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.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.6M ₳Rationale
Intersect Technical Steering Committeeは、ハードフォーク調整、Parameter CommitteeやCIP Editorsへの支援、技術レビューなどを通じてCardanoの技術ガバナンスを支える重要な役割を担っています。その継続的な活動は、ネットワークの安定性、安全性、および持続的な発展に重要であると判断し、本提案に賛成します。\n\nThe Intersect Technical Steering Committee plays an important role in supporting Cardano's technical governance through hard fork coordination, support for the Parameter Committee and CIP Editors, and technical reviews. I support this proposal because its continued work is important to the stability, security, and long-term development of the Cardano ecosystem.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain7.4M ₳Rationale
Last year I voted YES for Intersect. This year I will abstain on voting on Intersect MBO proposals.
I am not convinced. I admit I might be misunderstanding the wider situation (Cardano without Intersect) and will leave the decision to other DReps. Next year I might vote NO if the organization cannot easily prove that all of its structures are worth it.
It is not news to Intersect, but Intersect is too dependent on the Treasury, which means it is on a very risky path. I would like to see a plan for a minimal Intersect. Like Minimal Djed. An Intersect without the nice to haves.
If the current structure is ideal, it doesn't need reform. It probably is not, so it needs further reform and to cut the number of committees and activities to essential ones. - Yes7.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes because this proposal supports core technical coordination that helps Cardano evolve safely and predictably. While not directly user-facing, functions such as protocol parameter review, CIP stewardship, hard fork coordination, and independent technical oversight are foundational to a healthy ecosystem. At a relatively modest cost, I believe this is a reasonable investment in strengthening Cardano’s technical governance and long-term resilience.
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged4.4M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Withdraw 1,193,000 ADA for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support" (gov_action1k02...ypfkyr), pois entendemos que a proposta fortalece uma estrutura importante para a governança técnica da Cardano, apoiando a análise de parâmetros do protocolo, a avaliação de propostas técnicas e a produção de pareceres independentes que auxiliam a comunidade e os DReps na tomada de decisões mais bem fundamentadas. O valor solicitado, de ₳1.193.000 para um período de 12 meses, nos parece compatível com o escopo das atividades previstas e apresenta uma boa relação custo-benefício, considerando que financia trabalho técnico especializado com potencial de beneficiar todo o ecossistema. Também avaliamos positivamente os mecanismos de governança e transparência previstos na proposta, incluindo desembolsos condicionados ao cumprimento de marcos, prestação de contas periódica, auditoria independente, acompanhamento público por meio de registros on-chain e a devolução de eventuais recursos não utilizados ao Tesouro. Esses elementos contribuem para uma execução mais transparente, responsável e passível de verificação pela comunidade.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Withdraw 1,193,000 ADA for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support" (gov_action1k02...ypfkyr), because we believe the proposal strengthens an important component of Cardano’s technical governance by supporting protocol parameter analysis, the evaluation of technical proposals, and the production of independent assessments that help the community and DReps make more informed decisions. The requested ₳1,193,000 for a 12-month period appears proportionate to the proposed scope of work and offers good value, as it funds specialized technical expertise that can benefit the ecosystem as a whole. We also view the proposal’s governance and transparency mechanisms positively, including milestone-based disbursements, regular accountability reports, independent auditing, public on-chain monitoring, and the return of any unused funds to the Treasury. Together, these measures promote responsible execution, transparency, and effective oversight by the community. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
I see this as a administrative vote which is to process a withdrawal that DRep's have previously approved. I do not believe in throwing monkey-wrenches into approved and planned for processes, and thus I vote yes so as not to obstruct progress and momentum, and to not undermine previous decisions.
- Yes3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに賛成します。
Intersect Technical Steering Committee Supportは、Cardanoの技術的な判断を支える重要な公共インフラです。Parameter Committeeはネットワーク設定を検討する委員会、CIP editorsはCardano改善提案を整理する担当、Hard Fork Working Groupは大型アップグレードを安全に進めるための調整役です。これらは、DRepやコミュニティが難しい技術提案を理解し、根拠を持って判断するために必要な仕組みです。
特に、ネットワーク設定、アップグレード調整、改善提案の整理、重要インフラ提案の評価は、Cardanoの安全性、継続性、分散型ガバナンスの質に直結します。本提案は単なる委員会運営費ではなく、Cardano全体の技術的な説明責任と、DRepの判断能力を高める支出として評価します。
また、Treasury資金を一括で渡すのではなく、段階的に支払うSmart Contract Disbursement、外部監督、Appoldによる第三者確認、未使用資金のTreasury返還が含まれる点も、公共資金管理として妥当です。
一方で、TSCの専門性が、将来的に「技術的正解を決める中央機関」のように見えてしまうリスクには注意が必要です。TSCはDRepやコミュニティの判断を代替する存在ではなく、透明で検証可能な技術的判断材料を提供する補助機能であるべきです。
そのため、今後は技術レポートの本数・テーマ・公開時期、独立技術レビューの対象選定基準、利益相反管理、関係者が判断から外れるrecusal記録、Intersect本体予算との責任分担を継続的に公開することを求めます。
I support this Treasury Withdrawal.
Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support is important public infrastructure for Cardano’s technical governance. The Parameter Committee reviews network settings, CIP editors help organize Cardano improvement proposals, and the Hard Fork Working Group helps coordinate major upgrades safely. These functions help DReps and the community understand complex technical proposals and make evidence-based decisions.
This proposal is not just committee operating cost. It strengthens Cardano’s technical accountability and improves the ability of DReps to evaluate network parameters, upgrades, improvement proposals, and core infrastructure proposals.
I also value the fund management design. Treasury funds will not simply be paid out all at once. The proposal includes Smart Contract Disbursement, milestone-based payments, external oversight, Appold assurance, and the return of unused funds to the Treasury. This is appropriate for responsible public fund management.
At the same time, we should be careful that the TSC does not become perceived as a central authority that decides the “correct” technical answer. The TSC should support, not replace, the judgment of DReps and the community by providing transparent and verifiable technical information.
Going forward, I expect continued public reporting on the number, topics, and timing of technical reports, the selection criteria for independent technical reviews, conflict-of-interest management, recusal records, and the separation of responsibilities from the main Intersect budget.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
This is reasonable spend for an important technical function
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳Rationale
Again only an excerpt , and I have some reservations (sound reporting and clear deliverables are required). However, I do not want to stand in the way of governance support.
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal.
I recognise the value of the Technical Steering Committee and the importance of protocol governance, CIP editorial capacity, hard fork coordination, parameter review, and independent technical input for Cardano. The requested amount of 1.193M ADA is modest compared with many current treasury actions, and several parts of the proposal appear worthwhile in principle.
However, this action is explicitly dependent on the approval of the broader IntersectMBO Governance Coordination and Technical proposal, which is requesting 25.4M ADA and which I do not support in its current form. Taken together, these Intersect-related requests represent a significant draw on the remaining Net Change Limit.
Given that there is now approximately 58M ADA remaining in the NCL and live governance actions are requesting close to 100M ADA, DReps have a responsibility to apply strict prioritisation. In this environment, even proposals with merit need to be assessed against treasury scarcity, funding dependencies, and opportunity cost.
In my view, this proposal should be resubmitted as a cleaner, standalone TSC funding request, focused tightly on the highest-impact functions: protocol governance, CIP editing, hard fork coordination, parameter analysis, and independent technical review. I would be more open to supporting that narrower version if it were not tied to the larger 25.4M ADA Intersect budget structure.
This is not a rejection of the TSC’s importance. It is a vote for treasury discipline, clearer separation of funding requests, and stronger prioritisation under NCL scarcity.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Important work.
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on this treasury withdrawal because the Technical Steering Committee funds important technical governance capacity for Cardano, including parameter review, CIP stewardship, hard-fork coordination, and independent technical input for DReps. I see this as useful public-good infrastructure that can help governance make safer and better-informed technical decisions. At the same time, my support is not a blank cheque for Intersect's broader budget or structure, especially because this proposal depends on the larger IntersectMBO budget being approved. I expect transparent reporting, clear deliverables, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and a strong commitment that the TSC remains an advisory technical support function rather than a central authority over governance decisions.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
I’m inclined to give a cautious Yes, but it hinges on strict milestone oversight and a clearer scope in the subsequent stages. Cardano can’t afford to fund just governance hype. And presently I'm not seeing governance that makes a real difference. So, I vote Yes, but insist on strong accountability and quick adjustments if results fall short.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes988.7K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because strong technical governance is essential for Cardano’s long-term stability and evolution. DReps are increasingly asked to vote on complex protocol changes, parameter updates, hard forks, infrastructure proposals, and technical budget requests. In order to make responsible decisions, the ecosystem needs independent technical coordination, clear reporting, expert review, and structured processes around protocol governance.
We see particular value in supporting the Parameter Committee, CIP editors, the Hard Fork Working Group, and the development of an independent technical review process. These functions help reduce governance risk, improve transparency, and make it easier for the community to evaluate highly technical proposals on their merits. While this is not a direct product or application-layer investment, we believe it is important governance infrastructure. A decentralized ecosystem needs reliable technical decision-making capacity, and this proposal supports that foundation.
- Yes988.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes964.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes924.2K ₳No rationale