Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
185 DReps voted · 82 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote · 5 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, 6 to no, 3 to abstain, together voting with 159.1M ₳ of voting power.
- No8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA recognises the strategic value of a flagship Cardano Summit and agrees that Singapore, particularly in proximity to TOKEN2049, presents a strong opportunity for institutional visibility, ecosystem growth, and builder engagement. We also acknowledge the inclusion of smart-contract administration, milestone-based disbursement, audit provisions, and public reporting mechanisms within this proposal.
However, at the time of voting, a revised and decoupled proposal submitted by the Cardano Foundation has been introduced. This updated proposal separates the Cardano Summit from the TOKEN2049 sponsorship and significantly reduces the overall budget following community feedback.
Given this development, RCADA does not consider the current combined proposal—requesting 14,076,539 ada for both the Summit and TOKEN2049 sponsorship—to remain an appropriate or necessary vehicle for Treasury funding.
The original proposal bundles two distinct activities into a single governance action, limiting DReps’ ability to assess each component independently. It also represents a materially higher treasury outlay, includes large upfront disbursements, and is submitted outside the standard budget process.
The existence of a revised, more focused, and lower-cost alternative demonstrates that a better-structured approach is both possible and already underway. For these reasons, RCADA chooses not to support this earlier combined proposal.
This vote should not be interpreted as opposition to the Cardano Summit or broader ecosystem marketing efforts. RCADA remains open to assessing the revised standalone Summit proposal on its own merits.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here: "https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/
- No8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.7M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I appreciate that both CF and EMURGO are offering their services. The strategic dual-event concept is coherent. I also appreciate that both founding entities have voted YES on a number of important matters for the ecosystem, including support for node diversity and several critical projects. More broadly, both entities seem more agile than a few years ago, and EMURGO appears to have renewed its focus on Cardano.
That said, I am voting NO.
My objection is not that events have no value, but that this is not a compelling treasury use of funds in 2026 at this scale. Decentralization in Cardano is happening in front of our eyes, with many small teams taking initiative and building real resilience.
If it comes down to the Treasury, I am comfortable with not holding a Cardano Summit in 2026 and not sponsoring TOKEN2049 this year from the Treasury. For me, such large spending is hard to justify to ADA holders at this moment in time.
The proposal relies heavily on marketing and visibility KPIs - more than hard adoption outcomes. The requested scale is substantial: $2.5 million for the Summit and $1.16 million for TOKEN2049.
I also think treasury-funded marketing and outreach should not automatically default to founding-entity-led execution. If Cardano funds marketing from the treasury, I would rather see a more decentralized, experimental, and non-institutional approach in 2026. The founding entities, like any large institutions, have their own blind spots, internal narratives, and echo chambers, and treasury financing risks amplifying them.
At the same time, as major players in the ecosystem, CF and EMURGO are of course free to participate in TOKEN2049 with their own resources and continue promoting their work there. The question is whether the Treasury should finance this presence at this scale.
I am also concerned by the cost. In the current proposal, the 2026 Summit withdrawal request is $2.5 million. From what I saw the CF previously indicated that the 2025 Summit budget was about $1.4 million and that the 2026 Summit budget would be about $1.2 million. Based in this, I see a large discrepancy with the new proposal. This is not a reduction but a very large increase.
Separately from the merits of this specific proposal, I have a standing platform commitment to vote NO on EMURGO-related treasury withdrawals until March 15, 2027. That commitment is tied to unresolved concerns around the Yoroi wallet governance UI issue and the accumulation of DRep power through that soft nudging of wallet users. I acknowledge the announced effort by EMURGO and Yoroi to address this, but it has taken too long. The first Voltaire vote took place back in September 2024. As a result, I will use a sufficiently long period to assess whether this issue has been remedied properly. - No7.3M ₳No rationale
- No6.8M ₳No rationale
- No6.7M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged5.7M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes4mo agoSuperseded
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.5M ₳Rationale
Both the Cardano Summit and our presence at Token2049 are important and strategically well-placed, especially with the Summit being held in Singapore.
However, given the significant amount of treasury funds involved (and particularly since the Summit allocation is double last year’s projection) I do not understand why these are bundled into a single governance action rather than presented separately. This proposal comes at a sensitive time when the community is exercising heightened scrutiny over treasury spending, amid ongoing mistrust toward the founding entities regarding multiple DRep accounts and the use of genesis ADA as voting power. I would like to see both events take place, but the current timing for committing treasury funds to support them is not ideal. - Abstain5.5M ₳Rationale
I’ve decided to abstain as I have mixed feelings. While the event offers great networking opportunities, I believe our budget might be better utilized elsewhere given the current bear market. Have you considered moving to a biennial summit instead?
- Yes5.2M ₳No rationale
- No5.2M ₳Rationale
We are not rejecting this idea because it is bad. Positioning Cardano alongside TOKEN2049 is strategically sound and can expand visibility beyond the existing ecosystem.
Our concern is about measurable outcomes. For a proposal requesting significant treasury funding, it is critical to show what concrete value returns to the ecosystem.
Metrics like reach, sentiment, or media mentions do not directly translate into growth. What matters more are outcomes such as partnerships, integrations, investor engagement, or real opportunities for projects. These are not clearly defined in the proposal.
Even the stronger KPIs still lack clarity. There is no clear definition of what counts as a qualified lead or collaboration, who verifies them, and what happens after the event. Without this, the measurement framework is too weak.
A strong presence at a major event does not automatically create value. Visibility alone is not enough to justify treasury spending without clear, trackable results.
We support Cardano being present on global stages. But treasury usage must be measurable and accountable. In its current form, this proposal does not provide enough clarity on impact to justify the funding.
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- No4.9M ₳Rationale
I support the events, but not the budget for them.
Compared to the value of putting this into defi, infrastructure or targeted user acquisition, the sticker price is too high
- No4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- No4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança “Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore” (gov_action1hkg...t5459v), pois, embora reconheçamos a importância do Cardano Summit e da presença no TOKEN2049 Singapore para fortalecer a visibilidade e o posicionamento institucional do ecossistema, consideramos o custo total da proposta excessivamente elevado para o atual momento da Cardano. A solicitação de mais de 14 milhões de ADA do Tesouro para iniciativas relacionadas a apenas dois eventos e marketing nos parece desproporcional diante de necessidades mais urgentes do ecossistema, como desenvolvimento técnico, fortalecimento de liquidez, suporte a builders e crescimento sustentável da rede. Além disso, muitos dos resultados esperados são de difícil mensuração objetiva, sem garantias concretas de retorno proporcional ao investimento solicitado. Entendemos que iniciativas desse porte deveriam buscar maior participação de patrocinadores privados e parceiros institucionais, reduzindo a dependência direta dos recursos do Tesouro comunitário. Sugerimos, ainda, o desmembramento da proposta em duas ações separadas, uma para cada evento, bem como uma revisão do orçamento solicitado, permitindo uma análise mais precisa sobre custo-benefício, impacto esperado e prioridades estratégicas da comunidade.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action “Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore” (gov_action1hkg...t5459v), because although we recognize the importance of the Cardano Summit and Cardano’s presence at TOKEN2049 Singapore in strengthening ecosystem visibility and institutional positioning, we consider the total cost of the proposal excessively high for Cardano’s current stage. Requesting more than 14 million ADA from the Treasury for just two events and marketing-related initiatives appears disproportionate when compared to more urgent ecosystem priorities, such as technical development, liquidity strengthening, builder support, and sustainable network growth. Furthermore, many of the proposed outcomes are difficult to measure objectively, with no concrete guarantees of returns proportional to the requested investment. We believe initiatives of this scale should seek greater participation from private sponsors and institutional partners, reducing direct dependence on community Treasury resources. We also suggest splitting the proposal into two separate governance actions, one for each event, as well as revising the requested budget to allow for a more precise evaluation of cost-effectiveness, expected impact, and alignment with the community’s strategic priorities. - No4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4M ₳Rationale
I cannot support allocating this amount of ADA to fund attendance at Token2049 and the Cardano Summit 2026 under the current proposal structure.
Core Thesis
This proposal fails on three critical dimensions:
1. Misdiagnosis of Cardano’s current bottleneck
2. Lack of defined deliverables tied to measurable outcomes
3. Failure to justify incremental funding given prior capital allocations to the same entitiesAs a result, the expected return on treasury capital is low and poorly specified.
⸻
- Misdiagnosis of the Problem
The proposal implicitly assumes that Cardano’s constraint is insufficient awareness within the crypto-native community.
This is incorrect.
• Attendees of Token2049 are, by definition, highly engaged crypto participants.
• Discovery of chains, protocols, and opportunities within this cohort is already efficient and digital-first.
• Incremental awareness generated through physical presence at such events is therefore marginal.If the objective is ecosystem growth, the constraint is more likely:
• Product-market fit of applications
• Developer activity and tooling maturity
• Institutional-grade use cases
• Liquidity and user adoption dynamicsNone of these are meaningfully advanced by generic conference presence.
⸻
- Audience–Channel Mismatch
If the goal is to reach non-crypto-native decision-makers (tradfi, enterprise, real-world asset originators), then Token2049 is structurally the wrong venue.
• These actors do not primarily allocate time to crypto conferences.
• Their engagement occurs through:
• Industry-specific conferences
• Direct business development
• Targeted partnershipsTherefore:
If the target audience is crypto-native → marginal impact
If the target audience is non-crypto-native → wrong channelEither way, the channel selection is weakly justified.
⸻
- Absence of Deliverables (“Show vs. Substance”)
Effective conference participation requires a clear “show-and-tell payload”:
• Major protocol upgrades
• Product launches
• High-profile partnerships
• Demonstrable traction metricsThe proposal does not specify:
• What will be announced
• Which ecosystem projects will be showcased
• What narrative will be delivered to the market
• What success metrics will be tracked post-eventInstead, it emphasizes attendance and presence, which is not a sufficient basis for capital allocation.
The critical question remains unanswered:
Why now?
Without a defined message or milestone, timing appears arbitrary, particularly in a weak market environment where capital efficiency should be prioritized.
⸻
- Treasury Allocation Discipline
This proposal must be evaluated in the context of prior resource distribution.
Both Cardano Foundation and Emurgo were originally funded with substantial allocations of genesis ADA to support:
• Ecosystem development
• Industry outreach
• Market positioningKey issues:
• There is no clear accounting tying those historical allocations to measurable outcomes in these domains. [Unverified]
• This proposal does not include any co-investment from those existing resources.
• The request is therefore entirely incremental, despite prior capital designated for similar objectives.This creates a governance concern:
Treasury funds are being requested for activities that fall squarely within the original mandate of entities already capitalized to perform them.
Absent transparency and co-investment, this sets a weak precedent for capital discipline.
⸻
- Counterparty Performance and Governance Risk
I cannot support allocating additional ADA to Emurgo under current conditions.
• There is a multi-year track record of under-delivery relative to expectations.
• Reporting transparency on capital deployment and ROI has been limited despite many calls from the community.Additionally:
• Governance influence linked to dark-ux design of Yoroi raises concerns about voting power concentration, user interface-driven bias and morals unaligned with decentralized governance.These issues elevate counterparty risk and reduce confidence in efficient capital deployment.
⸻
Conclusion
This proposal does not meet the threshold required for treasury funding.
To be viable, a revised proposal would need:
1. Explicit deliverables
• Named announcements, projects, or partnerships
2. Defined success metrics
• Measurable post-event outcomes (users, deals, integrations)
3. Audience alignment
• Clear mapping between target stakeholders and event selection
4. Co-investment
• Meaningful financial contribution from CF and/or Emurgo
5. Transparency commitments
• Post-event reporting tied to pre-defined KPIsUntil these conditions are met, approving this allocation would represent poor capital discipline and weak governance standards.
⸻
- No4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.7M ₳No rationale
- No3.6M ₳No rationale
- No3.5M ₳Rationale
The amount is beyond excessive and doesn't reflect the value this could potentially bring to Cardano.
- No3M ₳Rationale
Hell no! After last year's Cardano Summit fiasco where the community was exploited with abusive ticket prices, there is no way I am voting yes for this.
Both the Cardano Foundation and EMURGO should be using genesis ADA to pay for building Cardano, not exploiting the treasury every week or two.
It is not in Cardano's best interest to burn through the treasury on wasteful spending like this during a bear market. Burn some genesis ADA instead if you want to actually support Cardano.
Also, if EMURGO or YOROI votes anything but abstain on this proposal, it is 100% a conflict of interest and we all know it!
- NoChanged2.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged2.7M ₳Rationale
本提案は、Cardanoが「研究チェーン」から「市場チェーン」へ移行する重要な方向性を示しており、その思想には賛同する。しかし現時点では、成果を測定する指標が不十分であり、TVLや開発者数、資本流入といった実体的な成長に結びつく設計が欠けている。また、提案者と受益者が重なる構造や、投資としてのリターン設計も不明確である。したがって本提案は時期尚早と判断し、今回はNOとするが、今後は「支出」ではなく「投資」として機能するTreasury設計への進化を強く期待する。
This proposal points in the right direction, aiming to move Cardano from a “research chain” to a “market chain,” and I agree with that vision. However, the current design lacks clear metrics to measure real impact, such as TVL, developer growth, and capital inflows. In addition, the overlap between proposers and beneficiaries and the absence of a clear return structure raise concerns. Therefore, I vote NO at this stage, while expecting future treasury use to evolve from simple spending toward an investment model with measurable outcomes.
Earlier votes
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
本提案は、Cardanoが「研究チェーン」から「市場チェーン」へ移行できるかを問う重要な一歩であり、その方向性には賛成するためYESとする。ただし、来場者数や露出といったマーケ指標に偏っており、成果測定が不十分である。今後はTVLや開発者数、実際の資本流入などオンチェーン指標と連動させ、「支出」ではなく「投資」として評価できる構造への進化を求める。
This proposal represents an important step in determining whether Cardano can transition from a “research chain” to a “market chain.” I support this direction and vote YES.
However, the current KPIs are too focused on marketing metrics such as attendance and visibility, which are insufficient to measure real ecosystem growth. Future evaluations should include on-chain metrics such as TVL, developer activity, and actual capital inflows.
Cardano’s treasury should evolve from simple spending toward an investment model with measurable outcomes. - No2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
I would prefer these two get separated so I can vote individually.
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳Rationale
- No2.2M ₳Rationale
No, not again. You have had a whole year to figure out how to pay for this.
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on the original Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore treasury withdrawal. I support Cardano having a strong global presence, and I am not opposed to a Cardano Summit or a targeted TOKEN2049 strategy in principle. However, this proposal bundles two materially different spending decisions into one vote, requests a very large treasury allocation, and does not provide a sufficiently convincing ROI case for the scale of spend. The subsequent community pushback and the move toward revised standalone Summit and TOKEN2049 proposals confirms that the original structure was not the right approach. Treasury funds should be deployed with strong discipline, clear voter choice, measurable ecosystem impact, and the highest possible accountability. For those reasons, I believe the original bundled proposal should be rejected and considered only through leaner, separate, better-scoped proposals.
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Summit generates ticket and sponsorship revenue and should be self-sustaining without additional treasury funding. While we support a TOKEN2049 presence as strategically valuable, we would expect CF and EMURGO to co-fund at least 50% of that activation from their own resources — not draw the full cost from the treasury.
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
While I'm disappointed that the CF didn't communicate about the Cardano Summit's funding from the start and refuses to cover a bigger chunk of the cost themselves, I think the positive effect of having a Summit is too important to ignore. I also think organizing the Cardano Summit right before TOKEN2049 in Singapore is a very good idea; I even proposed this in the past myself. Having a strong Cardano presence at TOKEN2049 is also important. For all these reasons, I vote, with mild reluctance, YES on this proposal.
If this proposal doesn't get passed, I hope an alternative can be worked out, because we can't NOT be present at TOKEN2049. Maybe a combined Cardano/Midnight Summit on the planned days of the Cardano Summit could be an alternative, as costs can be split.
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on funding Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore. While it is difficult to justify large expenditures during a period of lower market valuation, I believe strategic promotion and visibility are critical to long-term ecosystem growth. High-profile events like these provide important opportunities to attract developers, partners, and capital, and to ensure Cardano remains competitive with other ecosystems that are actively investing in their presence. In this context, continued outreach and brand-building are necessary to support adoption and future demand, even if the timing requires careful consideration of costs.
Earlier votes
Yes5mo agoSuperseded
I am voting Yes on funding Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore. While it is difficult to justify large expenditures during a period of lower market valuation, I believe strategic promotion and visibility are critical to long-term ecosystem growth. High-profile events like these provide important opportunities to attract developers, partners, and capital, and to ensure Cardano remains competitive with other ecosystems that are actively investing in their presence. In this context, continued outreach and brand-building are necessary to support adoption and future demand, even if the timing requires careful consideration of costs.