Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
185 DReps voted · 81 with a rationale · 15 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No435.8M ₳Rationale
I voted NO on "Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore" for the following five reasons.
1.Lack of verifiable 2025 outcomes, and a regression in 2026 KPIs
The 2025 proposal set a clear outcome metric: 15-20% year-on-year growth in developer numbers. That was the primary reason I voted YES at the time. It is to CF's credit that they have openly acknowledged this target was not met, but the problem lies beyond that acknowledgment.
The only concrete success case CF cited in the 2025 Summit context was hackathon silver medalist Ryan Williams. However, he had been deeply involved in Cardano's core standard-setting work well before the Summit, and was not a new developer acquired or onboarded through it. In other words, the number of cases that concretely demonstrate the 2025 goal of "acquiring and retaining new developers" is effectively zero.
The enterprise side is similarly vague. The proposal cites "Cardano Foundation's proven delivery of four consecutive, globally impactful Cardano Summits," and participation from J&J, Volvo, and Mastercard was reported — yet no PoC, production deployment, MOU, or on-chain contribution has been shown.
The 2026 proposal should have taken a two-step path: (a) demonstrate in a verifiable way what the 2025 investment actually brought to the ecosystem, and (b) explain concretely how 2026 will improve based on that reflection. Instead, the opposite has happened. The developer retention metric has been removed from the proposal and replaced with output indicators such as booth contacts, media impressions, and wallet sign-ups.
Looking at the KPIs in the proposal, TOKEN2049 is measured by booth contacts 1,440, new strategic collaborations 15, wallet sign-ups 200, and Cardano Academy subscribers 200. These are all output indicators — "number contacted" and "number registered" — not outcome indicators that measure meaningful ecosystem contribution. As the consideration for entrusting ₳14,076,539, this KPI structure lacks proportionality.2.Insufficient professionalism to justify a ₳14M-scale allocation
The proposal allocates $200,000 to "Project Management, Staffing and Delivery" on the TOKEN2049 side, with substantial operational budget on the Summit side as well. The question is not the absolute amount, but whether there is, at this point, demonstrable operational professionalism to be trusted with a combined ₳14,076,539 (~$3.66MM).
My firsthand observations at TEAMZ recently did not support that level of confidence.- On Day 2, when I arrived at the booth several hours into the event, there were no CF or EMURGO representatives, no client companies, and no English-capable staff present. I did not measure precisely, but in my perception this was not a momentary absence right at my arrival or a brief restroom break — the state continued for a while. At the reception there was one enthusiastic member of the Japanese community, but she was not an English speaker, so handling overseas visitors was realistically difficult. To be clear, I am not claiming they were absent all day; this is a snapshot of the time window during which I was present. This was not during setup — it was during the event itself.
- Cardano had the second largest booth at the venue, and several builders gave presentations, but the audience was under ten people, about 90% of whom were regulars at Cardano events. The underlying goal of reaching new audiences was not achieved.
- While the adjacent Binance booth was bustling throughout the day, there were stretches when the many staff behind the Cardano counter were looking at their smartphones. In my 2025 visit to TEAMZ, attendees were mainly Japanese SWAG collectors, some retail investors, and short-term overseas visitors. Honestly, it was hard for me to imagine real Cardano business originating from this venue, and I recall sharing that feedback in the past. Both EMURGO and CF exhibited in 2025 and should have known the nature of this venue. So I do not intend to fault them for the 2026 booth not being especially lively — but the decision to exhibit there was theirs.
- The TEAMZ booth that CF funded last year was also unattended at the time I arrived
3.Lack of foundation for placing enterprise adoption at the core
The proposal positions Day 2 as Industry Day — dedicated to enterprise and institutional adoption. The narrative is attractive, but I have strong doubts.
Over the past several years, significant spending toward enterprise adoption has flowed through multiple channels — IOG, CF, EMURGO, Catalyst — in the form of events, tooling, and direct investment. Despite that, in recent epoch 622 I was unable to identify a single transaction submission attributable to an enterprise (see adatool.net/tx-stats). 99% of usage is retail. This is not Cardano-specific; other major chains show similar patterns.
The questions the proposal should answer are:- What are the structural reasons enterprise adoption remains low across the industry?
- Why have Cardano's past efforts not taken root?
- Which of those structural factors does this Summit spend resolve, and through what mechanism?
- Is enterprise adoption really a problem explained by "lack of awareness" and "lack of exposure"?
The proposal does not answer these. Unless the mechanism by which Day 2 content connects to on-chain activity or TVL is shown, this becomes hard to elevate above "producing press release material for retail investors." And even for that purpose, I can hardly recall a Cardano-Summit-derived press release that retail investors have highly valued. If enterprise adoption is going to be the banner, the proposal should include structural analysis commensurate with that banner.
4.Internal-facing nature of the Summit agenda, and the weak case for running it at this scale
Looking at the proposal's agenda, Day 1 (Ecosystem Day) — governance workshops, DRep meetings, committee meetings, Battle of the Builders, internal masterclasses — is largely "Cardano ecosystem internal-facing" content.
I do not deny the value of these activities. Governance discussions and builder-community interaction are important and should continue. The question is whether this content warrants a physical event in Singapore — a high-cost location — at a ₳14M-scale budget.
Much of the internal-facing discussion can be conducted just as well, or more efficiently, online. The intrinsic value of a physical Singapore venue really only applies to content that involves interaction with external audiences — enterprises, institutional investors, external developers, media.
A reasonable response to this concern would look like one of the following:- Demonstrate, based on past results, what outcomes physical hosting of internal content produces that online hosting cannot
- Or: shift internal-facing content online, narrow the physical portion to external-audience content, show a budget-compression estimate for that alternative, and explain why the current plan is nonetheless superior
- Framing the sell-pressure concern, and the proposal's own persuasiveness as a sample
₳14,076,539 corresponds to roughly 2.08 epochs worth of the ~6.77M ADA staking rewards distributed per epoch, and Cardano absorbs this level of sell pressure fairly routinely. What concerns me is not that — it is the higher-order disappointment pressure that sits behind it. I have received strong concerns via DM even from individuals who hold well over twice ₳14,076,539 worth of ADA, and I do not have data with which to reasonably refute their concern. In the Japanese Cardano community chats, this topic is discussed with frustration on a daily basis. If the proposal passes with support this thin, the sell pressure that arrives in the market may not be limited to ₳14,076,539 — and its ceiling is hard to predict.
The fact that even within a small and relatively friendly Cardano community, this proposal has failed to build marketing consensus, itself raises concern about the ability to execute $3.66MM of marketing in the far harsher environment outside the ecosystem.
私は次の５つの理由から「Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore」にNOを投票しました。
2025年成果の検証可能性不足と、2026年KPIの退行
2025年提案には「開発者数の前年比15–20%成長」という明確なアウトカム指標が掲げられており、当時私がYESを投じた主要理由もここにありました。CFご自身がこの目標未達を率直に認められた点は誠実ですが、問題はその先にあります。
2025年Summit文脈でCFが挙げられた具体的成功事例は、Hackathon銀メダリストのRyan Williams氏お一方のみでした。しかし同氏はSummit以前からCardanoのコア標準策定に深く関与されていた方であり、Summit経由で新規獲得・オンボードされた開発者ではありません。つまり、「2025年提案のゴールであった新規開発者の獲得と定着」を具体的に示すケース数は、事実上ゼロです。
エンタープライズ領域も同様に曖昧です。提案書は「Cardano Foundation's proven delivery of four consecutive, globally impactful Cardano Summits」という実績を掲げていますが、J&J、Volvo、Mastercardらの参加が報告された一方で、PoC、本番導入、MOU、オンチェーン活動への寄与のいずれも示されていません。
本来、2026年提案が取るべき筋道は次の二段階だったはずです — (a) 2025年投資が実際に何をもたらしたかを検証可能な形で示すこと、(b) その反省に基づく2026年の改善点を具体的に説明すること。しかし実際には逆のことが起きています。開発者定着指標は提案書から削除され、代わりに「ブース接触数」「メディア露出」「ウォレットサインアップ数」といったアウトプット指標に置き換えられました。
提案書のKPIを見ると、TOKEN2049については booth contacts 1,440、new strategic collaborations 15、wallet sign-ups 200、Cardano Academy subscribers 200 が並びますが、これらはいずれも「接触した数」「登録した数」のアウトプット指標であり、エコシステムへの実効的寄与を測るアウトカム指標ではありません。₳14M規模の資金提供を合理化するプロフェッショナリズムの不足
提案書にはTOKEN2049側の「Project Management, Staffing and Delivery」として $200,000、Summit側にも多額の運営予算が計上されています。金額単体ではなく、合計₳14,076,539(約$3.66MM)という規模の資金をお任せするに足る運営プロフェッショナリズムが、現時点で確認できるかが論点です。
しかし先日のTEAMZでの実観察は、この水準を裏付ける方向には働きませんでした。
- 2日目、イベント開始から数時間経過した時点で私がブースに到達した際、CF/EMURGO関係者、クライアント企業、英語対応可能なスタッフのいずれも不在でした。正確に計測したわけではありませんが、これは到着直後の一瞬の話やトイレ休憩といった一時的な不在ではなく、しばらくの間その状態が続いていたと私は認識しています。受付には熱心な日本コミュニティのメンバーが1名いらっしゃいましたが英語話者ではなかったため、海外来訪者への対応は困難な状態でした(念のため補足すると、これは「終日不在だった」という意味ではなく、私が滞在していた時間帯のスナップショットです)。準備時間ではなく、イベント本番中の状況です。
- Cardanoは会場で2番目に大きいブースを構え、複数のビルダーがプレゼンを実施されていましたが、聴衆は10名未満で、その9割がCardanoイベントの常連でした。新規層へのリーチという本来目的は果たされていません。
- 隣のBinanceブースが終日活況だった一方、Cardanoブースでは多数のカウンタースタッフがスマートフォンを見て時間を過ごす時間帯がありました。2025年に現地を訪れた経験では、来場者層は主に日本のSWAGコレクター、一部の個人投資家、そして海外からの短期来訪者が中心で、正直なところ、ここからCardanoの実ビジネスが立ち上がるイメージは私には持ちづらく、その旨のフィードバックも過去にお伝えしていた記憶があります。EMURGOもCFも2025年に出展されており、この会場の性質はご存じだったはずです。したがって、2026年のブースがあまり賑わっていなかったこと自体を彼らの責に帰すつもりはありません。ただし、そのイベントに出展を決められたのは他ならぬ彼ら自身です。
- 昨年CFが資金提供されたTEAMZブースについても、私が到達した時点で無人でした
- エンタープライズ採用を中核に据えることの根拠不在
提案書ではDay 2が Industry Day — dedicated to enterprise and institutional adoption として設計されています。物語として美しいのですが、私は強い疑問を持っています。
過去数年にわたり、IOG、CF、EMURGO、Catalystなど複数のチャネルから、イベント・ツール・直接投資の形で多額の支出がこの目的のために行われてきました。それにもかかわらず、直近エポック622において、私はエンタープライズ由来と識別可能なトランザクション送信を単一も検出できていません(adatool.net/tx-stats参照)。利用の99%はリテールであり、これはCardano固有ではなく他の主要チェーンでも同様の傾向です。
提案書が答えるべき問いは次のものです。
- 業界全体でエンタープライズ採用が低水準にとどまる構造的要因は何か
- なぜCardano過去の取り組みが定着に至らなかったのか
- 今回のSummit支出がその構造的要因のどれを、どのメカニズムで解消するのか
- エンタープライズ採用は本当に「認知不足」と「接触機会不足」で説明される問題なのか
提案書はこれらに答えていません。Day 2のコンテンツがオンチェーン活動やTVLに結び付くメカニズムが示されない限り、これは「リテール投資家向けのプレスリリース素材作り」以上のものになりにくいと思われます。しかもその効用ですら、過去Summit由来でリテール投資家が高く評価されたプレスリリースを私はほとんど思い出せません。エンタープライズ採用を旗印に掲げられる以上、それに見合う構造分析が提案書に含まれるべきだと考えます。
- Summitアジェンダの内部向け性と、この支出規模で実施する必要性の低さ
提案書のアジェンダを見ると、Day 1 (Ecosystem Day) はガバナンスワークショップ、DRepミーティング、Committeeミーティング、Battle of the Builders、内部向けマスタークラスなど、性質として「Cardanoエコシステム内部向け」のコンテンツが相当な比重を占めています。
これらのコンテンツそのものの価値を否定するつもりはありません。ガバナンス議論やビルダーコミュニティの内部交流は重要であり、継続的に行われるべきです。しかし問題は、これらがSingaporeという高コスト地での物理イベントとして、₳14M規模の予算をかけて実施されるべき性質のコンテンツなのかという点です。
内部向けの議論の多くは、オンラインでも十分に(あるいはむしろ効率的に)実施可能です。Singaporeで物理開催するだけの固有価値があるのは、外部オーディエンス — エンタープライズ、機関投資家、外部開発者、メディア — とのインタラクションが発生するコンテンツに限られると考えます。
この点に対する合理的な応答があるとすれば、次のいずれかだと思います。
- 内部向けコンテンツを物理開催することで、オンライン開催では得られないどのような成果が生まれるのか、過去実績ベースで示すこと
- あるいは、内部向けコンテンツをオンラインに移し、物理開催部分を外部オーディエンス向けに絞った場合の予算圧縮試算を示した上で、現行案がそれよりなお優れる理由を説明すること
- 売り圧論点の整理と、提案書の説得力そのもののサンプル性
₳14,076,539はエポックあたり約6.77M ADAのステーキング報酬配布の約2.08エポック分に相当し、Cardanoはこのレベルの売り圧に対してある程度日常的に吸収していますが心配なのは、その先にあるより高次の失望圧です。すでに₳14,076,539の倍以上のADAを保有する人物からも強い懸念のDMをもらっています。私はその懸念に合理的に反論できるデータを持っていません。Cardano日本コミュニティのチャットでは毎日この話題が怒りと共に話されています。このような低いコミュニティの支持のままに、可決された場合は、₳14,076,539に留まらない、上限の予測の難しい売り圧がマーケットに訪れる可能性があります。
小規模で相対的に友好的なCardanoコミュニティ内ですら、この提案書ではマーケティングの合意形成ができていないという事実そのものが、エコシステム外部のはるかに厳しい環境で$3.66MM規模のマーケティングを実行する能力への懸念を、それ自体として惹起します。
- AbstainRevoted332.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain3mo agoSuperseded
- Yes254.7M ₳No rationale
- No222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC votes NO on gov_action1hkgl5l4fknsf7aktmcatkz6kfl7xpvn7rzh5vnxwexl0n3cc6zrsqt5459v;
This combined proposal has been voted down by the community.
- Abstain174.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation is voting ABSTAIN on this proposal.
The decision to vote ABSTAIN follows the submission of a revised treasury withdrawal for the Cardano Summit 2026, which is now available on-chain under Governance Action ID: gov_action10dp9wzmgt2nqshyrghufff4sfhcxedhmzluly5k0azguatnsthwqqs84cjf.
- Abstain92.2M ₳No rationale
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I decided to vote NO for the proposal: Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
My rationale:
Cardano needs better marketing. Flagship events are important. The community should not condemn this idea for petty reasons. Seen pragmatically, Cardano must not disappear from the radar of the media, business, and governments.
Given the current low price of ADA, I am afraid that we cannot fund two large events from the Treasury this year. Organizing two back-to-back events is a good idea. However, I am leaning towards the possibility of funding only one event.
I propose to skip the Cardano Summit and focus only on TOKEN2049. Please split this proposal into two separate ones. I would probably support funding for participation in TOKEN2049 if the main organizer were the Cardano Foundation (CF).
According to the Cardano Foundation's "path to sustainability" plan, the expected budget for the Summit in 2026 should be only $1.2M. Asking for $2.5 requires an explanation for the deviation from the plan.
Community members complained that tickets were noticeably more expensive than in previous years for Summit 2025. Many fans were unable to attend the event because the total cost, including airfare and accommodation, was too high.
The proposal should be more detailed. It should mention what the ticket price will be, how many sponsors are expected, and what the expected revenue is.
Focusing on governance at Cardano Summit 2026 is not a good idea given the current problems with the centralization of voting power. It makes sense to discuss this among DReps, but maybe Google Meet is enough for that. Let's present governance to the world only when we ourselves are proud of it.
If CF submits a new proposal for Summit, I recommend considering a change of topic.
I would rather use 10M ADA to address governance issues than to fund the Summit at this time.
I also recommend reducing costs or looking for other sources. The Cardano Summit will not be the only marketing-related proposal this year. I have heard of at least 3 other proposals that may require a similar amount.
I appreciate the Cardano Foundation for everything it does for the community and the protocol. They have proven many times in the past that they are capable of organizing the Summit.
With regard to the Treasury, it is necessary that this flagship event is sustainable. Alternatively, the costs respect the current price of ADA. We all have skin in the game. If we want to do spectacular events, we must first think about how to get Cardano back into the top 10.
- No88.6M ₳No rationale
- No86M ₳Rationale
[VOTE: NO]
SIPO DRep Vote Context — Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
Governance Action ID: gov_action1hkgl5l4fknsf7aktmcatkz6kfl7xpvn7rzh5vnxwexl0n3cc6zrsqt5459v
DRep: drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
Date: 2026-04-18================================
ENGLISHVote: NO
SIPO is voting NO on this proposal. To be explicit: we are not opposed to Cardano Summit 2026 being held, not opposed to Cardano having a presence at TOKEN2049, and not opposed to the Cardano Foundation or EMURGO as organizations. We are opposed to the specific structure of this treasury withdrawal, for four reasons rooted in our fiduciary duty as a DRep.
- Self-funding capacity — a treasury-fit question
The 2025 Financial Insights and Activity Report referenced in this very proposal documents a CF financial position sufficient to cover Summit costs without a treasury withdrawal. CF self-funded the Summits from 2022 through 2024. CF has already secured the 2026 Singapore location using 2025 Summit revenue, as stated in this proposal. We acknowledge that 2025 was the first year CF accessed treasury funding for the Summit (under "Unveiling the First Unified Global Events Marketing Strategy"). Voting YES on 2026 would consolidate that as a recurring pattern. For a well-capitalized entity, treasury should be the funding source of last resort, not first, and the case for crossing that line should be explicitly argued. This proposal does not make that argument.
- Three-way conflict-of-interest structure
Cardano Foundation (DRep with approx. ₳133m delegated) and EMURGO (DRep with approx. ₳297m delegated) are simultaneously (a) the proposers, (b) the direct beneficiaries of the withdrawal, and (c) active DReps voting on the outcome. This is not illegal under CIP-1694, but it is in structural tension with the spirit of Article II of the Constitution. The proposal could have mitigated this by publicly pre-committing both DReps to Abstain on their own action, or by routing the request through a neutral third-party sponsor. It does neither.
- Public goods vs. brand marketing characterization
The Sundae Labs treasury contracts framework — which this proposal appropriately adopts — was designed to fund public goods, infrastructure, and direct builder support. Within the USD 3.66M requested, the TOKEN2049 Title Sponsorship fee alone is USD 699,900, and the full TOKEN2049 budget is USD 1.16M. The deliverables of that package (mainstage keynote exclusive to title sponsors, premium booth positioning, social channel mentions, priority check-in) are classic brand marketing outputs, not public goods. By comparison, hackathon, prizes, and builder incentives total USD 54,830 across the entire proposal — 1.95 percent of the Summit subtotal. We believe this ratio inverts the priorities a community treasury should express.
- IOG absence and the "unified Cardano" framing
The proposal positions Summit 2026 + TOKEN2049 as a flagship unified Cardano event. Historically, unified Cardano initiatives have included Input Output (IOG/IOHK) as one of three founding entities alongside CF and EMURGO. This proposal is signed by CF and EMURGO only. No statement is provided explaining IOG's non-participation, nor any indication of whether IOG was invited to co-sign. For a treasury withdrawal of this size carrying "unified Cardano" branding, community clarity on the relationship among the three founding entities is a reasonable minimum disclosure.
Consistency with SIPO's prior votes
SIPO has consistently voted YES on treasury withdrawals for:
- Protocol and node diversity (Amaru, Dingo, HLabs Pebble + Gerolamo)
- Capital formation infrastructure (DeFi Liquidity Budget, Orion Fund with conditions)
- Governance institutions (Constitutional Committee compensation, NCL, Budget Framework)
- Critical integrations
All of these fit within "public goods, infrastructure, or ecosystem growth capital." This proposal does not fit those categories. A NO here does not contradict our prior YES pattern; it clarifies the line we draw.
Constructive alternatives
- CF funds Cardano Summit 2026 from its own reserves, consistent with 2022–2024 practice and with 2025 Summit revenue already ring-fenced for 2026.
- EMURGO pursues TOKEN2049 Title Sponsorship through commercial partnership funding, or accepts a scaled-down non-title booth, or resubmits through the Intersect budget process for the 2027 cycle with adequate lead time.
- Any future treasury-funded event proposal should include (a) an explicit public-goods justification, (b) disclosure of the positions of all three founding entities, (c) pre-committed Abstain from proposer DReps, and (d) a higher builder-direct allocation ratio.
We thank Cardano Foundation and EMURGO for their consistent event execution over the past four years, and we look forward to supporting future proposals that are structured as public goods investments.
================================
日本語投票: NO（反対）
SIPO は本提案に反対票を投じます。はじめに明確にします。私たちは Cardano Summit 2026 の開催自体に反対ではありません。TOKEN2049 における Cardano のプレゼンスに反対でもありません。Cardano Foundation や EMURGO という組織に反対でもありません。私たちが反対するのは、この Treasury Withdrawal の「構造」です。DRep としての受託者責任に基づく4つの理由を以下に述べます。
- 自己資金調達能力 — Treasury 適合性の問題
本提案自身が参照している「Cardano Foundation 2025 Financial Insights and Activity Report」には、Summit 費用を Treasury に頼らずに賄える財務状態が記されています。CF は 2022 年から 2024 年までの Summit を自己資金で開催してきました。2026 年の Singapore 会場も、CF は 2025 年 Summit の収益を用いて既に確保済みであると本提案自身が述べています。2025 年が Summit で Treasury 資金に初めてアクセスした年であったことは認識しています（"Unveiling the First Unified Global Events Marketing Strategy"）。ここで 2026 年も YES とすれば、それを恒常的パターンとして定着させることになります。十分な資本を持つ組織にとって、Treasury は「最後の資金源」であるべきで「最初の資金源」ではないというのが私たちの考えです。そしてその線を越えるのであれば、越える理由を明示的に論じる必要がありますが、本提案にその論証はありません。
- 三重の利益相反構造
Cardano Foundation（DRep 委任額 約 ₳133m）と EMURGO（DRep 委任額 約 ₳297m）は、本提案において同時に (a) 提案者、(b) 直接受益者、(c) 投票権を行使する DRep の三者を兼ねています。これは CIP-1694 の下で違法ではありませんが、Cardano Constitution 第 II 条の精神と構造的に緊張関係にあります。緩和策として、両 DRep が本提案に対して Abstain を事前表明するか、または中立的な第三者スポンサー経由で提出するという選択肢がありました。本提案はそのいずれも採っていません。
- 公共財 vs ブランドマーケティングの性質
本提案が採用している Sundae Labs treasury contracts フレームワークは、公共財・インフラ・ビルダー直接支援のために設計されたものです。要求額 USD 3.66M のうち、TOKEN2049 Title Sponsorship 費用だけで USD 699,900、TOKEN2049 総予算では USD 1.16M に達しますが、その対価（Title Sponsor 専用のメインステージ基調講演、優先ブース位置、ソーシャルチャネル告知、優先チェックイン）は典型的なブランドマーケティング成果物であり、公共財ではありません。対照的に、Hackathon・賞金・ビルダーインセンティブの合計は USD 54,830、Summit サブトータルの 1.95 パーセントに過ぎません。コミュニティ Treasury が表現すべき優先順位として、この配分比率は逆であると考えます。
- IOG 不在と「統合 Cardano イベント」の主張
本提案は Summit 2026 + TOKEN2049 を Cardano の統合旗艦イベントと位置づけています。歴史的に、Cardano の統合イニシアチブは CF・EMURGO に加え Input Output（IOG/IOHK）を創設 3 エンティティの一角として含んできました。本提案の署名者は CF と EMURGO のみです。IOG が不参加である理由、あるいは IOG が共同署名を打診されたかどうかに関する説明はありません。この規模の Treasury Withdrawal で、かつ「統合 Cardano」というブランディングを掲げるのであれば、3 エンティティ間の関係性に関するコミュニティへの説明は最低限の情報開示であると考えます。
過去の SIPO 投票との整合性
SIPO が YES を投じてきた Treasury Withdrawal は以下のカテゴリに属します。
- プロトコルとノード多様性（Amaru、Dingo、HLabs Pebble + Gerolamo）
- 資本形成インフラ（DeFi Liquidity Budget、Orion Fund 条件付き）
- ガバナンス制度（Constitutional Committee 報酬、NCL、Budget Framework）
- 重要統合（Critical Integrations Budget）
いずれも「公共財・インフラ・エコシステム成長資本」の範疇にあります。本提案はこのいずれにも該当しません。本提案への NO は、過去の YES パターンとの矛盾ではなく、Treasury を適用すべき線を明確化するものです。
建設的代替案
- CF は Cardano Summit 2026 を自己資金で開催する（2022–2024 の実務および 2026 向けに既に確保済みの 2025 Summit 収益と整合）。
- EMURGO は TOKEN2049 Title Sponsorship を商業パートナーシップ資金で追求するか、Title 未取得のスケールダウンしたブース出展に変更するか、または 2027 年度分として Intersect 予算プロセス経由で十分なリードタイムを持って再提出する。
- 今後の Treasury 資金型イベント提案には、(a) 公共財としての明示的正当化、(b) 創設 3 エンティティの立場の開示、(c) 提案者 DRep からの事前 Abstain 表明、(d) ビルダー直接配分比の引き上げ、を含めることを期待します。
過去 4 年にわたる Cardano Foundation と EMURGO のイベント運営実績には敬意を表します。今後、公共財投資として構造化された提案については、積極的に支持してまいります。
— SIPO DRep
drep1yffld2866p00cyg3ejjdewtvazgah7jjgk0s9m7m5ytmmdq33v3zh
2026-04-18 - No84.3M ₳Rationale
I'm sure the CF and Emurgo would each do a great job administering these events. However, this is a high price tag and these events seem aimed at people who are already in crypto. We should employ these funds toward bringing the masses into Cardano/building things that will attract the masses.
- NoChanged76.8M ₳Rationale
Waste of money.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Waste of money. Hedonistic, extravagant spending on drinks, crazy venues, DJs and partying.
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
Incredible waste of money.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I have attended every summit in the past three years, and each and every time it has been a disgustingly extravagant indulgent hedonistic waste of money. Drinks and parties filled with cardano community members, and everyone else is there to collect free merch, drink, party or they are getting paid to be there. These events have zero impact on Cardano KPIs and often just result in Cardano getting brutally meme'd on (ex. the infamous "But why price no do so good?" meme from the Dubai government official)
- No75.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain74.5M ₳Rationale
I will abstain on this proposal.
At the current stage of Cardano’s development, I believe that in addition to building products and infrastructure, it is essential to strengthen awareness and business engagement to connect those offerings with external users and partners. Expanding supply alone is not sufficient if it does not translate into real usage, partnerships, and sustainable ecosystem growth.
From this perspective, hosting the Cardano Summit in Singapore alongside TOKEN2049 is a strategically sound approach. Singapore serves as a major hub for finance and Web3, and this co-location can help expand Cardano’s visibility and create meaningful touchpoints with institutions, enterprises, and developers.
I also recognize that events of this scale cannot realistically be executed by the community alone, and that it is appropriate for entities such as the Cardano Foundation and EMURGO to take responsibility for organizing them, with treasury support as a reasonable funding mechanism.
However, I remain concerned about the overall scale of the budget. At this time, I do not have sufficient confidence in the return on investment, particularly regarding how event-driven exposure will translate into measurable on-chain activity and sustained ecosystem growth. More clarity is needed on the target segments, types of organizations being pursued, and the expected tangible outcomes such as partnerships and ecosystem impact.
In summary, while I acknowledge the strategic direction and intent of this proposal, I do not believe the current level of detail and cost justification is sufficient to support a definitive vote. For these reasons, I choose to abstain and look forward to a refined proposal with clearer cost optimization and outcome visibility.
本提案については、最終的に棄権とします。
現在のCardanoにおいては、プロダクトやインフラの開発に加え、それらを外部に届けるための認知拡大およびビジネス接続の強化が不可欠であると考えています。供給のみが拡大しても、それが実際の利用やパートナーシップに結びつかなければ、エコシステム全体としての成長には繋がりません。
その観点から、シンガポールという金融・Web3のハブにおいて、TOKEN2049と連動してCardano Summitを開催する戦略は、外部への認知拡大および機関・企業・開発者との接点を拡張する上で合理的であり、一定の意義があると評価しています。
また、本規模のイベントをコミュニティ主導で実行することは現実的に難しく、Cardano FoundationおよびEMURGOのような主体が責任を持って推進し、その活動に対してトレジャリーから支援を行うこと自体についても理解しています。
一方で、本提案は規模が大きく、費用水準に対する懸念が残るとともに、費用対効果やイベント後の成果がどのようにオンチェーンでの利用や継続的なエコシステム成長へと接続されるのかについて、現時点では十分な確信を持つには至っていません。特に、どのような企業・分野をターゲットとし、どの程度の提携や具体的な成果を見込んでいるのかについて、より明確な指標と説明が求められると考えています。
以上を踏まえ、本提案の戦略的方向性および必要性には一定の理解を示しつつも、現時点の設計および情報では明確な賛否を判断するには不十分であると判断し、棄権とします。今後、コスト最適化および成果の可視化がより強化された形での再提案を期待します。
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
I vote NO. Though the Cardano Foundation provides thirty percent of my delegation, abstaining betrays my other delegators. The 14M ADA cost is unjustified. With ADA falling out of the top 10 against competing blockchains, we must reclaim the top 5 before funding expensive marketing.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting NO on the dual event proposal for the Cardano Summit and TOKEN2049. Initially, I strongly considered abstaining, given that approximately thirty percent of my voting power comes directly from the Cardano Foundation. However, stepping aside would be a profound injustice to the rest of my loyal delegators. I possess a strong conviction on this matter, and my duty requires me to represent my entire constituency transparently.
Candidly, the requested expenditure of over fourteen million ADA is simply too high. We currently lack the luxury to sustain spending of this magnitude. With ADA having fallen out of the top ten and struggling in price action against competing blockchains, we must operate with ruthless fiscal responsibility. I do not believe the tangible value returned to our ecosystem justifies this massive capital outlay.
If our ambition is to host flagship global events, our primary focus must first be directed toward reclaiming our position in the top ten and pushing into the top five. Attempting to improve our relevance by purchasing presence at large industry events does not fundamentally drive the sustainable growth and fiscal discipline we require to compete right now. We must prioritize strict capital efficiency over expensive marketing, and therefore, I must firmly reject this proposal.
- No66M ₳Rationale
The amount is beyond excessive and doesn't reflect the value this could potentially bring to Cardano.
- Abstain62.7M ₳Rationale
Just abstaining
- Yes53.8M ₳Rationale
I think this is a proposal with clear strategic value. Cardano has now reached a point where 'visibility' matters just as much as technology.
Hosting the Cardano Summit in Singapore right before TOKEN2049 is a highly effective strategy.
TOKEN2049 is one of the largest blockchain events in the world, drawing over 25,000 attendees, and it takes place in Singapore, a major Asian financial hub. With global events like this, participants typically arrive in the host city ahead of time to travel or take care of personal schedules. During this window, various side events are held in advance, creating natural opportunities for exposure and relationship-building with these attendees.
From my own experience attending global conferences, my team and I would often arrive early in the host city and join any connected events happening nearby. The offline touchpoints formed during these moments carried far greater impact than online promotion, and the likelihood of them leading to real business opportunities was significantly higher.
By hosting the Cardano Summit in Singapore before TOKEN2049, we can organically introduce TOKEN2049 attendees to the Cardano ecosystem and draw them into our network. At the same time, Cardano builders and projects participating in the Summit can continue into TOKEN2049, where they gain opportunities to connect with other chains, investors, and partners for collaboration and expansion.
The KPIs for this kind of event are admittedly difficult to measure in simple numbers. However, considering the potential for strengthening Cardano's presence, raising global awareness, and expanding the ecosystem, I believe this is one of the most effective strategic moves available to us.
We cannot afford to miss this opportunity.
- AbstainChanged50.5M ₳Rationale
While I support this proposal because Cardano needs stronger marketing and visibility, I find the withdrawal amount to be too much. Perhaps we should divide this proposal into 2 withdrawals. A presence at Token2049 Singapore is a necessity and will help attract users, partners, and opportunities, while ensuring Cardano stays relevant and competitive in the broader crypto space. With the low value of ADA, we could think of something more cost effective for the Summit.
Earlier votes
Yes3mo agoSuperseded
Cardano needs stronger marketing and visibility. A presence at both Cardano Summit and Token2049 Singapore helps attract users, partners, and opportunities, while ensuring Cardano stays relevant and competitive in the broader crypto space.
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. As a DRep, I evaluate all treasury withdrawal governance actions against my published voting framework (see References below), with a focus on the healthy development and long-term sustainability of the ecosystem. Events and marketing activities do not fall within the scope of treasury funding under my framework. They are neither protocol development nor critical infrastructure. This is not a judgment on the quality or ambition of the events themselves, but a structural one: the treasury is not the appropriate funding source for this category of activity. If the Cardano ecosystem's value proposition is genuine, events of this scale should be sustainable through sponsorships, ticket sales, and private capital. Relying on the treasury for recurring event costs bypasses this market validation entirely. The organizers should explore models that allow these events to stand on their own commercial footing, rather than depending on treasury withdrawals as a default funding mechanism. Voting No to protect treasury discipline and reserve funds for protocol essentials.
Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/
[Japanese version follows]
本提案に反対票を投じます。私はすべてのトレジャリー出金ガバナンスアクションを、公開済みの投票フレームワーク（末尾のReferences参照）に基づいて、エコシステムの健全な発展と持続可能性を重視して評価しています。イベントおよびマーケティング活動は、私のフレームワークにおけるトレジャリー資金の対象範囲に含まれません。プロトコル開発でも重要インフラでもないためです。これはイベントの質や意義への評価ではなく、構造的な判断です。このカテゴリーの活動に対して、トレジャリーは適切な資金源ではありません。Cardanoエコシステムの価値が本物であれば、この規模のイベントはスポンサー収入・参加費・民間資金によって成立するはずです。イベント費用をトレジャリーに依存し続けることは、市場による価値検証を迂回することに他なりません。主催者は、トレジャリー出金を前提とした資金調達手段とするのではなく、イベントが自立した商業的基盤の上に成立する仕組みを模索すべきです。トレジャリーの規律を守り、資金をプロトコルの本質的な開発に充てるため、反対票を投じます。
Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/ - Yes50M ₳Rationale
I carefully went through both the positive and negative feedback. Some concerns are quite valid, while others feel more debatable.
In the end, I lean slightly toward the view that our community benefits from having both events, since I believe the long-term value for the ecosystem outweighs the requested funds.
As a result, I decided to vote Yes.
- No49.5M ₳No rationale
- No48.6M ₳Rationale
Way too expensive
- No47.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳Rationale
While the price is high, this is a good proposal and I do think the combination of Summit + Token2049 is a strong one.
- No38.1M ₳Rationale
My take: spending this much on marketing during a bear market feels hard to justify.
Selling this amount of ADA at relatively low prices is not ideal for the Treasury, and in a weaker market, the actual user growth and ROI from large-scale events are likely more limited.
Events can still have value, but timing matters. In this environment, I’d rather see Treasury funds prioritized toward core infrastructure, builders, and long-term ecosystem growth first.
- No37.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain34.6M ₳No rationale
- No33.5M ₳Rationale
HELL NO!
Cardano Foundation claimed 2025 Summit pricing was set to make events sustainable, yet returns to treasury for $2.5M in 2026. Only $313K revenue offset on $2.8M gross cost. No binding KPIs. Treasury should not perpetually subsidize Cardano Foundation flagship events.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Voting No. The Cardano Foundation positioned the 2025 Summit as a step toward event self-sustainability, justifying premium ticket pricing and sponsorship tiers on the basis that the Summit should not be perpetually treasury-funded. Coming back to the treasury for $2.5M one year later contradicts that stated goal and signals that the sustainability model failed or was never seriously pursued.
- Economic Sustainability: This is the central failure. The Cardano Foundation's own 2025 messaging set the expectation that higher ticket prices and sponsor revenue would reduce or eliminate treasury dependence for future Summits. The 2026 budget deducts only $313,000 in revenue carried over from 2025 - a negligible offset against a $2.8M gross cost. If the Summit cannot generate meaningful revenue after years of iteration, the treasury is subsidizing an event that the Cardano Foundation should be funding from its own substantial reserves or through a credible commercial model. The treasury is not an events slush fund.
- Governance Transparency: No binding KPIs tied to the spend. The proposal lists objectives (institutional exposure, B2B networking, ecosystem showcase) but none are measurable commitments with consequences for underperformance. A $3.66M ask should come with hard accountability metrics - partnership conversions, on-chain activity targets, sponsor revenue benchmarks for 2027 - not aspirational bullet points.
- Adoption: I acknowledge the strategic logic of co-locating with TOKEN2049 in Singapore and the visibility that a title sponsorship provides. The TOKEN2049 component (EMURGO, $1.16M) is at least a clear marketing spend with measurable reach (25K+ attendees, mainstage keynote, booth). But visibility is not adoption. There are no binding commitments, partnership conversions, or on-chain activity targets tied to this spend.
- Decentralization: The Cardano Foundation is a well-funded entity with its own treasury. Requesting community treasury funds for its flagship event while holding significant reserves raises a legitimate question about whether the Cardano Foundation is externalizing costs it should bear. The community treasury should fund ecosystem-wide public goods, not subsidize the operational events of a single foundation.
- Scalability: No direct impact on protocol scalability or technical infrastructure.
The Summit has value. TOKEN2049 title sponsorship has value. But the Cardano Foundation committed to making this sustainable, and one year later it's back asking for the same money. No until the Cardano Foundation demonstrates a credible path to event self-funding or, at minimum, a year-over-year reduction in treasury dependency with hard revenue targets.
- No31.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal.
Based on the outcomes and impact of previous Cardano Summit events, I do not believe that continuing the Summit at its current scale is justified. The Summit primarily functions as an internal Cardano community gathering, with limited measurable influence on broader ecosystem adoption or external engagement. Going forward, the Summit should be reduced in scope or restructured to better align with ecosystem needs.
Cardano’s most urgent priority is not marketing exposure or event presence, but the development of practical, real-world products and infrastructure that individuals and enterprises can actively use. Without useful tools, applications, and services, increased visibility at external events will not translate into sustainable adoption or meaningful ecosystem growth.
Treasury resources should be directed first toward initiatives that create tangible utility—products that solve real problems and infrastructure that supports everyday use. For these reasons, I am voting NO on this proposal. - No30.7M ₳No rationale
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
While I appreciate trying to combine events and bring visibility to Cardano shared events with other crypto communities, I think the price for these events is way too high. It is difficult for me to see how the treasury funds spent here could have an acceptable ROI, especially when compared to many other high-value treasury withdrawals we could have instead. For this reason, I am voting NO on this proposal.
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain26.1M ₳Rationale
I have sat back and watched the large concentration of my peers vote very early with a NO vote, it is obvious that the proposal may need to be rewritten listening to dreps and community and evolving the language. If you look at some of the rationales they range from "Hell No" to "Regrettably I am voting No" to an abstain based on really a political move so that it doesn't affect them in the long term. to a few yes's....very few. I will be voting abstain based on my clear conflict as a Cardano Foundation delegation recipient but would like to express that there is a clear solution to find compromise in my mind, I hope that both the CF and Emurgo team writing the proposal find those compromises so we can have the Foundation Summit this year and for years to come.
- Abstain25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN to support the Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore proposal. We absolutely need these events to to happen, though I would most certainly personally benefit as I would work position two vending machines - one that enables Hydra based gamification and the other enabling Cardano+Bitcoin payments.
- No23.5M ₳Rationale
They're splitting the vote. No on the combined vote here.
- AbstainChanged22M ₳Rationale
I am officially recording an ABSTAIN vote on this $3.65M USD (₳14M) proposal. I am abstaining to maintain absolute neutrality, as my alliance is currently submitting a separate, independent ecosystem initiative. However, as a steward of the Treasury, I must place my deep concerns regarding this proposal on the public record.
While I fully agree that Cardano needs a strong, professional presence in Asia, the structure and execution of this request are fundamentally flawed.
Poor Governance Hygiene (Double Funding Risk): This combined "Summit + TOKEN2049" GA was submitted on April 9th. Subsequently, on April 30th, EMURGO submitted two separate, modular GAs (Platinum & Title) for the exact same TOKEN2049 event, citing "community feedback." If the proposers decided to restructure their request, this original bundled GA should have been immediately withdrawn or cancelled. Leaving multiple, overlapping GAs active on-chain for the exact same event creates extreme confusion for dReps and poses a dangerous risk of the Treasury double-funding the TOKEN2049 sponsorship if voting results overlap. This is unacceptable governance hygiene from our founding entities.
Circumventing the 2026 Budget Framework: The authors explicitly state they are bypassing the formal Intersect 2026 Budget Process due to "timing constraints." It is highly concerning that the founding entities of Cardano are establishing a precedent of bypassing the very governance frameworks the rest of the community is rigorously expected to follow. If planning for October 2026 events requires bypassing rules in April 2026, it points to a failure in operational foresight.
Exorbitant "Per-Attendee" Metrics: The Cardano Foundation is requesting 2.5 Million USD for a Summit targeting 1,200 attendees. This equates to spending over 2,000 USD per attendee for a two-day event. In a capital-constrained market, this level of corporate vanity spending is unjustifiable. The Treasury should be funding real-world utility and builder infrastructure, not subsidizing hyper-inflated event management overheads.
I urge my fellow dReps to demand that future marketing budgets are subjected to
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote ABSTAIN on the Treasury Withdrawal action titled “Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore” (bd91fa7ea9b4e09f76cbde3abb0b564ffc60b27e18af464ccec9bef9c718d087#0).
This proposal has long since been rejected by the community in this format and there is already a revised proposal submitted on-chain for the Summit 2026 section previously bundled with Token2049 in this proposal.
I choose to ABSTAIN on this proposal as a DRep and a recipient of Cardano Foundation delegation. While I have voting autonomy and in no way influenced to vote one way or another, I feel that it is the right thing to do in this situation. CF delegation currently accounts for 96.65% of my voting power for which I am most grateful. I am also voting abstain due to this proposal having been resubmitted in some form already, at least with regards to the Cardano Summit 2026 element.
I would still like to take a moment to acknowledge the importance of having a Summit event, in light of some comments that I have read online. I have been fortunate enough to be able to attend the last 2 flagship events, and before that always made the effort to attend my regional satellite event in London in 2022 and 2024. Having that space to network and connect face to face has been invaluable in my experience within this ecosystem. I could even go so far as to say that I have recently found myself “full-time Cardano”, in large part to being able to attend a Summit event and meet the right people face to face and make a good enough impression that otherwise might not have been possible in the busy world that we exist in day to day, inside or outside of this industry.
I am happy to see that the Summit 2026 proposal has been revised and resubmitted following community feedback and look forward to reading it and catching up on the recently held X Space before voting and providing my feedback on it.
- Yes21.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
I can't imagine a better year to combine Cardano Summit and Token2049 in Singapore. By October we should have Bitcoin DeFi in Cardano in full swing and also Midnight decentralization started with a lot of features and privacy enabled DApps to talk about.
Imagine 1k people coming to the Cardano Summit and most of them moving over to Token2049 the next two days. Close to 1k people who are Cardano / Midnight native will make a big impression on the 30k people expected for the Token2049 event, the world wide largest crypto venue. 2026 is the year of collaboration and breaking down silos. - Abstain17.3M ₳Rationale
Cardano Summit 2026 and TOKEN2049 Singapore
- No16.7M ₳Rationale
I support the intent. Cardano needs to stay visible to institutions, media, and builders, and co-locating around TOKEN2049 is strategically sensible. However, I can’t approve this withdrawal in its current form.
Why NO ....
Bundled package, no granularity: This request combines two large initiatives (Summit + TOKEN2049) under one vote. For a 14,076,539 ADA withdrawal, DReps need the ability to evaluate and approve these independently.
Sustainability is not demonstrated: The Summit still requires $2.5M in treasury funds, with only $313k carried over from 2025 and a stated $450k revenue target for 2026. That is not yet a credible glidepath to reduced treasury dependence year-over-year.
KPIs are too soft for the spend: The proposal lists many KPI categories, but it does not translate them into hard, measurable commitments (with baselines, targets, tracking method, and post-event reporting) that justify an ask of this size.
Process concern: The proposal is submitted outside the Intersect budget process due to timing, which reduces comparability versus other marketing requests and weakens “price discovery” for a large spend.What would make me support a resubmission:
- Split into two proposals (Summit vs TOKEN2049) so each can be judged on its own ROI.
- Add hard KPI targets and a clear reporting plan (qualified leads, strategic meetings, partnerships initiated, media outcomes, and follow-up conversions).
- Stick to the sustainability plan for Summit you published last year.
This NO is a request to restructure and tighten accountability, not a rejection of marketing or global presence.
- No16.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes14.1M ₳No rationale
- No13.3M ₳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/
- Yes12.1M ₳No rationale