Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zer...
207 DReps voted · 75 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting No. This proposal would add complexity to Catalyst without clear evidence it solves urgent problems. The use of donations, reputation scores, and KYC is untested and could create more issues than it fixes. The 1.5M ADA ask is high for an experimental model with unclear demand and limited benefit to the broader community. Treasury funds should go to proven, high-impact projects.
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes. This initiative introduces a more inclusive, mathematically grounded funding model that can complement and extend Catalyst by better capturing community preferences and reducing funding concentration. Quadratic funding has proven effective in other ecosystems for empowering smaller voices and encouraging grassroots participation. With a strong theoretical foundation and practical relevance, this proposal offers a meaningful way to diversify Cardano’s funding mechanisms and improve community-driven resource allocation. The potential upside justifies the investment.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳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.
- No1.5M ₳Rationale
It's not the moment to focus on this kind of experiments, specially when relying on "donor engagement" and tax incentives for the donors (that might change eventually)
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting Yes – VOTE0020
I initially leaned toward voting No on this proposal, based on concerns regarding the scale of funding requested and the absence of prior validation within the Cardano ecosystem. However, after further consideration, I believe a Yes vote is warranted in light of the strategic importance of strengthening Project Catalyst.
Context Shift: Prioritizing Catalyst’s Resilience
With millions of ADA entering Catalyst through treasury allocations, ensuring the robustness and adaptability of its funding mechanisms is essential. While the Extended Quadratic Funding (EQF) model is untested in our ecosystem, it represents a timely opportunity to expand Catalyst’s toolkit and address long-standing challenges in voter participation and funding distribution.
Balancing Caution with Strategic Opportunity
My initial preference was for a smaller-scale pilot, possibly within Catalyst itself, before committing to a direct treasury withdrawal of this size. However, I now view this proposal as a strategic investment in governance infrastructure. The credibility of the proposing team and the clarity of their execution plan reduce operational risk, and the potential insights gained could significantly inform future funding models.
Conclusion
While caution remains appropriate, the need to evolve Catalyst in step with growing treasury inflows makes this proposal both relevant and timely. Supporting this initiative reflects a commitment to proactive governance and innovation in how Cardano funds its future.
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The proposal seems to be reinventing the wheel on top of an already complex and well-funded governance and funding system, without a compelling argument as to why the existing system cannot be used more effectively or augmented in some way.
The zero operation cost claim is interesting but not well explained as to how that is possible in the long term considering the complexity of the oversight, legal and technical infrastructure described. The proposed voting power formula (sqrt donation amount + log reputation) is well balanced between stake and impact, but it is very complex and dependent on subjective reputation values that can be gamed and manipulated, even with the proposed Sybil and collusion protection, and the use of Hyperledger Identus for zero-knowledge KYC is very interesting but not yet proven in a large scale in the Cardano decentralized system. The proposal does not explain how the layers of verification will work with the native identity and governance tools of Cardano and the potential risk of centralization and privacy issues.
The proposal is a waste of effort if it is not adding value on top of what is already being done in Project Catalyst and other funding experiments, without a compelling and evidence-based advantage.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes949.1K ₳No rationale
- No931.8K ₳No rationale
- No861.5K ₳No rationale
- No820.1K ₳No rationale
- No798.4K ₳Rationale
Quadratic voting is devaluation of ADA.
Big no. - Yes794.5K ₳Rationale
I believe this is an innovative funding approach worth exploring.
- Yes776.8K ₳Rationale
Exploring additional funding mechanisms with novel weights addresses the issue that obtaining a true representation of an ecosystem is more nuanced than what stake-based voting offers. Providing real world cases of alternatives may very well scale to new solutions adopted in wider scopes.
- Abstain763.4K ₳No rationale
- No759K ₳No rationale
- No717.5K ₳Rationale
I prioritized funding open-source tools and proposals that I believe will most effectively support Cardano’s long-term growth. I voted in favor of the highest-priority items that fit within my preferred budget cap of 250 million ADA, abstained from proposals where I may have had a personal interest, and voted NO on all remaining proposals after reaching that budget limit.
- Yes707.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳Rationale
I would vote YES on this proposal because it introduces an Extended Quadratic Funding model that complements Catalyst by addressing voter concentration, weak impact reporting, and inefficient milestone management while operating with zero overhead, ensuring 100% of funds go directly to Cardano projects. The design leverages quadratic voting with reputation scores, encourages external donations to amplify treasury impact, and implements strong accountability measures through standardized impact reporting, legal contracts, audits, and third-party assurance. Given the modest ₳1.5M request within the broader approved budget, the potential benefits in fairness, transparency, and long-term sustainability outweigh the risks, making this a valuable experiment to strengthen Cardano’s innovation ecosystem.
- Yes705.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
This proposal introduces an innovative Extended Quadratic Funding mechanism that strategically complements Project Catalyst by addressing critical limitations in current blockchain funding approaches while operating at zero administrative cost. The model amplifies treasury impact by transforming traditional funding from sole treasury allocation to a multiplier effect where individual donations can increase available capital by fifty percent or more.
The democratized decision-making framework balances financial contribution with proven community impact through a sophisticated voting system combining donation amounts with reputation scores. This approach prevents wealth concentration from dominating funding decisions while maintaining meaningful participation incentives and implementing robust Sybil resistance through zero-knowledge proof KYC via Hyperledger Identus.
The proposal addresses known Catalyst pain points including concentrated voter power, inefficient milestone management, and inadequate impact reporting through standardized metrics tracking on-chain transactions, new wallet creation, and active user acquisition. This creates the first comprehensive dataset of innovation return on investment within the Cardano ecosystem, enabling data-driven optimization of future funding decisions.
The zero operational cost structure ensures one hundred percent of treasury funds reach projects directly, maximizing resource efficiency while introducing additional capital through individual donor participation. Tax-deductible donation options for qualified donors create unique incentives that extend funding reach beyond the traditional crypto ecosystem.
Socious brings proven expertise through extensive experience with Project Catalyst, SingularityNet's Deep Funding, and GitCoin platforms, combined with enterprise-grade identity solutions currently serving thirteen universities. Their team includes Cardano Ambassadors and Constitutional Committee members with deep ecosystem knowledge and technical capabilities.
The sustainable value capture mechanism establishes voluntary contribution systems where funded projects share ecosystem value through equity stakes, token allocations, or revenue sharing agreements. The ambitious but achievable target of five percent annual returns within ten years aligns with venture capital industry standards while building long-term treasury sustainability.
The streamlined milestone management system uses token incentives and financial penalties to encourage prompt, accurate reviewer decisions while implementing decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms. This particularly benefits smaller funding requests that often struggle with lengthy approval processes.
Supporting this proposal enhances Cardano's funding infrastructure through equitable resource distribution, increased participation, and transparent accountability mechanisms that complement existing structures while introducing innovative approaches to treasury impact maximization and ecosystem growth acceleration. - No605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳No rationale
- No587.6K ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this proposal because the requested amount of funding is disproportionately high compared to the actual scope of work. The proposed functionality—implementing an extended quadratic funding mechanism—can be developed at less than one-tenth of the requested cost using modern development tools and infrastructure.
While the idea of complementing Catalyst with quadratic funding is valuable, the current proposal lacks cost-efficiency and raises concerns about responsible treasury allocation. A more lean and transparent budget would be necessary to justify support.
- Abstain533.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes520.2K ₳Rationale
I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.
- No501K ₳Rationale
Quadratic funding is a fascinating concept from Glen Weyl's work, and I appreciate the mathematical elegance. But adding another funding mechanism when we're still figuring out Catalyst feels premature. The zero operational costs claim is nice, but the complexity of managing reputation scores, preventing Sybil attacks, and coordinating with existing funding streams...
Sometimes the best governance decision is not adding more governance layers until you've mastered the ones you have. - Abstain466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes385.2K ₳Rationale
Krypto Labs have taken part in the budget debates and agree with proposer that this is something the Cardano blockchain ecosystem need.
I started with making a rationale and arguement for each proposal, but to save time i need to do bulk voting to speed this prosess up. - Yes383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain370.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.