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 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.
It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.
I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:
- Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
- Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
- Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
- I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.
I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:
❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
Although zkFold’s ZK rollup promises scalability and lower fees, the proposal lacks clear integration with Cardano’s existing Layer 2 roadmap, detailed risk management, and budget transparency. The requested ₳1.16M is premature given the experimental stage and governance centralization concerns. I vote NO until these critical gaps are addressed to protect Cardano’s treasury and strategic coherence.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 804.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
This project has a good chance on delivering positive results toward scaling improvements.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 738.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 716.6K ₳ Rationale
We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix, administered by Intersect. Our affirmative vote is based on MLabs important technical contributions and use by Cardano stakeholder such as SPOs and a favorable cost-benefit ratio for thhe Cardano.nix support. These were major factors in our decision to support this proposal.
- Yes 655K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
I have voted in favor of this action to demonstrates my intention to execute without delays and move the treasury expenditure process forward. I also want to note that I will not seriously consider individual requests from the treasury for less that 1,500,000 ADA moving forward. I reserve the right this round because I feel the process was not properly explained to proposers and DRep and it would be unfair to implement this personal guardrail at this time. Requests below that threshold are better suited for Catalyst funding or bundled together in MBO, DAO, or conglomerate entities. TWA (Treasury Withdrawal Actions) need be comprehensive and not ad hoc as that makes oversight more costly and inefficient.
A budget and all included line items has already been approved, and now is the time to disperse funding and enable further development of the Cardano network. The proposal was selected through a well-defined process, and I will fully support it out of respect for the will of the broader Cardano community and a belief in respecting the consensus we achieved together under the Intersect-administered budget process. The process reflects a coordinated, strategic approach to funding Cardano’s ecosystem-critical infrastructure. The community has thoroughly reviewed the proposal. I was actively involved in the entire process and the proposal presented represents development that provides a tangible benefit to our ecosystem. It would be a mistake to underfund our ecosystem’s development when we can sustainably provide the required funding with our available treasury reserves.
Furthermore there are exceptional oversight mechanisms in place to ensure a minimum amount of wast, fraud, and abuse of treasury expenditures, such as Intersect’s smart contract framework (audited by TxPipe and MLabs), Multi-party oversight (including Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, NMKR, etc.), A clear milestone-driven disbursement model, and full transparency via TRSC/PSSC dashboards.
These governance and assurance systems meet the constitutional standards for accountability and risk management and provide confidence in efficiency and execution. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 587.1K ₳ Rationale
Zero-knowledge (ZK) technology and rollups are indeed critical innovations for the future of Cardano — especially for scaling, identity, and interoperability use cases. However, I currently lack sufficient clarity on how zkFold’s implementation aligns with existing ZK research and infrastructure already being developed by IOG and other actors in the ecosystem.
Additionally, considering the technical complexity and the high funding amount, I believe a deeper understanding is needed to responsibly cast a definitive vote. Until more transparent technical documentation and alignment with Cardano’s broader ZK roadmap are provided, I choose to abstain from voting on this proposal.
- Yes 555.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 437.8K ₳ Rationale
ZK roll‑ups are central to Cardano’s future scale‑up, and zkFold already has a working prototype that bundles many contract calls into one L1 transaction, trimming congestion and fees. The technical side looks solid. Backing them now would give Cardano an early lead in ZK layer‑2s, so I’m on board with funding the project.
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Krypto Labs endorse funding the zkFold ZK Rollup proposal for its transformative potential in addressing scalability challenges. zkFold SA aims to develop a general purpose zero knowledge rollup as a Layer 2 solution, bundling hundreds of transactions into batches for on chain verification, boosting throughput, reducing fees, and alleviating congestion.
The proposal's milestones transaction aggregation server, wallet and indexer APIs, validation logic and dApp toolkit are feasible. Their team of Haskell, Rust, and ZKP experts has delivered prior Catalyst projects (e.g., ZK Prover Backend, zkWrapper), with progress toward TestNet evident in open source GitHub repos and X updates.
Budgeted at $860k over 12 months (milestone-based fixed price), including maintenance, it ensures efficient scaling for dApps, DeFi, and NFTs, enhancing user experience and adoption. No redundancies with efforts like Hydra; it complements Cardano's eUTxO model. This is sustainable growth, leveraging zkFold's proven expertise to make Cardano more competitive and accessible.
- Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 321.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ Rationale
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ Rationale
I’m voting YES to fund zkFold’s ZK Rollup development. This initiative delivers a general-purpose, zero-knowledge rollup solution that will significantly enhance Cardano’s scalability, reduce transaction costs, and enable broader ecosystem adoption while maintaining security.
This vote reflects my intention to execute the already-approved budget without unnecessary delays and uphold the community consensus reached through the Intersect-administered budget process. I believe it’s important to disperse funding now to enable critical infrastructure development rather than risk underfunding ecosystem progress when treasury reserves allow for sustainable investment.
While I will not typically support future individual treasury withdrawal requests under 1.5M ADA, preferring these to be managed via Catalyst or bundled entities, I will for this round due to oversight mechanisms (audited smart contracts, multi-party governance, milestones disbursement, and transparency) that should provide confidence that funds will be responsibly managed.
This aligns with my DRep principles of supporting sustainable, long-term innovation, enabling scalable infrastructure, and respecting collective decisions that strengthen Cardano’s governance and ecosystem health.
- Yes 298.6K ₳ Rationale
I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 258.6K ₳ Rationale
🗳 Governance Action Review
Proposal: Withdraw ₳1,161,000 for zkFold ZK Rollup
Vendor: zkFold SA (administered by Intersect)
Governance Action ID: gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlqwtnrdnx
Submitted: 18 July 2025
Expires: 17 August 2025
Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Budget Requested: ₳1,161,000
📋 Evaluation Checklist
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → ✅ Yes
“ZK rollups enable Cardano to process significantly more transactions per second (TPS) by bundling and verifying transactions off-chain.”
“This treasury withdrawal funds zkFold ZK Rollup which will provide the following services: … a general-purpose zero knowledge rollup solution for Cardano.”🔍 The proposal targets a key component of Cardano’s scalability roadmap. Zero-knowledge rollups are a well-established technique to boost throughput and reduce costs, and this offering appears tailored to Cardano’s architecture.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → ❌ No
“Budget for 12 months:
• Complete MVP: 180k $
• Integration with wallets: 100k $
• Integration with Cardano indexers: 100k $
• Aggregation server optimization: 120k $
• Client-side proving optimization: 120k $
• Tools for DApp integration: 240k $”🔍 While top-level cost categories are presented in USD, there is no breakdown by labor, infrastructure, or tooling. Terms like “Complete MVP” or “Tools for DApp integration” are too vague to assess allocation logic. No hourly rates, and resource mapping are included.
💬 Important: Due to zkFold’s history of receiving Catalyst funding for similar technical scopes, a more granular budget is necessary to identify potential cost duplication with previous grants.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → ❌ No
The proposal references potential impact areas (e.g. "improved scalability", "lower fees", "increased adoption") but does not include any quantifiable KPIs or success metrics.
🔍 There are no throughput targets, DApp onboarding goals, system benchmarks, or adoption milestones.
💬 Suggested examples: TPS performance goals, number of transactions handled in testnet, contracts integrated with zkFold, or number of DApps adopting the rollup over time.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → ❌ No
“Milestones:
• Rollup documentation
• Transaction aggregation server
• Wallet API
• Indexer API
• Rollup validation logic implementation
• Toolkit for DApp integration”🔍 While milestone titles are listed, the proposal lacks delivery timelines, success criteria, or sequencing. It’s unclear whether items are parallel or sequential, and no public checkpoints are offered.
💬 Important: zkFold has received 7 grants via Project Catalyst, with 3 completed, 1 nearing official closure, and 3 significantly delayed. This raises concerns about parallel workload management and execution feasibility for this Governance Action.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
No internal contradictions were found between the proposal metadata and narrative.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → 🟡 Partial
“The zkFold team consists of expert Haskell, Rust, and ZKP developers and Cryptographers.”
“zkFold team has successfully [been] moving towards the TestNet of our ZK Rollup.”- zkFold is known for developing ZK-based tooling such as zkFold Symbolic, zkFold Prover Backend, and UPLC converter, using Haskell and ZKP frameworks.
- The team was featured in Cardano’s L2 expansion events and has received 7 Project
Catalyst grants:- 3 completed (e.g., zkFold Symbolic, zkFold Prover Backend).
- 1 near completion.
- 3 are delayed by several months.
- Despite a credible technical profile, the absence of these references in the proposal diminishes evaluability and accountability.
💬 The team appears competent and Cardano-native, but the lack of direct transparency and the accumulation of unfinished Catalyst scopes introduce legitimate risk. These omissions are particularly critical when requesting treasury funds of this size.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest → ✅ No
No conflict of interest identified at the time of evaluation.
If any material conflict emerges, the evaluator commits to automatic abstention under a standing policy of governance neutrality.
🧾 Summary and Recommendation
Summary:
This proposal by zkFold SA requests ₳1.16M to deliver a general-purpose ZK Rollup solution for Cardano. While the project aligns well with strategic priorities for Layer 2 scaling and zkFold has demonstrated past technical contributions via Catalyst, the Governance Action lacks essential information. Budget items are vague and unauditable. No KPIs or adoption targets are included. Milestones are underspecified, and the team’s execution history—while credible—is burdened by parallel delays not disclosed in the proposal.
Voting Recommendation:
❌ Vote NO
Rationale:
Strategic relevance does not override execution risk and opacity. Without clear KPIs, a traceable roadmap, or detailed costing, this treasury withdrawal poses material risk of misallocation or redundancy. High-value ZK infrastructure is vital, but it must be accompanied by strong accountability. This proposal, as written, does not meet that bar.
- Yes 257K ₳ Rationale
I voted YES on the Treasury Withdrawal proposal titled zkFold – ZK Rollup for Cardano (₳1,161,000), as it directly advances critical scalability goals for the Cardano protocol using state-of-the-art ZK cryptography.
zkFold proposes a fully general-purpose rollup that helps move dozens to hundreds of dApp interactions off-chain per transaction. This can unlock performance benefits that rival Layer 1 alternatives, while preserving the security guarantees of Cardano.
zkFold’s prototype validates that such execution fits within Cardano’s current Execution Unit limits—showing feasibility today, not years from now.
The vendor has provided well-defined roles, cryptographic infrastructure knowledge, and a realistic path to testnet. All disbursements are protected via audited smart contracts, milestone validation and delegated to the auto-abstain DRep. Governance is clear, secure, and reversible if milestones aren’t met.
I fully support this as a strategic, constitutionally compliant Infrastructure proposal, aligned explicitly with Cardano’s Basho-era scalability and ecosystem expansion goals.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
zkFold ZK Rollup, while very promising, should demonstrate mainnet readiness or secure smaller funding (e.g., via Catalyst) before requesting significant treasury funds. I encourage refining the proposal with a detailed budget and clearer milestones to address its prematurity.