Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support
158 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes575M ₳Rationale
Yoroi DRep votes YES on Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support. The Cardano community has spoken clearly through the Hydra off-chain voting platform, and Yoroi is committed to honouring that voice.
- Honouring the Community Mandate: With a supermajority of over 67% in the off-chain governance process, this proposal carries a strong and unambiguous signal of community support. Yoroi votes Yes in alignment with that collective decision.
- Yes384.3M ₳Rationale
Please check the following link for the reasons for the vote.（投票理由は次のページを参照してください。)
- Abstain331.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes299.7M ₳Rationale
EMURGO as a DRep votes YES on Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support, with rationale outlined below.
This proposal successfully completed the off-chain community governance process on the Hydra voting platform, crossing the required 67% approval threshold. EMURGO respects the legitimacy of this community-led process and votes YES in recognition of the mandate that the Cardano community has clearly expressed. For these reasons, EMURGO votes yes.
- Yes258.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes219.4M ₳Rationale
We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.
- No175.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes171.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes123.7M ₳Rationale
This document includes the Cardano Foundation’s voting decisions and individual voting rationales for the 11 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions submitted following the Intersect-facilitated budget process.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Our approach is designed to ensure both transparency and efficiency, applying a consistent evaluation framework (see the “Cardano Foundation Voting Decisions for the 2026 Intersect Budget Process”) to each proposal and presenting our reasoning in a single, comprehensive document.
No material changes have been made to the individual proposals since the budget proposals were approved in Hydra Voting, therefore our votes on these withdrawals reflect our original assessment and vote. Our voting decisions on the 11 treasury withdrawals are made available in the table below.
Fund administration clarity is an important consideration for our voting decisions. Our expectation is that expect Intersect, as administrator, will manage funds diligently, provide public transparency on contracts, and ensure robust oversight, holding recipients accountable for deliverables.
Conclusion
The Cardano Foundation’s votes on these 11 treasury withdrawal governance actions are the direct execution of a single, comprehensive review process that began during the Hydra Voting phase. Although we present one aggregate rationale for efficiency, each proposal and governance action was individually assessed against a consistent framework anchored in our publicly stated principles.
Voting Record
Governance Action ID Title Vote Rationale gov_action1k02...cw2nc5 Withdraw 3,961,538 ada for Bringing Real-World Payments to Cardano with Wirex YES The Wirex proposal credibly contributes to adoption and utility because the deliverables provide card-based financial services and open payment rails linked to on-chain balances. The proposal is expected to expand real-world payment utility and leverage Wirex's established scale to create a plausible path toward increased ecosystem usage to justify treasury investment. The budget justification would benefit from establishing explicit Cardano-specific user migration volumes, ADA spending targets, and a delineation of open-source components. However, the team demonstrates a strong operational history and extensive multi-jurisdictional transaction experience. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02...tttste Withdraw 540,750 ada for by TxPipe Dolos: Maintaining Cardano's Lightweight Data Node, Year 2 YES The Dolos by TxPipe proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure and research excellence because the deliverables target a mature, non-Haskell alternative node implementation that directly decentralizes data access. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement and support long-term network resilience by safeguarding critical node diversity. Furthermore, the team has a proven track record of continuous infrastructure delivery and verifiable software releases across prior cycles, and the budget is appropriately justified given a clean cost structure for a part-time maintainer that features a transparent return-to-treasury clause for unused contingency reserves. However, the proposal would benefit from less generic milestone definitions that commit to specific protocol-version readiness for upcoming hard forks and more defined deliverables to support its speculative AI-integration scope. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02...hyg4hw Withdraw 1,310,960 ada for Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026 NO The Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026 proposal has potential to contribute to security, continuity, and ecosystem access as the deliverables target a critical access layer to ensure ongoing hardware wallet compatibility for ADA holders. However, the budget is not appropriately justified and compared to previous funding cycles for similar scopes seems too high. Additionally, the project presents substantial execution and accountability risks, evidenced by incomplete milestones and significant delivery delays in the 2025 cycle, alongside a repository changelog that suggests an undocumented complete rewrite rather than routine maintenance. Without explicit clarifications regarding vendor responsibilities, itemized cost increases, and structured milestone definitions managed via clear, centralized ecosystem demand, the current proposal lacks the necessary transparency for public funding. Based on this, CF votes No. gov_action1k02...ypfkyr Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support YES IntersectTSC credibly contributes to the development of Cardano governance and supports infrastructure and research excellence. The proposed milestones strongly align with the strategic priorities and 'Our Cardano' principles by funding critical operations for the Parameter Committee, CIP Editors, and Hard Fork Working Group. The proposal is expected to generate meaningful on-chain activity through direct network usage, transaction volume, governance participation, and enhanced by WP1 expert event engagements. The team has a proven track record of delivering ecosystem grants and meaningful outcomes, as evidenced by their coordination of the Plomin and Chang hard forks. The budget is appropriately justified given the phased milestone structure with clearly defined acceptance criteria and provisions for independent oversight, including independent third-party audit verification via Appold and an absolute return-to-treasury policy for all unspent capital. However, it is recommended that WP1 track active delivery metrics rather than event attendance, and mandate the publication of post-event reports to turn travel into a strategic intelligence asset, while WP3 must enforce its promised total independent recusal framework. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02...x6wlxf Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical stewardship for the Cardano ecosystem ABSTAIN This Intersect proposal credibly contributes to open governance coordination, technical stewardship, and ecosystem outreach as the deliverables successfully support the off-chain coordination model outlined in the Cardano 2030 Strategy. However, the immediate impact of its 2026 technical budget to on-chain network growth remains obscured by substantial operational ambiguities. This is because its technical focus risks introducing unnecessary parallel management layers rather than directly driving clean, high-impact technical utility. Furthermore, while the organization has demonstrated experience managing an evolving decentralized landscape over the past two years, the total requested budget of 25,400,000 ADA is not appropriately justified given a lack of granular, itemized baseline financial accounting and clear 2025 actual expenditure statements to verify true value-for-money. Additionally, extensive work packages within the proposal heavily overlap with core software maintenance, repository stewardship, and infrastructure monitoring solutions already maintained by the ecosystem, while the current committee framework introduces administrative overheads that require swift structural streamlining to prioritize tangible, democratic, and measurable outcomes. Based on this, CF votes Abstain. gov_action1k02...4l0u4y Withdraw 3,810,423 ada for Mithril Protocol YES The Mithril Protocol proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure, scalability, and research excellence by providing critical light-client verification models, Layer 2 anchoring primitives, and SNARK-based certificate compression frameworks. The proposal is expected to drive long-term protocol maintainability, cross-chain interoperability, and future-proof network resilience, thereby justifying treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has a proven track record of peer-reviewed engineering delivery and technical execution, and the budget is appropriately justified, as the requested funding is consistent with the strategic importance of the core infrastructure tracks. However, the proposal would benefit from a clearer, itemized breakdown of staffing costs and full-time equivalent (FTE) allocations to address headline cost concerns, as well as a more explicit articulation of broader system impacts regarding network decentralization and production wallet integration pathways. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02...fsvefn Withdraw 1,162,746 ada for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Plutarch and Ply YES The MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure and developer experience by providing essential maintenance and ongoing enhancements for widely used developer tools. While maintenance itself is not expected to generate immediate on-chain activity, safeguarding heavily used builder infrastructure protects the ecosystem from severe disruption and ensures that future transaction volume and adoption remain sustainable. Furthermore, the team has a demonstrated track record of delivering foundational developer tools, and the budget is appropriately justified given that it represents a fairly reasonable and standard funding request for specialized repository oversight. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02...64d667 Withdraw 540,750 ada for Oura by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano’s Event Pipeline YES The Oura by TxPipe proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure, developer decentralization, and ecosystem accessibility by providing essential open-source event data pipeline tooling that directly benefits a wide range of active deployments. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement and protect ecosystem growth from the adverse risks of critical tool attrition to justify treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has established a reliable track record of building foundational developer solutions, and the budget is appropriately justified given that the funding request is neither excessive nor unrealistic for a dedicated maintenance resource. However, the proposal would benefit from increased clarity regarding its SLAs and explicit expectations for the full-time maintainer. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02...d0ztd8 Withdraw 540,750 ada for Pallas by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano's Core Rust Libraries, Year 2 YES The Pallas by TxPipe proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure and research excellence because the deliverables target core, low-level building blocks that directly support critical downstream network dependencies like Amaru. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement and safeguard foundational infrastructure that justifies treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has demonstrated the necessary expertise to maintain the solution, and the budget is appropriately justified given the essential utility and ongoing ecosystem reliance on the repository. However, the proposal would benefit from clearer resource guarantees to ensure the allocated developer actively manages and maintains the codebase. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02...72rg72 Withdraw 1,684,050 ada for Tx3 by TxPipe: Open API Layer for Cardano's dApp Protocols ABSTAIN The Tx3 by TxPipe proposal has potential to contribute to adoption, utility, and ecosystem growth as the deliverables target a standardized open interface layer, multi-language SDKs, and agent-facing tools designed to make decentralized protocols discoverable and composable. While this proposal has potential to drive future protocol-level engagement and enhance developer experiences, its immediate on-chain impact remains prospective rather than proven. Although the team has demonstrated a credible foundation with active public repositories and strong strategic alignment, the budget is not appropriately justified given an overly broad 12-month scope backed by a thin financial breakdown. Additionally, the proposal lacks crucial technical and governance evidence, including a specific protocol candidate list, detailed FTE allocations, cloud sizing parameters, explicit SLA assumptions, and concrete acceptance criteria. Based on this, CF votes Abstain. gov_action1k02...z9qdza Withdraw 540,750 ada for UTxO RPC by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano’s Integration Standard, Year 2. YES The UTxO RPC by TxPipe proposal credibly contributes to ecosystem growth, infrastructure, and interoperability by providing a standardized integration surface and multi-language SDKs that systematically reduce developer friction. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement by reinforcing node and client diversity across key projects like Amaru, Dingo, and the Haskell Cardano node that justifies treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has demonstrated a specialized track record as a protocol maintainer with strong public code and runtime evidence, and the budget is appropriately justified given the essential nature of shared open infrastructure. However, the proposal would benefit from increased specificity in its milestone definitions, including clearly defined maintenance SLAs, explicit mapping for version compatibility targets, and proper license file cleanup across all active repositories. Based on this, CF votes Yes. - Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes90.6M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I vote YES on the proposal: Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support.
My rationale:
Cardano needs strong technical governance alongside its on-chain governance system. DReps can make decisions, but they cannot be expected to independently assess every protocol parameter, hard-fork dependency, infrastructure risk, or complex technical proposal without support from specialists.
The Technical Steering Committee and the groups covered by this proposal perform important functions for the ecosystem. The Parameter Committee provides analysis and recommendations related to protocol parameters. CIP editors maintain the process through which technical standards and protocol improvements are discussed and documented. The Hard Fork Working Group coordinates readiness across nodes, wallets, exchanges, dApps, and other infrastructure before network upgrades.
The activity of the Technical Steering Committee, CIP editors, and Hard Fork Working Group is publicly visible. Meeting minutes, technical discussions, CIP reviews, readiness assessments, and coordination around protocol upgrades are available for the community to inspect.
The Hard Fork Working Group has demonstrated practical value by monitoring ecosystem readiness, identifying critical dependencies, maintaining risk information, and recommending delays when important infrastructure was not ready. This type of coordination reduces the risk of unnecessary disruption during protocol upgrades.
I also support the proposed pilot for independent technical reviews of core infrastructure proposals. DReps regularly receive proposals involving highly specialized software, cryptography, networking, protocol design, and security. Independent technical assessments can improve the quality of due diligence and help DReps distinguish between credible technical claims and unsupported statements.
These reviews should remain advisory. Technical experts should provide evidence, identify risks, and evaluate feasibility, while final Treasury accountability must remain with DReps and the wider governance system.
The total request of 1,193,000 ADA for 12 months does not appear excessive for supporting technical coordination, protocol governance, CIP editing, hard-fork readiness, and a technical-review pilot.
The proposal is not without shortcomings. It does not provide a detailed allocation of the 832,000 ADA between the Parameter Committee, CIP editors, and Hard Fork Working Group. It also lacks named paid roles, workload allocation, rates, quantities of technical reports, and a clear number of reviews expected under the pilot.
The milestones and acceptance criteria are also not currently available to DReps. The proposal states that they will be included in the project's smart-contract metadata after the legal contract has been prepared. I would prefer milestones, payment schedules, and acceptance criteria to be available before the Treasury vote, not after the funds have already been committed.
There is also some uncertainty about the boundary between this proposal and the main Intersect proposal. The main proposal includes technical stewardship, release coordination, incident response, repository management, governance coordination, and operational support for committees and working groups. This proposal separately funds the substantive work of the Technical Steering Committee and several specialist groups.
Intersect should provide a clear responsibility and cost-allocation map showing which staff, activities, and deliverables are funded through each proposal. No person or activity should be compensated twice for the same work.
However, these shortcomings are not sufficient for me to reject this proposal. The activities funded here are more narrowly connected to technical governance, protocol evolution, and independent expert support. These are functions that Cardano needs regardless of my broader concerns about Intersect’s governance coordination.
My YES vote on this proposal is therefore also a clear signal about priorities. I support funding the specialist technical functions that help protect protocol continuity, improve hard-fork readiness, maintain the CIP process, and provide DReps with independent technical expertise.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqpBuy me a beer:
https://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0
In an ideal process, the main Intersect proposal would have been unbundled so that core technical staff and technical stewardship could be approved separately from governance coordination and general operations. The approaching Net Change Limit makes a resubmission uncertain, but this should not prevent me from supporting the narrower technical-governance work presented here.For these reasons, I vote YES.
- Yes88.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes88.4M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on the treasury withdrawal of 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support.
Why SIPO votes Yes. This supports the committee that stewards protocol evolution, security practice and sustainable open-source development. SIPO has consistently supported governance-process and institutional-resilience measures that arrive through the proper committee route — the Cardano Budget Process Framework, the Cardano Foundation as Project Catalyst's managing entity, the Update Plutus Cost Models parameter change, and the committeeMinSize change. This is the same axis.
SIPO DRep votes on this action as part of the 2026 Intersect Budget Process infrastructure batch — eleven treasury withdrawals submitted in a single transaction by Intersect on behalf of vendors, each having achieved the required 67% support threshold in the 2026 Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting phase.
Shared basis. All eleven withdrawals share a single on-chain recipient: the 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract at the script credential stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v, built on the Sundae Labs treasury-contracts framework. Disbursement is milestone-gated through a Project-Specific Smart Contract; authorization requires a quorum spanning Intersect admins, Intersect leadership and independent trusted entities; an Oversight Committee of six external parties — Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, NMKR, Sundial and Eternl — independently verifies key administrative actions using on-chain logic; the contracts cannot be staked with an SPO and are delegated to the auto-abstain DRep; and a public dashboard lets the community audit the flow. This is the strongest fund-control class SIPO recognizes, and the same structure SIPO has already supported on Cardano Critical Integrations V2, Cardano Vision 2026, IO Hydra and Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure. SIPO voted Yes on the Cardano Budget Process Framework and holds that treasury allocation should converge and mature through that route; having supported the route, SIPO does not reject its outputs absent a specific defect. This withdrawal complies with the 350M Net Change Limit covering Epochs 613 to 713 and with guardrail TREASURY-02a.
Expectations attached to this Yes. (1) Milestone-level reporting through the TRSC and PSSC of what was disbursed, to whom, and against which deliverable, surfaced on the public dashboard. (2) Continued open-source release of the funded work, and a clear statement of which work is baseline maintenance versus new development. (3) Continued independence of the Oversight Committee, and transparent tracking of cumulative treasury receipts by the recipient and by Intersect. (4) Where scope could overlap with other funded efforts, articulation at ecosystem level of the boundary, so that scope does not silently duplicate.
This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support（1,193,000 ada）のトレジャリー引き出しに、期待事項付きで賛成（YES）を投じます。
SIPO が賛成する理由。本件は、プロトコルの進化・セキュリティ実務・持続可能なオープンソース開発を統べる委員会への支援です。SIPO は、正規の委員会ルートを通じたガバナンスプロセス・制度レジリエンスの施策 — Cardano Budget Process Framework、Project Catalyst の管理主体としての Cardano Foundation、Update Plutus Cost Models、committeeMinSize 変更 — を一貫して支持してきました。本件は同じ軸にあります。
SIPO DRep は、本アクションを 2026 Intersect Budget Process インフラ・バッチ（Intersect が各 vendor を代表して単一トランザクションで提出した 11 件のトレジャリー引き出し。いずれも 2026 Intersect Budget Process の Hydra Voting フェーズで必要な 67% の支持閾値を達成）の一部として評価しました。
共通の根拠。11 件すべてが単一のオンチェーン受領先を共有します: script credential stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v の 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract（Sundae Labs の treasury-contracts フレームワーク）です。払い出しは Project-Specific Smart Contract を通じてマイルストーンでゲートされ、承認には Intersect の admin・leadership・独立した trusted entity にまたがる定足数を要します。6 社の外部 Oversight Committee（Sundae Labs・Cardano Foundation・Dquadrant・NMKR・Sundial・Eternl）がオンチェーンロジックで主要な管理アクションを独立検証します。コントラクトは SPO にステークできず auto-abstain DRep に委任され、公開ダッシュボードでコミュニティが資金の流れを監査できます。これは SIPO が認める最強クラスの fund-control であり、SIPO が既に支持した Cardano Critical Integrations V2・Cardano Vision 2026・IO Hydra・Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure と同一の構造です。SIPO は Cardano Budget Process Framework に賛成しており、トレジャリー配分はこのルートで収斂・成熟すべきだと考えます。ルートを支持した以上、特段の瑕疵がない限りその産物を拒みません。本引き出しは Epoch 613〜713 を対象とする 350M Net Change Limit および guardrail TREASURY-02a に準拠しています。
本賛成に付す期待事項。(1) TRSC / PSSC を通じて、何が・誰に・どの成果物に対して払い出されたかをマイルストーン単位で報告し、公開ダッシュボードに反映すること。(2) 資金提供された成果のオープンソース公開を継続し、どこまでが baseline の保守で、どこからが新規開発かを明示すること。(3) Oversight Committee の独立性を維持し、受領者および Intersect の累計トレジャリー受領額を透明に追跡すること。(4) 他の資金提供済の取り組みとスコープが重複しうる場合、その境界をエコシステムレベルで明確化し、暗黙裡に重複しないようにすること。
本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes85M ₳Rationale
This is a small price to pay for the technical expertise we get in return.
- Yes75.9M ₳Rationale
I support this proposal because it strengthens the technical governance framework that underpins Cardano's long-term development.
The Technical Steering Committee plays an important role in protocol governance through parameter recommendations, CIP stewardship, hard fork coordination, and independent technical reviews. These functions help ensure that technical decisions are informed, transparent, and based on sound engineering principles.
I particularly value the independent technical review initiative, as it can provide DReps with objective technical analysis to support more informed governance decisions.
Given that the outcomes of this work are less visible than software deliverables, I encourage continued transparency through measurable reporting on technical reviews, committee activities, published reports, and governance contributions.
Overall, I believe this proposal strengthens Cardano's technical governance and supports more effective decentralized decision-making, and I vote Yes.
本提案は、Cardanoの技術ガバナンスを支える重要な基盤への投資であると評価します。
Technical Steering Committeeは、プロトコルパラメータの検討、CIPの管理、ハードフォークの調整、独立した技術レビューなどを通じて、Cardanoの安全性と持続的な発展を支える重要な役割を担っています。
特に、独立した技術レビューは、DRepがより適切な判断を行うための客観的な情報を提供する仕組みとして価値があると考えます。
一方で、成果が見えにくい分野であるため、技術レポートやレビュー実績、進捗状況などについて継続的かつ透明性の高い情報公開を期待します。
総合的に、本提案はCardanoの技術ガバナンスを強化し、より健全な分散型意思決定を支える重要な取り組みであると判断し、賛成します。
- YesChanged74.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain23d agoSuperseded
- Yes73.6M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on the Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support treasury withdrawal. Safe and well coordinated protocol upgrades are vital for network resilience, making the work of the Hard Fork Working Group and independent technical reviews absolutely essential.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES on the Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support treasury withdrawal. Safe and well coordinated protocol upgrades are vital for network resilience, making the work of the Hard Fork Working Group and independent technical reviews absolutely essential. While I fully support funding this core protocol evolution, I would like to suggest an increased focus on the Community & Ecosystem Growth pillar moving forward, as I believe this is an area we should improve in.
- Yes69.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged53.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting Abstain on this proposal.
Recent concerns have been raised about oversight of Intersect's budget process and the management of potential conflicts of interest. Until those concerns are addressed transparently, I think it's best to abstain.
Earlier votes
Yes15d agoSuperseded
I am voting Yes on the Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support proposal.
For Cardano to evolve safely, it needs an expert function that technically evaluates and coordinates the protocol. This proposal is a small budget that sustains the Technical Steering Committee (TSC), which performs that function, for twelve months, and I see it as foundational technical governance for the network rather than a discretionary activity.
The request is only 1,193,000 ADA, but what it sustains is the backbone of Cardano's technical governance. The Parameter Committee provides evidence-based recommendations on settings such as fees and block size, the CIP editors keep improvement proposals moving into actual protocol changes, and the Hard Fork Working Group ensures upgrades are coordinated without incident. 70% of the budget is allocated to these three functions.
Above all, these functions actually contribute to decentralization. The core of the Parameter Committee is that it gathers evidence independently of node vendors and implementation teams, which guards against governance capture where a particular supplier could steer the direction of the protocol toward its own interests, and allows DReps to vote based on accurate technical information.
Especially in a period where AI is accelerating the pace and complexity of protocol-level change and threats, I believe the importance of objective, vendor-independent technical judgment becomes greater, not smaller.
- Abstain51M ₳Rationale
Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.
More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. This year's Net Change Limit (NCL) has been set well above the level I consider sustainable. Under my published voting framework, an appropriate NCL is roughly 15% of the previous year's staking rewards (on the order of ₳82M), whereas the NCL currently in force is several times that amount. Because the treasury is already authorized to disburse far beyond my personal NCL threshold, I am voting No on all treasury withdrawal proposals until aggregate withdrawals are brought back within a sustainable limit — regardless of the individual merits of any single proposal. This vote reflects a position on total treasury spend, not a judgment on the value of your specific project. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/ [Japanese version follows] 本提案に反対票を投じます。今年のNet Change Limit（NCL）は、私が持続可能と考える水準を大幅に上回って設定されています。公開済みの投票フレームワークでは、適正なNCLは前年のステーキング報酬の約15%（₳82M程度）ですが、現行のNCLはその数倍に達しています。トレジャリーは既に私のpersonal NCL（個人として許容する上限）を大きく超える出金が認められている状態にあるため、出金総額が持続可能な範囲に戻るまで、個別提案の良し悪しに関わらず、すべてのトレジャリー出金提案に反対票を投じます。本投票はトレジャリー支出全体に対する立場の表明であり、貴提案の価値そのものを否定するものではありません。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Yes50.2M ₳Rationale
Same rationale as the one presented for the Intersect budget.
- No49.5M ₳No rationale
- No47.5M ₳No rationale
- No39.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain37.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes37.3M ₳No rationale
- No34.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.4M ₳Rationale
Socious votes Yes. This 1,193,000 ADA withdrawal funds the operation of Intersect's Technical Steering Committee — the elected body that coordinates protocol evolution, open-source development practices, and technical direction across Cardano's core projects now that no single company steers the roadmap. In a decentralized development model, someone still has to sequence hard forks, arbitrate technical disputes, and keep dozens of independently maintained components moving in one direction; the TSC is that mechanism, and this is a modest ask for high-leverage coordination work. The proposal was vetted and approved through the Intersect community budget process and is disbursed under its milestone-based, smart-contract-controlled administration, consistent with Socious's policy of supporting budget-process withdrawals.
Sociousは賛成します。本引き出し（1,193,000 ADA）は、IntersectのTechnical Steering Committee（TSC）の運営資金です。TSCは、単一企業がロードマップを主導しなくなったCardanoにおいて、プロトコルの進化、オープンソース開発の実践、中核プロジェクト横断の技術方針を調整する選出制の機関です。分散型開発モデルにおいても、ハードフォークの順序付け、技術的争点の調停、独立に保守される多数のコンポーネントの方向合わせは誰かが担わねばならず、TSCがその機構です。少額ながらレバレッジの高い調整業務であり、本提案はIntersectのコミュニティ予算プロセスで審査・承認され、マイルストーンベースのスマートコントラクト管理下で執行されます。予算プロセスを経た引き出しを支持するSociousの方針に沿い、賛成します。
- Yes31.4M ₳Rationale
Title
Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee SupportAbstracts
This Treasury Withdrawal funds Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support.This Treasury Withdrawal is submitted by Intersect on behalf of the vendor. The content for the following sections; Abstract, Motivation and Rationale have been sourced from the approved proposal submitted by the Vendor as part of the Intersect budget process.
Rationale
Strategic Pillar Alignment
The work of the Technical Steering Committee is cross-cutting and aligns to all five strategy pillars. This reflects the TSCʼs role as foundational governance infrastructure rather than a single-focus initiative. The strongest alignments are with Pillars 1 and 3, where the connection to specific 2030 KPIs — particularly the 99.98% uptime target and the DRep participation rate — is most direct. The proposal will be fundamental to ensuring that meaningful progress can be made in 2026/2027 for all KPIs.Pillar 1: Infrastructure & Research Excellence
This is where the proposal has its strongest and most direct alignment. The Parameter Committeeʼs evidence-based advice on protocol settings (WP2) directly supports the scalability and security focus of this pillar, particularly through the commissioning of independent benchmarking studies. Critically, this evidence is gathered independently of node vendors and other implementation teams, ensuring that parameter recommendations are grounded in objective analysis rather than the interests of any particular supplier. The Hard Fork Working Group (WP2) ensures that protocol upgrades — which are the primary mechanism for delivering infrastructure improvements — are coordinated safely and effectively. The CIP editors (WP2) keep the improvement pipeline flowing, ensuring that research and innovation can be translated into protocol changes in a structured way. While the Security Council itself is funded through the main Intersect budget, the TSC provides the technical oversight and governance framework within which the Security Council operates, and TSC members play active roles in security incident response and vulnerability management. This technical leadership contribution supports the reliability KPI of 99.98% uptime that the 2030 strategy sets as a baseline target.
Pillar 2: Adoption & Utility
The commissioning of technical reports on topics such as throughput improvements, finality protocols, governance improvements, quantum resistance, economic utility, and partner chains (WP1) helps develop the broader understanding that ultimately supports adoption. Expert attendance at key community events (WP1) puts leading technical voices from across the Cardano ecosystem — including but not limited to TSC members — in direct contact with developers and builders, surfacing the technical needs of those building applications that drive on-chain utility. While technical workshops are organised and funded through the main Intersect budget, they are delivered under the technical leadership of the TSC — meaning the TSCʼs expertise directly shapes the content that builds developer capability. The TSCʼs technical oversight of the Security Council and Bug Bounty Programme — both funded separately through Intersect — also contributes to the enterprise-grade security posture that the 2030 strategy identifies as essential for attracting institutional users.
Pillar 3: Governance
The Technical Review work package (WP3) directly supports informed DRep decision-making, which is central to the 2030 strategyʼs goal of achieving over 70 % DRep participation in governance actions. Independent technical evaluations of core infrastructure proposals ensure DReps have access to clear, accurate information when voting. The Parameter Committeeʼs transparent, evidence-based approach to protocol recommendations (WP2) helps resist governance capture by ensuring decisions are grounded in independent analysis rather than vested interests — with evidence gathered independently of node vendors and implementation teams so that no single supplier can unduly influence the direction of protocol parameters. The proposalʼs commitment to returning unspent funds to the treasury also demonstrates the kind of fiscal discipline the 2030 strategy calls for under its Treasury Seasons framework.
Pillar 4: Community & Ecosystem Growth
Expert attendance at events like the Cardano Summit and Africa Summit (WP1) speaks directly to the global engagement dimension of this pillar, putting leading technical experts from across the Cardano ecosystem — including but not limited to TSC members — in conversation with community stakeholders across geographies. Technical reports commissioned under WP 1 contribute to the evidence base that supports informed community participation in ecosystem development. Technical workshops, while organised and funded through the main Intersect budget, are delivered under TSC technical leadership — meaning this proposal is the mechanism through which that leadership capacity is sustained and directed towards community capability-building.
Pillar 5: Ecosystem Sustainability & Resilience
The Technical Review work package (WP3) protects the integrity of treasury expenditure by ensuring that core infrastructure proposals are subject to independent expert scrutiny before DReps vote on them — directly supporting the financial stewardship dimension of this pillar. The commitment to full expenditure accounting and treasury return of unspent funds reinforces this alignment. The TSCʼs technical oversight role in relation to the Security Council and Bug Bounty Programme — both separately funded through Intersect — also contributes to the long-term operational resilience of the network.
Intersect Budget Process
This proposal achieved the required 67% support threshold during the 2026 Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting phase and has therefore been advanced for on-chain Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action submission in accordance with the approved Budget Process Framework.Net Change Limit Compliance
The requested amount does not at time of submission, on its own or in aggregate, breach the applicable 350M Net Change Limit covering Epoch 613 to Epoch 713.
In accordance with the guardrail TREASURY-02a, this withdrawal does not exceed the NCL at the moment of submission.Audit & Oversight
Independent audits and assurance for this proposal will be provided by Appold.This assurance function is intended to provide the Cardano community with additional confidence that Treasury funds are being used in line with the approved mandate, that reported milestones are supported by appropriate evidence, and that financial controls are operating effectively. Reviews may include deliverable verification, control testing, spend validation, and assessment of milestone evidence where appropriate.
Intersect will continue to operate milestone-based drawdowns, evidence-backed reporting, and transparent disclosures alongside this external assurance process. Where recommendations are identified through audit or assurance reviews, Intersect will seek to implement reasonable improvements to strengthen accountability, efficiency, and public trust.
Prior Treasury Funding Disclosure
The Technical Steering Committee has not received funding from the Cardano Treasury within the past 24 months.
As a committee operating under Intersect MBO, we disclose that Intersect and its committees have received funding from the Cardano Treasury within the past 24 months through previously approved Treasury Withdrawal governance actions.
The following governance actions are relevant to this disclosure:Governance Action Governance Action ID Amount (ada)
Withdraw ₳15,750,000 for a MBO for the Cardano Ecosystem: Intersect gov_action13tf...tyw3h6 15,750,000
Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Cardano Vision and 2026 Roadmap Insights Collection via Workshops and Structured Product Research gov_action13tf...t5eumh 750,000
OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development gov_action13tf...qx0ecg 5,885,000
Total treasury funding received by Intersect and its committees through the governance actions listed above 22,385,000
Budget Summary
Work Package Total (ADA)
WP 1 — Community-Facing Technical Coordination 256,000
WP 2 — Protocol Governance and Evolution 832,000
WP 3 — Technical Review 105,000
Total 1,193,000
Intersect Budget Management Tooling
To administrate treasury funds on-chain, Intersect will utilize the treasury management smart contract framework developed by Sundae Labs. A new instance of these smart contracts has been deployed for 2026, mirroring the contracts from the 2025 budget cycle.The 2026 Treasury Reserve Smart Contract stake address: stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v
The 2026 Treasury Reserve Smart Contract payment address: addr1x84sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2k8tq6vh499n88hqkrwsmealas4psng674m4sej5638fq4vqmxs59w
The 2026 Project Specific Smart Contract payment address: addr1x9d6k9z6t6fvsetj2djmerargk475lef9gfvshy4rwh4h7jm4v295h5jepjhy5m9hj86x3dtafljj2sjepwf2xa0t0aq048cay
Specifics
Intersect will utilize a single Treasury Reserve Smart Contract (TRSC), with one Project-Specific Smart Contracts (PSSC). Intersect’s management consists of five ‘admin’ and three Intersect ‘leadership’ roles. An Oversight Committee consisting of six external, independent third-party entities will provide checks and balances on Intersect, and safeguard against errors and unilateral control. The administration of both TRSC and PSSC will be managed by Intersect, with external oversight on certain actions from the Oversight Committee.The Oversight Committee consists of Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, NMKR, Sundial and Eternl. Their role is to independently verify key administrative actions using on-chain logic, ensuring accuracy and consistency without exercising discretion over governance decisions.
For all details on Intersect’s configuration please see the Smart Contract Guide on the knowledgebase.
The high level permissions are as follows:
TRSC Fund and PSSC Modify
Two of the five Intersect admins, two of the six trusted entities and one of the three Intersect leadership sign-off must authorize
TRSC Disburse
Two of five Intersect admins, three of six trusted entities and two of three Intersect leadership sign-off must authorize
TRSC Pause and Resume
Two of five Intersect admins, and one of three Intersect leadership sign-off must authorize
TRSC Sweep
One of five Intersect admins, and one of three Intersect leadership sign-off must authorize
TRSC Reorganize
Two of five Intersect admins and three of six trusted entities must authorize
Processes
Upon enactment of this governance action, funding for this project will be directed into the TRSC’s stake address. All instances of TRSC and PSSC can not be staked with a SPO and are delegated to the auto-abstain predefined DRep. From here funds will be withdrawn into a UTxO remaining at the TRSC payment address.When the Legal contract is prepared and the vendor is ready, funding for this project will be transferred using the Fund action to the PSSC. All milestones will be outlined within the metadata.
A dashboard is available (treasury.sundae.fi) for the community to audit the TRSC or PSSC and track metrics related to this withdrawn ada as well as being immutably verifiable on chain.
References
Project Proposal via Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting
Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting Documentation
Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting Auditor Guide
Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting Final Audited Results (Gitbook)
Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting Audit Report (PDF)
Automating Accountability: Cardano's Smart Contract Framework Blog
Sundae Labs Budget Management Smart Contracts Github Repository
Budget Management Smart Contracts TxPipe Audit Report
Budget Management Smart Contracts MLabs Audit Report - Yes30.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes28M ₳No rationale
- Abstain27.9M ₳Rationale
As a member of the Technical Steering Committee I am obligated to vote ABSTAIN.
- YesRevoted26.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
Supports governance coordination and technical oversight during ecosystem growth.
- Yes25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support. TSC does a good job and the proposal ask is reasonable.
- No23.6M ₳Rationale
Committees do not need travel funds. Excessive waste.
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal action “Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support” (b3d452bff7769d7f557ec6b8974760ee6c5e496c276652b654032966621e0ccf#3).
The Technical Steering Committee of Intersect also supports the Parameter Committee, Hard Fork Working Group and Security Council. All elements that have played a pivotal role in Cardano’s growth and resilience over this past year. Including Plutus Cost Model, tx and memory unit, and committeeMinSize parameter updates, the van Rossem hard fork coordination, chain partition incident response and SecondFi assistance.
It’s not necessarily work that makes headlines but it does help keep Cardano secure and operational, reducing any negative headlines.
- Yes21.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes20M ₳Rationale
As voted in Ekklesia, I vote yes on this proposal. I had hoped Intersect would bundle the winning proposals in one.
- Yes17.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes17.4M ₳Rationale
Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support
- No16.9M ₳Rationale
The main concern is overlap with Intersect’s core role and budget. The TSC is an Intersect standing committee, and much of the proposed work appears to fall under Intersect’s normal technical governance and coordination function. If this work is essential, it should be clearly included and justified within Intersect’s main operating budget.
The proposal also lacks enough clarity on concrete deliverables, measurable outputs, and marginal impact. It is not clear enough what new value the treasury is buying or how this avoids duplicating already funded Intersect activities.
The independent technical review component may have value, but it would be better submitted as a narrower standalone proposal with clear scope, reviewer selection, conflict-of-interest rules, and reporting.
- Yes14.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support.
RCADA supports this proposal because effective on-chain governance needs strong technical support. DReps and the wider community are increasingly asked to assess protocol changes, parameter decisions, hard fork readiness, infrastructure proposals, and complex technical trade-offs. Clear, independent, and evidence-based technical input helps improve the quality of governance decisions.
The proposal funds 12 months of Technical Steering Committee support across three areas: community-facing technical coordination, protocol governance and evolution, and a pilot independent technical review programme. This includes support for technical reports, the Parameter Committee, CIP editors, the Hard Fork Working Group, and future technical reviews of core infrastructure proposals.
RCADA views this as useful governance infrastructure. Cardano’s governance system should not rely only on popularity, lobbying, or surface-level proposal summaries. DReps need access to technical analysis that is transparent, understandable, and grounded in expertise. The proposed technical review function is especially valuable if it helps DReps assess complex infrastructure proposals more confidently and consistently.
The proposal also includes positive accountability features. It passed the required Intersect Budget Process support threshold, will use the 2026 Treasury management smart contract framework, includes milestone-based drawdowns and public dashboard visibility, and provides external assurance through Appold. The commitment to return unspent funds to the Treasury is also welcome.
RCADA’s support comes with important expectations. Technical governance support must remain transparent, advisory, and independent. TSC outputs should be public where appropriate, written in a way that DReps and community members can understand, and supported by clear evidence. Conflict-of-interest procedures, reviewer selection criteria, recusals, commissioned report scopes, and spending should be published clearly.
RCADA also notes the broader governance-concentration risk around Intersect and its committees. This proposal should strengthen decentralised decision-making, not create a gatekeeping layer over it. Technical advice should inform DReps and the community, not replace their judgement.
On balance, RCADA believes this proposal meets the standard for support. It funds a necessary layer of technical governance capacity, includes reasonable oversight mechanisms, and can help improve the quality, independence, and accountability of Cardano governance decisions.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here:
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/ - Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
We vote yes on this governance action, consistent with our yes vote during the Intersect Hydra budget voting process.
We believe this proposal addresses a genuine governance need by providing sustained technical coordination and independent expertise to support Cardano's evolving governance framework. As governance decisions become increasingly technical following the implementation of CIP-1694, dedicated support for protocol governance, CIP coordination, technical reviews, and community-facing technical engagement is essential to enable informed decision-making and effective protocol evolution.
While we acknowledge that the proposal could benefit from stronger outcome-based metrics, greater budget transparency, and more explicit safeguards for reviewer independence, we consider these to be implementation improvements rather than fundamental shortcomings. The proposed work packages support critical governance infrastructure that benefits the wider ecosystem, and the planned reporting, milestone-based funding, and independent assurance mechanisms provide a reasonable level of accountability.
Our support is also guided by consistency in governance. Having previously evaluated and supported this proposal through the Intersect Hydra budget process, we believe it is appropriate to maintain that position as it progresses through the on-chain treasury withdrawal process.