Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
185 DReps voted · 81 with a rationale · 15 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.8M ₳No rationale
- No10.4M ₳Rationale
I'm voting NO on this treasury proposal. Not because Summit or TOKEN2049 are bad ideas.
I'm voting No because this proposal asks the ecosystem to fund a premium visibility strategy without giving enough clarity, accountability or direct ecosystem return for the size of the ask
The idea is not the problem.
Co-locating Cardano Summit with TOKEN2049 in Singapore is strategically smart on paper. It can - capture existing traffic bring Cardano outside its echo chamber, create access to media, institutions, exchanges, funds and enterprise.
That part I understand.
But good strategy alone is not enough.
What exact value comes back to the ecosystem? Who benefits? How is success measured? How do we know this wasn't mostly branding spend?
This proposal does not answer those questions well enough.
They are not strong enough primary justifications for spending $3.66M of treasury funds.
Some of the KPIs are especially weak. Examples:
- Digital reach >1B
- 50% increase in positive sentiment
- 50% increase in share of voice
- 700 earned media pieces
- 900 merch distributions
That may sound impressive in a deck but in reality it isn't, examples that could improve KPIs
- enterprise deals progressed
- integrations initiated
- ecosystem projects onboarded into real opportunities
- investor meetings
- follow-up outcomes
The proposal does include some better KPIs like:
-enterprise MQLs- strategic meetings
-collaborations
Need better clarity on them as well.
What counts as a qualified lead? What counts as a collaboration? Who verifies it? What happens 90 days later? Without attribution and follow-up, the KPI system is too soft
Another issue - The proposal still reads too much like: "big event + premium sponsorship = ecosystem value"
That is not automatically true. A large booth, a keynote, signage, merch, press mentions and social impressions do not by themselves justify treasury deployment.
The burden is on the proposers to prove durable, distributed value.
Now let's talk about the expenditure.TOKEN2049 staffing/management. The $699.9k TOKEN2049 title sponsorship is the easiest line item to understand - as it's actually the cost. But it is also the line item that most needs ROI discipline.
The proposal leans on prestige - mainstage, premium booth, media, app visibility, signage, access. But what is the measurable downstream value to Cardano builders and the ecosystem?
That case is not strong enough.
The $200k project management/staffing /delivery for the TOKEN2049 side especially needs more clarity. For 2 day event, this seems a bit overblown.
As an ecosystem builder, I want Cardano in the rooms that matter. I want us at the biggest stages. I want us meeting institutions, enterprises, media and capital.
But I also want treasury proposals to be built in a way that clearly returns value to the people actually building in this ecosystem.
Cardano should absolutely think globally. But treasury spending must be - credible, measurable and fair
These are the reasons why I'm voting NO.
I also hope that Emurgo and YoroiWallet will ABSTAIN from this vote, seeing as they are the proposer. I'd also like this to become a standard in governance, proposer should not be able to vote on their own proposal - No9.6M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted9.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
- No8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案には、KPI公開やマイルストーンに基づく資金管理に加え、Cardano Summit 2026とTOKEN2049 Singaporeを統合的に実施することで、運営効率やマーケティング効果の向上を目指す構成が含まれている点を評価します。一方で、複数施策を統合した大規模な予算構成であることから、各施策ごとの費用対効果や、長期的な開発者定着、dApp利用拡大、エンタープライズ採用、オンチェーン利用増加などへの具体的な成果を、現時点で十分に検証することはなお難しいと考えます。特にイベント施策については、参加人数や開催実績などの活動指標は確認可能である一方、Cardanoエコシステム全体への持続的な経済効果や実利用拡大への寄与を定量的に評価することには依然として課題があると判断しました。今後、施策ごとの成果検証や中長期的な効果測定がより明確になることを期待しつつ、今回は慎重な立場から反対します。\n\nI vote No on this proposal. I acknowledge that the proposal includes KPI disclosure and milestone-based fund management, and that it aims to improve operational efficiency and marketing impact by integrating Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore into a unified strategy. However, given the large-scale budget structure combining multiple initiatives, I believe it remains difficult at this stage to sufficiently evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each initiative or to verify concrete outcomes such as long-term developer retention, increased dApp adoption, enterprise adoption, and growth in on-chain activity. In particular, while event-related metrics such as attendance and event execution can be measured, I believe there are still challenges in quantitatively assessing their sustained economic impact and contribution to real ecosystem usage growth across Cardano. While I hope that clearer initiative-level evaluation and longer-term impact measurement will be established in the future, I oppose this proposal from a cautious standpoint.
- No8.1M ₳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. - No7.6M ₳No rationale
- No7.2M ₳No rationale
- No5.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting No (regrettably).
I support investing in growth and ecosystem expansion, and I believe initiatives like this can play a role in increasing visibility. I also recognize that marketing ROI is not deterministic—KPIs here are signals, not guarantees, and I’m not expecting a direct “ADA spent = users onboarded” model.
What I am looking for is clearer evidence that this is intentionally building a pipeline—how exposure translates into sustained engagement—and that this progression will be tracked and reported over time. While the Summit has been running for several years and there is acknowledgment that it has operated somewhat within the existing ecosystem, I have not yet seen enough detail on what has changed structurally to produce different outcomes going forward.
I also think it’s important to distinguish between the two components of this proposal. External visibility at events like TOKEN2049 is highly valuable and aligns with the need to expand beyond our existing ecosystem. The Cardano Summit, while historically important, has largely served the internal community and may warrant reevaluation as a treasury-funded initiative at this scale. Bundling both together makes it difficult to assess their individual impact and necessity.
For a proposal of this size, I’m not yet convinced on that linkage, which is why my No is a regrettable one.
- NoChanged5.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.4M ₳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?
- No5.3M ₳No rationale
- No4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳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. - No4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança “Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore” (gov_action1hkgl5l4fknsf7aktmcatkz6kfl7xpvn7rzh5vnxwexl0n3cc6zrsqt5459v), 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_action1hkgl5l4fknsf7aktmcatkz6kfl7xpvn7rzh5vnxwexl0n3cc6zrsqt5459v), 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. - No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳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.
⸻
- No3.7M ₳No rationale
- No3.1M ₳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!
- Abstain2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged2.6M ₳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
Yes3mo 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
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged2.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
- 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
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.
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.8M ₳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
Yes3mo 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.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳Rationale
No, not again. You have had a whole year to figure out how to pay for this.
- 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
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale