Withdraw ₳1,150,000 for GovTool 12 months active maintenance and development
179 DReps voted · 71 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote · 3 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 3 to yes, together voting with 144.9M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳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. - Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳Rationale
Approving after approved info action
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança (gov_action16td...5sr06h), 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_action16td...5sr06h), 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. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4M ₳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.
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3M ₳Rationale
As I have not yet had time to review this proposal, I have submitted a vote of Abstain for now.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳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.
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳No rationale
- 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
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
This funding keeps Cardano’s on-chain decision-making accessible, secure, and user-friendly, supporting updates, community feedback integration, and feature improvements essential for Voltaire’s success.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳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.
- Yes1.6M ₳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 ₳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.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.2M ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES on this GovTool treasury withdrawal. This proposal addresses some of the most critical needs for Cardano governance today. What stands out most is the Key Features and Roadmap: supporting group DReps, showing DRep and Governance Action voting history, allowing multiple votes per transaction, integrating CoSponsor for crowdfunding deposits, expanding APIs, and optimizing infrastructure. These improvements make governance more transparent, accessible, and efficient for the entire community.
The Governance & Oversight structure is also excellent — administration via Intersect’s smart contracts with checks from the Oversight Committee and a public dashboard for on-chain auditing ensures accountability, reduces risk of mismanagement, and strengthens trust.
With contributions coordinated through the GovTool Consortium — including LidoNation, ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, and Dquadrant — this proposal ensures that the platform remains community-led, open-source, and sustainable. The rationale is clear: prevent fragmentation, maintain a neutral platform, and safeguard the long-term health of Cardano’s on-chain governance ecosystem.
For all these reasons, I fully support this withdrawal.Earlier votes
Yes10mo agoSuperseded
I’m voting YES on this GovTool treasury withdrawal. This proposal addresses some of the most critical needs for Cardano governance today. What stands out most is the Key Features and Roadmap: supporting group DReps, showing DRep and Governance Action voting history, allowing multiple votes per transaction, integrating CoSponsor for crowdfunding deposits, expanding APIs, and optimizing infrastructure. These improvements make governance more transparent, accessible, and efficient for the entire community.
The Governance & Oversight structure is also excellent — administration via Intersect’s smart contracts with checks from the Oversight Committee and a public dashboard for on-chain auditing ensures accountability, reduces risk of mismanagement, and strengthens trust.
With contributions coordinated through the GovTool Consortium — including LidoNation, ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, and Dquadrant — this proposal ensures that the platform remains community-led, open-source, and sustainable. The rationale is clear: prevent fragmentation, maintain a neutral platform, and safeguard the long-term health of Cardano’s on-chain governance ecosystem.
For all these reasons, I fully support this withdrawal. - No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳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.
- No1.1M ₳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.
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No929.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale