Treasury Withdrawals (4b10e579#0)
187 DReps voted · 73 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 3 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, together voting with 2.7M ₳ of voting power.
- Abstain1.2M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I vote ABSTAIN on this Treasury Withdrawal.
I support the objective of this proposal and agree that improving stablecoin liquidity is important for Cardano’s long-term DeFi growth. The team has made a serious effort to design a legally compliant and accountable structure.
However, I remain undecided about whether establishing a new off-chain legal entity at this stage is the most appropriate first step. The proposal raises open questions around sequencing, long-term cost commitments, and whether sufficiently robust on-chain or existing-entity alternatives have been fully explored.
I am also cautious about approving an initial withdrawal that may create path dependency for subsequent withdrawals without full visibility into the complete execution plan.
Given these unresolved considerations, I am neither comfortable voting YES nor prepared to vote NO. I will continue to follow the discussion and reassess my position as more clarity emerges.
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
It's not clear all the basic fundamentals as to why we need this as an ecosystem. You outline how you will obtain funding but you don't describe the products we are funding and why we need it. Development of what type of smart contracts and for what? Seems expensive and unclear.
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳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. 
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I've a lot of caution and skepticism towards this proposal, which makes sense since I voted against the original Info Action that kicked this off.
From a strategic business perspective, the proposal represents a jarring pivot from decentralized efficiency to expensive, legacy legal structuring. While I understand the intent to create a "legal personality" for liability protection and off-chain contracting, the price tag for this administrative wrapper is exorbitant relative to the value proposition of a decentralized protocol. We are being asked to allocate nearly $166k (at the stated conversion) merely to pay a law firm to file paperwork and retain professional directors? This is not innovation; this is overhead. In the corporate world, we establish foreign entities when the revenue projections justify the OpEx. Here, we are burning half a million ADA on setup costs before a single unit of liquidity has actually served the ecosystem.
Furthermore, the reliance on a Cayman Islands Foundation Company introduces a centralization vector that I find strategically unsound for a blockchain ecosystem. By concentrating authority in a 5-of-9 multisig committee overseen by Cayman-based directors, we are re-creating the very intermediaries we sought to disrupt. Spending 400k ADA on legal fees and "transaction document review" to facilitate a liquidity program that could likely be managed via trustless smart contracts or more lightweight DAO structures is, in my professional assessment, an unreasonable use of finite treasury resources.
**I am deeply uncomfortable with the precedent of using the Treasury to fund high-end legal retainers **that insulate a select committee rather than funding code that secures the network. **If we continue to treat the Treasury as a bottomless expense account for administrative heavy lifting, we will deplete our reserves long before we achieve the mass adoption outlined in the Cardano 2030 vision. **
- Yes969.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes966.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes951.2K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES. The questions I previously raised during the GA regarding transparency and clarity around the entities responsible for managing the funds have been adequately addressed.
- NoRevoted927.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
No7mo agoSuperseded
- No920.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes888K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes870.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes866.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes829.9K ₳Rationale
In line to our support of the budget info action we support this first withdrawal.
- Yes796.1K ₳Rationale
Voting YES consistent with the prior Info Action. While I can see opposing viewpoints, and even support them, in terms of exactly 'how' this is accomplished, I don't want to miss the broader point or need which needs to be addressed.... liquidity and stablecoin facilitation.
- Yes792.3K ₳Rationale
Voting yes on this one, although the price of ADA at the moment is well below where we thought it would be. Taking it and deploying now could be detrimental to the provisiong but the team knows this. There is more to the process than just deploying to protocols. Please use the funds wisely at this point in time.
- No678.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- No604.7K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no because this proposal asks DReps to approve 500,000 ADA, roughly less $150,000 USD, to establish a Cayman Islands Foundation Company and legal infrastructure that represents a jarring pivot from decentralized, trust-minimized design toward CeFi-style execution with permanent administrative overhead. This is the wrong architecture, the wrong sequencing, and an unreasonable use of finite treasury resources when DeFi-native alternatives haven't been exhausted.
The cost breakdown reveals the problem: 400,000 ADA for legal structuring alone allocated to Cayman-based professional directors, registered office, supervisor services, regulatory filings, and transaction document reviews. We're paying a law firm to file paperwork and retain directors before a single unit of liquidity has actually served the ecosystem. This isn't innovation; this is overhead. In corporate finance, you establish foreign entities when revenue projections justify the operational expense. Here, we're burning half a million ADA on setup costs to create a centralized entity and this simply recreates the intermediaries we sought to disrupt.
I'm not opposed to the goal, Cardano desperately needs deeper stablecoin liquidity. My opposition is to the chosen path. If we're building DeFi, we should exhaust on-chain solutions first and invest treasury funds into code, protocols, and governance mechanisms, not import legacy legal layers as the starting point. Legal entities are necessary when interfacing with OTC desks, fiat rails, or direct stablecoin issuer minting, but it hasn't been convincingly demonstrated that this institutional path is cheaper or more efficient than trust-minimized, on-chain approaches once all costs are considered. When you add the fixed legal overhead of 400,000 ADA to OTC spreads, operational friction, and ongoing compliance, the institutional route may actually be more expensive than a phased DEX and bridge-based execution.
We already have a "pentad" of founding entities in the Cardano ecosystem, the Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, IOG, Intersect, and Midnight Network that are legal persons capable of holding assets and entering contracts. The Cardano Foundation has publicly indicated plans to use Genesis ADA to mint stablecoins. Have all existing options been explored? Have these entities explicitly declined participation? My impression is they don't wish to bear legal and operational risk for this program, which is understandable, but that alone doesn't justify establishing a new, treasury-funded legal structure without exhausting cooperation with existing entities. If a new legal entity must be established, it should be designed as a reusable, shared resource for future initiatives, not a single-purpose structure created solely for this proposal.
The proposal also lacks clarity on the legal entity's lifetime. Only Year 1 costs are budgeted (registered office, supervisor services, director fees), but there's no sunset clause, dissolution condition, or estimate of operating expenses for Years 2 and beyond. In practice, this means approving not just a one-time expense but the creation of a recurring cost center with no defined end. That makes it impossible to assess the true long-term commitment being made on behalf of the treasury.
I cannot responsibly approve this withdrawal in isolation without visibility into the full set of planned withdrawals. The entire project should be evaluated coherently, not piecemeal.
Finally, the fiscal reality this proposal assumes $0.40/ADA for cost conversion. At current prices around < $0.29, this withdrawal is significantly underfunded upon execution. I cannot justify this treasury spend when upcoming budgets demand fiscal responsibility and ADA price volatility makes cost projections unreliable.
Free markets identify product-market fit better than centralized decision-by-committee. DReps should not abdicate the power of the purse to a Cayman-based foundation with professional directors picking winners and losers in Cardano DeFi. There are viable paths to bootstrap USDM or USDA liquidity using DeFi-native mechanisms, like DEXs, bridges, phased deployment all without exposing individuals to off-chain liability or creating permanent administrative overhead. I encourage the team to explore an on-chain-first design, clarify the lifetime and cost of any legal entity, and present the full set of withdrawals together for coherent evaluation. - Yes591.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes579.1K ₳Rationale
📌 Voting is live for Cardano's first-ever Treasury-backed DeFi fund — and I'm voting YES as a DRep
🗳 What’s on the ballot:
A proposal to withdraw ₳500,000 ADA from the Cardano Treasury to launch a decentralized DeFi Liquidity Fund — managed by a DAO, controlled by dReps, backed by a legally registered Cayman Foundation, and secured by audited smart contracts + multisig (5-of-9).
💼 Why it matters:
- Legal foundation for DAO-based DeFi operations
- Amaru smart contract setup for fund management
- DAO becomes economically active — the treasury will finally work for the ecosystem
- Full transparency, on-chain control, real governance by the community
🧠 Why I’m voting YES:
✅ It gives real power and responsibility to dReps
✅ Treasury funds are activated, not idle
✅ DAO becomes legally capable of partnering with institutions
✅ Audits, on-chain tracking, and public accountability built-in
✅ Sets the precedent for future ecosystem-level decentralized funds
📊 Being a DRep now means:
- We don’t just vote on ideas — we control real capital
- We oversee how DAO entities operate
- We become the political backbone of Cardano governance
🔥 I voted YES — and I encourage other DReps to support this milestone for decentralized economic infrastructure.
🖤 My DRep ID:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj3...2fg2jr
More: https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
🚀 COURSE: “LEDGER COLD WALLET” | METAMASK
https://edgarbagdasarian.justclick.ru/order/LEDGERMETAMASK
🔥 VIP PRIVATE CHAT (PAID ACCESS)
https://t.me/MREDGARCROSS_BOT
🌐 ALL COURSES & LINKS
https://mredgarcross.com/#Cardano #DRep #Governance #ADA #DAO #DeFi #Treasury #Amaru #Crypto #мыслЯотэдгара #VoteYes #OnChainGovernance #Web3Politics
- No573.2K ₳Rationale
Rationale ID: RID24920185fi39ik2039fdhe4t2asdc
Generated At: 2026-02-05T03:55:00+03:30
Generated By: govcircle.spaceAction Information
Action Title: Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget - Withdrawal 1
Action ID: gov_action1fvgw27fjpr9c7g582mszzyez0jgkqgjgatzdnyngrg8wwc9kcn3qrgch3vFollow DRep's Rationale: CardanoYoda
Vote: NO
- Yes568K ₳Rationale
Yes to withdrawl DeFI liquidity budget
- Abstain564.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes503.6K ₳Rationale
This proposal requests 500,000 ADA to set up the legal structure, contracts, and audit for the DeFi Liquidity program on Cardano. It’s not the full 50 million ADA budget. That sequencing makes sense to me. Build the rails first, then run the train. It wasn't easy but I vote yes.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I’ll be honest. I previously voted NO on this whole liquidity idea.
At the time, it felt big, complicated, and easy to mess up. Plus the committee members had conflicts of interest...they still do anyway. Treasury money deserves skepticism. Blind trust is how communities lose funds.
But looking at this specific withdrawal, the approach is measured and responsible. Small amount first. Clear scope. Multisig control. Audits. Milestones. That’s how adults handle money. I am genuinely impressed.
And there’s something else.
If we keep saying no to every attempt the community makes to manage its own capital, then we’re basically asking the founding entities to keep doing everything for us. Mom and dad forever. And that’s dependency.
At some point we either step up and take responsibility, or we admit we can’t run our own house. So I’d rather trust the people doing the work, and let the community try. Maybe this is one of those moments where we prove we can actually take care of ourselves. Maybe we should have a little faith and back it with accountability. I am voting yes on this. - YesRevoted466.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded
- Yes435.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes435.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes379.3K ₳No rationale
- No366.6K ₳No rationale
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
I voted "no" on the info action, so naturally I will vote "no" for the withdrawal action. Refer to my info action vote rationale for more information.
- No338.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- No327.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting 'yes' in accordance with my previous vote on the related Info Action.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting 'yes' in accordance with my previous vote on the related Info Action.
- Abstain313.8K ₳Rationale
I vote to ABSTAIN on the Treasury Withdrawal proposal for “Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget Withdrawal 1” due to constitutional non-compliance following the enactment of the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution v2.4.
Article II, Section 6(1) now requires that governance actions include a URL to immutable supporting documentation, with content that is identical to the on-chain submission. While supporting materials are provided using GitHub permalinks, the primary rationale metadata is linked via a standard GitHub URL, which does not meet the new constitutional requirement for immutability.
This represents a material change from previous practice, where immutable metadata was encouraged but not mandatory. As submitted, the proposal does not fully align with the newly enacted constitutional standards and would require resubmission to be compliant. My vote reflects this ongoing risk where proposals rely on constitutional references without proper coordination after constitutional changes have taken effect rather than a position on the substance of the proposal itself. - Abstain301.3K ₳No rationale
- No297K ₳Rationale
Now is not a good time for this.
- Yes291.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes285.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes275.2K ₳Rationale
Withdrawal 1 (500k ADA) smartly operationalizes the approved DeFi Liquidity Budget Info Action by funding only foundational infrastructure—legal FC via Walkers, Amaru multisig via Sundae, and Invariant0 audit—before any liquidity deploy.
This addresses prior concerns: modular scale (0.15% treasury vs. 15%), detailed breakdowns/timelines (Phase 1–2, $166k legal), on‑chain enforcement (5/9 multisig, auto‑abstain), and constitutional compliance (Articles III–V, Guardrails). Providers are credible; milestones gate disbursements.
Approve to unlock safe testing of the full 50M framework—future tranches can be rejected if admin underperforms. - Yes272.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain268.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes236.8K ₳No rationale
- No201.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.9K ₳Rationale
I do see the hindrance that lack of stablecoin liquidity within the Cardano ecosystem is having on out Defi protocols and onboarding of participants. This is a sensible step to improving the situation and having followed Amaru's progress and engaged members in conversation I am voting yes.
- Yes189.8K ₳No rationale