Withdraw ₳12,000,000 for Cardano Builder DAO administered by Intersect
189 DReps voted · 59 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
To drive adoption is critical, specially if it's thanks to development o maintenance of the projects that already are in Cardano. Looks quite transparent proposal.
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 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.
- Abstain 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
TL;DR:
The Cardano Builder DAO proposal aims to fill a real funding gap for live dApps but introduces risks of governance fragmentation, vendor conflicts, and administrative complexity. Its ROI framework lacks rigor, and treasury protection is insufficiently addressed. Without stronger integration, independence safeguards, and clearer strategic impact, committing ₳12M now is premature. For the long-term stability and coherence of Cardano’s ecosystem, I recommend a NO vote until these critical issues are resolved. - Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 881.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- No 793K ₳ Rationale
Not opposed to this in the future, but want to see the idea better socialized and matured.
- No 791.4K ₳ Rationale
While the problem statement is one that I can agree with, the metrics at which will decide support will not achieve the desired outcome. Projects that will show healthy grow in the areas picked will be the ones that do not need additional support.
What needs to be focused are projects without ROI and with little transactions, but that are deemed worthy and beneficial, to obtain the needed support, of which s is likely to fall in the same intent of funding open source tooling as Catalyst has done in its previous categories.
- No 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 717.1K ₳ Rationale
I prioritized funding open-source tools and proposals that I believe will most effectively support Cardano’s long-term growth. I voted in favor of the highest-priority items that fit within my preferred budget cap of 250 million ADA, abstained from proposals where I may have had a personal interest, and voted NO on all remaining proposals after reaching that budget limit.
- No 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
This proposal addresses a critical funding gap in Cardano's ecosystem by establishing dedicated support for live, user-facing applications that drive real adoption, transaction volume, and Total Value Locked on mainnet. While Project Catalyst effectively supports early-stage innovation and core development budgets maintain protocol advancement, no existing mechanism provides sustained financial backing for established decentralized applications that are already generating measurable on-chain activity and user engagement.
The Cardano Builder DAO creates a complementary funding structure that enables Project Catalyst to focus more effectively on experimentation and innovation by providing an alternative pathway for mature projects that have demonstrated market fit and user adoption. This strategic separation optimizes the entire ecosystem funding framework by matching project development stages with appropriate support mechanisms.
The proposal's metrics-first approach ensures accountability through transparent tracking of key performance indicators including transaction counts, active users, and Total Value Locked. This data-driven methodology enables the community to measure return on investment while ensuring funded projects contribute meaningfully to ecosystem growth and competitive positioning.
The team's proven track record with Clarity governance platform and Agora smart contracts provides confidence in execution capability. Their infrastructure has successfully governed over ten million dollars in TVL across four production DAOs, demonstrating operational competence in decentralized treasury management and member-based governance systems.
The multi-signature structure requiring approval from three of four scope leads plus leadership provides robust safeguards against misallocation while maintaining efficient decision-making processes. Combined with Intersect's administration and proven smart contract controls, this governance framework ensures responsible stewardship of treasury funds.
Supporting established projects with demonstrated user adoption and on-chain activity directly contributes to Cardano's competitive positioning by maintaining ecosystem momentum and preventing migration to platforms with better funding infrastructure. High-impact applications attract users, generate transaction volume, and create network effects that benefit the entire ecosystem.
The strategic value extends beyond individual project support to ecosystem-wide benefits including increased block space utilization, higher Total Value Locked, improved user retention, and enhanced visibility in the broader Web3 landscape. These outcomes strengthen Cardano's market position while creating sustainable foundations for continued growth.
This proposal represents essential infrastructure for maintaining and accelerating application-layer development that drives real-world adoption and utility, making it a strategic investment in Cardano's long-term competitive success. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 587.1K ₳ Rationale
While the concept of this project could bring meaningful benefits to the Cardano community, the requested budget of 12 million ADA for one year is disproportionate to the current user base, user experience quality, and design maturity of the existing product. Based on my own development experience, the same functionality could be built from scratch for around 10% of the requested amount, without compromising on quality or scope.
My voting criteria consider not only the idea and purpose of a proposal but also the cost-to-value ratio. In this case, the proposal does not demonstrate a budget aligned with the realistic cost of delivery, nor does it provide sufficient evidence of scalability and adoption to justify the expense. For these reasons, I vote NO on this proposal.
- Yes 502K ₳ Rationale
Changing to support after team clarifications, but with important caveats.
The funding gap between Catalyst and VC is real, and this addresses it with clear operational planning and accountability measures. The KPI framework and fund return policy show responsible stewardship. Sometimes we need to try new approaches to see what works.The approval process for non-Catalyst projects still seems unnecessarily complex despite claims of inclusivity. So I will be watching:
- Whether the approval process becomes genuinely accessible or remains gatekeep-y
- How funding decisions actually get made in practice vs. on paper
- Whether this elevates the best builders or just the most connected ones
This is a “let’s see what happens” YES, not a ringing endorsement. The concept has merit, but execution will determine whether future iterations get my support. - Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 437.8K ₳ Rationale
This proposal plugs the funding gap for dApps that already bring users, liquidity, and real utility to Cardano. A community‑run DAO with clear, KPI‑based goals would give these teams the steady backing Catalyst can’t always provide, while keeping everything transparent. That long‑term support should toughen the ecosystem and help us hold onto top developers, both crucial for Cardano’s growth.
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Vote YES
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Testing voting in enactment YES we support the proposal
- Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 371.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 321.1K ₳ Rationale
Panda pleased by the Rare Evo presentation
- Yes 314.4K ₳ Rationale
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes 298.6K ₳ Rationale
No strong opinion. Defaulting to YES
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 258.6K ₳ Rationale
📋 Evaluation Checklist — Cardano Builder DAO (₳12M)
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → ✅ Yes
Evidence:
“This proposal seeks to address the lack of dedicated, sustainable financial support and strategic oversight for functioning dApps that drive real usage, transaction volume, and Total Value Locked (TVL) on the Cardano blockchain.”
Context:
The proposal focuses on sustaining active dApps with direct impact on adoption and network usage — a gap not currently addressed by Project Catalyst or infrastructure committees.
Its uniqueness is strategically important: Cardano’s funding model has been heavily centralized around Catalyst for almost five years, with no comparable ecosystem-wide grant mechanism for post-launch projects. Redundancy in grant programs and the absence of alternative funding channels represent a critical gap to be filled.
This is further amplified by Cardano’s weaker access to venture capital compared to other top-10 blockchains like Ethereum and Solana, making the treasury and alternative grant programs even more important for sustaining and expanding the application layer.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → 🟡 Partial
Evidence:
“$5.79M (11,580,000 ADA) — to direct project funding… $210K (420,000 ADA) — to DAO operational overhead.”
Overhead breakdown:- $50,000 (₳ 100,000) — Board member compensation (part-time stipends for 3–7 elected board members)
- $60,000 (₳ 120,000) — Legal & compliance (creation/maintenance of DUNA, contracts, legal consultancy, KYB oversight)
- $50,000 (₳ 100,000) — Service contracts (technical consultants, accounting, critical providers)
- $80,000 (₳ 160,000) — Infrastructure & tooling (hosting, storage, analytics, dashboards, daily technical coordination)
- $20,000 (₳ 40,000) — Contingency reserve (unforeseen operational needs)
Context:
While the operational overhead is itemized at a high level, it is not granular enough given the size of the request. There is no breakdown by man-hours, hourly rates, or detailed scope for each category. The range of “3–7 board members” without clear workload expectations prevents assessment of compensation fairness. Infrastructure costs are aggregated without unit pricing (e.g., GB/month, traffic volume). Service contracts are vague and not tied to specific deliverables.The ₳5.79M project funding allocation is presented as a lump sum without recipient-level breakdown, prioritization methodology, or cost-per-output estimates. For an ask of this magnitude, a granular budget with justifications would be expected.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → ❌ No
Evidence:
“Projects must publicly report KPIs such as… transaction volume, user activity, and development contributions.”
Context:
The DAO will require funded projects to report KPIs, but the proposal does not define quantifiable KPIs, baselines, or target thresholds for its own performance. Without DAO-level metrics, it will be difficult to evaluate the systemic impact of allocating ₳12M to this mechanism.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → 🟡 Partial
Evidence:
“Initial Member Onboarding… Board Election… Legal Entity Formation… DAO Launch… First Funding Cycle Execution… KPI Impact Reports…”
Context:
The roadmap lists sequential milestones and broad timelines, but there are no explicit acceptance criteria for deliverables, no independent verification process, and no contingency plan if milestones are delayed or under-deliver. KPI reporting is mentioned but without a defined methodology for validation, and no baseline is provided for comparison.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
Evidence:
“$6M USD (12,000,000 ADA)… ADA price assumption $0.50.”
Context:
Figures are consistent across sections; minor differences are explained by inclusion or exclusion of overhead in totals.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → 🟡 Partial
Evidence:
“Our team… building and maintaining Clarity… smart contracts have governed over $10 million in TVL… used by four DAOs.”
Coalition members include: NMKR, ADA Handle, Dex Hunter, Flux Point Studios, Tap Tools, Wanchain, NFTCDN.io, Vespr, Tokeo, Xerberus, Minswap, Indigo, Iagon, Clarity.Context:
The participating teams include several projects with strong reputations and robust delivery histories. However, the proposal does not provide names of individual members or team leads for each development area. This absence of personal-level identification creates uncertainty in the evaluation and reduces the ability to assess individual accountability within the DAO’s operations.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest → ✅ No material COI identified
Context:
No disclosed relationships that would materially compromise impartial evaluation.
📌 Critical Summary
The Cardano Builder DAO seeks ₳12M to establish a smart contract-governed funding mechanism for high-impact, live dApps. It builds on existing audited infrastructure (Agora, Clarity) and is supported by a coalition of major Cardano ecosystem players.
Strengths:
- Addresses a real, long-standing funding gap in Cardano’s ecosystem.
- High strategic value given Cardano’s over-reliance on Catalyst and lack of VC-level support compared to other top-10 chains.
- Team with proven governance infrastructure and operational capability.
- Transparent on-chain treasury with unused funds returned to the Treasury.
Weaknesses:
- Budget transparency: Overhead categories are too broad for the amounts requested, lacking man-hour estimates, hourly rates, or detailed scope. Project funding allocation (₳5.79M) has no per-recipient breakdown or prioritization criteria.
- KPIs: No DAO-level quantifiable KPIs or baselines to assess success.
- Milestones: Lacks acceptance criteria, independent validation, and contingency measures.
- Team detail: No disclosure of individual members or leads for key operational areas.
- Risk concentration: Without transparent allocation rules, funds could disproportionately benefit established incumbents.
🗳 Voting Recommendation: ABSTAIN
Rationale:
The proposal is strategically relevant for diversifying Cardano’s funding mechanisms beyond Catalyst, especially given the ecosystem’s VC scarcity. The DAO framework is credible and the team has relevant experience. However, approval should be paired with strict oversight to ensure:- A granular budget with justifications is implemented before fund disbursement.
- DAO-level KPIs and baselines are defined.
- Clear allocation criteria for the ₳5.79M in project funding are published.
- Named accountability for individuals in key roles is provided.
Suggested on-chain note:
“Supports diversification of funding beyond Catalyst — strategically important in a VC-scarce environment. Concerns: lacks DAO-level KPIs, detailed budget granularity, individual accountability, and transparent project allocation. Full rationale available on GitHub.” - Yes 257K ₳ Rationale
I recommend voting YES on this proposal to fund the Cardano Builder DAO administered by Intersect with ₳12,000,000. This funding addresses a crucial gap in the Cardano ecosystem by providing dedicated, sustainable financial backing and strategic support specifically for live, user-facing dApps driving meaningful on-chain activity, TVL, and ecosystem engagement.
The project leverages proven governance infrastructure built on Clarity and Agora smart contracts, enabling transparent, member-driven decision-making and treasury management. The DAO structure complements Project Catalyst by focusing on the scale-up phase of projects rather than early-stage startup innovation, thereby ensuring both innovation and growth receive targeted support.
Robust treasury administration, including multi-party authorization and independent oversight, provides confidence in governance and fund security. Planned KPIs and milestone monitoring will permit clear tracking of projects’ impact and ROI.
Supporting application-layer projects is vital to growing Cardano’s user base, increasing real usage metrics, and driving the ecosystem towards mass adoption. This DAO proposes a scalable, community-aligned funding model essential for long-term ecosystem health and resilience.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 239.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 238.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.2K ₳ Rationale
after careful review of the Cardano Builder DAO treasury withdrawal proposal, i vote yes. the framework is well-specified with clear deliverables: 1) comprehensive ₳12M budget administered by Intersect with proven smart contract controls, 2) reasonable 12-month timeline, 3) transparent governance via five independent oversight entities. most importantly, this fills a critical funding gap for established projects driving real adoption and TVL. the multi-sig structure requiring 3/4 scope leads plus leadership approval provides strong safeguards. seeing the Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, and other major builders aligned on this gives confidence. curious about your thoughts on their KPI tracking approach - the focus on measurable metrics like transaction volume and active users seems solid.
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
While supporting live dApps is valuable, Cardano’s $659M treasury and Project Catalyst already provide robust funding for ecosystem growth. The 12M ADA request is substantial, and potential overlap with existing mechanisms like Catalyst or other proposals risks redundancy. I urge clearer justification on why current resources can’t support these projects and stronger evidence of execution feasibility to ensure ROI. Intersect’s governance is strong, but the scale of this proposal warrants further scrutiny.