Withdraw ₳1,161,000 for zkFold ZK Rollup administered by Intersect
191 DReps voted · 53 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
「275M ADA Administered by Intersect」に含まれるすべての個別提案に対して、エクレシア投票の段階では必ずしもすべてに賛成していたわけではありませんが、最終的には本ガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じました。Cardanoエコシステム全体への貢献を高く評価し、その前進を後押しする立場から、今回提出された39件すべての提案に賛成票を投じる判断をいたしました。\n\nWhile I did not necessarily support every individual proposal included in "275M ADA Administered by Intersect" during the Ekklesia vote, I ultimately voted Yes on this governance action. Recognizing its overall contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and in support of continued progress, I cast a Yes vote on all 39 proposals submitted under this initiative.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I voted NO on this proposal in Ekklesia, but thanks to Intersect's decision to unbundle the treasury withdrawal action, I have had some more room to reconsider some of my original decisions.
I want to be frank (and I may make a mistake) - the fact that ENCOINS V1 was not a successful product at the level that I expected it could be - was a factor that did influence my original NO vote. If I am correct ZKFold and ENCOINS projects do trace back to some of the same people.
I admit the perceived low usability of the ENCOINS V1 product did influence my decision negatively towards this proposal (for what its worth) - as it just did not bode well for me. Yes, these are completely different initiatives - but I was not able to ignore information that I had.
In the meantime, several things have changed. I have early tested ENCOINS V2 on PreProd and found it to be much much more intuitive and straightforward to use.
I esssentially do support the effort to introduce more scalability through ZK rollups. An additional pathway to greater scalability is welcome. We need options.
Also, Intersect decided not to submit a Mega Treasury Withdrawal action, allowing me to revisit some of my earlier "No votes".
Finally, I am human, so my decisions will be influenced by environmental cues. I recently listened to a NerdOut space with Rul from FluiDTokens speaking about the work to connect BTC and Cardano. There was a mention of the work being done with ZKFold team on a ZK aspect of this. I think there is room for a change of my vote to a YES. - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgReady to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).
We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.
My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
We initially voted NO on this proposal, but after having an honest and open discussion with the project we decided to change our vote. It wasn’t about the team or their track record–zkFold has consistently delivered what they promised in the ecosystem.
Our reasoning for the initial vote was that more L2s, especially rollups, on Cardano would decrease the amount of fees that go to the treasury. We understand now that there are additional conversations in progress with enterprises who view this as a pre-requisite to work on Cardano, and that this is also something that has been observed as a market trend and an enabler for certain kinds of transactions. Having several channels and models for high-throughput and privacy on the chain also increases the resilience of the network.
We note that in order for the value of this project to be realized to the fullest, it will have to be coordinated with enterprise adoption efforts, which will also need support, funding, and skilled teams. With that being said, we wholeheartedly support the project and invite anyone else to reach out to us on votes or issues within the Cardano ecosystem as we found the dialogue to be constructive and useful in our decision making processes.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Must actively explorer zk tech advancement for Cardano's scalability.
Must actively explorer zk tech advancement for Cardano's scalability.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES because core engineering is the priority of my DRep account.
Strength and honor.
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting Rationale for 2025-08 Treasury Withdrawals
The following outlines the general lenses and beliefs that guided my voting decisions on the 39 withdrawal proposals submitted under Cardano’s Voltaire governance. I am reusing this rationale for proposals that aligned with these principles and did not require additional explanation due to unique mitigating concerns.
⸻
Cardano: State of Play
The vision of the Cardano ecosystem—to create a fairer financial system, less subject to the whims of individuals, elites, nations, or cultures—remains worthy of support. In general, we are progressing toward that goal.
The bedrock tenet of any blockchain is trustworthiness. While Cardano’s base layer and transaction integrity are mature, the ecosystem has not yet reached the scale needed to fulfill its mission. Infrastructure that supports scaling—especially when open-sourced—should be prioritized for funding.
Because the ecosystem currently allows for anonymity and lacks effective mechanisms to penalize bad actors, it is vulnerable to abuse. Public funding is at risk from fraud, budget inflation, frivolous proposals, and well-intentioned but economically unviable ideas. Given that grift is currently viable, all funding requests must be critically reviewed—with a strong default bias toward skepticism.
However, in any new system, failure and error are expected. The many problems we’ve seen in this first funding cycle are normal and should be treated as feedback to help us improve, not as reasons to disengage.
⸻
Fiscal Philosophy
I view the Cardano treasury as a sovereign wealth fund—a public resource meant to grow over the long term. Spending should be closely aligned with income.
Most projects should ultimately sustain themselves by generating revenue commensurate with their value. But Cardano is still an immature economic system, and many valuable contributions will require public funding at this stage—analogous to early government support for foundational infrastructure.
⸻
Approach to the Budget Process
This first Voltaire budget cycle has experienced serious growing pains. I do not believe that builders should be asked to shoulder the full financial risk of an immature, unclear, and delayed funding process.
Many proposers have worked through most of 2025 without knowing whether their funding would come through. This has impaired their ability to allocate resources intelligently.
I believe the greater ecosystem risk lies in failing to fund projects that were already approved by the community—under the reasonable assumption that funding would follow—than in inadvertently funding a few proposals that should have been rejected. Accordingly, I adopted a bias toward optimism and benefit of the doubt.
However, in cases where proposals appeared excessively extractive, failed to demonstrate economic value in line with their requests, or raised too many concern flags, I voted “no” despite that bias.
⸻
Bias Toward Core Infrastructure and Open-Source
Cardano is first and foremost an infrastructure system. Public funding is best directed toward foundational layers and tooling, rather than toward products that should be able to find product-market fit and attract users or investors.
Public money should come with public return—either in the form of open-sourced outputs or equity-like participation in future value creation.
⸻
Additional Beliefs and Disclosures
I believe in the wisdom of crowds. My votes are based on independent reading of the proposals, personal communications with teams, and my own biases and interpretations. I assume some of my conclusions are incorrect—but trust that the collective judgment of voters will yield a generally sound outcome despite individual errors.
I voted in good faith and without compensation. I have no proposals of my own and no financial interest in any proposal beyond that of any other ADA holder.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
I endorse all proposals incorporating zero-knowledge solutions and technologies.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ Rationale
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already undergone extensive scrutiny and received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision and the work these prospective developers have put in by voting yes on all the proposals from the Intersect Budget team.
- Yes 2.6M ₳ Rationale
This seems like a meaningful contribution to the ecosystem — if it’s made open. I’m not sure it should cost this much, but in the long term, it does appear to be valuable.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
As I mentioned in the midgard vote, we need both optimistic rollups and ZK rollups to compete against other chains. We need to continue and deliver on these efforts. This sort of functionality encourages developers to build here.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
zkFoldによるZK Rollup構築は、Cardanoにおける高スループット・低手数料の実現に向けた重要なステップです。HydraやMidgardと異なる暗号技術スタックによるL2選択肢を増やす意味でも意義があり、₳1.1Mという小規模予算での先行開発として妥当と判断し、賛成します。
zkFold proposes a general-purpose ZK rollup for Cardano, addressing scalability with a cryptographic approach distinct from Hydra and Midgard. As a cost-effective step to diversify L2 options and promote broader dApp adoption, I support this initiative.
- No 2.5M ₳ Rationale
As important as i think ZK is, Would like to see more info on exact outputs to expect as well as budget breakdowns/FTEs. I will be voting no due to this lack of clarity defined outputs in the proposal.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting yes on this proposal as it enhances Cardano’s scalability, improving the experience for developers and users.
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes on the proposal to withdraw ₳1,161,000 for the zkFold ZK Rollup, administered by Intersect. This project represents a meaningful step toward scaling Cardano through zero-knowledge rollups, a technology that can significantly increase throughput while preserving decentralization and security. The proposal is well-structured, aligned with the broader strategic goal of Layer 2 expansion, and backed by credible contributors. Administering the project through Intersect provides a governance anchor within the ecosystem, helping ensure accountability and transparency. Given the potential impact on network scalability and developer usability, I view this as a high-value use of Treasury funds.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale