Withdraw ₳104,347 for MLabs Research towards Tooling for Elliptical Curves...
147 DReps voted · 46 with a rationale · 4 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners supports this as critical research work that will expand Cardano’s future capabilities in privacy and authentication. The team at MLabs is strong and well-suited for the task, and the budget ask is modest relative to the scope. We vote YES.
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- No4.8M ₳Rationale
Fail to see the importance of Plutarch specific advancement where it might not be translated over to the rest of the smart contract languages.
Fail to see the importance of Plutarch specific advancement where it might not be translated over to the rest of the smart contract languages.
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.9M ₳Rationale
I vote YES as core engineering is a top priority of my DRep.
Strength and honor.
- Yes3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- 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
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
GrumpleStiltSkinは、Plutarch上で楕円曲線およびGalois体演算を扱えるようにすることで、ZK証明やプライバシー重視アプリケーションにおける汎用的な暗号ツールの基盤を提供する提案です。Cardanoのオンチェーン暗号基盤の高度化につながる重要な試みであり、少額の研究投資として妥当であるため賛成します。
This proposal enables composable, parameterized cryptographic tooling in Plutarch for on-chain ZK proof verification. By supporting elliptic curves and Galois fields, it lays essential groundwork for advanced privacy-preserving applications. Given the high technical value and low cost, I vote in favor.
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
This looks more like a Catalyst proposal. Moreover, it lacks details and a budget breakdown, even though the requested amount is not the largest compared to others.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Love this research but this is not a part of minimum viable governance. Please continue on your own or go to catalyst.
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳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.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳Rationale
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already undergone extensive scrutiny and received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision and the work these prospective developers have put in by voting yes on all the proposals from the Intersect Budget team.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting No. While the proposal addresses a real gap in Cardano’s on-chain cryptographic capabilities, it fails to clearly demonstrate why existing libraries, standards, or ongoing initiatives cannot be extended to meet these needs. The proposal is only to build a proof-of-concept, without a explanation of differentiation or integration with current efforts, risks duplicating work and fragmenting tooling.
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The proposal describes a real gap: Cardano does not yet have reusable and composable on-chain elliptic curve and finite field cryptographic tooling. But it does not show why the existing cryptography libraries, community standards or research work can not be used or extended instead of a "proof of concept" to be built from scratch. The Cardano ecosystem already has several cryptography initiatives (e.g. CTL, Ply, Cardano.nix) and is improving the Plutarch tooling. The proposal says that it is building on them but it does not explain in what way GrumpleStiltSkin is different and/or does not duplicate work.
- Yes951.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳No rationale
- No927.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes888K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes796.1K ₳Rationale
Better math / Better dev ux
- Yes742.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes604.7K ₳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. - Yes591.1K ₳No rationale