Withdraw 1,684,050 ada for Tx3 by TxPipe: Open API Layer for Cardano's dApp P...
119 DReps voted · 36 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
I will support all TxPipe proposals that have emerged from Intersect’s Ekklisia process. Although I do not have the technical expertise to fully evaluate the costs of these initiatives, I recognize the importance of the work and TxPipe’s strong track record in the Cardano ecosystem.
I also trust the judgment of my fellow DReps who participated in the Ekklisia process and brought these proposals forward.
Therefore, I will support them. - Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
I see this as a administrative vote which is to process a withdrawal that DRep's have previously approved. I do not believe in throwing monkey-wrenches into approved and planned for processes, and thus I vote yes so as not to obstruct progress and momentum, and to not undermine previous decisions.
- Yes3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに賛成します。
Tx3は、CardanoのdApp protocolを開発者・wallet・aggregator・AI agentが共通のinterfaceで発見・統合・実行できるようにする重要なDevX公共インフラです。CardanoのUTxO/eUTxO型dAppは堅牢である一方、protocolごとのtransaction pattern理解が必要で、統合コストが高いという課題があります。Tx3は、共通API・SDK・Protocol Registryを通じて、Cardano dAppの統合と再利用を容易にします。
また、TxPipeはPallas、Dolos、UTxO RPCなどで実績があり、既にTx3 developer layerと複数protocol onboardingの実績がある点も評価します。追加12 protocol onboarding、MCP server、agent skills frameworkは、CardanoをAI agent時代に対応したprotocol ecosystemへ近づける可能性があります。
資金管理面でも、Intersect管理のSmart Contract Disbursement、milestone-based controls、oversight、dashboard透明性が含まれており、Treasury資金を検証可能に管理する設計として妥当です。
I support this Treasury Withdrawal.
Tx3 is an important DevX public infrastructure that allows Cardano dApp protocols to be discovered, integrated, and executed through a common interface by developers, wallets, aggregators, and AI agents. While Cardano’s UTxO/eUTxO-based dApps are robust, each protocol requires specific understanding of transaction patterns, which raises integration costs. Tx3 helps reduce this friction through common APIs, SDKs, and a Protocol Registry.
I also value TxPipe’s proven track record with Pallas, Dolos, UTxO RPC, and other Cardano infrastructure, as well as the existing Tx3 developer layer and multiple protocol onboardings. The additional 12 protocol onboardings, MCP server, and agent skills framework can help move Cardano toward a protocol ecosystem ready for the AI agent era.
From a funding-management perspective, I also appreciate the inclusion of Intersect-managed Smart Contract Disbursement, milestone-based controls, oversight, and dashboard transparency. This is a reasonable structure for managing Treasury funds in a verifiable way.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
Although this treasury withdrawal action is only a partial excerpt of the original proposal from the Intersect budget process and remains underdefined here, I consider this to be useful work:
Standardizing transaction construction accross Cardano applications as open-source infrastructure. - Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the TxPipe Tx3 proposal.
I have considered this proposal carefully because, unlike the lower-level TxPipe maintenance proposals I have already supported, Tx3 sits higher in the developer stack. It is not simply core library maintenance. It is an open API/interface layer intended to make Cardano dApp protocols easier to describe, integrate with, and consume.
However, I believe this proposal still fits within my broader “fund the rails before the growth bets” approach.
Tx3 aims to help protocol authors define reusable interfaces for UTxO-based dApp interactions, allowing wallets, applications, SDKs, agents and other tools to generate typed clients and build transactions against those protocols more reliably. This can reduce integration friction, improve developer experience, and make Cardano applications easier to compose and connect.
Cardano’s UTxO model is powerful, but dApp interaction remains harder to standardise than in account-based ecosystems. A common interface layer for protocol interactions could become valuable infrastructure if adopted widely and kept open.
I also view this proposal differently from large commercial growth, liquidity, or treasury-capital deployment proposals. The ask is 1,684,050 ADA, which is material but comparatively modest relative to many live treasury requests. It is Cardano-native, developer-facing, open-source oriented, and linked to a credible technical team with a strong delivery history across the ecosystem.
In the current NCL environment, I remain cautious on broad growth asks, private commercial subsidies, and large DeFi or treasury-investment programmes. But I am willing to support focused proposals that strengthen the technical rails builders use to create applications on Cardano.
My support is not unconditional. I would expect clear reporting on protocol onboarding, SDK generation, adoption by external teams, documentation quality, open-source delivery, and evidence that Tx3 becomes an ecosystem tool rather than a narrow TxPipe-specific layer.
On balance, I believe this proposal is a proportionate investment in Cardano developer infrastructure and dApp composability.
For these reasons, I vote YES.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes988.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes924.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes870.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes862K ₳No rationale
- Yes830.3K ₳Rationale
We support Intersect's budget process. This proposal is part of it.
- Yes799.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes795K ₳No rationale
- Yes620K ₳No rationale
- Yes608.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes590K ₳Rationale
Supporting withdrawal
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes535.2K ₳Rationale
Absolutely
- Yes480.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes444.7K ₳No rationale
- No377.7K ₳Rationale
TxPipe is among the companies that in my opinion have extracted more than enough profits from the Cardano ecosystem and shouldn't be funded anymore.
Power to the edges!
- No365.9K ₳No rationale
- No360.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.6K ₳No rationale
- No309.6K ₳Rationale
Review Methodology Disclaimer [EN]
Due not only to the unusually high volume of Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions and budget proposals submitted in mid 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.
Governance Action Report
The note below limits the rejection to budgetary concerns. The proposal requests 1,684,050 ADA, including USD 315,000 for a “development team” and USD 12,000 for cloud infrastructure, without adequately detailing the composition of these costs.
My vote on this proposal is NO due to the insufficient granularity of the budget.
There is no opposition to TxPipe as a team, nor is there a negative conclusion regarding the technical merits or potential usefulness of Tx3. TxPipe has a strong reputation within the Cardano ecosystem and a relevant track record in the development of open-source tools. The decisive issue lies exclusively in the inability to adequately assess the cost-effectiveness of the request.
The proposal allocates USD 315,000 to a “development team” over 12 months. However, it does not disclose how many professionals comprise this team, what their roles and seniority levels will be, their rates, working hours, or percentages of dedication. It also does not provide the total number of FTEs or the allocation of human resources among the different planned activities, such as protocol integration, SDK generation, plugin development, agent infrastructure, operation of public services, and documentation.
The deliverables are described in relatively detailed terms, but this does not explain how the USD 315,000 cost was calculated. Without knowing the composition and the amount of capacity actually being contracted, it is not possible to determine whether the budget is proportionate to the volume and complexity of the work. There is insufficient information to conclude that the amount is excessive, but there is also insufficient information to determine that it represents an efficient use of Treasury resources.
The exchange-rate contingency and the commitment to return excess funds are positive elements, but they do not resolve the lack of detail regarding the main costs. A sound contingency mechanism protects the project’s USD-denominated value, but it does not demonstrate that the amounts originally established for labor and infrastructure are adequately justified.
A Treasury Withdrawal should allow dReps to understand not only what will be delivered, but also which resources will be used, how much they cost, and how the budget was calculated. Since this fundamental information is not available, the cost-benefit relationship remains excessively subjective.
For this reason, my vote is NO.
Nota sobre metodologia e escopo de análise [PT]
Devido não apenas ao volume excepcionalmente alto de Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions e propostas orçamentárias submetidas no meio 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.
Relatório de Ação de Governança
A nota abaixo limita a recusa ao orçamento. A proposta solicita 1.684.050 ADA, incluindo US$ 315.000 para uma “development team” e US$ 12.000 para infraestrutura cloud, sem detalhar adequadamente a composição desses custos.
Meu voto nesta proposta é NÃO devido à insuficiente granularidade do orçamento.
Não há oposição à TxPipe enquanto equipe, nem uma conclusão negativa sobre o mérito técnico ou a possível utilidade de Tx3. A TxPipe possui uma reputação sólida no ecossistema Cardano e um histórico relevante no desenvolvimento de ferramentas open-source. A questão decisiva está exclusivamente na impossibilidade de avaliar adequadamente o custo-benefício da solicitação.
A proposta destina US$ 315.000 a uma “development team” durante 12 meses. No entanto, não informa quantos profissionais compõem essa equipe, quais serão suas funções, senioridades, taxas, cargas horárias ou percentuais de dedicação. Também não apresenta o total de FTEs nem a distribuição dos recursos humanos entre as diferentes atividades previstas, como integração de protocolos, geração de SDKs, desenvolvimento de plugins, infraestrutura para agentes, operação dos serviços públicos e documentação.
A descrição dos entregáveis é relativamente detalhada, mas isso não explica como o custo de US$ 315.000 foi calculado. Sem conhecer a composição e a capacidade efetivamente contratada, não é possível determinar se o orçamento é proporcional ao volume e à complexidade do trabalho. Não existem informações suficientes para afirmar que o valor seja excessivo, mas também não existem elementos suficientes para concluir que ele representa uma utilização eficiente dos recursos do Tesouro.
A reserva cambial e o compromisso de devolução dos recursos excedentes são aspectos positivos, mas não resolvem a ausência de detalhamento dos custos principais. Uma boa mecânica de contingência protege o valor em dólares do projeto, porém não demonstra que o valor originalmente definido para trabalho e infraestrutura esteja adequadamente justificado.
Uma retirada do Tesouro deve permitir que os dReps compreendam não apenas o que será entregue, mas também quais recursos serão utilizados, quanto custam e como o orçamento foi calculado. Como essas informações fundamentais não estão disponíveis, a relação de custo-benefício permanece excessivamente subjetiva.
Por essa razão, meu voto é NÃO.
- Yes299.1K ₳Rationale
Seems like a good idea
- Yes298.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain260.4K ₳Rationale
Non-Critical Infrastructure Spend.
While the AI-agent integration design via MCP is innovative, it represents an ecosystem luxury rather than critical, life-sustaining Layer-1 node infrastructure during major protocol upgrade cycles. - Yes227.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes215.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.2K ₳No rationale