Withdraw ₳104,347 for MLabs Research towards Tooling for Elliptical Curves...
147 DReps voted · 40 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I originally voted NO for this proposal in the Ekklesia temp poll check. Now I am voting YES.
The fact that Intersect pushed forward 39 individual treasury withdrawal actions, allows me to be more flexible with my planned votes - as I no longer feel an obligation to voice my displeasure and fight against the mega-bundling of proposals into one or two mega treasury withdrawals.
In Ekklesia, I was trying to keep my votes down to mostly essentials - however, with this discrete voting mechanism, I choose to add this proposal to my YES list.
Cardano needs flexible on‑chain cryptography if we want native bridges, privacy tokens, or recursive proofs without waiting for every curve to become a built‑in. MLabs are the right team and the budget is fair.
- Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ 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.
- No 4.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES as core engineering is a top priority of my DRep.
Strength and honor.
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ 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.
- No 2.6M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Love this research but this is not a part of minimum viable governance. Please continue on your own or go to catalyst.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ 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.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 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.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
Better math / Better dev ux
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 738.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale