Withdraw ₳15,750,000 for a MBO for the Cardano ecosystem: Intersect
175 DReps voted · 48 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
「275M ADA Administered by Intersect」に含まれるすべての個別提案に対して、エクレシア投票の段階では必ずしもすべてに賛成していたわけではありませんが、最終的には本ガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じました。Cardanoエコシステム全体への貢献を高く評価し、その前進を後押しする立場から、今回提出された39件すべての提案に賛成票を投じる判断をいたしました。\n\nWhile I did not necessarily support every individual proposal included in "275M ADA Administered by Intersect" during the Ekklesia vote, I ultimately voted Yes on this governance action. Recognizing its overall contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and in support of continued progress, I cast a Yes vote on all 39 proposals submitted under this initiative.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I voted ABSTAIN on Ekklesia for this proposal - when I was an Intersect member. I was originally going between a NO and an ABSTAIN - but was leaning NO.
I think that those who voted YES in the early stages - months ago - may have made somewhat of a mistake as Intersect has been greatly shaped into a leaner and meaner machine by pushback, not by support. Fortunately, there were sufficient NOs and ABSTAINS to create enough pusback.
IIn the meantime my Intersect inddividual membership has expired (have yet to renew it), but I am voting YES as a non-Intersect member at the moment. I have changed my vote to a YES for the new ₳15,75M treasury withdrawal, because a lot of proposals are now dependent on the presence of a rational and functional administrator.
Other reasons for the change:- Jack Briggs and his communication skills and responsive style - yep, it matters
- Intersect cut the treasury withdrawal request from the massive 20M ADA
- The new Intersect leadership avoided the massive - and almost irresistible - temptation of bundling all the proposals in 1 or 2 Treasury Withdrawals, finding a convenient excuse to do so, and steamrolling ahead. They demonstrated respect and trust in a large segment of the community. This create more space for some of us to expand our list of proposals we can support.
- I want to reciprocate with my own leap of faith, by supporting a key cog in the system - the new community minded Intersect. In this space, all we have the power to do is really to make a decision when and if to trust someone. The pieces are now there for Intersect to continue as a new servant, not master.
- Abstain 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgReady to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).
We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.
My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
Intersect is central to Cardano’s transition into Voltaire. Despite past missteps, the organization is adapting, decentralizing leadership, and improving transparency. As STORM Partners, we value structured governance, ecosystem-wide coordination, and long-term scalability. Intersect is not perfect, but it’s necessary, and it’s evolving in the right direction. This is a strategic, not sentimental, yes.
- No 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Believe open source driven ecosystem evolution does not need stewardship. The market will choose winners and loosers.
Believe open source driven ecosystem evolution does not need stewardship. The market will choose winners and loosers.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 3.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
The proposed amount is significant, and I would not support the withdrawal without a detailed budget for each outcome. However, as Intersect is the vendor, we must trust them for now and assess their performance later.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.8M ₳ Rationale
Although this budget has been reduced from the previous requested amount of 20,000,000 ADA, I still cannot support it.
There is an overall lack of transparency regarding the final budget total and where that money is being spent.
After looking extensively on the Intersect Website, Discord, and X profile I could only find a (somewhat) detailed breakdown of the new Intersect Operational Costs hidden in one of the supporting links as a .csv file, Details of all successful proposals (CSV):
https://bafybeicwrop4q7xvnyjdd5drumbe56sqtm5lbe2ul3c262zt4hgguzdycm.ipfs.dweb.link/
This information should have been presented in the written details of the GA so everyone could see it, but since it can't be easily found, I've copied the details into a Google Doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xLMXjqbC96aTkoCGrkHBWiLdm9vljyp8ZuGWZNDQ51w/edit?usp=sharing
My key issues:
This budget breakdown is far less detailed than what we were initially presented with.
Majority of operations budget is the cost of 45 people at $100,000 a person. People are the most expensive part of a business, so that makes sense, but there is no clarity on what roles these people serve (does not give us an idea if this is necessary expenditure or not).
Board members get $35,000 compensation per director, but then Board Services cost $250,000. What are these services? Sounds like compensation for Board of Directors, but then why is it not included in that cost? Are board members compensated also as a part of the 45 people on the personnel list at $100,000 as well?
Intersect wants to operate as an MBO with all the benefits of being an MBO (board of directors, answering only to members), but then they want to be completely community funded. You cannot have this both ways. If you are community funded, you need to be accountable to all ADA holders not members and a board.
At this point, if Intersect wants to be completely community funded, they need to cut their operations to the point where they serve as manager of the budget and point of contact for CDH only. Any additional roles are superfluous to their existence and are an unnecessary cost to ADA holders.
- 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
I'm not sure that “maintaining and governing the open-source Cardano node repositories, including the Haskell codebases,” and similar tasks require such a large budget — especially considering they’re handled by core developers or entire companies. Is this really a non-profit organization? From the outside, it looks more like an attempt to secure funding for a massive bureaucratic machine with zero efficiency, IMHO...
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.5M ₳ Rationale
This is a large amount of money and based on minimum viable governance, I am not sure this fits it. We wasted significant time going back and forth with intersect on the buckets and proposal set and all we needed was to put the burden on the projects requesting and allow dreps to parse through and vote. We are ready for full on governance with the fewest number of middle players as possible.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Voltaire期における中立的な運営基盤として、Intersectの継続的な機能提供（ノード管理、アップグレード調整、委員会運営支援等）は極めて重要です。非営利・透明性の原則に沿った運営と、憲法・委員会制度との連携を前提に、Cardanoの自律的発展を支える役割を評価し、賛成します。
As a neutral nonprofit coordinating body, Intersect plays a critical role in supporting Cardano’s decentralized infrastructure and governance during the Voltaire era. Given its responsibilities in node stewardship, upgrade coordination, and committee facilitation, I vote in favor assuming continued alignment with transparency and the Cardano Constitution.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
I believe Intersect is the MBO of all MBOs, this will be the future coordination layer for all kinds of smaller DAOs and MBOs. As a participant in the Product Committee i have seen the innerworkings, social aspects, learning, and improvement over the last year. I am excited to see what they can do.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ 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 Intersect was founded to support decentralized governance, it has not meaningfully represented the DRep community or demonstrated adequate transparency or accountability. Key governance decisions have lacked legitimacy. The proposal’s budget remains vague, particularly around staffing and board-related expenses, and fails to justify its scale. Until Intersect undergoes structural reform—including on-chain board elections and a clear, community-aligned mandate—I cannot support full community funding for its operations.
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
I’m voting YES on this treasury withdrawal to fund Intersect with ₳15.75M for the 2025–2026 delivery period. Intersect continues to serve a critical function in Cardano’s governance infrastructure—maintaining the core Haskell codebases, coordinating network upgrades like Chang and Plomin, and supporting over 30 working groups and 8 elected committees. This action is well-scoped, time-bound, and aligned with the constitutional intent to support a plural, decentralized governance system.
Cardano needs Intersect to continue pushing forward with coordination, tooling, and committee support to ensure that on-chain decision-making is not only functional, but effective.
VOTE0015
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ 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
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
I must vote NO on this proposal for the following reasons:
Lack of Granular Accountability: The proposal outlines broad and essential functions but fails to provide detailed, measurable deliverables or KPIs that justify such a large financial commitment. Without concrete milestones, it’s impossible to rigorously assess if funds are spent efficiently or if objectives are met.
Oversight Concerns: The governance and oversight model, although incorporating external entities, remains heavily centralized around Intersect’s leadership. This concentration raises risks of operational bottlenecks and insufficient decentralization—contradictory to Cardano’s foundational principles.
Insufficient Strategic Innovation: The proposal largely maintains the status quo without presenting transformative or scalable governance strategies. Given the critical juncture of Voltaire, we must demand bold steps toward pluralization and decentralization rather than reinforcing existing centralized structures.
Opaque Community Engagement Metrics: Supporting numerous committees is positive in theory, but the lack of transparent evaluation mechanisms for community impact and participation quality undermines confidence in Intersect’s effectiveness.
Treasury Protection Imperative: The requested amount represents a sizeable chunk of our treasury. Approving this without stringent controls risks compromising the protocol’s long-term financial health and stability.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale