Withdraw ₳130,903 for Lucid Evolution Maintenance administered by Intersect
174 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 2 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to no, together voting with 21.9K ₳ of voting power.
- Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳Rationale
I will support all proposals from Anastasia Labs, including this one, as they provide, maintain, and update a valuable open-source library.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
Lucid is one of the most widely adopted tools for interacting with Cardano smart contracts, and its long-term maintenance is key to retaining and supporting builders. Anastasia Labs is a proven, reliable team, and the request is modest given the impact. While the budget could benefit from more detail, the open-source nature and ecosystem dependence justify strong support.
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳Rationale
JS dev tool ecosystem is critical to DApp advancement.
JS dev tool ecosystem is critical to DApp advancement.
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.9M ₳No rationale
- 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
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Trusted team and important Lucid updates. Completely open source. Reasonable monetary request.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Lucid Evolutionは、Cardanoでのスマートコントラクト開発における主要なオフチェーンライブラリであり、多くの開発者に利用されています。本提案はその継続的な保守・拡張と新規開発者へのオンボーディング支援を目的としており、₳130Kという低コストで高い公共性を持つため、賛成します。
Lucid Evolution is a widely used off-chain smart contract library on Cardano. Continued maintenance ensures developer efficiency, up-to-date compatibility, and broader ecosystem support. Given its public good nature and low cost, I vote in favor.
- Yes2.5M ₳Rationale
I'm not sure I’ll end up using this, but competition is always a good thing for the end user in the long run, as it drives progress.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
We have lost many hours banging our heads against the lucid wall. We have switched to Mesh who has polished docs and supports governance transactions. If we are paying maintenance I expect it to work and be well documented and supported.
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
Lucid is a critical library for Cardano dApp development. Ongoing maintenance. Especially under Intersect’s administration it ensures long-term reliability, security, and support for ecosystem builders. We like many other builders rely on Lucid.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Voting Yes to support the ongoing maintenance of Lucid, a critical library for building off-chain Cardano dApps. Keeping it updated ensures developers can build efficiently and remain compatible with network upgrades. Anastasia Labs is actively maintaining Lucid Evolution and is well positioned to continue improving this essential tool for the ecosystem.
- 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.
- Yes1.5M ₳Rationale
I see positively everything that helps to simplify/ enhance the development in Cardano, specially if it is not expensive and comes from a trusted team.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳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