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.
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes861.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes825.2K ₳Rationale
This proposal has our full support. GovTool is an indispensable public good for the Cardano ecosystem, crucial for fostering accessible and fair governance for every participant. Unlike commercial ventures, GovTool is an open-source, community-built platform, designed to be reused and expanded upon by the community. While this collaborative development demands more time and coordination, it is unequivocally the right approach for a decentralized ecosystem like Cardano. The proposal provides a meticulous breakdown of costs for 12 months of work across all environments (Dev, QA, Preview, PreProd, Mainnet), clearly explaining fund allocation and offering historical cost data for complete transparency. This funding is vital to ensure GovTool remains a stable, community-owned hub for participation. Furthermore, the commitment to return any unused funds to the treasury demonstrates exceptional fiscal responsibility. For these compelling reasons, we consider this a fair and absolutely necessary proposal that significantly strengthens Cardano's ability to govern itself.
- Yes798.6K ₳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.
- Yes798.4K ₳Rationale
Approving after approved info action
- Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
Support for GovTool active maintenance and development was previously approved by the community as a Budget Info Action, and I support the 'active' component of a treasury withdrawal. GovTool is a critical open-sourced, community led platform that helps ensure functional governance.
- Yes763.4K ₳No rationale
- No731.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes707.1K ₳Rationale
We, the Dutch DRep, vote YES on the Govtool budget proposal by the Govtool consortium.
Transparency Disclosure: One of our Dutch DReps represents Dquadrant, a Govtool consortium member, in community forums. While this relationship informs our understanding, we believe the proposal stands on its own merits and advances Cardano’s governance goals.
The Govtool consortium—coordinated through Intersect and backed by trusted community teams—has a proven track record of delivering accessible, constitutionally sound governance tools since CIP‑1694. Their proposal is transparent, well‑structured, and firmly rooted in Cardano’s principles of accountability and community‑driven decision‑making.
Govtool’s planned enhancements will:
Guarantee open access for all ADA holders, lowering barriers to participation.
Foster community ownership through open‑source code and public APIs, enabling developers to build complementary governance solutions.
Support a distributed development model by funding multiple teams and encouraging community contributions.
Ensure the roadmap remains responsive to ADA holders’ needs via transparent, community‑driven prioritization.
Together, these improvements will strengthen Cardano’s decentralized governance, boost transparency and efficiency, and align with our long‑term vision of inclusivity and innovation.
- YesRevoted705.1K ₳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
Yes9mo 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. - Yes705.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes because GovTool is the infrastructure that makes Cardano governance operational, in my mind this is not optional, but operational. Without an open-source, community-owned platform, governance fragments into proprietary tools controlled by private interests, and decentralization becomes theater. GovTool already serves 50,000+ users across 170 countries, processing thousands of governance transactions. It's the UX backbone that lets ADA holders register, delegate, propose, vote, and audit outcomes transparently. Letting it degrade or privatize would be governance malpractice.
The 1.15 million ADA funds 12 months of hosting, infrastructure maintenance, active development across all governance pillars, and contributor incentives distributed transparently via Andamio platform. This isn't bloat, it's staffing the operating system of on-chain democracy. The roadmap delivers group DRep support (coalition building to distribute voting power), DRep voting history (liquid democracy accountability), Constitutional Committee vote tracking, crowdfunded governance action deposits via CoSponsor, and expanded APIs for third-party builders. These aren't vanity features; they're critical infrastructure that lowers barriers and distributes participation.
Intersect administers funds through audited smart contracts with milestone-based disbursement and oversight from Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Xerberus, and NMKR. All fund flows are publicly auditable at cardanotreasury.fi, and unused funds return to treasury. The GovTool Consortium of LidoNation, ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, Dquadrant have the experience of building this through SanchoNet, Voltaire, and Chang upgrades with open-source code and global contributors. This is a strategic investment in Cardano's democratic operating layer, not simply maintenance expense or just another one of many. There is only this one. - Yes605.7K ₳Rationale
📢 Voting “YES” to fund GovTool — Cardano’s core governance tool
#Cardano #Governance #DRep #мысляотэдгара
🗳 A Treasury Withdrawal proposal is live to allocate ₳1,150,000 for 12 months of active maintenance and development of GovTool.
GovTool is the essential platform for Cardano governance, enabling us to:
🔹 Register and become DReps
🔹 Delegate votes
🔹 Vote on proposals
🔹 View transparent results
🧠 Why I voted “YES”:
- I personally use GovTool daily — it’s my main tool as a DRep.
- Continued funding ensures stability and feature development.
- Funds cover infrastructure, hosting, testing, and new features (like DRep voting history and group DReps).
- This protects Cardano governance from fragmentation and reliance on closed, private platforms.
⚖️ As a DRep, this tool is vital for my work, and I see it as my duty to support its growth.
🟢 That’s why my vote is YES.
🗳 My DRep ID:
➡️ drep1y269ehxj30k4vfzfc2z84v0xykd3amuy2xn0kv9zf8rhcec2fg2jr
📌 More details: https://t.me/PROCENT666/338
🚀 COURSE: “LEDGER COLD CRYPTO WALLET” | METAMASK
https://edgarbagdasarian.justclick.ru/order/LEDGERMETAMASK🔥 CLOSED VIP CHAT PAID SUBSCRIPTION
https://t.me/MREDGARCROSS_BOT🌐 ALL COURSES & LINKS
https://mredgarcross.com/ - Yes589.7K ₳Rationale
More platforms for people to engage with governance is better for Cardano
- No587.6K ₳Rationale
After reviewing the GovTool source code and analyzing the proposal details, I have decided to vote NO on this proposal. The requested budget appears significantly disproportionate to the scope and technical complexity of the project. Based on my experience, a comparable application could be developed from scratch—more efficiently and with better architectural decisions—for a fraction of the requested funds, potentially around one-fifth of the cost.
Furthermore, existing explorers that already receive treasury support provide governance-related data in a more optimized and scalable manner. With minimal additional investment, they could easily extend their functionality to include voting and governance interaction features, achieving similar or even better results at a far lower cost.
While I appreciate the team’s work on GovTool and its contribution to the ecosystem so far, this particular proposal does not demonstrate a cost-effective or technically necessary path forward given the available infrastructure and funding priorities. Therefore, my vote is NO.
- No520.2K ₳Rationale
GovTool is useful, but this request is too big and not clear enough about what will be delivered as it is simply not defined yet. The proposal doesn’t set firm milestones or KPIs, and funding isn’t tied to meeting them. I’m voting NO, but I would support a smaller, step-by-step plan with clear targets.
- Yes478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes467.8K ₳No rationale
- No450.2K ₳No rationale
- No442.9K ₳Rationale
Too much ADA just to do maintenance for 12 months.
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes370.3K ₳Rationale
Why I am voting Yes
GovTool has already proven itself - over 50,000 people across 170+ countries are actively using it. It works, people rely on it, and it's completely open-source. Without funding, we risk losing this to proprietary alternatives that could fragment the community or put governance behind paywalls.
The Money Makes Sense
The team isn't asking for blind trust. There's proper oversight with multiple independent organizations checking the work, public dashboards showing where every ada goes, and they're even promising to return unused funds. That's the kind of accountability we should expect.
It's Actually Community-Driven
The roadmap is based on what the community has been asking for. Things like making it easier for smaller DReps to team up, better voting history so we can see what our DReps actually do, and lowering the barriers for anyone to submit proposals. Plus they're setting aside ₳250,000 to reward contributors and support other governance tools.
Sets a Good Standard
This proposal has detailed contracts, milestone-based payments, third-party verification. If we want future treasury withdrawals to be handled professionally, this is the kind of proposal we should be supporting.
Bottom line:- GovTool is already essential infrastructure that's working well. This keeps it running, makes it better, and does it all transparently. - Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳Rationale
Panda thinks the budget is quite high; however, in these trying times of booting up Governance, the pockets must be emptied*
*A pandaneese joke. Don't you worry
- No314.4K ₳Rationale
I want better governance tools for Cardano, but Gov Tools’ user experience is still poor and their funding ask feels too high. They should cut costs before I can support this proposal. I regret to vote no in this proposal.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
During the budget process, when we were discussing which projects needed funding, I hadn’t included Gov Tools in my shortlist. This was because, as a user, my experience with Gov Tools was (and still is) very, very poor — and I believe their funding request doesn’t make sense.
I still can’t believe that the governance system of an ecosystem this large ($24B!) was built around a platform like this. It almost feels as though we wanted to discourage governance participation altogether.
This poor experience becomes even more apparent when compared to tools like Tempo, which make DRep registration simple and convenient, or CF’s newly introduced voting tool, which makes the voting process much easier.
At some point, we need to stop playing the nice guys and start demanding more — more accountability and more value for what we pay.
This is why it’s very difficult for me to vote in favor of this proposal, even though I understand that this funding would improve the platform in many aspects. In fact, anything that helps build governance infrastructure is more than welcome in our current state of governance. I also recognize the need to pay for maintenance and to support open-source, community-owned governance platforms (rather than privately maintained or entity-owned ones).
Nevertheless, I can’t make sense of the numbers behind this request. For example, $5K per month for hosting? With the current level of governance participation, I believe even a simple WordPress blog might attract more daily traffic and cost less than 1% of that amount.
DRep voting history on the DRep page and Governance Actions? These features have been implemented by Cardano explorers for a long time — why don’t we already have them in Gov Tools, and why are we only now being asked to pay for them?
I truly want to support governance, and having an open-source, community-owned tool is very important to me. For that reason, supporting Gov Tools initially feels like the right thing to do. On the other hand, we have a precedent of a poorly designed tool and a very large funding request that I simply can’t justify.
Right now, one part of me wants to support it, while another part wants to give a resounding “NO WAY!”
I believe the team should re-evaluate their funding request, significantly reduce their costs, and resubmit a proposal that does not exceed 60–70% of the current amount.
For the reasons above, I regret to vote “NO” at this time. I hope we get a leaner proposal — one that I’d gladly and wholeheartedly vote “YES” for.
- Yes313.4K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes for this as per support for Budget info action
- Yes300.6K ₳No rationale
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
While I really like many of the features proposed in this budget (script-based DReps, multiple votes per transaction, group proposers, CoSponsor integration), I just don't see the need for costs to be this high. All of these features would be nice, but none of them are real priorities right now.
- No294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes279.3K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
After thorough review of the proposal titled Cardano GovTool Budget – 12-month Maintenance and Active Development, I recommend a NO vote on this proposal primarily due to significant governance and financial risks related to its internal incentive fund and governance structure.
While GovTool is foundational to Cardano’s decentralized governance process, this proposal introduces a discretionary incentive fund (~₳250,000) lacking transparent allocation criteria, decision-making processes, contributor definitions, or conflict-of-interest safeguards. This discretionary budget resembles a slush fund with increased risk of misuse and inadequate accountability to the community.
Additionally, the governance consortium lacks clear authority, defined membership criteria, and formal conflict resolution mechanisms, which weakens oversight and increases risks of centralization within this core governance infrastructure.
Further, the roadmap omits specific, measurable deliverables and success metrics, limiting meaningful community oversight of progress and outcomes. DRep voting on this proposal appears to be a formality rather than a fully informed, transparent decision-making process.
Given Cardano’s constitutional mandates for transparency, prudent treasury management, and decentralization of authority over funds, the unresolved ambiguity and risk posed by this proposal prevent endorsement at this time. Strengthening governance clarity, incentive distribution transparency, and establishing explicit accountability are essential before reconsideration.
- Yes261.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes260.2K ₳Rationale
GovTool is a critical open-source infrastructure for Cardano governance. Halting its development would risk fragmentation and reliance on closed tools during the crucial Voltaire era. While the requested budget is significant, it is transparently structured, subject to smart contract oversight, and with unspent funds returning to the Treasury. Potential concerns (cost levels, role overlap) should be addressed through audits and future optimizations, but they are not strong enough to block funding at this stage.
- Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
I voted YES on the Budget Info Action because I believe GovTool is essential for Cardano’s decentralized governance, enabling ADA holders like me to engage as DReps with accessible, open-source tools. My YES vote for this Treasury Withdrawal of ₳1.15M follows through on that commitment. GovTool’s 50k+ users, global reach, and integrations (e.g., 1694.io, tempo.vote) prove its value, and the community-driven roadmap—addressing DRep coalitions, voting history, and API expansions—strengthens Voltaire’s vision. The budget is lean (~₳96k/month), with smart contract oversight and unused funds returning to the Treasury. As GovTool onboarded me as a DRep, I trust this funding will sustain and enhance its role as a public good for Cardano.
- No199K ₳Rationale
1.1 million for this nonsense shit looking user interface???!!!!! NO WAY!!! That money would cover the salary of a proper developer for TEN YEARS!!! What the hell costs 1.1 million on to upkeep this page???
- Yes166.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes150.7K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes109.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am in favor of approving this funding request. The amount requested is significant and I believe that GOV TOOL in general has quite a few improvements to make, however it has one important reason why we absolutely should fun it: It is community managed and open source. It is great to have multiple tools from multiple teams out there to handle governance but we also must maintain enough tools that are in the control of the community if we want to remain fully decentralized. Community managed projects come with a certain set of difficulties and are generally a little more expensive but that is certainly worth the cost.