our support is conditional and comes with clear expectations for future funding requests.
Reasons for a 'YES' Vote
- Strategic Importance of Ecosystem Competition: The primary driver for our support is the need for healthy competition in the governance tooling sector. tempo.vote provides another option for the ecosystem as a governance interface, allowing users to perform core governance functions like DRep registration and proposal submission. Having multiple options for such tooling supports decentralization, encourages innovation, and can help ensure tooling costs remain reasonable over the long term.
- Demonstrated Value and Community Use: The tempo platform has demonstrated its value and agility, for instance, by quickly shipping a bulk-voting feature helpful to the community. This responsiveness helps justify the requested ₳380,000 for six months, which, while high, we view as a pragmatic investment to sustain this valuable tooling solution option.
- Supporting Ecosystem Diversity: This vote serves as an important political signal that Cardano's governance and treasury are accessible to smaller, independent development teams. Fostering a diverse ecosystem of builders beyond the large, established entities is essential for Cardano's long-term health and decentralization.
The Cardano Foundation votes YES. This pragmatic decision is based on the strategic imperative to support competition and diversity in Cardano's governance tooling landscape. However, this support is conditional. While we approve this budget to ensure the continuation of a valuable community tool, our approval of the subsequent treasury withdrawal is contingent upon a significantly improved proposal, to be updated and submitted with, or before, the relevant treasury withdrawal governance action is submitted (should this budget info action pass). To secure future support, the Tempo team must provide a subsequent submission that includes comprehensive user metrics, a specific feature roadmap, a detailed financial breakdown, and a robust plan for fund administration and oversight.
- Yes128M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on this proposal, with some conditions.
Currently, Cardano governance relies on only two active user interfaces: GovTool and Tempo. Depending solely on one tool—whether it's GovTool or Tempo—would undermine resilience and decentralization. Tempo offers a lightweight, mobile-friendly experience, which I personally find intuitive and easy to use. Its mobile accessibility lowers the barrier for broader participation, especially for users who govern on the go.
That said, some parts remain unclear—particularly the fund management structure (delegated to Selfdriven, but without details on whether smart contracts or multisig are used) and the development roadmap (which lacks concrete milestones or deliverables).
I support this proposal based on current utility and intent, but I strongly hope that future Treasury Withdrawal proposals will include clearer financial structures and more transparent development plans.
Supporting this proposal contributes to keeping Cardano governance open, accessible, and resilient.
条件付きではありますが、この提案にYES票を投じます。
現在、CardanoのガバナンスはGovToolとTempoの2つのUIに依存しており、どちらか一方に集中することは分散性やレジリエンスの観点で望ましくありません。Tempoは軽量かつモバイルに最適化された体験を提供しており、私自身とても使いやすいと感じています。外出先でもガバナンスに関われるという意味で、モバイル対応は大きな価値があります。
一方で、Selfdrivenに委託されるとされる資金管理体制がスマートコントラクトやマルチシグを用いているのかが不明確であり、また開発のロードマップも具体的なマイルストーンや成果物が記載されていません。
現時点の有用性と意図を評価して本提案を支持しますが、次回のトレジャリー引き出し提案では、資金構造と開発計画の透明性をより高めてほしいと強く願います。
この提案を支援することは、Cardanoガバナンスをオープンでアクセス可能かつ回復力のあるものに保つことに繋がると考えます。
- Yes112.8M ₳No rationale
- No94.8M ₳Rationale
I’ve decided to vote NO on the Info Governance Action submitted by Tempo.Vote.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I do have a profile on Tempo.Vote and genuinely appreciate the service. I believe in supporting platforms I actively use. I also like the idea of offering a short-term loan of 100K ADA to help users submit governance actions and earn a modest return. Still, there are alternative ways to make this mechanism work.
However, the requested 200K ADA to cover six months of infrastructure costs—roughly 33,333 ADA per month, or around $25,000 USD—feels excessive. Additionally, the proposal allocates 180K ADA to implement three new features, which also seems overvalued. I believe another team could deliver similar results more cost-effectively.
In my view, a comparable proposal could be executed with a budget up to ten times lower.
- Yes93.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes86.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain81.9M ₳Rationale
Tempo.Vote 致力于用好用的 UI/UX 设计和独立基础设施来扩大治理参与度的方向， 符合有益于Cardano发展的技术型提案。 但目前提案在资金管理以及成果的客观衡量指标等方面仍缺乏足够的清晰度，，希望未来能看到改进
- Yes80.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes78.4M ₳Rationale
Highly value Tempo.Vote's reliability, innovation, accessible governance for mobile, and independent data. Crucial for decentralization & growth. Will closely watch listed goals for future votes.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I vote Yes. My positive experience using Tempo.Vote confirms its reliability and value. Their commitment to accessible governance for mobile users, coupled with independent infrastructure, is vital for decentralization and fostering broader participation. This directly supports Cardano's growth and sustainability through essential innovation. I will be closely watching the listed goals and will factor their achievement into future voting decisions.
- No65.6M ₳No rationale
- No62M ₳Rationale
Need more information on financial audit. Especially, staking address should be opened with Auto-Abstain following the Constitution Article 4 section 5. Tempo is also act as a DRep, so that they need to ensure that the fund should not include in any type of delegation.
- Yes52.9M ₳Rationale
Same as with any other preliminary Info action: I find this step adds unnecessary delays and confusion, given that 67% approval is already required at the final vote. But since it's now a mandatory part of the process, I'm voting Yes just to let it proceed - the actual decision will be made at the final vote. Also, I believe that a more detailed cost breakdown would help address some of the DReps' concerns and improve the chances of reaching the required threshold.
- Yes43.9M ₳No rationale
- No43.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain43.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes43.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes41.9M ₳Rationale
The amount is fair & the proposal specifies an Administrator. So it's a yes from me, for the "tempo"-check. Looking forward to more details in the actual proposal.
- Abstain37.3M ₳No rationale
- No36.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.8M ₳Rationale
Temporary Abstention Rationale
Summary
To ensure timely progression of proposals that meet constitutional thresholds, I am temporarily casting abstain votes on all active governance actions while I continue to review them individually. This avoids delaying enactment due to quorum issues and allows careful evaluation of each on its own merits.Rationale Statement
As a DRep, I take seriously my responsibility to evaluate each proposal in alignment with the HOSKY Cardano First platform, prioritizing decentralization, responsible treasury use, and the long term integrity of CardanoRather than rush through the volume of proposals or risk being a bottleneck for those that meet required thresholds, I am temporarily abstaining on all proposals. This ensures that governance actions with sufficient community support can move forward without being held up by my pending vote
This abstention is not a sign of indecision or neglect. It is a reflection of my commitment to deliberate, well considered governance. I am reviewing each proposal carefully and will cast definitive YES or NO votes with rationale in the coming days
This approach allows me to maintain transparency, uphold voting integrity, and respect the time sensitive nature of decentralized decision making. It is a temporary mechanism to preserve network momentum while continuing to uphold the standards set by both the Constitution and the HOSKY dRep Platform
- Yes31.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain30.8M ₳No rationale
- No29.6M ₳No rationale
- No28.8M ₳Rationale
I appreciate and support Tempo for the fantastic platform they have built and continue improving upon. However, I think the treasury should prioritize funding core Cardano infrastructure that serves as a public good. For me it is difficult to support funding for this proposal because it does not appear to have plans to open source.
- Yes28.1M ₳Rationale
Tempo.Vote is a reliable governance tool that is widely used and mobile-friendly, making on-chain participation more accessible to a broad range of users. To ensure maximum accuracy of governance voting data, it independently operates its own Cardano node and backend indexer. This setup requires ongoing operational costs to maintain stable and precise service.
This proposal requests a budget of 380,000 ADA over six months, covering infrastructure operations, improved user experience, and the development of a lending feature to support governance proposal submissions. The requested budget aligns with the scope of infrastructure and functional development, and considering the six-month period and Tempo’s proven track record, we find the amount to be balanced, realistic, and appropriate.
Based on these factors, we regard this proposal as an important initiative that strengthens Cardano’s decentralized governance.
- No25.5M ₳No rationale
- No25.5M ₳Rationale unavailable
- Yes24.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes24.2M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted23.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No21.7M ₳Rationale
I have decided to vote NO on the 2025 maintenance and development budget info action proposal for the Tempo platform, in its current form at least. I appreciate the work that the team at Tempo have put in to creating an additional governance platform for Cardano, providing an alternative to GovTool and thus helping decentralise reliance on a singular platform.
However, this proposal feels somewhat reactionary to the recent GovTool proposal and while providing an abstract, motivation and rationale, it feels a little light on the details. Previously approved budget info actions have been very detailed and included outlines for proposed budget administration processes. This proposal simply states a requested amount, vaguely outlined as infrastructure and development cost without further breakdowns and points simply to a named administrator without any further detail regarding potential fund management or dispute resolution mechanisms.
I appreciate that another long pause in Catalyst rounds may have left teams scrambling for funding at this point in time but with Fund 14 having just launched I would encourage the Tempo team to apply through that avenue when the opportunity arises, in the short term. If they wish to resubmit a budget info action (should this fail to pass this time) I would encourage them to re-evaluate existing examples for Amaru and Intersect, that have already passed, in order to help inform them to produce a more detailed proposal that might better serve to put any community questions to rest.
- YesChanged21.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No20.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes17M ₳No rationale
- No16.4M ₳Rationale
Tempo is a good tool and needs UI work, however, the ask amount is overpriced for a 6 month operating budget. We run relay nodes, preview and preprod testnet nodes plus a midnight node for a small percentage of that. We also believe in general that development should be incentivized through the treasury, not have the entire budget come from the treasury.
- Yes16.1M ₳No rationale
- No11.9M ₳Rationale
We, the Wada DRep Committee, have voted NO on the Budget Info Governance Action titled “Tempo for Cardano Governance – Maintenance & Development Budget for 2025”. While we recognise the value of alternative governance interfaces and the importance of user-friendly mobile voting experiences, we found this proposal too vague and underdeveloped to earn our support at this stage of the process.
As a Budget Info Action, this proposal serves as a signal of community support or rejection for potential future Treasury disbursement. From that lens, it is vital that proposals demonstrate a clear plan, responsible budgeting, and public accountability, none of which are sufficiently evident here. While we do support the listed upgrade features, the proposal lacks basic structural elements we believe are necessary for a credible signal to proceed, including:
- A transparent budget breakdown with justification for the ₳380,000 request (especially ₳200,000 for infrastructure),
- A timeline of development milestones,
- Public details about the development team or maintainers,
- Defined success criteria or measurable impact projections.
- Roadmap to open-sourcing the project and updating already existing features like demographic representation, etc.
Additionally, while Selfdriven is named as the administrative entity, there is no description of how treasury funds would be governed if this Budget Info Action were to lead to a Treasury Withdrawal. This raises concerns about execution oversight and the stewardship of public funds.
Given our DRep responsibility to help shape a high-trust, effective governance funding system, we cannot support proposals that fail to meet the basic standards of clarity, feasibility, and community accountability. Although we recognise the potential of Tempo.Vote and are open to supporting its future iterations, we encourage the proposers to return with a more robust, well-documented submission that the community can confidently evaluate.
Accordingly, we have voted NO on this Budget Info Governance Action.
- YesChanged11.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes11.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain10.6M ₳Rationale
RCADA has reviewed the governance Info action proposing a six-month development and infrastructure budget of 380,000 ADA to support ongoing work by Tempo.Vote. After applying our methodology — which considers constitutional alignment, financial clarity, procedural integrity, historical context and community precedent — I have chosen to **abstain **from this vote.
Firstly, RCADA commends the work Tempo.Vote has delivered so far. I actively use their platform to cast on-chain votes and value their efforts to improve accessibility, especially for mobile and wallet-based governance. Their technical setup — running a full Cardano node and independent indexer — supports decentralization and aligns well with the principles outlined in the Cardano Constitution.
That said, RCADA applies consistent expectations when proposals indicate future treasury withdrawals or tool development budgets. While this Info action itself has no immediate on-chain effect, it signals intent for public funding and must be evaluated accordingly.
The proposal outlines cost estimates — 200k ADA for infrastructure and 180k ADA for development — but lacks deeper financial detail. There is no milestone-based roadmap, no cost model and no mechanism described for performance monitoring or budget oversight. Additionally, the administrative responsibility is delegated to Selfdriven, a foundation that promotes self-organizing systems and educational tools. While their mission aligns with Cardano’s values, their specific role in managing this budget remains undefined. From RCADA’s perspective, proposals touching the treasury must include clear accountability structures for any fund administrator, including terms of oversight, reporting cadence and risk mitigation.
Historically, RCADA has supported similar initiatives — such as the GovTool Info Action — when they demonstrated greater transparency, coordination and defined governance responsibilities. Approving this action without such clarity risks setting a precedent where future treasury-related Info actions are submitted without sufficient due diligence.
It’s also notable that the Constitutional Committee is currently split on this action. While Info actions cannot be blocked by the committee, this division (43% support at time of writing) reflects community-level concerns that warrant consideration.
In conclusion, while I support the spirit of this initiative and Tempo.Vote’s role in improving governance UX, I must abstain from supporting this Info action in its current form. RCADA encourages the team to resubmit a revised proposal with:
• a granular breakdown of costs and deliverables,
• a milestone-linked timeline,
• and a clearly articulated administrative and audit process for Selfdriven or any entity overseeing treasury funds.Such a revision would likely earn my support and reinforce the values of responsible, transparent and community-driven treasury governance.
- Yes9.5M ₳Rationale
I want to support Tempo for another year and see where they go with development. I think we're still in a crucial time to see these tools get built out and offer different takes on the overall UX. There's the added benefit that the total amount of ADA asked for is to support a fee-based lending pool for submitting future gov actions. The 2026 plan for Tempo is still ambitious at an estimated 400K (per their feedback), however that assumes further development of the portal. It would be half as much if it was just for maintenance. Some more time will tell us whether there's demand for conintued support as other APIs are developed, additional open-source tooling becomes available, and community feedback on what ultimately users want to see. I have found Tempo useful as a DRep, and am voting in favor of their budget.
- Yes8.2M ₳No rationale
- No7.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain7.8M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
English version. The Japanese translation is below the English version.
英語版。日本語訳は英語版の下にあります。
Let me prefact this vote with this comment: I like what Tempo.vote contributed to Cardano governance. They provided an alternative way of voting for DReps and were very proactive in improving their platform. I regularly pinged them with problems over their Telegram group and they would respond usually in 24 hours max and fix the issue. I have a profile on Tempo.vote - so I am appreciative of what they have contributed. I am even going to submit this vote over Tempo.vote.
Now that they built the product, they should probably consider the big picture future for Tempo. I was leaning to vote YES on a Tempo governance action - as Cardano governance (Minimum Viable - lets be truthful) is one of the key distinguishing features of Cardano. However, several problems in this budget are preventing me from doing this.
I want to be clear that this is not just about this proposal. We are setting precedents in Cardano governance with every vote. So, I would rather that we set positive precedents (better budgetary proposal actions now) - than make exceptions (weaker budgetary info actions) that may lead to more issues down the line as they proliferate.
I do not see any committment in this proposal to make it open source with a specific license and a definite date to do so. Not saying it is obligatory, but unless there are some extenuating circumstances - it makes it more difficult for me to vote YES - as governance is a key component of running Cardano. Locking governance into proprietary tools - requires a deeper explanation and rationale - especially if it is to be financed from the Treasury. Not saying that there is no argument to be made there, but the proposal lacks any argumentation on this topic. I want to see a future roadmap for Tempo - as we could see Tempo pack up and go after the 6 month period (1 Aug 2025 - 31 Jan 2026) that they are requesting funding for. And there would be no public good left after they leave.
The financial numbers should be disaggregated and could quote specific rates, identify roles and also look forward towards the financial future of Tempo and what are the plans downstream.
I find the entire proposal a bit light-weight - and it is much less comprehensive than a typical Project Catalyst proposal. This is a Treasury Budget proposal and should be more - rather than less detailed.
Tempo.Vote tackles a real usability gap. Overall, I'd say the proposal seems - with the current sparse information - over-budgeted and under-specified. Committing to open-source transparency - with a clear future strategy - will significantly raise its chance of a Yes in the on-chain vote, in my view. However, that is just personal feedback.
Some more background about the administrator Selfdriven would have been helpful, as I am not aware of this company - although I recognize one or two Cardano community names from their webpage.Japanese translation via Google Translate:
Google翻訳による日本語翻訳：
この投票の前に、一言付け加えさせてください。Tempo.voteがCardanoガバナンスに貢献してくれたことに感謝しています。彼らはDRepsへの投票方法を提供し、プラットフォームの改善にも積極的に取り組んでくれました。私はTelegramグループで定期的に問題を報告していましたが、通常24時間以内に返信があり、問題を解決してくれました。私はTempo.voteにプロフィールを登録しているので、彼らの貢献に感謝しています。この投票もTempo.voteから提出するつもりです。
製品を構築した今、彼らはTempoの将来像を大局的に検討すべきでしょう。Cardanoガバナンス（正直に言って、最小限の実行可能なもの）はCardanoの重要な特徴の一つであるため、Tempoのガバナンスアクションには賛成票を投じようと考えていました。しかし、この予算にはいくつかの問題があり、賛成を阻んでいます。
これはこの提案だけの問題ではないことを明確にしておきたいと思います。私たちは、すべての投票を通してCardanoガバナンスの先例を作っています。したがって、例外（予算情報に関する対応が弱まる）を設けて、将来的に問題が拡大するリスクを高めるよりも、前向きな前例（より良い予算提案）を作る方が良いと思います。この提案には、特定のライセンスと明確な日付でオープンソース化するという確約は見当たりません。義務だと言っているわけではありませんが、特別な事情がない限り、ガバナンスはCardano運営の重要な要素であるため、賛成票を投じることは難しくなります。ガバナンスを独自のツールに縛り付けるには、より深い説明と根拠が必要です。特に財務省からの資金提供となる場合はなおさらです。議論の余地がないと言っているわけではありませんが、この提案にはこの点に関する議論が欠けています。Tempoの将来のロードマップを見たいです。資金を要請している6ヶ月間（2025年8月1日から2026年1月31日）後にTempoが撤退する可能性もあるからです。そして、彼らが撤退した後には公共の利益は何も残らないでしょう。
財務数値は細分化され、具体的なレートを引用し、役割を特定し、Tempoの財務的な将来像と今後の計画について言及できる必要があります。
提案全体がやや軽薄で、典型的なProject Catalystの提案よりもはるかに包括的ではありません。これは財務予算案であり、詳細度が低いのではなく、より詳細であるべきです。
Tempo.Voteは、ユーザビリティのギャップを埋めるものです。全体として、現状の情報が乏しいため、この提案は予算超過で詳細度が不足しているように思われます。明確な将来戦略とともにオープンソースの透明性にコミットすることで、オンチェーン投票で賛成される可能性が大幅に高まると私は考えています。ただし、これはあくまで個人的な意見です。
管理者であるSelfdrivenについて、もう少し背景情報があれば助かります。この会社についてはよく知りませんが、ウェブサイトでCardanoコミュニティの名前をいくつか見覚えがあります。