Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zer...
207 DReps voted · 76 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote · 2 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, 1 to no, together voting with 71M ₳ of voting power.
- YesRevoted11.9M ₳Rationale
Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.
We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.
Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.
Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.
In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.
Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.2M ₳Rationale
I do not observe enough information to properly understand what the goal/intent here is, nor the quantified impact. To the best of my understanding, I observe a highly experimental catalyst-like funding program that relies on donations. I do not believe this is an efficient use of treasury funding.
- Yes9.5M ₳Rationale
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgReady to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).
We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.
My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt
- Abstain8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA has chosen to** abstain at this time while reserving the option to review and update this vote prior to the voting deadline**. This approach allows RCADA to allocate focus where immediate evaluation is most impactful, particularly on proposals that are close to threshold or raise significant procedural or constitutional concerns. If this proposal reaches the approv-al threshold prior to our review, the abstention will stand as a neutral signal of deferral, not op-position. Should further analysis be warranted, RCADA will update this vote accordingly.
- No7.7M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I originally voted NO for this proposal in the Ekklesia temp poll check. I am voting NO again.
The team does seem uniquely qualified to deliver this project. However, it seems to be based on several suppositions that have not convinced me sufficiently to risk treasury funds on this proposal. I do commend them for putting it forward to a vote.These ideas seem worth experimenting with. Anyhow, the ask is too large for the current moment in Cardano imho and the zero‑operational‑costs claim opens more questions to me. I feel this to be more of a risk for the treasury. As a very different alternative to Catalyst that is based on several presumptions (such as willing donations) - would probably benefit from starting with a smaller pilot. Maybe financed through Catalyst itself. This pilot would be best gated by hard KPIs (donor‑matching ratio, active‑user growth, impact‑reporting dashboard) before scaling to seven figures.
- Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳Rationale
Researching alternative voting mechanisms is essential not only for Catalyst but also for the wider blockchain ecosystem.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
This proposal offers a funding mechanism that complements Catalyst by addressing vote centralization, treasury limitations, and impact tracking. The model is technically sound, Socious team is experienced and committed to Cardano, and 100% of funds go directly to projects. At STORM Partners, we support it as a strategic experiment to evolve funding infrastructure in Cardano.
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- No4.9M ₳Rationale
Quadratic voting is devaluation of ADA.
Big no. - No4.8M ₳Rationale
Maintenance of the source code itself has overhead. Also, no justification to the superiority of the quadratic model compared to traditional proof of stake model.
Maintenance of the source code itself has overhead. Also, no justification to the superiority of the quadratic model compared to traditional proof of stake model.
- Abstain4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tf...4qas92), pois é preciso avaliar outros modelos de financiamento coletivo comunitário além do modelo do Catalyst, e o modelo de Financiamento Quadrático Estendido proposto está alinhado com princípios que podem beneficiar o próprio Catalyst a partir do seu resultado. Além disso, a justificativa de gastos apresentada, bem como as métricas de avaliação e controle, foram bem apresentadas.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action (gov_action13tf...4qas92), because it is necessary to evaluate other models of community crowdfunding beyond the Catalyst model, and the proposed Extended Quadratic Funding model is aligned with principles that can benefit Catalyst itself based on its results. Furthermore, the expense justification presented, as well as the evaluation and control metrics, were well presented. - No4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳Rationale
I am strongly in favor of improving the barriers to abuse and grifting the Catalyst project.
- No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.9M ₳Rationale
I vote NO as not my core DRep priorities and quite opaque.
Strength and honor.
- No3.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain3.5M ₳Rationale
Ask too high. therefore voted abstain.
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳Rationale
I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
本提案は、Catalystを補完する形で二乗投票＋寄付マッチングを活用し、少額多数の意思を反映しやすくする資金配分モデルを提案しています。運用コストゼロで全額が支援対象に回る設計、実証済のSociousフレームワーク、ROIや透明性の課題への明確なアプローチを評価し、賛成します。
This proposal introduces an extended quadratic funding model that complements Catalyst by democratizing fund allocation, enhancing ROI clarity, and operating at zero cost. Backed by the Socious platform and targeting known Catalyst pain points, I support it as a cost-efficient innovation mechanism.
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Maybe you should consider submitting this proposal to Catalyst instead?
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Quadratic voting and funding is certainly an interesting topic but I do not see the need for the treasury to pay 1.5M ada for this experiment. Most holders are here to profit and so the community of people with appetite beyond Catalyst is very small. This would be spending treasury funds on a microcommunity. Technically interested but not broadly valuable.
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale