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 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 738.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 716.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 655K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
This proposal represents essential infrastructure investment for maintaining Cardano's operational continuity and governance effectiveness during the critical transition period from founding organization control to fully decentralized community governance. Intersect serves as the neutral coordination layer that bridges on-chain voting mechanisms with practical ecosystem management, ensuring that constitutional frameworks translate into functional network operations.
Intersect's stewardship of core Haskell codebases powering Cardano nodes requires sustained technical expertise and institutional continuity that cannot be effectively replaced through ad-hoc arrangements. Their coordination of ecosystem-wide upgrades, including the successful Chang and Plomin hard forks, demonstrates proven capability in managing complex technical deployments that require alignment across infrastructure providers, stake pool operators, decentralized applications, and exchanges globally.
The Administrator role defined in the Constitution requires a reliable institutional counterparty capable of managing treasury-funded initiatives, providing contract oversight, ensuring compliance monitoring, and facilitating transparent delivery assurance. Intersect's established framework for proposal vetting, operational execution, and smart contract development provides essential infrastructure for responsible treasury fund management while supporting increased decentralization over time.
The facilitation of over thirty working groups and eight elected committees creates practical pathways for community participation in governance beyond simple voting mechanisms. These structures enable specialized expertise development, collaborative problem-solving, and informed recommendation generation that enhances the quality of on-chain decision-making while building governance capacity across the ecosystem.
Budget and roadmap coordination functions ensure strategic alignment between technical development priorities and community needs through transparent processes that enable informed treasury allocation decisions. The Product Committee's facilitation of long-term ecosystem vision development and the structured approach to future budget preparation provide essential planning infrastructure for sustainable growth.
The support for Constitutional Committee elections, DRep onboarding, and stakeholder coordination ensures that governance mechanisms function effectively while building institutional knowledge and operational capacity necessary for continued decentralization. Intersect's role in expanding ecosystem capacity through supporting new member-based organizations creates pathways for governance pluralization and reduced dependency on single institutions.
The interim leadership transition under Jack Briggs demonstrates commitment to lean, accountable operations focused on community service rather than institutional expansion. This approach aligns with Cardano's decentralization principles while maintaining operational effectiveness necessary for network stability and governance continuity.
Supporting this proposal ensures sustained coordination infrastructure essential for Cardano's governance maturation, technical development continuity, and community participation facilitation during the foundational period of decentralized network management. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 587.1K ₳ Rationale
As the only Iranian DRep, I cannot consider Intersect a true Member-Based Organization (MBO) because I am excluded from membership and voting rights due to U.S. sanctions against Iran. This exclusion means Intersect does not represent the entire Cardano community, undermining its claim to be a neutral and inclusive governance facilitator.
Since I, as an Iranian representative, am denied participation and voting power within Intersect’s committees, I am forced to vote NO on all proposals administered by Intersect. The governance structure must be truly representative and inclusive to serve the global Cardano community fairly and transparently. Until these barriers are resolved, I cannot support Intersect’s funding requests from the treasury.
- Yes 502K ₳ Rationale
They're doing the unglamorous work of actually coordinating this distributed mess we call an ecosystem, and honestly? Someone has to be the adult in the room. The constitutional administrator role alone justifies this. Democracy is messy and expensive.
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 371.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 323.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 321.1K ₳ No rationale
- 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 313.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 298.6K ₳ Rationale
We still need Intersect
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 261K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 258.6K ₳ Rationale
This vote was submitted based on a completed checklist. A detailed rationale is available at:
👉 https://github.com/Agora-Cardano - No 257K ₳ Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal. The decision is based on budget scale, detail, operational transparency, and the type of oversight presented in the proposal and relevant supporting links.
- Size of Funding Request and Budget Specificity
The proposal requests ₳15,750,000 for a 12-month period to fund Intersect’s role as an Administrator and ecosystem MBO.
The written proposal refers readers to external supporting CSV and PDF files for operational budget detail, rather than providing this information in the main governance action text.
According to information in those supporting files, major expenses are attributed to personnel (approx. 45 roles at an average of $100,000 each), with some line items for board compensation and “Board Services,” but job roles, responsibility mapping, and cost justifications are not detailed in the proposal itself.
- Transparency and Oversight
The proposal describes oversight via an off-chain legal contract, the Cardano Development Holdings entity, and milestone tracking with third-party assurer review.
It is not clear from the proposal documentation how compensation, operational decisions, or board activities are communicated to or approved by the broader Cardano community, or how board members are selected, compensated, or held accountable.
- Scope of Organizational Role and Treasury Funding
Intersect’s remit as described includes core node repo stewardship, upgrade coordination, committee facilitation, and Administrator role execution.
The budget requested is significantly larger than for most other Cardano proposals reviewed, including those funding technical or development initiatives.
The proposal does not specify contingency plans if Intersect is not funded.
Conclusion:
Based on the information provided, I do not find the current proposal demonstrates the necessary transparency or detailed justification for a ₳15,750,000 treasury withdrawal. The operational scope, budget, and oversight mechanisms as documented do not provide sufficient clarity for this scale of community funding. Additional clarity on organizational structure, budgeting process, and community accountability is needed before considering future support.
- Size of Funding Request and Budget Specificity
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 208.6K ₳ Rationale
I vote in favor of Intersect’s 15 million ADA proposal, though my support is on the margins due to valid community concerns about its high cost and potential overlap with efforts by IOG, Emurgo, and the Cardano Foundation. Intersect’s proven role in coordinating the Chang and Plomin hard forks and facilitating over 30 working groups demonstrates its value in enabling Cardano’s Voltaire-era decentralized governance. The transparent treasury management and third-party oversight further justify funding. However, the lack of a detailed budget breakdown and clarity on differentiation from existing entities raises questions. My support hinges on Intersect addressing these concerns through clearer communication and streamlined operations to ensure efficient use of funds for ecosystem stability and growth.
- Yes 206.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 190.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 184.4K ₳ Rationale
I am voting yes on all 39 Intersect Governance actions. The community has thoroughly reviewed the many proposals presented in the Intersect Budget Process for the 2025 budget. I was deeply involved in the entire process as an SME for the Budget Committee, and then as the Secretary for the Budget Committee.
The proposals presented represent an incredible amount of development for our ecosystem for the next year. The teams all received at least 50% on Ekklesia polling. The teams will face milestones in order to continue to receive funding. If a team fails to deliver, the process will stop them from enriching themselves without returning value.
If anything, we are spending too little on our community. We need to spend more to further develop our governance and our organized events. This is a liquid democracy. If you believe that all of these proposals deserve a chance to deliver, you can shift your delegation to my DRep ID.
- Yes 180.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 177.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 143.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 137.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 131.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 111.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 103K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 94.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 88.7K ₳ No rationale