Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
185 DReps voted · 81 with a rationale · 15 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- No174.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes142.5K ₳Rationale
It's an optimal proposal at a really tough moment. That said, this year's Cardano Summit should be the most interesting one yet, with DeFi applications incubating and Bitcoin starting to make its presence felt, and TOKEN2049 is packed with external audience.
- Abstain138.4K ₳No rationale
- No137.4K ₳No rationale
- No134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- No128K ₳No rationale
- No118.7K ₳Rationale
While recognizing that I’m a strong supporter of conferences, networking, and ecosystem-building events, I am voting NO on this proposal. Though I believe in their value, these efforts too often lack transparency in terms of measurable success, and this proposal does not sufficiently address that gap.
The 2025 Summit did not provide clear, verifiable evidence of developer growth or enterprise adoption, and the 2026 proposal moves further away from outcome-based evaluation by emphasizing surface-level outputs (contacts, sign-ups, impressions) without clear linkage to meaningful ecosystem impact.
From what I’ve observed at similar events, there are also valid concerns about execution at this scale, and the proposal’s focus on enterprise adoption lacks a clear structural pathway to on-chain activity.
Additionally, much of the agenda appears internally focused, which makes it difficult to justify a high-cost international event when more efficient alternatives may exist.
Ultimately, without clearer data, stronger KPIs, and demonstrated outcomes, I’m not confident this level of funding will deliver proportional value to the ecosystem.
- No115.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting against this proposal. My primary objection is two-fold: fiscal responsibility and the lack of a measurable framework to assess impact. As this proposal is essentially a marketing initiative, I believe it should be evaluated within the context of a dedicated marketing budget rather than as a standalone treasury withdrawal.
To clarify my position, I have recently supported several proposals that presented clear, quantifiable outcomes or addressed critical infrastructure needs. For instance, I strongly support initiatives to increase node diversity, as this is a tangible security requirement. In such cases, I am prepared to vote in favor of credible teams working toward that specific goal until a sufficient threshold is met. These are strategic imperatives that do not require an overarching budget to justify.
Conversely, treating marketing initiatives as ad-hoc, standalone proposals is inefficient. We should have a comprehensive strategy that outlines our total marketing spend and community priorities before approving individual, fragmented requests. While I acknowledge the proposal’s rationale for bypassing the Intersect budget process, I cannot justify a 'Yes' vote based on a time constraint alone. We need a more structured approach to capital allocation for marketing efforts.
- Abstain95.4K ₳No rationale
- No64.4K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.7K ₳Rationale
My yes for this proposal is because, in my assessment, it is constitutionally structured, strategically intentional, and supported by a stronger accountability framework than a typical events request. The proposal specifies the purpose of the withdrawal, delivery period, costs, refund conditions, administrator structure, audit provisions, and Net Change Limit compliance, while also using separate smart-contract-based administration, milestone disbursements, public reporting, and independent oversight.
Strategically, I see value in the proposal’s decision to combine Cardano Summit 2026 with a major external industry venue rather than treat community presence and enterprise outreach as separate efforts. The co-location with TOKEN2049 appears designed to increase reach, improve treasury efficiency, and place Cardano in front of institutions, builders, media, and partners beyond the ecosystem’s usual circle. I also appreciate that the proposal includes concrete KPIs tied to attendance, enterprise engagement, strategic meetings, governance participation, collaborations, and media visibility.
I recognize that this is a significant treasury ask and that event-based spending can be difficult to evaluate in purely financial terms. However, the proposal does present a clearer operating model than a vague branding campaign: it includes milestone-gated disbursements, public dashboard tracking, audited smart contracts, refund conditions for unused funds or ADA appreciation, and separate vendor custody to reduce governance and custody concerns. On balance, I believe the proposal is constitutionally admissible and strategically justifiable, and that the proposed oversight mechanisms are sufficient to support approval.
- No46.5K ₳Rationale
These MKT event should be covered by previous budget asks MKT of Intersect or Founding entities the original budget plan. Skeptical on the impact
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- No40.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes37.9K ₳Rationale
Exposure to extended markets is key for growth and positioning in future rallies.
- No31.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain28.2K ₳Rationale
I have chosen to abstain on this treasury withdrawal proposal after careful consideration of both its strategic value and its associated costs.
On one hand, I recognize the importance of global visibility and ecosystem positioning. Participation in major international events such as TOKEN2049, alongside the organization of the Cardano Summit 2026, can contribute to strengthening institutional relationships, increasing awareness, and showcasing the maturity of the Cardano ecosystem. The proposal is well-structured, includes clear objectives, and builds on prior event experience.
However, I remain uncertain about the proportional return on investment relative to the scale of the requested funding (~14 million ADA). While key performance indicators are outlined, the direct and measurable impact of such events on long-term ecosystem growth, user adoption, and on-chain activity remains difficult to assess with high confidence.
Additionally, given the current stage of the ecosystem, I believe there is a valid argument for prioritizing treasury allocations toward infrastructure development, developer tooling, and initiatives with more direct and verifiable impact on network usage and resilience.
My abstention reflects a neutral stance: I do not oppose the strategic intent of the proposal, but I am not sufficiently convinced that this represents the most effective use of treasury resources at this time.
I encourage continued transparency, post-event reporting, and clearer frameworks for evaluating the tangible outcomes of large-scale marketing and ecosystem events in future proposals.
- No26.7K ₳Rationale
Let's have a successful year for once before we party. Let's get some more RWA's going and actual business on the blockchain before we celebrate again.
- No24.8K ₳No rationale
- No15.9K ₳Rationale
The funds could be better spent on funding a network of offices globally that operate like our Buenos Aires office with biweekly events, hackathons, community aggregation, and venture incubation.
For the cost of this proposal, 5-6 offices could be run for a year including staff. We regularly have events of 100-200 two a month in BA with the Pythathon being the most recent.
We have to grow the base and spread the good word, not have expensive parties with the converted.
- NoRevoted15.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes12.9K ₳No rationale
- No7.8K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged6.7K ₳History
Earlier votes
No3mo agoSuperseded
- No682 ₳No rationale
- No153.7 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale