Withdraw ₳1,150,000 for GovTool 12 months active maintenance and development
179 DReps voted · 71 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案に賛成します。GovToolは、Cardanoのガバナンスに不可欠な基盤であり、オープンソースかつ中立的な形で維持・発展させることは、エコシステム全体の健全性と持続性に直結すると考えます。\n\nI vote Yes on this proposal. GovTool is a critical foundation for Cardano governance, and maintaining and evolving it in an open-source and neutral way is essential to the ecosystem’s health and sustainability.
- Abstain8.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal for active maintenance and development of the open source GovTool. Cardano's governance is not an afterthought - it was long planned as a core element of the Voltaire era. Realistically, we are at the very beginning. We only have minimum viable governance (MVG) but enabled, however this makes this proposal even more important. Having in-built governance in a blockchain protocol and then not funding an open source governance platform, does not make sense to me in the early days of Voltaire. GovTools has evolved through its trials. I personally use it on Cardano Preview, PreProd and Mainnet. Is there an functional alternative that is present on all three networks? GovTools now works smoothly for me as a minor DRep and I appreciate the ability to pin rationales automatically via IFPS. The inclusion of a Proposed roadmap with a dozen or so new initiatives to strenghten governance tooling makes sense. This is not a vote for GovTools, its a vote for Cardano open source governance platforms and tooling. I see these proposals like this one as an integral element of widening the footprint of the Voltaire era. I also remain open to supporting a competing fully open source proposal as well. We have seen how competition from other players has helped improve the GovTools proposal over the past few months. The success of Voltaire can not come in darkness. We need open source governance platforms to champion reason, liberties, and good decisions. We cannot lock ourselves out governance through closed-source platforms, or governance platforms controlled by large players who may prevent us from criticizing abuses of power.
ADDENDUM: No more YES votes from me in the first budget year of minimum viable governance (MVG). The current system of minimum viable governance - with heavy concentration of DRep power in the hands of a few DReps makes me even more wary of approving more treasury withdrawals. The majority of DRep power approved ₳272 million in treasury withdrawals in the first budget year of MVG. This effectively ties my hands for the rest of the budget year - apart from emergencies. I set a personal DRep limit to approve up to ₳200-250 million of spending in 1st year of MVG. I respected that. I voted YES to approve treasury withdrawals totallng around ₳173 million so far. As things stand, this could be my last YES vote to a Treasury Withdrawal this budget year, apart from open source governance tooling (if good) - I see that as a necessity/emergency under MVG. Other emergencies may crop up - which might require an emergency YES vote if a true emergency.
オープンソースのGovToolの積極的な保守と開発のための資金引き出しに賛成票を投じます。Cardanoのガバナンスは後付けではなく、Voltaire時代の中核要素として長らく計画されてきました。現実的に、私たちはまだ始まったばかりです。最小限の実行可能なガバナンス（MVG）は有効化されているものの、だからこそこの提案はさらに重要になります。ブロックチェーンプロトコルにガバナンスが組み込まれているにもかかわらず、オープンソースのガバナンスプラットフォームに資金を提供しないのは、Voltaireの初期段階では私には理解できません。GovToolsは試行錯誤を経て進化してきました。私は個人的にCardano Preview、PreProd、Mainnetで使用しています。3つのネットワークすべてで機能する代替手段はありますか？GovToolsは現在、マイナーDRepとしてスムーズに動作しており、IFPSを介して根拠を自動的にピン留めする機能には感謝しています。ガバナンスツールを強化するための10数個の新しいイニシアチブを含むロードマップ案が含まれているのは理にかなっています。これはGovToolsへの投票ではなく、Cardanoオープンソースガバナンスプラットフォームとツールへの投票です。今回のような提案は、Voltaire時代の足跡を拡大する上で不可欠な要素だと考えています。また、競合する完全オープンソースの提案も支持する用意があります。過去数ヶ月にわたり、他のプレイヤーとの競争がGovTools提案の改善にどのように貢献してきたかを目の当たりにしてきました。Voltaireの成功は暗闇の中では実現しません。理性、自由、そして適切な意思決定を推進するためには、オープンソースガバナンスプラットフォームが必要です。クローズドソースプラットフォームや、権力の濫用を批判することを阻む可能性のある大手プレイヤーが支配するガバナンスプラットフォームによって、ガバナンスを自ら締め出すことはできません。
追記：最小限の実行可能なガバナンス（MVG）の最初の予算年度には、私はもう賛成票を投じません。DRepの権限が少数のDRepに集中している現在の最小限の実行可能なガバナンスシステムを考えると、私はさらなる資金引き出しの承認にさらに慎重になります。 DRepの権限の大半は、MVGの最初の予算年度に2億7,200万ナイラの国庫引き出しを承認しました。これにより、緊急事態を除き、残りの予算年度は事実上、私の手が縛られることになります。私は、MVGの最初の年度に2億～2億5,000万ナイラまでの支出を承認するように個人的なDRepの制限を設定しました。私はそれを尊重しました。これまでに合計約1億7,300万ナイラの国庫引き出しの承認に賛成票を投じました。現状では、オープンソースのガバナンスツール（良質であれば）を除けば、これが今予算年度の国庫引き出しに対する最後の賛成票になる可能性があります。私は、オープンソースのガバナンスツールはMVGの下では必要不可欠/緊急事態だと考えています。他の緊急事態が発生する可能性があり、真の緊急事態であれば緊急の賛成票が必要になる可能性があります。
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
Voting yes as I did with the budget info action - this is tooling that needs to exist for the time being and be supported. The platform continues to improve over time and I look forward to seeing Costs are also expected to go down over time.
- Yes5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳Rationale
GovTools is an essential community tool, so I must support the treasury withdrawal.
I hope the fund administrator will ensure no community funds are wasted and will also extend support to similar community tools, such as the Tempo app. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança (gov_action16tdkp3fs0j6303e4utgp8rftdug0ckezr4sslgv8wxdaeq40ngpsq5sr06h), pois, conforme nosso voto na respectiva InfoAction, o GovTools é a principal ferramenta de participação na governança, oferecendo funcionalidades que ainda não estão disponíveis em algumas carteiras, como a carteira Lace. Portanto, sua manutenção e continuidade são essenciais para o amadurecimento do ecossistema de governança, favorecendo o aumento da participação da comunidade. Além disso, a justificativa de gastos apresentada, bem como as métricas de avaliação e controle, foram claras e bem estruturadas, demonstrando responsabilidade e alinhamento com os objetivos estratégicos da rede.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action (gov_action16tdkp3fs0j6303e4utgp8rftdug0ckezr4sslgv8wxdaeq40ngpsq5sr06h), as, in line with our vote on the corresponding InfoAction, GovTools is the main tool for participating in governance, offering features that are not yet available in some wallets, such as Lace. Therefore, its maintenance and continuity are essential for the maturation of the governance ecosystem, encouraging greater community participation. Furthermore, the expense justification presented, along with the evaluation and control metrics, was clear and well-structured, demonstrating responsibility and alignment with the networks strategic goals. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.8M ₳Rationale
I can not in good conscience vote yes on this withdrawal. As I have spent much of my career delivering software services to enterprises, I do not believe this system is worth this price based on what has been delivered so far, nor based on its roadmap of deliverables for the next 12 months.
However, I can not vote no because this has already received community approval by vote, and thus I do not believe that this is the place to undermine a previous democratic decision.
I do not believe that the team should have had to submit this request at all as proposal approval should imply rights to withdraw.
I won't vote Yes, as I can not in good conscience approve this, but I also won't use my vote to try to derail the process.
- Abstain3.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.1M ₳Rationale
As I have not yet had time to review this proposal, I have submitted a vote of Abstain for now.
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
I feel it is appropriate to have at least 1 fully open source and community owned governance platform; I regret the cost, which is higher than I would have anticipated, but feel it is worth keeping the lights on and development continuing for Gov tools.
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
賛成票。GovToolはカルダノのガバナンスを支える公共インフラとして不可欠であり、分散性とOSS性を維持する上で本資金は妥当と判断します。特にDRepの活動を強化する機能拡張と、余剰資金をトレジャリーに返還すると明記している点を高く評価し、支持します。
Yes. GovTool is essential public infrastructure for Cardano governance, and this funding is justified to preserve decentralization and open-source values. I especially value the planned features that strengthen DRep activities and the explicit commitment to return unused funds to the Treasury, which reinforces transparency and accountability.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
Unfortunately I approved this in my budget already so have a yes but I swear to god if you fund a dashboard with this it will be my last approval. Performant functionality is all I want!
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳Rationale
I think there needs to be a reduction in operating and development costs or a better explanation of the need or appropriate use of budget for each category.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting No. While I support GovTool’s mission, the amount requested is significant, particularly given the product is still affected by UX problems. I believe a smaller budget would be sufficient to address GovTools current issues and demonstrate commitment to quality, before requesting funding which includes a large portion for the development of new features.
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
I have some concerns about GovTool as expressed in other votes, but this is simply to release already approved funds which will be administered through a smart contract.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
I approved the budget and approve its treasury withdrawal too.
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I support an open, neutral, community-owned GovTool as a public good, because without accessible, open-source governance tooling Cardano risks fragmentation and centralization. But this specific funding request fails to demonstrate fiscal discipline, offers insufficient operational evidence, and leaves too many trust and delivery questions open at this stage. I cannot responsibly endorse ₳1.15M without stronger justification, clearer cost-efficiency, and concrete measurable commitments. **I vote NO. Do the work, tighten the ask, come back.
**
Here's my vision: I want GovTool to thrive. I want it lean, resilient, and truly community-owned — not a recurring line-item that enables softly‑contracted, overpaid maintenance while UX issues persist!**The current math ($120k per 1 FTE, $60k per 0.5 FTE) reads like comfortable contractor rates with no productivity evidence. **For the consortium to foster community trust, it is essential to clearly demonstrate why these rates are both competitive and indispensable. I would accept up to ~$80–90k per senior FTE in USD-equivalent for 2025 global remote market, but it must be justified with CVs, time allocation, and deliverables. The current salaries/contractor costs at USD equivalents are well above market benchmarks for full-time engineering in an open-source, largely remote, global market. Especially when hosting at only ₳6.25k/month in a ₳1.15M program is suspiciously low; either hosting is massively underestimated or the bigger portion is personnel/overhead with weak justification.
**I would appreciate a detailed analysis of how GovTool plans to position itself in comparison to Tempo.vote, 1694.tools, and other user experience projects! Is GovTool primary, or a plumbing/API provider? **A smaller, API-first funding ask to stabilise APIs and enable third-party UXs might be more efficient and community-centric. If the intent is to be the canonical UX, justify that with feature parity and UX roadmaps. I for one don't like to reinvent the wheel twice at a time when Cardano is stuck in a swamp of grifters sucking liquidity from the treasury, funds, and CNTs.
GovTool is critical infrastructure. No question about it. But funding it is defensible. The governance of treasury funds demands prudence and demonstrable value for money. This proposal, as presented, is too broad, too expensive, and too light on enforceable, measurable outcomes to be approved at this time. As someone entrenched in strategic planning, I'm missing a feasible path aligned with a feasible long-term vision. This proposal is, yet again, a list of ideals and aspirations without proper planning and realistic budgeting.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- No971.5K ₳No rationale