Withdraw ₳2,162,096 for Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by Intersect
190 DReps voted · 53 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes185.6K ₳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.
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes174.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.4K ₳Rationale
Here is a list of Pros and Cons related to the Midgard funding proposal, after careful consideration, we feel that the pros outweigh the cons and we vote in favor of funding:
Pros (Reasons to Vote 'Yes')
Native Scaling Solution: Midgard is presented as a native Layer 2 scaling solution (Optimistic Rollups) specifically designed for Cardano's EUTxO model. This could significantly increase transaction throughput and reduce costs, addressing key scalability challenges.
Enhanced Security Model: The proposal claims that Cardano's architecture allows for a more secure and decentralized rollup design than what's possible on account-based blockchains like Ethereum. It promises "permissionless fraud proofs" and no reliance on centralized sequencers or custodial multisigs, inheriting the full security and censorship resistance of the Cardano L1.
Direct Benefit to Cardano L1: Unlike some L2 solutions that move activity entirely off-chain, Midgard's design ensures every rollup block is published to the Cardano mainnet. This means increased economic activity on Midgard would directly translate to increased transaction fee revenue for the Cardano treasury, enhancing the L1's economic sustainability.
Experienced Development Team: The project is led by Anastasia Labs, a team with a strong track record of contributing to core Cardano infrastructure and dApps. Their experience and extensive open-source contributions suggest they are well-equipped to deliver on the project's goals.
Strong Governance and Oversight: The withdrawal and project management are administered by Intersect, utilizing a robust smart contract framework for budget management that has been audited by third parties (TxPipe, MLabs). The inclusion of a multi-signature process and an Oversight Committee (including Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, etc.) provides strong checks and balances against the misuse of funds.
Formal Contractual Agreements: A legal contract will be established between the vendor (Anastasia Labs) and Cardano Development Holdings (CDH), outlining milestones, deliverables, and a dispute resolution process. This adds a layer of formal accountability.
Cons (Reasons to Vote 'No' or Abstain)
Significant Cost: The withdrawal amount is substantial (₳2,162,096). Voters must decide if this specific project provides sufficient value to justify the expenditure from the community-owned treasury.
Execution Risk: While the development team is experienced, the project is ambitious. The proposal describes Midgard as a "first of its kind." As with any cutting-edge technology, there are inherent risks of delays, unforeseen technical challenges, or failure to fully achieve the stated goals.
Complexity of Oversight: The governance structure, while robust, is complex, involving Intersect, an Oversight Committee, CDH, and a 3rd Party Assurer. This distribution of responsibility could potentially lead to inefficiencies or communication gaps, though it is designed to prevent unilateral control.
Reliance on a Single Vendor: The success of this critical piece of infrastructure is heavily reliant on a single vendor, Anastasia Labs. While they are reputable, this centralization of development is a point of risk.
Market Adoption is Not Guaranteed: Even if Midgard is successfully developed, its adoption by developers and users is not guaranteed. The success of the platform will depend on its ability to attract a vibrant ecosystem of dApps and users, which is a separate challenge from the technical implementation.
Part of a Much Larger Budget: This withdrawal is one of 39 proposals stemming from a much larger approved budget of over ₳275 million. Voters may feel that the overall budget is too large or may have concerns about other projects within that budget, which could influence their vote on this specific action.
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process. - Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes69.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.7K ₳Rationale
The Midgard proposal, a treasury withdrawal of ₳2,162,096, funds a modular framework for deploying optimistic rollups on Cardano, boosting transaction speed, cutting costs, and enabling advanced decentralized apps. Key benefits include: leveraging Cardano’s unique UTxO model for secure, permissionless rollups with no centralized control or custodial risks; increasing economic activity on Cardano’s Layer 1 by publishing compact transaction data on-chain, driving fee revenue; and enhancing scalability to support more complex dApps, all while maintaining Cardano’s censorship resistance and security.
- Yes55.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.
Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I stand by those decisions now. For proposals with large budgets, I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.
Migard for me is crucial in the development roadmap of Cardano.
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
🗳 Voted YES – gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlqqfgyy3v
💡 Proposal: ₳2.16M Treasury Withdrawal for Midgard – a modular framework for truly permissionless optimistic rollups on Cardano.
✅ Why I voted YES:
• Unique to Cardano: Midgard leverages the EUTxO model’s local state and determinism — something Ethereum, Solana, and others cannot replicate. This is a Layer 2 (L2) scaling solution made for Cardano, not ported over.
• Decentralization by design: Unlike existing rollups that rely on centralized sequencers or multisigs, Midgard has:
• No centralized sequencer
• No custodial bridge
• No challenge-response system
• Open, permissionless fraud proofs
• Native censorship resistance
• Sustainable model: All rollup transactions are paid in ADA, rolled up, and submitted on-chain — meaning increased L2 usage boosts L1 fee revenue without compromising decentralization.
• Credible builder: Anastasia Labs has deep Cardano experience — contributing to top dApps and maintaining over 50 open-source Cardano repos. The work is already underway with a roadmap targeting EOY readiness.🧠 In short: This is a bold but technically sound vision that aligns Cardano’s architecture with future scalability. It prioritizes permissionless access, revenue sustainability, and protocol-aligned innovation. That’s the kind of work I want funded.
- Yes29K ₳No rationale
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes23K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.6K ₳Rationale
I vote for this proposal
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes839.2 ₳No rationale
- Yes335.3 ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted13.5 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- Yes8.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted0 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes0y agoSuperseded
- Yes0 ₳No rationale