Revised Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore
210 DReps voted · 81 with a rationale · 19 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Abstain2M ₳No rationale
- No2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
We recommend voting YES for this revised version.
First, strategically, holding the Cardano Summit close to and in the same location (Singapore) as TOKEN2049 is an excellent marketing leverage. It allows Cardano to capitalize on the massive traffic from over 25,000 experts, investment funds, and Web3 builders gathered there. This creates a synergistic effect, expanding awareness instead of isolating itself.
Second, in terms of transparency and finances, the "Revised" version clearly demonstrates accountability. By eliminating the overlapping EMURGO funding package and proactively taking on additional internal costs, this proposal shows respect for the Treasury.
While CF could actually self-finance, we believe that sharing Treasury funding for an event that represents the face of the ecosystem (to maintain Tier-1 status) is a worthwhile investment. This new proposal strikes a reasonable balance between expansionist ambitions and financial discipline.
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Summit provides an opportunity for builders within the Cardano ecosystem to meet, collaborate, and share ideas. This is important to foster growth.
I appreciate that the budget has been reduced and the proposal decoupled from the TOKEN2049 one.
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on Revised Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore. I appreciate that the proposal substantially reduces costs and decouples the Summit from the broader TOKEN2049 package, resulting in a more focused and disciplined request. Promoting Cardano remains important for ecosystem growth and visibility, and this revised structure represents a more measured and fiscally responsible approach while still supporting meaningful outreach and engagement.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
I appreciate the CF listening to the community by making this a separate proposal from the TOKEN2049 one, making adjustments, and even slightly increasing their own contribution. That said, I still think the CF should contribute more from their own allocated funds. I would also have liked to see some cooperation with Midnight to do something together and reduce costs.
Even so, I acknowledge the importance of having a Cardano Summit, and I’m still convinced that holding it in Singapore right before TOKEN2049 makes sense, especially this year. The time is now to put Cardano in the spotlight, because we have a lot to make up for.
While I still have reservations about the size of the requested amount and would have preferred a larger CF contribution, I believe the strategic value of holding the Summit in Singapore right before TOKEN2049 outweighs those concerns. I also appreciate the CF addressing the issue raised by one of the CC members regarding Tenet 8 in this revised proposal. For these reasons, I approve this proposal. - Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the Revised Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore proposal because I believe Cardano needs credible visibility, ecosystem coordination, and real-world adoption opportunities alongside its technical development. The revised proposal is materially better than the earlier bundled version, with a lower ask, a clearer scope, and separate consideration of the TOKEN2049 sponsorships. I remain mindful of the Net Change Limit and the need for treasury discipline, so my support should not be read as a blank check for future event funding. In this case, the timing, Singapore location, builder and institutional focus, and improved accountability make the proposal worth supporting. I expect transparent post-event reporting and a continued move toward more sustainable funding for future Summits.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
- NoChanged1.1M ₳Rationale
Yet another very expensive exercise in conference theatre courtesy of the treasury?
To me this looks like a weak strategic bet at a scale that is too expensive relative to what is actually proven. Show me hard evidence that this specific event format is the most efficient path to enterprise conversion! In plain English: I want to see a tightly evidenced adoption machine and not another flagship showcase with evening parties.The budget reduction is noted, but it does not change the key question. A 22% trim is still lipstick on a very large pig if the underlying spend logic remains “we must be there at tier-one level or risk irrelevance.” I do not buy that framing. Cardano does not become institutionally credible because it rents expensive square meters in Singapore. It becomes credible by shipping integrations, onboarding usage, deepening liquidity, improving developer leverage, and funding repeatable adoption infrastructure. The summit may amplify those things; it is not a substitute for them!
The treasury must not bankroll premium event optics when the causal link between conference spend and durable ecosystem adoption is as soft as here. Cardano needs leverage, not pageantry.
Earlier votes
Yes2mo agoSuperseded
Yet another very expensive exercise in conference theatre courtesy of the treasury?
To me this looks like a weak strategic bet at a scale that is too expensive relative to what is actually proven. Show me hard evidence that this specific event format is the most efficient path to enterprise conversion! In plain English: I want to see a tightly evidenced adoption machine and not another flagship showcase with evening parties.The budget reduction is noted, but it does not change the key question. A 22% trim is still lipstick on a very large pig if the underlying spend logic remains “we must be there at tier-one level or risk irrelevance.” I do not buy that framing. Cardano does not become institutionally credible because it rents expensive square meters in Singapore. It becomes credible by shipping integrations, onboarding usage, deepening liquidity, improving developer leverage, and funding repeatable adoption infrastructure. The summit may amplify those things; it is not a substitute for them!
The treasury must not bankroll premium event optics when the causal link between conference spend and durable ecosystem adoption is as soft as here. Cardano needs leverage, not pageantry.
No2mo agoSuperseded
No2mo agoSuperseded
Yet another very expensive exercise in conference theatre courtesy of the treasury?
To me this looks like a weak strategic bet at a scale that is too expensive relative to what is actually proven. **Show me hard evidence that this specific event format is the most efficient path to enterprise conversion! In plain English: I want to see a tightly evidenced adoption machine and not another flagship showcase with evening parties. **The budget reduction is noted, but it does not change the key question. A 22% trim is still lipstick on a very large pig if the underlying spend logic remains “we must be there at tier-one level or risk irrelevance.” I do not buy that framing. Cardano does not become institutionally credible because it rents expensive square meters in Singapore. It becomes credible by shipping integrations, onboarding usage, deepening liquidity, improving developer leverage, and funding repeatable adoption infrastructure. The summit may amplify those things; it is not a substitute for them!
The treasury must not bankroll premium event optics when the causal link between conference spend and durable ecosystem adoption is as soft as here. Cardano needs leverage, not pageantry. - Yes971.5K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this treasury withdrawal.
The Cardano Summit is one of the most important ecosystem events for bringing together builders, developers, enterprises, institutions, policymakers, and community members around Cardano’s long-term direction. A dedicated Summit creates a focused environment to showcase Cardano’s governance, technical roadmap, ecosystem innovation, and real-world adoption.
We especially support this revised proposal because it strengthens Cardano’s ability to communicate its value beyond isolated community discussions. By creating a professional, globally visible event in Singapore, the Summit can help attract new stakeholders, support ecosystem projects, and provide a platform for meaningful conversations around adoption, enterprise use cases, governance, and future development.
Singapore is also a strategically strong location, given its relevance for finance, regulation, blockchain adoption, and institutional engagement in Asia. The planned focus on governance, builders, enterprise adoption, networking, and ecosystem showcases can help Cardano increase visibility in an important global market.
We also appreciate that this revised proposal reflects community feedback through a reduced budget and stronger accountability measures. Clear fund management, milestone-based disbursements, oversight, public tracking, and the return of unused funds are important elements for responsible treasury usage.
For these reasons, we support this proposal.
- Yes955.7K ₳Rationale
Big Yes, need some marketing !
- No948.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes891.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
Our historical voting record shows that on April 15, 2026, we voted No on the initial Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore treasury proposal. That previous stance was rooted in a strict mandate to scrutinize high-expenditure marketing budgets and protect treasury sustainability.
However, a core principle of adaptive governance is acknowledging positive refinement based on community feedback. The organizers behind this revised proposal have made a demonstrable, significant effort to reduce spending, directly answering the community's fiscal concerns.
While Singapore is geographically distant from Latin America, maintaining a highly visible, unified presence on the global stage is critical to attracting the institutional adoption and liquid capital that ultimately benefits all global builders—including our regional ecosystem. The reduced budget structure ensures a balanced compromise: it achieves vital global connection and visibility without over-burdening the treasury.
Furthermore, we have cross-referenced this optimized withdrawal against the active Net Change Limit (NCL) parameters for this epoch. Because the revised, lowered cost structure fits safely within the net treasury expenditure limits, a YES vote maintains both fiscal integrity and strategic ecosystem alignment.
- No798.6K ₳Rationale
Appreciate the decision to split the events, but voting no for now — would love to see the budget better aligned with ADA's current value and stronger matching contributions from the Cardano Foundation, particularly if attendance isn't subsidized for existing community members.
- Yes798.4K ₳Rationale
YES — but narrowly
Because:
the revised version appears substantially improved,
the strategic rationale is coherent,
the accountability structure is relatively mature,
and ecosystem-level visibility probably does matter at this stage.But I would also expect:
far harsher KPI enforcement in future years,
stricter post-event ROI analysis,
and progressively more sponsor-funded rather than treasury-funded summits.The critical thing is whether this evolves into:
a self-sustaining institutional ecosystem event,
or remains:
a subsidized ecosystem conference.
That distinction matters enormously over a 3–5 year horizon.
- No794.5K ₳Rationale
I don't understand why a genesis FE with given mandate requires a Treasury withdrawal to deliver said mandate. The earnings on that genesis $ADA don't fund anything? How is the CF not able to deliver the most basic of functions in a more sustainable fashion?
- No759K ₳Rationale
Difficult to justify at current price. Let's do it another year.
- Yes731.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
I support this proposal as it combines cost reductions with meaningful adoption and ecosystem growth objectives.
- Yes652.3K ₳Rationale
With cut costs, this is good. Would have liked it lower. But this is presence and there's already a great deal of work that went into this. Hopeful to see the outcome and for next year to have a more sustainable ask.
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
This is a marketing spend with strategic specificity, positional for maximum impact during a bear cycle.
Cardano Foundation Ask: ₳7,800,000 CF internal contribution: $380,000, Public goods core (hackathon + developer workshops + governance sessions): ~$100–200K, or 5–9% of gross budget.A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I'm voting yes on the Revised Cardano Summit 2026 in Singapore, and this vote requires an explanation more than most. Today this is presented as a different animal. Singapore in October 2026 is the only major financial center where tokenization regulatory frameworks, stablecoin licensing, and Project Guardian's 40-plus tier-one institutional participants are in attendance and simultaneously operational, by placing Cardano in front of the institutional audience that matters most at precisely the right moment is absolutely necessary. The TOKEN2049 co-location holds up as a genuine ROI argument, having 25,000 pre-qualified institutional delegates already in the market without the cost of flying them in is legitimate event economics for a flagship event at this scale. This is a marketing spend with strategic specificity, positional for maximum impact during a bear cycle.
CF has delivered four consecutive Summits, the Singapore venue is already secured from 2025 revenue, event planning is already underway, and the 2025 KPI tracking report is publicly visible. that's the commitment and CF has demonstrated they can deliver on what they are asking for. The 22% budget cut, EMURGO decoupling, and CF absorbing $380K in internal resources show genuine responsiveness to community feedback. Day 1 dedicating the full program to ecosystem builders, DReps, governance sessions, the Battle of the Builders hackathon, and masterclasses is substantive public goods content. Promoting ecosystem builders is paramount to the success of the network, coupled with governance education will ensure ecosystem participation increases. The Sundae Labs smart contract framework with a four-entity Oversight Committee requiring 3-of-4 signatures for disbursement, dual audit reports, residual return to treasury, and a public dashboard is exactly the kind of accountability architecture needed for on a non-technical proposal.
There's also a momentum worth acknowledging here. Charles Hoskinson has publicly committed to attend the Cardano Summit in Singapore and “be on stage” ending a 3 year boycott of the seminal event. He's doing exactly what I want founding entities to do: show up with their own capital when the ecosystem needs it, and honoring that momentum matters.
The concerns on the proposal itself remain documented. Milestone 1 releases 80% of the withdrawal on ratification alone with no deliverable gate, and that structure should be tightened in future Summit proposals. The KPI framework mixes meaningful outcome metrics, like 250 enterprise MQLs, 50 strategic meetings within 45 days with soft brand metrics that have no published baselines. CF should establish those before the event opens so post-event reporting has something real to measure against. At ₳7.8M (~$1.95M net at $0.25), with strong accountability infrastructure, a proven delivery team, and a founder willing to pull together on stage alongside each other in a sign of and a commitment to continuity through unity. - No605.7K ₳Rationale
Revised Cardano Summit 2026 Singapore — I’m voting NO.
This proposal asks for 7,800,000 ADA from the Cardano treasury to fund Cardano Summit 2026 in Singapore.
And honestly, I see no real value in spending that kind of money on stages, coffee, flights, hotels, networking, panels, and presentations.
Yes, they call it:
• institutional exposure
• strategic meetings
• ecosystem growth
• enterprise adoption
• global visibilityBut the simple reality is this:
millions of ADA from the treasury are being spent on a short event that will come and go.
Meanwhile, real governance work happens every single day.
In my opinion, it would make far more sense to allocate treasury funds toward supporting DReps for actual governance work.
Because DReps are the ones who:
• review proposals
• analyze budgets
• vote on governance actions
• explain governance to the community
• protect ADA holders’ interests
• actively participate in the future of CardanoA conference lasts two days.
Governance work never stops.
That’s why my vote is — NO.
I registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem. Optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world. 🖤
My DRep ID:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jrMore info:
https://t.me/PROCENT666/338 - Yes590.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
Promoting the opportunity to showcase cardano to put us on the path to #1
- No587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳No rationale
- No499K ₳Rationale
- Yes487.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- No442.9K ₳No rationale
- No414.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
Abstaining, as I’m part of the Cardano Constitution Committee Tingvard.
Reading proposals and staying updated, just like you.
Thanks to all fellow DReps who are also doing the hard work.
Follow and DM me on X: @kenerik if you have any questions. - No383K ₳No rationale