The first node in the browser; a Cardano USP
182 DReps voted · 73 with a rationale · 9 changed their vote · 3 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 6 to yes, 1 to no, 2 to abstain, together voting with 730.2M ₳ of voting power.
Voting concentration
8 of 182 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 15.1%, top 5 combined 42.6% of 4.5B ₳ voted.
The 13 largest voters together held as much voting power as the 67.0% threshold required in yes votes.
- No157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes155.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes150.9K ₳No rationale
- No149.8K ₳Rationale
- Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected.
1.51–1.62B ADA remains ($260M USD at ~0.16 USD/ADA). The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% treasury drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption. - Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
- Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
- Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives with clear milestones, revenue/ADA return mechanisms, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.
- Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected.
- No142.9K ₳Rationale
https://ipfs.blockfrost.dev/ipfs/QmSW8mbUcL1FCPuiv1pMtmoVqTJDVyqjfVWZzevE7c5SXi (Cardano Fundation)
- Abstain138.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.4K ₳No rationale
- No124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes107.4K ₳No rationale
- No90.6K ₳Rationale
Review Methodology Disclaimer [EN]
Due not only to the unusually high volume of Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions and budget proposals submitted in April and May 2026, but also to the lack of meaningful incentives for DReps to perform proposal analysis work, it is not feasible to apply my full standard review framework and reporting template to every proposal.
My standard analysis process usually requires approximately four hours of work per Governance Action. During that process, I research the proposal, review supporting materials, compare different perspectives from DReps and other ecosystem participants, and weigh both positive and negative arguments before reaching a reasonably qualified decision. Even with the use of artificial intelligence to automate parts of the workflow and improve productivity, a responsible evaluation still requires substantial human review, judgment, and contextual understanding.
In addition, this work does not end with the vote itself. It also involves writing and publishing rationales, preparing reports or summaries, communicating the reasoning publicly, and socializing the analysis through public channels and social media. This creates a significant workload, especially when dozens of proposals must be reviewed in a short period.
At present, this work carries no clear financial incentive and only limited reputational incentive, despite requiring substantial time, attention, and accountability. In practice, it is not sustainable to dedicate near full-time effort over several weeks or months to this activity without any form of compensation or institutional support.
Since I have a clear standard for my work and do not want to lower the quality of my judgment, I will reduce the scope of my analysis where necessary rather than rush decisions or produce superficial rationales. This means prioritizing focused due diligence over exhaustive review.
Under these constraints, my methodology during this period will focus on identifying critical strategic, operational, governance, reputational, or execution-related risks that could materially compromise a proposal’s viability, accountability, or successful delivery. In practical terms, this means narrowing my research toward the most critical gaps that may make approval unjustifiable. Where such a serious risk is identified, I may use it as the basis for a rejection vote.
This approach also helps reduce review overload: proposals with clear and material gaps would likely require rework regardless, so voting against them when those gaps are significant can be a responsible way to preserve review capacity while maintaining minimum due diligence.
Examples of such high-priority concerns may include, but are not limited to:
- Serious delivery failures in previous funded proposals;
- Significant unresolved delays in ongoing work;
- Major reputational or accountability issues within the ecosystem;
- Lack of credible execution capacity;
- Structural governance or transparency concerns;
- Severe budgetary or coordination risks.
Where I do not have sufficient time for a deeper evaluation, and no significant red flags or imminent execution risks are identified, I may abstain rather than issue an underdeveloped approval or rejection rationale.
This does not mean that other dimensions of proposal quality are unimportant. It means that, under current constraints, I will prioritize a narrower but still responsible review scope that preserves minimum due diligence, avoids rushed decisions, and keeps the quality of my judgment at an acceptable standard.
Main reasons for voting NO
- Insufficient strategic priority
The proposal addresses infrastructure decentralization and additional network resilience, which are valuable objectives. However, I do not consider this initiative sufficiently urgent under the current treasury constraints. Cardano is already highly decentralized relative to most blockchain networks, while several existing ecosystem projects are struggling to maintain continuity or remain operational. In this context, I believe treasury resources should prioritize more immediate ecosystem needs rather than additional resilience for infrastructure that is already comparatively decentralized.
- Insufficient budget granularity
The budget is primarily presented through aggregated FTE rates of US$200,000 per year. If interpreted mainly as developer compensation, these rates would appear high even compared with expensive labor markets such as the United States. The proposal states that the rates include salaries, taxes, overhead, complementary personnel, compliance, legal expenses, and financial auditing, but it does not quantify these components separately. A dRep should not be required to infer the internal composition of a substantial treasury request. The burden of providing a sufficiently detailed and verifiable budget rests with the proposer.
Nota sobre metodologia e escopo de análise [PT]
Devido não apenas ao volume excepcionalmente alto de Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions e propostas orçamentárias submetidas em abril e maio de 2026, mas também à falta de incentivos significativos para que DReps realizem o trabalho de análise de propostas, não é viável aplicar meu framework completo de revisão e meu template padrão de relatório a todas as propostas.
Meu processo padrão de análise normalmente exige aproximadamente quatro horas de trabalho por Governance Action. Durante esse processo, eu pesquiso a proposta, reviso materiais de suporte, comparo diferentes perspectivas de DReps e de outros participantes do ecossistema, e peso argumentos positivos e negativos antes de chegar a uma decisão razoavelmente qualificada. Mesmo com o uso de inteligência artificial para automatizar partes do fluxo de trabalho e aumentar a produtividade, uma avaliação responsável ainda exige revisão humana substancial, julgamento e entendimento contextual.
Além disso, esse trabalho não termina no voto em si. Ele também envolve escrever e publicar rationales, preparar relatórios ou resumos, comunicar publicamente a justificativa e socializar a análise por meio de canais públicos e mídias sociais. Isso cria uma carga de trabalho significativa, especialmente quando dezenas de propostas precisam ser avaliadas em um curto período.
Atualmente, esse trabalho não possui incentivo financeiro claro e oferece apenas incentivo reputacional limitado, apesar de exigir tempo, atenção e responsabilidade substanciais. Na prática, não é sustentável dedicar um esforço próximo de tempo integral durante várias semanas ou meses a essa atividade sem qualquer forma de compensação ou apoio institucional.
Como tenho um padrão claro para o meu trabalho e não quero reduzir a qualidade do meu julgamento, irei reduzir o escopo da minha análise quando necessário, em vez de tomar decisões apressadas ou produzir justificativas superficiais. Isso significa priorizar uma diligência focada em vez de uma revisão exaustiva.
Sob essas restrições, minha metodologia durante este período se concentrará em identificar riscos críticos estratégicos, operacionais, de governança, reputacionais ou relacionados à execução que possam comprometer materialmente a viabilidade, a accountability ou a entrega bem-sucedida de uma proposta. Na prática, isso significa concentrar minha pesquisa nos gaps mais críticos que possam tornar a aprovação injustificável. Quando um risco sério desse tipo for identificado, poderei usá-lo como base para um voto de rejeição.
Essa abordagem também ajuda a reduzir a sobrecarga de revisão: propostas com gaps claros e materiais provavelmente exigiriam retrabalho de qualquer forma, então votar contra elas quando esses gaps forem significativos pode ser uma forma responsável de preservar capacidade de análise enquanto se mantém uma diligência mínima.
Exemplos dessas preocupações de alta prioridade podem incluir, mas não se limitam a:
- Falhas graves de entrega em propostas anteriormente financiadas;
- Atrasos significativos e não resolvidos em trabalhos em andamento;
- Problemas graves de reputação ou accountability dentro do ecossistema;
- Falta de capacidade crível de execução;
- Preocupações estruturais de governança ou transparência;
- Riscos severos de orçamento ou coordenação.
Quando eu não tiver tempo suficiente para uma avaliação mais profunda, e nenhum alerta significativo ou risco iminente de execução for identificado, poderei me abster em vez de emitir uma justificativa de aprovação ou rejeição pouco desenvolvida.
Isso não significa que outras dimensões da qualidade de uma proposta não sejam importantes. Significa que, sob as restrições atuais, priorizarei um escopo de revisão mais estreito, mas ainda responsável, que preserve uma diligência mínima, evite decisões apressadas e mantenha a qualidade do meu julgamento em um padrão aceitável.
Principais motivos para o voto NÃO
- Prioridade estratégica insuficiente
A proposta aborda a descentralização da infraestrutura e o aumento da resiliência da rede, objetivos que possuem valor. No entanto, não considero esta iniciativa suficientemente urgente diante das atuais restrições orçamentárias do Tesouro. A Cardano já apresenta um elevado nível de descentralização quando comparada à maioria das outras blockchains, enquanto diversos projetos existentes no ecossistema enfrentam dificuldades para manter sua continuidade ou permanecer operacionais. Nesse contexto, considero mais apropriado priorizar necessidades imediatas do ecossistema em vez de financiar resiliência adicional para uma infraestrutura que já é comparativamente descentralizada.
- Granularidade orçamentária insuficiente
O orçamento é apresentado principalmente por meio de taxas agregadas de US$ 200 mil por FTE ao ano. Caso fossem interpretadas predominantemente como remuneração de desenvolvedores, essas taxas pareceriam elevadas até mesmo em comparação com mercados de trabalho caros, como o dos Estados Unidos. A proposta afirma que os valores incluem salários, impostos, despesas operacionais, pessoal complementar, compliance, custos jurídicos e auditoria financeira, mas não quantifica esses componentes separadamente. Não cabe ao dRep deduzir a composição interna de um pedido significativo ao Tesouro. O ônus de apresentar um orçamento suficientemente detalhado e verificável pertence ao proponente.
- Abstain83.9K ₳Rationale
Due to current limitations in our governance process, I will cast abstain votes on most upcoming proposals. The existing framework does not provide the adequate structure, clarity, or time required to make well-informed funding decisions. Moving forward, I will only vote "Yes" on initiatives that are absolutely critical to the network's immediate survival and success. I sincerely apologize to the teams who have dedicated time and effort to their proposals; you deserve a more robust evaluation system. Right now, my priority must shift from assessing standard funding requests to actively improving our governance infrastructure, ensuring we no longer have to make rushed decisions with insufficient information.
- Yes72.1K ₳No rationale
- No63.1K ₳No rationale
- No56.1K ₳Rationale
not needed at this time.
- Abstain55.1K ₳No rationale
- No51.8K ₳No rationale
- No48K ₳No rationale
- No45.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes28.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes26.7K ₳Rationale
HLabs has delivered on proposals in the past. I vote yes.
- No19.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain15.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.8K ₳Rationale
I believe that this is a good project
- No6.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.4K ₳Rationale
I recognize the technical merit of this proposal and the strong reputation of HLabs within the Cardano ecosystem. The vision of a fully validating browser-based Cardano node is innovative and could become a unique differentiator for Cardano if successfully delivered.
However, I am not yet convinced that the proposal demonstrates sufficient ecosystem demand or adoption certainty to justify a treasury commitment of ₳4.6M ADA at this stage.
Several factors lead me to abstain:
- The proposal focuses heavily on technical feasibility but provides limited evidence that wallets, dApps, or end users are actively requesting this solution.
- Adoption targets are modest relative to the requested budget, with only a small number of expected integrations.
- Important questions remain regarding browser performance, synchronization requirements, long-term maintenance costs, and compatibility with future protocol upgrades such as Leios.
- The proposal's success depends not only on delivery but also on broad ecosystem integration, which is largely outside the direct control of the team.
- While the milestones are reasonably clear, they primarily measure technical outputs rather than ecosystem outcomes.
I appreciate the team's contributions to Cardano and believe the concept deserves continued exploration. However, given current treasury constraints and competing infrastructure priorities, I do not have sufficient conviction to support or oppose the proposal outright.
For these reasons, I choose to ABSTAIN.
- No2.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes688.8 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale