Withdraw 11,787,063 ada for the OpenZeppelin Stack administered by Intersect
9 DReps voted · 5 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
Voting concentration
1 of 9 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 51.2%, top 5 combined 98.1% of 108.2M ₳ voted.
- No55.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. This year's Net Change Limit (NCL) has been set well above the level I consider sustainable. Under my published voting framework, an appropriate NCL is roughly 15% of the previous year's staking rewards (on the order of 82M ADA), whereas the NCL currently in force is several times that amount. Because the treasury is already authorized to disburse far beyond my personal NCL threshold, I am voting No on all treasury withdrawal proposals until aggregate withdrawals are brought back within a sustainable limit — regardless of the individual merits of any single proposal. This vote reflects a position on total treasury spend, not a judgment on the value of your specific project. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/\n\n[Japanese version follows]\n\n本提案に反対票を投じます。今年のNet Change Limit（NCL）は、私が持続可能と考える水準を大幅に上回って設定されています。公開済みの投票フレームワークでは、適正なNCLは前年のステーキング報酬の約15%（82M ADA）ですが、現行のNCLはその数倍に達しています。トレジャリーは既に私のpersonal NCL（個人として許容する上限）を大きく超える出金が認められている状態にあるため、出金総額が持続可能な範囲に戻るまで、個別提案の良し悪しに関わらず、すべてのトレジャリー出金提案に反対票を投じます。本投票はトレジャリー支出全体に対する立場の表明であり、貴提案の価値そのものを否定するものではありません。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- No23.6M ₳Rationale
Too much overlap with the funded DevX proposal. Coordinate with the existing team and collaborate.
- No20.3M ₳Rationale
I appreciate the initiative of OppenZeppelin, however their prior work has already launched an effort to replicate this on Cardano and I would rather have OpenZeppelin join this effort and collaborate than to work on this on their own, see https://github.com/input-output-hk/contracts-library
Before approving this, I would at least need an analysis of the existing effort and why this does not suffice. - No5.7M ₳Rationale
From our point of view there is too much fragmented activity in this field (which is undoubtedly relevant). Instead of having differnt initatives all trying to reinvent the wheel and producing additional work and cost, we would like to see coordinated, concerted action in this area - especially since we are talking about open-source solutions here.
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The problem of fragmented contract patterns, a lack of reusable eUTXO components, and poorly documented paths for institutional DeFi is one I fully grasp and support. Because having open-source reference code and security know-how could cut down on redundant work and boost developers’ assurance in this field. So, without a doubt, the strategic direction is relevant.
Looking at the value proposition, though I think it’s substantially weaker than the headline suggests. As far as I know, Cardano already has active contract frameworks. It also has audited application code, ecosystem standards, developer tooling, and on top of that various teams working on interoperability, governance, credentials, and DeFi infrastructure. I’m not an expert here, but even more so, I’d expect a proposal asking for no less than 12M ADA to establish and show beyond a reason of doubt through a rigorous gap analysis what existing repositories cannot provide, how OpenZeppelin’s output will be technically superior, or why all three proposed financial products should be bundled into one treasury-funded engagement… when I and so many other DReps have publicly and on social media for more than a year now opposed the bundling of divergent work packages time and again.
We’re talking about almost 2M USD here, and I for one think, that it’s quite an ask that requires more detailed budget evidence, rate cards, subcontractor assumptions, and independently validated scope. That’s best business practice. I’ve operated under these conditions for more than three decades, and I’m shocked each time how laissez-faire this grant tourism in the Cardano ecosystem is.
I would prefer, and indeed can only approve if I do my DRep job properly, a smaller, independently scoped discovery grant followed by competitive, separately approved workstreams.
- No884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes573.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes366.6K ₳No rationale
- No285.2K ₳No rationale