Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
185 DReps voted · 81 with a rationale · 15 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
Let's get this straight: Treasury money is not marketing pocket money, and prestige is not a public good!
Some 14M ADAD are going to be split between the Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 sponsorship. In plain terms, the value proposition is: we need to be seen at a very big event because important people will be there. I find that strategically weak. Granted, a premium title sponsorship at TOKEN2049 is a good way to achieve exposure, but that's not enough for me. A large booth, mainstage slot, media mentions, receptions, and branded presence may be impressive, but impressive is not synonymous with treasury-worthy. When the pitch depends this much on foot traffic, audience scale, and industry buzz, I start hearing FOMO dressed up as strategy.
There's also a duplication problem by bundling a standalone Cardano Summit and a large external sponsorship. If the Summit already exists to showcase Cardano’s technology, governance maturity, enterprise use cases, and ecosystem projects, then the proposal must clear a high bar to prove why a second, expensive layer of event visibility is necessary rather than merely additive. I do not think it clears that bar. “More reach” is not the same as “better outcomes.” Treasury spending must be judged by strategic necessity and likely long-term return, not by vanity-scale exposure metrics.
I also see this initiative as a concentrated influence asking the treasury to fund Cardano Foundation's and EMURGO's own strategic agenda. Even if managed cleanly, that should trigger a higher burden of proof, not a lower one.
If this initiative is truly so valuable, there are better alternatives than a treasury ask: a smaller, narrowly targeted delegation; private partner roadshows; bespoke institutional meetings in Singapore; or direct self-funding by the founding entities with later evidence-based review of actual ecosystem impact. I would far rather see precision than spectacle. Treasury discipline must mean something precisely when prestige proposals arrive wearing institutional suits.
If anything, this proposal reeks of kindergarten-level thinking: shouting loudest in the biggest room instead of whispering strategically in the right ears. Cardano’s time and budget deserve better than a scattergun approach masquerading as ambition. It’s time to get serious. Ditch the FOMO-driven “big boys’ club” mindset and focus on razor-sharp precision. Otherwise, we’re just paying to be wallpaper at a party that doesn’t move the needle.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳Rationale
🟢 Rationale – YES on Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
We vote YES on this treasury withdrawal.
TOKEN2049 is one of the largest and most relevant crypto events in the world. If Cardano wants to attract serious attention from builders, investors, institutions, and industry partners, it is essential that the ecosystem is present at this level.
We especially support the proposal because it combines the Cardano Summit with TOKEN2049 into a more holistic strategy. Instead of only speaking to the existing Cardano community, this approach creates a broader funnel to reach new users, developers, enterprises, and interested stakeholders from across the global Web3 industry.
A strong presence in Singapore also makes strategic sense, given the region’s importance for crypto, finance, and institutional adoption. The planned booth, builder showcases, mainstage visibility, networking opportunities, and follow-up structure can help Cardano projects move beyond the ecosystem echo chamber and gain meaningful external exposure.
For these reasons, we support this proposal.
- No964.1K ₳No rationale
- No931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- No825.2K ₳Rationale
As much as we share CF's view on how important and strategic participating in TOKEN 2049 singapur (more so with Dubai canceled) and having a Cardano Summit right before. The proposed cost is simply exhorbitant.
We have organized very large events with thousands of participants and great value for the ecosystem for a small fraction of what is being asked.
We would love for the CF to resubmit with a reviewed budget, this is something we would love to see funded. - No798.6K ₳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.
- No798.4K ₳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
- No794.5K ₳Rationale
Genesis funded entity with charter to do exactly this sort of thing can't do this sort of thing unless granted yet MORE funds from our Treasury? Strong no.
- No763.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain717.5K ₳No rationale
- No705.1K ₳Rationale
The cost of the event is very high. Even though I find attendance at Token2049 and the Cardano Summit in Singapore very important, I recommend adjusting the budget.
- Abstain625.9K ₳Rationale
Strategic logic is sound but bundling Summit + TOKEN2049 in one vote prevents granular evaluation. Now that separate proposals exist, this version is superseded. Will vote on each individually. I Abstain for now.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I'm voting to abstain on this proposal because while I agree with the strategic logic of combining Cardano Summit 2026 with TOKEN2049 in Singapore, the bundled structure prevents the granular evaluation a 14 million ADA treasury withdrawal demands. Co-locating around TOKEN2049 is smart positioning, that Cardano needs institutional visibility in 2026, and Singapore during TOKEN2049 week is arguably the highest-leverage venue available. The strategic case is sound. My objection is structural, not philosophical.
The core problem is that this proposal asks DReps to cast a single vote on two fundamentally different expenditures with different risk profiles, different managing entities, and different accountability standards. The Cardano Summit is a CF-managed community and enterprise event with a track record spanning four years. The TOKEN2049 Title Sponsorship is an EMURGO-managed brand marketing spend at a third-party conference. These deserve independent evaluation. A DRep who supports the Summit but has concerns about a $700,000 title sponsorship fee, or who supports TOKEN2049 presence but questions CF's shift from self-funding to treasury dependence, has no mechanism to express that distinction under this bundled structure. Several No voters, including Cardanians and Chris Cata, identified this same concern, and I share it.
I also note that the proposal has since been split into two separate governance actions, which is exactly the structural improvement I wanted to see. That split makes this bundled version procedurally superseded. Voting yes on a bundled proposal when unbundled alternatives now exist would undermine the principle that DReps should have granular authority over treasury deployments. Voting no would misrepresent my position, I am not opposed to Cardano's presence at either event, and I recognize the legitimate concerns about timing constraints that motivated this submission outside the Intersect budget process.
An abstain vote here acknowledges the strategic merit of the dual-event concept while respecting the governance improvement that unbundling represents. I will evaluate each component on its own merits when voting on the individual proposals, applying my standard framework for accountability, fiscal discipline, and treasury fit. Abstain. - No605.7K ₳Rationale
📌 MILLIONS FROM THE TREASURY AGAIN FOR A SHOW, NOT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY MOVE CARDANO FORWARD
They want to take a huge amount from the treasury for a summit and sponsorship of someone else’s event.
On paper, they call it ecosystem promotion, reach, branding, connections, and media exposure.
In reality, it looks like an expensive showcase paid for by the community.I am against this approach.
Cardano is not built by stages, banners, or flashy booths.
Cardano stands on the people who actually work inside the system every day:
DReps, developers, content creators, educational channels, local communities, translators, analysts, ambassadors.And here is the main question.
Why is there money for events in the millions, but no money for the people who have been carrying the ecosystem for years for free?👉 If the system has a treasury, then it should strengthen the foundation, not the decorations.
What would actually be more useful:
• pay DReps who read documents, analyze votes, and spend their time
• allocate budgets to local bloggers and media who really bring Cardano to people
• fund educational content, translations, guides, and deep dives
• support developers and open-source initiatives
• strengthen regional communities instead of draining the treasury into expensive conferencesBecause one event happens and ends.
But a strong DRep, a strong blogger, a strong community, and a strong developer create impact every single day.📌 A treasury is not a wallet for pretty presentations.
A treasury is a tool for growing the ecosystem.When millions go to the stage while the people who actually do the work get no support, that is a clear distortion.
That is exactly how trust in governance begins to break down.As a DRep, I work for free.
I spend time, attention, and resources not for a show, but for the future of the network.
That is why I cannot support these expenses when the priorities are upside down.🔥 My view is simple:
first the people doing the real work
then infrastructure
then education
and only after that expensive eventsOtherwise this is no longer decentralization.
It is just treasury redistribution in favor of the showcase.I registered as a DRep and I am ready to help shape the future of the ecosystem. - I am optimistic about building the largest digital community in the world. 🖤 My DRep ID: ➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr More here https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
🚀 COURSE “LEDGER COLD CRYPTO WALLET” | METAMASK
https://edgarbagdasarian.justclick.ru/order/LEDGERMETAMASK🔥 PRIVATE VIP CHAT PAID SUBSCRIPTION
https://t.me/MREDGARCROSS_BOT🌐 ALL COURSES AND LINKS
https://mredgarcross.com/📌 Note: This post is purely informational and analytical in nature. It does not contain calls for action, protests, or violation of the law. Everything stated is the author’s personal reflection.
- No589.7K ₳Rationale
Dont think this is a priority to fund in the current environment
- No535.2K ₳Rationale
Absolutely not, the CF and Emurgo would do well to
A) Deploy their own genesis allocations to promote the ecosystem
B) Dismantling the dRep attack perpetrated through the Yoroi deceptive UXbefore coming for Treasury funds, non the less for an overpriced event.
- NoChanged533.9K ₳Rationale
Abstain but UPDATED to NO: Changing my vote officially to No. We need to build up Cardano Defi. Cardano is the compliance. If we have something good or unique the enterprises will come.
Earlier votes
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
May change my decision but right now treasury fiscal responsibility need to be taken extremely serious. Will continue to weight the options moving forward.
- No501K ₳Rationale
In 2025, CF presented DReps with a responsible financial roadmap. $1.2M budget for 2026, trending toward break-even by 2028. It was clean, it was credible, it got approved. What arrived in 2026 was a $2.5M ask for the Summit alone four times the projected net cost with no explanation of what happened to the trajectory they sold us. The roadmap didn't evolve. It just quietly disappeared.
Then there's the revenue accounting. The 2025 roadmap projected $600k in Summit revenue for 2026 50% growth, their own number. The proposal credits $313k. Nobody explained what happened to the other $287k in projected growth, or why the financial planning we approved bears so little resemblance to the financial planning we're being asked to approve now.
The Intersect timing argument doesn't hold either. CF says August payments are too late for an October event. They also say they started planning in February. That's eight months. At some point the calendar stopped being the problem.
And then there's TOKEN2049, $700k for a booth and a 15-minute keynote at someone else's event, bundled into the same proposal as the Summit. These are two separate initiatives, two separate organizations, two separate budgets, and two separate accountability chains. Submitting them as one governance action means DReps cannot approve one without approving the other. That's a package deal nobody asked for.
I'm not convinced the value case has been made. I want Cardano to have a world-class Summit. But this proposal asks DReps to forget what we were promised last year and approve a number that was never part of the plan. That's a no from me and I say that with the full expectation that a stronger, more transparent proposal is possible. - No499K ₳Rationale
- No479.9K ₳No rationale
- No478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- No442.9K ₳Rationale
We shouldn’t allocate such a large portion of treasury funds to support these events under current market conditions. Both the Cardano Foundation and Emurgo are well-positioned to fund them using their own resources.
- No409.7K ₳Rationale
The content that can be announced is too weak, while the amount of money involved is far too large.
- No409.1K ₳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
- Yes381.1K ₳No rationale
- No365.7K ₳No rationale
- No360.3K ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged325.4K ₳Rationale
The requested funding amount is significantly higher than what was initially anticipated and communicated last year. While I do recognize the Cardano Summit as a valuable and potentially impactful event for the ecosystem, I remain uncertain whether it justifies an allocation of this magnitude in ADA.
That said, I do not intend to stand in opposition if the majority of DReps conclude that this level of funding is appropriate and aligned with treasury priorities. At the same time, I would also be comfortable if the proposal does not move forward in its current form.
If the ambition is to position Cardano within broader narratives, such as Bitcoin DeFi, and to attract participants from ecosystems like Solana and Ethereum, then it may be worthwhile to reconsider aspects of the event’s framing and positioning. In particular, the name “Cardano Summit” itself could unintentionally act as a barrier, as it may signal a level of ecosystem exclusivity that discourages external audiences from engaging. A more inclusive or neutral branding approach could better support the goal of cross-ecosystem appeal.
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
- No323.2K ₳No rationale
- No320.4K ₳No rationale
- No314.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this joint proposal because the total budget ask is simply too high, and bundling these two initiatives into an "all-or-nothing" vote limits our options as DReps.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting NO on this joint proposal because the total budget ask is simply too high, and bundling these two initiatives into an "all-or-nothing" vote limits our options as DReps.
While I see the value in the synergies of co-locating the Summit with TOKEN2049, and I absolutely want Cardano represented at both events, we need to focus on leaner spending. I strongly prefer having separate proposals so we can evaluate them individually.
I acknowledge that the proposers have already listened to community feedback and submitted separate, revised actions. I will evaluate those new proposals based on their individual merits and updated funding requests.
- NoChanged300.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
Voting Against Funding Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
Summary
Cardano Foundation and EMURGO are asking for 14,076,539 ADA to fund the 2026 Cardano Summit and to sponsor TOKEN2049.
Grievances
- The Cardano Foundation has resisted all attempts to allow for a community-elected board member.
- For years, the Cardano Foundation has neglected many of its responsibilities.
- EMURGO has abused its position as a wallet service provider to accumulate an unnatural amount of voting power across multiple dReps under its control (BTW, this is why I created drep-of-the-month.williamdoyle.ca - please check it out if you are looking for a new dRep or SPO).
- I refuse to finance parties with treasury funds. That's pretty much what these summits are.
- The Summit and TOKEN2049 are entirely separate events. They should be separate withdrawals as well.
Conclusion
This is incredibly silly, especially when the market is as bad as it is these days. Would these two events bring value to the ecosystem? Maybe... but would they bring in 14M ADA worth of value? I doubt it. That money would be better spent on Google Ads - a lot less fun, but probably a lot more profitable. I want to be clear: I enjoy a good party. I really do. But parties are not priorities. I am voting against this proposal.
Signed,
William DoyleYour friendly neighbourhood DRep!
$computerman
drep1yfpgzfymq6tt9c684e7vzata8r5pl4w84fmrjqeztdqw0sgpzw3nt
https://x.com/william00000010Note: drep-of-the-month.onrender.com may work better, especially on mobile.
- No294.4K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted271.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on “Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore” at the requested 14,076,539 ADA (~3.66M USD), and would only consider supporting a substantially revised version under tighter conditions. In my view, a multi‑day event that requires funding in the multi‑million‑dollar range is, by design, oriented toward large, well‑capitalized players rather than the retail users or smaller institutions we claim to be targeting. The current configuration does not convincingly justify this level of spend versus other treasury priorities.
For a revised proposal, I would need to see three things: (1) a materially reduced and modular budget (for example, a leaner physical Summit in Singapore with more internal content online, and a Platinum + Top‑Up approach at TOKEN2049 justified against the current full‑Title package), (2) clearly outcome‑focused KPIs that go beyond contacts and impressions to measure developer retention, enterprise pilots/PoCs, mainnet deployments, and DeFi/liquidity impacts attributable to the events, and (3) an explicit commitment that any 2027+ event or sponsorship funding will be contingent on meeting those 2026 adoption KPIs, not merely on delivering the event itself.
- Abstain261K ₳Rationale
EN - I have a conflict of interest regarding this proposal, therefore I will abstain.
PT - Tenho um conflito de interesses em relação a esta proposta, portanto, irei me abster. - No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
I'm starting to get really concerned about our spend rate. Especially after the Draper deal. So I'm starting to vote no on withdrawals just on principle in order to provide a counter weight (as small as my vote might be). I will only vote yes on withdrawals that are very high priority.
- No235.2K ₳Rationale
I'd love to be able to support this. But no, I wouldn't be able to, not even at a $1 ADA valuation. I know, bit of a chicken and egg problem but... not so much in reality. We should be there, the event is needed, presence is necessary, but this I just can't fathom how would be a definitive turning point - as the latter would be an absolute must to be the case, for me to be able to approve such a withdrawal. Sadly, no.
- No234.2K ₳Rationale
with that $3 million, we can spend on other activities, marketing, our own event
- No233.2K ₳No rationale
- No232.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes215.5K ₳No rationale
- No191.1K ₳No rationale