Treasury Withdrawals (4b10e579#0)
187 DReps voted · 72 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- NoRevoted1.3M ₳History
Earlier votes
No5mo agoSuperseded
- NoRevoted1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on “Cardano DeFi Liquidity Budget – Withdrawal 1” because I voted NO on the underlying stablecoin/liquidity budget direction and I remain consistent with that position. While I value audits, reporting, and contract-based controls, this withdrawal mainly builds the legal and operational machinery to enable a much larger treasury deployment that I do not support. The Cardano treasury should prioritize core infrastructure and broadly shared public goods, not subsidizing stablecoin-liquidity strategies that increase centralization and regulatory exposure. Technical safeguards reduce implementation risk but do not resolve the mandate and precedent risk of using public funds for this purpose. For these reasons, I vote NO and encourage a smaller, fully on-chain, utility first pilot if the community wants to test this approach.
Earlier votes
No5mo agoSuperseded
No6mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- 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. **
- Yes964.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes949.1K ₳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.
- No948.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
In line to our support of the budget info action we support this first withdrawal.
- Yes820.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳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.
- No776.8K ₳No rationale
- No763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes759K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- No705.1K ₳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.
- No625.9K ₳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. - Yes605.7K ₳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:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr
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
- Abstain598.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳No rationale
- No587.6K ₳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
- Yes545.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳Rationale
Yes to withdrawl DeFI liquidity budget
- Yes501K ₳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. - Yes467.8K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted466.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes6mo agoSuperseded
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- No365.7K ₳No rationale
- No325.4K ₳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.
- Abstain313.4K ₳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. - Abstain300.6K ₳No rationale
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
Now is not a good time for this.
- Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳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. - No261K ₳Rationale
Governance Action Report
1. Introduction
A Treasury Withdrawal governance action requests 500,000 ADA from the Cardano Treasury to establish the legal framework and smart contract infrastructure required for the Stablecoin DeFi Liquidity Budget. The withdrawal covers three components: (1) formation of a Cayman Islands Foundation Company (FC) as the legal vehicle for fund management, (2) development of an administrating smart contract and user interfaces, and (3) a comprehensive security audit of the smart contract system.
All funds are to be received by an Amaru contract administered by a 9-person Interim Committee with a 5-of-9 multisignature requirement for disbursements. Named service providers include Walkers (Cayman) LLP for legal work, Invariant0 LLC for auditing, and Sundae Labs for Amaru contract setup and support. The proposal includes an ADA-denominated cost breakdown, notes that some values (e.g., director fees) are estimates, and states that monthly reporting and on-chain oversight mechanisms will apply.
2. Governance Action Analysis
Positive aspects
1) “Rails first” structuring (governance and controls before large capital deployment)
Building the legal structure + contract + audit + governance before releasing the bulk of the capital signals operational maturity.
Separating “setup” (500k ADA) from “capital deployment” (49.5M ADA) reduces the risk of “releasing everything” without:
an audited contract,
a legal framework,
selection processes,
oversight mechanisms.From a governance standpoint, this aligns with the idea that the treasury should fund institutional infrastructure when it increases auditability and discipline.
2) Internal coherence and governance design with checks
The original Info Action lays out a relatively complete model:
5-of-9 multisig for executive actions,
a dRep-based tDAO with impeachment, election, and shutdown powers,
the ability to freeze operations and allow only return-to-treasury flows.Having the contract hold LP tokens and assets increases on-chain auditability (at least in theory), because tracking fund state and protocol positions becomes easier.
3) Stablecoin liquidity has a plausible economic rationale
Stablecoin liquidity is often a real bottleneck for:
onboarding,
lower-friction trading,
lower slippage,
greater attractiveness for market makers,
higher DeFi composability.A slippage reduction KPI (e.g., “50% reduction”) connects to practical utility for users and traders and can be interpreted as a collective benefit (not only for a single app).
4) Attempt to avoid a “pure grant” (treasury return narrative)
The design mentions revenue return to the treasury (e.g., 15% of monthly revenue converted and sent; annual return expectations).
This creates a “treasury deployment with return” narrative rather than “treasury donation.”
In theory, this is closer to “capital allocation” than “subsidy with no consideration.”
Negative aspects
1) Constitutional risk and institutional transition risk (nullification)
The Treasury Withdrawal was submitted during a period when a new Constitution was being voted on.
If constitutional changes alter requirements, the action may become invalid or require rewriting.
This is not a legal detail. It is a direct governance risk. If CC members were already voting against it, the probability of being blocked was high early on.
2) “Info Action as authorization” does not hold under the new Constitution
The CC critique is coherent: under the current Constitution, Budget Info Actions are non-binding and therefore cannot “authorize” or “ground” a withdrawal.
If the Withdrawal depends on “approved by Info Action” as its legitimacy base, it starts with a structural defect.
Without a transition/grandfathering clause, the CC tends to evaluate only the current text and require the Withdrawal to be self-contained, without “references as substitutes.”
3) Mutable documentation (GitHub) vs immutability requirement
If supporting documentation points to mutable URLs, this violates an explicit constitutional immutability requirement (as alleged by some CC members).
Even with a “commit hash,” if the primary URL or evidence package is not explicitly immutable, it remains vulnerable to:
later content changes,
ambiguity about which version was “approved.”This compromises integrity and verifiability.
4) Severe institutional problem: KPIs and commitments outside the binding document
A central point: with Info Actions losing normative effect, everything not inside the Treasury Withdrawal does not exist as an enforceable commitment.
If KPIs (slippage, returns, reporting) stayed in the Info Action and were not carried into the Withdrawal:
they cannot be enforced,
continuity cannot be conditioned,
ex post claims that “they promised” cannot be justified.This destroys accountability. What remains is reputational trust, which is the opposite of robust governance.
5) Conceptual issue: “DeFi” label vs centralized execution
The naming is criticized: calling it “DeFi Liquidity Budget” can mislead perception.
Execution is centralized:
committee,
legal structure,
integration with desks/OTC,
administrative decisions.The community may interpret “DeFi” in the strong sense (operational decentralization), but the mechanism looks closer to an administered fund with governance.
This matters because many people vote on headlines, not full reading.
6) Overlap / double funding with already-approved initiatives (PentaD as example)
A medium-weight argument is raised: another large initiative is already approved and funded with the objective of integrations and improvements that tend to impact liquidity and attractiveness.
Even if it is not “the same thing,” there is overlap in outcomes:
stablecoin/integrations may increase liquidity indirectly,
improved on/off-ramp infrastructure and partnerships may change the landscape.If significant capital is already allocated to this “vector,” adding another 50M on the same axis may be inefficient.
7) Structural critique: subsidy for commercial niche and market distortion
This is treated as a high-weight argument:
Treasury funding for open source/public goods makes sense (market failure, low commercial appeal).
Treasury funding for commercial projects should require harder consideration (equity-like, loan, robust revenue share, or another mechanism that internalizes risk).
Subsidizing liquidity may become a band-aid that:
does not solve the structural cause of DeFi weakness in Cardano,
creates dependence on incentives,
repeats market patterns (temporary yield farming, mercenary liquidity).DeFi in Cardano has had enough time (years) and many initiatives have already failed. Before allocating more, there should be:
a diagnosis,
a retrospective,
an evaluation of historical ROI,
an understanding of what went wrong.8) Proposed return is low for high risk (poor risk/return profile)
The annual return KPI (e.g., 4%) looks low relative to:
stablecoin depeg risk,
impermanent loss risk,
oracle / market structure risk,
committee operational risk,
regulatory/jurisdictional risk,
smart contract / bridge / custody / desk risk.A comparison is made implicitly to conservative real-world alternatives where similar returns do not require this degree of operational and crypto-specific risk.
Result: too much risk for too little upside in terms of treasury return.
9) “If it’s so good, VC funds it” argument
A provocative but relevant point is raised:
If the risk/return profile were truly attractive and well-priced, private capital (VC/market makers) could fund it.
This reinforces the “treasury as subsidy” thesis: if the market does not fund it, risk-adjusted return may not be good enough, or the design depends on the treasury as a patient donor.
10) Preference for investment in research and structural solutions
A superior long-term alternative is suggested:
invest a fraction of this amount into research and development of DeFi models suited to eUTXO,
architecture standards, tooling, primitives, design space,
a decentralized and replicable approach.This targets causes rather than symptoms (liquidity) and reduces dependence on recurring capital injections.
11) Budget is still crude and weakly anchored to external references
Notes such as “director fees estimated” and high-level breakdowns are flagged.
Even with auditor-days, the following are missing:
salary references,
benchmarks,
vendor quotes,
robust justification for amounts.For an “administrative/legal” phase, precision should be higher because this is where “governance and control” is being purchased.
Risks and concerns
1) Psychological trade-off: sunk cost trap (even if small vs total)
Even if it is “only” 500k vs 50M (1%), there is still risk of psychological and institutional bias:
“we already spent on structure, so now we must go all the way.”
This effect is treated as minor, but acknowledged as possible. In governance, “minor” effects can become dominant narratives.
2) Real risk of money loss due to non-binding sequence
Because withdrawals are separate and non-binding, a plausible scenario exists:
Withdrawal 1 approved,
structure built,
Withdrawal 2 not approved due to market change, NCL ceiling, budget competition, or political support loss.In that case, 500k becomes sunk cost and fails to achieve the macro objective.
This is not exotic: governance shifts quickly, especially with NCL revisited frequently.
3) Technical and operational risks remain even with “anti-collusion”
Even with reputation and governance mechanisms, risks remain:
collusion (5 signatures can be obtained),
process failures (protocol/desk selection),
conflicts of interest,
human error in management,
political capture of the tDAO,
“soft corruption” via indirect incentives.Mitigation exists, but risk does not go to zero. Capital size amplifies any failure.
Potential impacts
Economic — Allocating 50M ADA now is a large share of the current NCL (without needing exact fractions). In a constrained environment, the evidentiary and return bar should be higher. The annual return KPI (e.g., 4%) looks low relative to the risk bundle (depeg, IL, oracles, operational, regulatory, technical). Subsidizing liquidity may create incentive dependence and repeat mercenary liquidity dynamics. If the market does not fund it, risk-adjusted return may not be strong, or the design depends on the treasury as a patient donor.
Technical — An audited contract is proposed, but technical and operational risks remain: depeg, impermanent loss, oracle/market structure, smart contract/bridge/custody/desk risk, plus process failures and human error.
Governance / political — Constitutional change may invalidate the action or require rewriting. Non-binding Budget Info Actions weaken the “approved by Info Action” base. Commitments outside the binding document reduce enforceability (KPIs, reporting, shutdown). Non-binding sequencing across withdrawals creates sunk-cost risk if the second stage fails. Risk of tDAO political capture and multisig collusion remains.
Reputational — “DeFi Liquidity Budget” may mislead perception while execution is centralized (committee, legal structure, administrative decisions). Many vote on headlines, not full reading.
3. Vote and Rationale
Vote: NO
The core of the negative vote is conceptual and economic, not only constitutional:
rejection of subsidizing a commercial niche in a constrained environment,
high opportunity cost,
low return for high risk,
risk of repeating the pattern of subsidized DeFi initiatives that do not sustain.Additionally, even if the concept were acceptable, the current design fails on formal governance:
dependency on a non-binding Info Action,
absence of binding KPIs inside the Withdrawal,
risk of “phase 1 approved, phase 2 rejected.”What could move toward ABSTAIN or YES (conditional, but unlikely)
Macro change (more bullish market, more treasury slack).
Size reduction (smaller share of NCL).
More convincing and robust return to treasury (better risk/return pricing).
KPIs, metrics, reporting, and shutdown conditions inside the binding document.
Better-defined risk mitigations (depeg, IL, oracles, operational risk).
Explicit coordination with already-approved initiatives, reducing overlap.
A “post-mortem” / evaluation stage of past DeFi investment history before another large allocation.
4. Conclusion
Separating “setup” from “capital deployment” reduces premature release risk, but formal failures and economic risks remain: reliance on a non-binding Info Action, KPIs outside the enforceable document, sunk-cost risk across withdrawals, and a weak risk/return profile for subsidizing a commercial niche in a constrained environment.
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
While I support enhancing Cardano DeFi and stablecoin liquidity long-term, this initial spend on setup (including Cayman legal entity costs) is premature. With the U.S. Clarity Act markup actively underway, debating critical rules on stablecoin yields, DeFi interfaces, and asset certification that could directly impact Cardano's ecosystem, we should conserve treasury funds for targeted regulatory advocacy, legal defenses, or compliance initiatives if/when needed. Let's hold off until regulatory clarity emerges and revisit with stronger safeguards. This is consistent with my previous No vote on the respective budget proposal.
- Yes238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes215.5K ₳Rationale
I’m voting yes on this first withdrawal because it’s about setting things up properly, not spending big money yet. The proposal clearly shows where the funds go — legal structure, smart contracts, and audits — and includes solid oversight and reporting. Having this foundation in place lets the community properly judge any larger liquidity deployment later.
- Yes196.1K ₳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.