Withdraw ₳104,347 for MLabs Research towards Tooling for Elliptical Curves...
147 DReps voted · 45 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes625.9K ₳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. - Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted479.9K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- No383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain370.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain314.4K ₳Rationale
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I abstain from this vote.
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I abstain from this vote.
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
After a detailed review of the MLabs Research proposal titled “Tooling for Elliptical Curves – GrumpleStiltSkin”, I have voted YES based on the following considerations aligned with Cardano’s governance objectives and ecosystem priorities:
Critical Infrastructure for ZK and Cryptography:
This proposal addresses a significant gap in Cardano’s cryptographic tooling by enabling flexible, on-chain zero-knowledge proof verification over customizable elliptic curves. This capability is essential for expanding Cardano’s privacy, scalability, and advanced application potential.Developer Usability and Security:
By delivering a flexible and developer-friendly YTxP-based interface in Plutarch, the project reduces the complexity and specialized knowledge required for application developers to leverage zero-knowledge proofs safely and effectively. This promotes broader adoption and reduces duplicated effort and security risks.Alignment with Cardano Roadmap and Ecosystem Needs:
The tooling directly supports Cardano’s ambitions in zkApps and cryptographic sophistication, complementing ongoing research and protocol development efforts. It strengthens the foundation for future decentralized applications requiring advanced cryptography.Reasonable and Transparent Scope:
The proposed budget of ₳104,347 for 600 hours of focused development, including project management and quality assurance, is modest and appropriate for the scope of work and specialized expertise required.Strong Track Record of Vendor:
MLabs has demonstrated substantial commitment and expertise within the Cardano ecosystem, especially in Plutus, Plutarch, and advanced cryptographic research, providing confidence in timely and quality delivery.Milestone-Based Disbursement & Oversight:
Funding will be managed through milestone-based payments enforced by smart contracts and overseen by Intersect with third-party assurance, ensuring accountability and transparency.This proposal delivers clear technical value that directly benefits developers, applications, and the broader Cardano platform, sustaining Cardano’s leadership in blockchain innovation and cryptographic capabilities.
For these reasons, I endorse this proposal and encourage community support to enable its successful execution.
- Yes262.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain261K ₳Rationale
This vote was submitted based on a completed checklist. A detailed rationale is available at:
👉 https://github.com/Agora-Cardano - Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes185.6K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes on all 39 Intersect Governance actions. The community has thoroughly reviewed the many proposals presented in the Intersect Budget Process for the 2025 budget. I was deeply involved in the entire process as an SME for the Budget Committee, and then as the Secretary for the Budget Committee.
The proposals presented represent an incredible amount of development for our ecosystem for the next year. The teams all received at least 50% on Ekklesia polling. The teams will face milestones in order to continue to receive funding. If a team fails to deliver, the process will stop them from enriching themselves without returning value.
If anything, we are spending too little on our community. We need to spend more to further develop our governance and our organized events. This is a liquid democracy. If you believe that all of these proposals deserve a chance to deliver, you can shift your delegation to my DRep ID.
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process. - Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳Rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.9K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.
Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Voted YES on MLabs: Tooling for Elliptical Curves – GrumpleStiltSkin
🧠 Why I support it:
• Enables ZK proof verification over any elliptic curve on-chain
• Provides reusable, secure cryptographic tooling in Plutarch
• Open-source + YTxP-based = composable and future-proof
• Empowers privacy-preserving dApps and advanced authentication
• Delivered by MLabs — trusted team behind Plutarch, CTL, and zk researchThis is critical infrastructure for Cardano’s zk future. A vote for GrumpleStiltSkin is a vote for flexibility, security, and developer empowerment.
Track all my votes 👉 tempo.vote/drep-profile
DRep: DeepStatecraft - Yes26.7K ₳Rationale
MLabs can do the research they want to do even though this makes no sense to me. They are trusted.
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain335.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes13.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale