Treasury Withdrawals (4b10e579#0)
187 DReps voted · 72 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes **ABSTAIN **on this Treasury Withdrawal.
At the time of voting, the action is currently deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Committee due to non-compliance with Article II, Section 6(1) of the enacted Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4, which requires an immutable URL and corresponding hash for supporting documentation. The primary rationale metadata references a standard GitHub URL rather than an immutable permalink, and under v2.4 this requirement is mandatory.
Given its present constitutional status, RCADA abstains on procedural grounds.
Should the proposal be resubmitted in full alignment with v2.4 requirements, it may be reassessed on its merits.
- Abstain12.1M ₳Rationale
Our preparation towards Cardano Africa Tech Summit 2026 which is scheduled for February 11th to 13th has been an all-hands-on-deck situation since the start of intensive preparations and as a committee who's been engaged heavily in organising a governance workshop at the summit, we have not had the space to carefully review this governance action.
That said, we trust that our colleague DReps would review and make accurate judgement on this governance action through their vote, hence to not be a blocker in any way, we are abstaining and we hope our delegators do bear with us in good faith.
See you in Nairobi!
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.4M ₳Rationale
This is an unnecessary expense for the ecosystem.
- The budget is extremely high to setup a company in the first place. In contrast, you can setup a business in the BVI for less than 10k - all inclusive.
- The jurisdiction chosen is not best jurisdiction for DeFi.
I'm failing to see how this was concluded and selected.
- Abstain8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案は、Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget（Info Action）を前提とした実行段階のTreasury Withdrawalガバナンスアクションであり、当該Info Actionに対して棄権した際の判断に基づき、同一のスタンスを採用します。したがって、本提案についても棄権とします。\n\nThis proposal is an execution-phase Treasury Withdrawal governance action based on the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget Info Action. In line with the judgment under which I abstained on that Info Action, I adopt the same voting stance. Accordingly, I abstain on this proposal as well.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I voted no on the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget info action, I have not changed my mind since so I also vote no on this Treasury Withdrawal. I wish the proposers success and hope that the investment will bear fruit for the Cardano ecosystem. This is a market intervention that is dependent on a number of things going right and the ability to address a cause of the problem that it attempts to resolve. It is a complex proposal. My worry is that - like water, money finds a way of flowing towards an escape point - if it does not want to stay somewhere. The market might end up reverting back to an equilibrium - despite our best efforts to boost liquidity through injections like this. Overall risk associated with this market intervention is too high (from my point of view) for me to vote yes on the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget withdrawals.
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
Continued support for something I've already voted Yes towards.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
Having previously voted in favor of the budget, I support the withdrawal. I will be keeping a close eye on this, as it will set the precedent of future requests.
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners votes YES in “Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1”.
We vote YES because this is a bounded setup withdrawal that funds the minimum legal, smart contract admin tooling, and security audit needed to run the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget with real controls, before any large liquidity deployment happens. This aligns with our priorities to strengthen Cardano’s resource flywheel, improve how the ecosystem allocates capital, sharpen institutional credibility through auditable governance, and unlock scalable adoption through safer market infrastructure. The proposed custody model (5-of-9 approvals, contract-based administration, milestone-gated disbursements) reduces execution and misuse risk versus ad hoc spending, and it creates a clear accountability surface for future withdrawals. This is a small tranche relative to the program’s implied scope, so a YES here keeps momentum while preserving the option to vote NO on later withdrawals if governance, constitutional compliance, reporting quality, or cost discipline does not meet the bar.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
I appreciate the legal and governance structure of the stablecoin initiative. Since I already voted positively on the previous info action, I will support this first treasury withdrawal.
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1" (gov_action1fvgw27fjpr9c7g582mszzyez0jgkqgjgatzdnyngrg8wwc9kcn3qqxtz8r7), pois, conforme manifestamos na respectiva Info Action, ela possui potencial para enfrentar desafios relevantes do ecossistema DeFi, da sustentabilidade da rede e da gestão estratégica do tesouro. Atacar o problema da baixa liquidez de stablecoins tende a melhorar o "price impact" nas DEXs, aumentar o número de negociadores e ampliar as taxas geradas nos protocolos DeFi — beneficiando provedores de liquidez e estimulando o crescimento do TVL. Esse movimento também pode impulsionar a atividade on-chain, gerar mais transações, elevar a arrecadação de taxas, aumentar a rentabilidade do stake de ADA e fortalecer narrativas de marketing baseadas em métricas concretas. Além disso, a justificativa de gastos apresentada, bem como as métricas de avaliação e controle, foram estruturadas de forma adequada e transparente. Contudo, reconhecemos que houve uma alteração recente na Constituição, e esta proposta passou a ser considerada inconstitucional por não atender às novas exigências formais, além de não haver atualmente um NCL aprovado em vigor. Ainda assim, reiteramos nosso apoio conceitual à iniciativa e manifestamos a intenção de votar favoravelmente quando a proposta for devidamente re-submetida em conformidade com as regras vigentes.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1" (gov_action1fvgw27fjpr9c7g582mszzyez0jgkqgjgatzdnyngrg8wwc9kcn3qqxtz8r7), as stated in our vote on the respective Info Action, because it has the potential to address key challenges within the DeFi ecosystem, network sustainability, and treasury management. Addressing the issue of low stablecoin liquidity is expected to improve "price impact" on DEXs, increase the number of traders, and generate higher fee volumes across DeFi protocols — benefiting liquidity providers and stimulating TVL growth. This dynamic may also enhance on-chain activity, generate more transactions, increase fee revenue, improve ADA staking returns, and strengthen marketing narratives supported by measurable metrics. Furthermore, the expense justification and the evaluation and control metrics were presented in a clear and structured manner. However, we acknowledge that a recent amendment to the Constitution has rendered this proposal technically unconstitutional due to non-compliance with new formal requirements, and there is currently no approved NCL in force. Nevertheless, we reaffirm our conceptual support for the initiative and express our intention to vote in favor once it is properly resubmitted in accordance with the current governance framework. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
I have reviewed these costs and what they will be spent for and find them inlign with market realities and costs. The proposal was already approved, so voting no would not be in the interest of the ecosystem, or our governance processes.
However, I do not believe that it is good governance to not have competing bids and believe the option of choosing the best of competing proposals would be an improvement. This is my expectation for 2026-2027 proposals, and hope this current method is only transitional.
- Yes3.8M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged3.1M ₳Rationale
Voting yes for a proposal I already voted yes on previously. As stated before, I am unhappy that EMURGO and The Cardano Foundation did not pay for half of the cost of this initiative.
There is still time to actually contribute and pay some of your genesis ADA back to the treasury for these costs CF and EMURGO.
Lets get this done, thanks everyone!
Earlier votes
Abstain6mo agoSuperseded
As I have not had time yet to properly review this proposal, I am voting Abstain for now.
- Abstain3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
Unconstitutional
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
本提案は、DeFi流動性施策を二段階で進める構成のうち、第1段階（Withdrawal 1）に位置づけられます。今回はDeFi市場へ直接資金を投入するものではなく、将来の資金運用を安全かつ透明に行うための基盤整備を目的としています。
具体的には、①DAO運営およびオフチェーン契約における責任主体を明確にする法的基盤、②複数人の承認が必要で支出をオンチェーンで追跡できるAmaruスマートコントラクトによる資金管理基盤、③資金管理および関連コントラクトに対する第三者監査基盤の3点を整備します。
本Withdrawalの資金は、法務・監査・管理コントラクト構築といった用途が明確な準備費用に限定されており、次段階となる実際の資金投入については、別途コミュニティによる審査と判断が行われる設計です。以上より、本提案は妥当であると判断し、YESとします。
This proposal is the first phase (Withdrawal 1) of a two-step DeFi liquidity plan.
It does not deploy funds directly into DeFi markets. Instead, it focuses on building the foundational infrastructure needed for safe and transparent future deployment.This phase establishes:
- a legal structure to clearly define responsibility for DAO operations and off-chain contracts,
- a fund management system using the Amaru smart contract, which requires multi-party approval and allows all spending to be tracked on-chain, and
- independent third-party audits for fund management and related smart contracts.
The requested funds are limited to clearly defined setup costs such as legal work, audits, and contract development. Any actual liquidity deployment will be reviewed and decided by the community in a later phase.
Based on this structure, I consider the proposal reasonable and vote YES. - Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
I think we need to be more careful to keep cost low. I won't stand in the way of this (already approved the previous) but the released costs are very high for annual expense and startup cost.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Yes. This is in line with my previous vote on the stablecoin liquidity info action. Even though we now have the critical integrations budget to bring additional stablecoins to Cardano, it is still important to support the growth of our homegrown options.
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this Withdrawal 1 because it responsibly funds the essential infrastructure—smart contracts, UI, audits, and legal work—to safely administer the broader DeFi liquidity initiative that aims to deepen stablecoin and market liquidity on Cardano and reduce slippage for users.  While I share the view that more of the system functions and oversight could ultimately be on-chain rather than off-chain, the design includes a multisig contract and public RFPs that provide governance visibility and accountability.  Given the urgency of improving DeFi market depth to better compete with other ecosystems and provide tangible utility for users and protocols, moving quickly on these foundational elements is prudent.  Approving this first tranche allows the community to validate execution early, limiting risk before committing the larger budget in Withdrawal 2. 
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Approved the budget, so will approve the withdrawals too.
Disclaimer: As a DRep, I do not perform an exhaustive check on whether a treasury withdrawal is executed by the correct parties, sent to the correct address, or correctly linked to its preceding budget. I place this responsibility with the CC, as the withdrawal would be unconstitutional if any of these requirements were violated.
- No1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale