Withdraw ₳2,162,096 for Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by Intersect
190 DReps voted · 48 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No 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
- Yes 1M ₳ Rationale
While I acknowledge the importance of advancing scalability and throughput solutions, this proposal demands rigorous scrutiny beyond the surface-level enthusiasm for “permissionless rollups” and “fraud proof simplicity.”
First, the budget ask—over 2 million ADA—is not trivial. Funding must be proportional to measurable progress and risk mitigation, yet the proposal heavily leans on theoretical advantages of EUTxO without demonstrating a fully operational prototype or proven mainnet readiness beyond vague “significant progress.” The assertion that fraud proofs on Cardano are “extremely straightforward” because of local ledger state glosses over the complexity and novel engineering challenges inherent to optimistic rollups, especially when scaling to real-world use cases. We need granular, verifiable milestones that detail how Midgard will overcome potential UTxO contention and small block size limitations without compromising network performance or security.
Regarding economic incentives, the tokenless design and fee revenue flowing directly to Cardano’s base layer are commendable structural choices. However, the proposal does not sufficiently address how Midgard will attract operators and users in the absence of native token incentives or detail how fees will be sustainably allocated and balanced against operational costs.
Midgard represents an ambitious, strategically aligned project that could leverage Cardano’s architectural strengths to pioneer rollups in a truly permissionless, censorship-resistant manner. Yet ambition alone cannot justify large treasury allocations without transparent technical disclosures, incremental proof points, and detailed risk assessments. We must demand a sharper roadmap with explicit deliverables before endorsing substantial funding.
I support Midgard’s vision but urge restraint and exacting oversight. We owe it to our community to protect the treasury and uphold Cardano’s scientific rigor while enabling innovation. Let us invest boldly—but wisely—in this potential cornerstone of Cardano’s Layer 2 future.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 935.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 920K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 881.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- No 804.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 785.2K ₳ Rationale
There is no ROI calculation or justification for WHY this is needed.
This seems to be a cool technical project without a business justification.
I dont consider this a part of core tooling or protocol development. - Yes 762.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 738.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 716.6K ₳ Rationale
We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal, administered by Intersect. Our affirmative vote is based on the fact many projects depend on blockfrost API and blockfrost delivering significant impact for the Cardano ecosystem. These were major factors in our decision to support this proposal.
- Yes 655K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
This proposal represents a critical strategic investment in Cardano's future scalability and ecosystem growth through Midgard, a Layer 2 rollup solution that directly addresses the network's capacity limitations while strengthening its economic foundation. As blockchain adoption accelerates and transaction volumes increase, Cardano requires robust scaling infrastructure to maintain competitiveness and support the next generation of decentralized applications and services.
Midgard's economic model creates a virtuous cycle that benefits the entire Cardano ecosystem. Unlike other Layer 2 solutions that fragment economic activity away from the base layer, Midgard's design ensures that increased rollup usage translates directly to increased fee revenue for Cardano Layer 1. This alignment strengthens ADA's utility and value proposition while funding network security through enhanced staking rewards, creating sustainable long-term growth that benefits all stakeholders from individual users to stake pool operators.
The scaling capabilities provided by Midgard position Cardano to compete effectively in markets requiring high transaction throughput, such as decentralized finance, gaming, and micropayments. These use cases are currently constrained by Layer 1 capacity limitations, and Midgard removes these barriers while maintaining the security guarantees that distinguish Cardano from other platforms. This expanded capability opens new market opportunities and user segments that were previously inaccessible.
Midgard complements Cardano's existing scaling roadmap by filling a crucial gap in the ecosystem's scaling architecture. While Hydra addresses specific state channel use cases and partnerchains provide sidechain functionality, rollups serve different application requirements and user preferences. This comprehensive scaling approach ensures Cardano can support diverse applications and workloads, from high-frequency trading to social media platforms, without forcing developers into suboptimal scaling solutions.
The proposal's alignment with Cardano's decentralization principles ensures that scaling does not compromise the network's core values. By maintaining permissionless participation and inheriting Cardano's censorship resistance, Midgard scales the network's capacity while preserving its fundamental characteristics. This approach contrasts sharply with other ecosystems where scaling often requires accepting centralization trade-offs or security compromises.
From a competitive positioning perspective, Midgard provides Cardano with differentiated capabilities that other blockchain platforms cannot replicate. This technological moat creates sustainable competitive advantages in the Layer 2 market while positioning Cardano as the preferred platform for applications requiring both scalability and true decentralization. The uniqueness of this offering strengthens Cardano's market position and ecosystem attractiveness.
The timing of this investment aligns perfectly with broader market trends toward Layer 2 adoption. As institutional and enterprise users increasingly evaluate blockchain platforms for large-scale deployments, having proven, production-ready scaling solutions becomes essential for capturing these opportunities. Midgard ensures Cardano is positioned to compete for these high-value use cases rather than losing them to platforms with more mature scaling infrastructure.
Anastasia Labs' track record within the Cardano ecosystem provides confidence in successful delivery and long-term maintenance. Their extensive contributions to ecosystem development and active involvement in major applications demonstrate alignment with Cardano's success and capability to deliver production-ready infrastructure. The team's existing progress on Midgard development reduces execution risk while accelerating time to market.
The governance framework ensures responsible stewardship of treasury funds through established oversight mechanisms, milestone-based delivery, and transparent reporting. This structured approach protects community investment while enabling the innovation necessary to maintain Cardano's competitive position in the rapidly evolving blockchain landscape.
Supporting Midgard represents an essential investment in Cardano's ability to serve growing user demand, capture new market opportunities, and maintain technological leadership. The proposal addresses immediate scaling needs while positioning the ecosystem for long-term success in an increasingly competitive environment where scalability, security, and decentralization determine platform viability and adoption. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 502K ₳ Rationale
Sometimes you have to fund the ambitious projects to get breakthrough results. Nuff said.
- Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 437.8K ₳ Rationale
Midgard aims to enable true layer‑2 roll‑ups that inherit Cardano’s complete security guarantees. The team behind it already has an impressive record of contributions to the ecosystem, and the project addresses one of Cardano’s current chokepoints. Given its scale and significance, direct Treasury funding is well‑suited to this proposal.
- Yes 431.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 403.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
KryptoLabs, a Cardano DRep, I vote yes on the ₳2,162,096 treasury withdrawal for Midgard, an optimistic rollup L2 framework by Anastasia Labs, administered by Intersect.
This decision stems from Midgard's alignment with Cardano's scalability, security, and sustainability goals.Midgard revolutionizes Cardano by introducing the first optimistic rollup L2, enhancing throughput, reducing costs, and enabling complex dApps while preserving decentralization. Leveraging Cardano's EUTXO model, it offers permissionless fraud proofs, no centralized sequencers or multisigs, and full L1 security inheritance, unique features impossible on Ethereum, Solana, or Sui.
Most important it have a tokenless design, so fees are in ADA that drive L1 revenue via compacted onchain blocks, unlike off-chain solutions.The project scope details a modular framework for tailored rollups, with phased development.
Comparisons show efficiency: similar to Fuel's UTXO-based L2 but optimized for Cardano. Anastasia Labs' track record in contributing to major dApps and 50+ open-source tools ensures feasibility, with progress on key components like state queues and fraud proofs.Economic benefits include sustained fee revenue without user fee hikes, fostering adoption. Governance via Intersect, with audited smart contracts and third-party oversight, guarantees transparency. Risks are mitigated through Agile methodologies and iterative sprints
- Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 371.8K ₳ Rationale
Overall Rationale for Voting on Treasury Withdrawals
As a DRep participating in on-chain governance under the Voltaire framework, I have reviewed each of the 39 treasury withdrawal proposals currently up for vote.
This document outlines my generic voting rationale. My vote on each individual proposal—whether Yes, No, or Abstain—has been guided by the following considerations:
When I Voted Yes
I have supported proposals that clearly satisfy all of the following:
Relevance
The proposal addresses a clear and meaningful need in the Cardano ecosystem—whether it is developer tooling, community infrastructure, governance, or research.Reasonableness of Budget
The requested amount is proportional to the scope and deliverables. Proposals that show cost breakdowns and attempt to maximise value for money are given priority.Credibility of the Team
Preference is given to teams with a proven history of delivery in the Cardano ecosystem, open-source contributions, or community engagement. In case of newer teams, supporting references or associations are considered.Alignment with Voltaire Governance Goals
In the Voltaire era, legitimate, transparent use of the treasury is essential. I support proposals that help establish or strengthen governance processes and infrastructure.
When I Voted No or did not vote
I have voted No where one or more of the above criteria are not met, such as:
- Lack of clarity or relevance to Cardano’s needs
- Justification regarding budgets
- Weak or unknown team background
- Vague deliverables or lack of public transparency
In some cases, proposals may be promising but are premature or underdeveloped at this stage.
When I Abstained
I have chosen to Abstain when:
- The proposal shows potential but lacks enough information for a confident decision
- There are mixed signals—e.g., a good idea but poor planning, or credible team but vague milestones
- There may be overlap with other initiatives already underway
Summary
This is a generic decision-making framework I have followed across all 39 proposals. Votes are cast independently for each proposal, and the default is not Yes. Instead, each proposal must make a clear case on its own merits.
I remain open to feedback and discussion from delegators or community members regarding any specific vote.
List of Proposals and My Vote
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix - 45,217 ADA - Yes
Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by Intersect - 2,162,096 ADA - Yes
2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal - 96,817,080 ADA - Yes
Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal - 1,300,000 ADA - Yes
Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by Intersect - 424,800 ADA - Yes
Pallas: Sustaining Critical Rust Tooling for Cardano - 220,914 ADA - Yes
UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain Integration - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Lucid Evolution Maintenance administered by Intersect - 130,903 ADA - Yes
zkFold ZK Rollup administered by Intersect - 1,161,000 ADA - Yes
Dolos: Sustaining a Lightweight Cardano Data Node - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Ledger App Rewrite administered by Intersect - 300,000 ADA - Yes
Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart contract layer for Bitcoin - 600,000 ADA - No
OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development - Not specified - Yes
Gerolamo - Cardano node in typescript - 578,571 ADA - Abstain
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Plutarch - 243,478 ADA - Abstain
TWEAG's Proposals for multiple core budget project... - 11,070,323 ADA - No
Cexplorer.io -- Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer... - 266,667 ADA - Yes
A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers - 605,000 ADA - Yes
AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer - 212,000 ADA - Yes
A MBO for the Cardano ecosystem: Intersect - 15,750,000 ADA - Yes
Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire - Not specified - Yes
Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output - 69,459,000 ADA - Yes
Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor... - 26,840,000 ADA - Yes
BloxBean Java Tools Maintenance and Enhancement - 99,600 ADA - Yes
Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Cardano... - 750,000 ADA - Yes - Yes 365.3K ₳ 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 (https://adastat.net/dreps/drep1ygc29nv90qqtf7qwlp5eqwnscdmvk5utnul9arfm9eklw9cphfhhu#budget_votes), I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ Rationale
Midgard offers a Cardano-native approach to optimistic rollups, built specifically for the EUTxO model without relying on centralized sequencers or multisigs. It keeps ADA at the heart of L2 activity and feeds value back into Layer 1.
The modular, tokenless design is forward-thinking and technically aligned with Cardano’s values of decentralization and permissionless participation. With clear milestones, third-party oversight, and strong governance checks in place, I believe this is a smart, scalable investment in the ecosystem’s future.
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 258.6K ₳ Rationale
🗳 Governance Action Review
Proposal: Withdraw ₳2,162,096 for Midgard – Optimistic Rollups
Vendor: Anastasia Labs (administered by Intersect)
Governance Action ID: gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlqqfgyy3v
Submitted: 18 July 2025
Expires: 17 August 2025
Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Budget Requested: ₳2,162,096
🧭 Evaluation Methodology and Rationale
Due to the volume and complexity of the 39 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions submitted this cycle, a full deep-dive into each proposal's technical and budgetary scope was infeasible within the voting window.
Instead of abstaining, I used a hybrid methodology: AI-assisted parsing to accelerate comprehension, combined with structured human review and judgment. A standardized checklist guided evaluations across proposals, ensuring consistency, accountability, and context-aware assessment.
All votes are based on human review. AI outputs served only as a tool to support efficient comparison.
📋 Evaluation Checklist
Each proposal is evaluated across seven standardized dimensions using a three-point scale:
✅ Yes — fully meets the criterion
🟡 Partial — partially meets the criterion
❌ No — does not meet the criterion
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality
Rating: ✅ Yes
Rationale:
While Midgard is one of several ongoing scalability efforts within Cardano (e.g. Hydra, Milkomeda, Zeko, Paima), it is unique in targeting permissionless optimistic rollups natively designed for the EUTxO model. Unlike Milkomeda, which leverages sidechains with separate consensus, or Hydra, which prioritizes ephemeral off-chain scalability, Midgard aims to offer on-chain, fraud-proof, sequencerless rollups with full censorship resistance.Given the critical need for scaling solutions ahead of broader Cardano adoption, this proposal addresses a systemic bottleneck. Its architectural alignment with Cardano’s ledger model — and focus on composability, economic alignment, and native ADA usage — reinforce its ecosystem relevance.
Despite overlap in thematic focus with other L2 solutions, the proposal introduces differentiated properties. As a result, it qualifies as a strategically important effort rather than a redundant one.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail
Rating: 🟡 Partial
Rationale:
The proposal adopts a simplified budgeting model based entirely on FTE allocations (Full-Time Equivalents). Each workstream is assigned a flat FTE count (usually 1–2 FTEs) over a 12-month period. This abstraction provides a clear sense of human effort but masks variability in role-based compensation (e.g., juniors vs. seniors), and it’s unclear whether infrastructure, cloud hosting, or other overheads are embedded in the FTE cost or omitted entirely.There are no explicit line items for auditing, documentation, or third-party services, nor any mention of post-launch maintenance or integration. While this may reflect a deliberate scoping choice, the absence of breakdowns weakens accountability and traceability.
Although infrastructure (e.g., testnets, Docker deployment) is referenced in the milestone plans, it is not costed separately. Auditing — a critical cost for a security-sensitive L2 protocol — is entirely omitted.
The simplification of budget via uniform FTE abstraction, coupled with absence of these critical elements, reduces clarity.
Conclusion: The budget is structured and consistent, but too coarse-grained for a ₳2.16M ask. Rated Partial.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers
Rating: ❌ No
Rationale:
The proposal makes strong qualitative claims (e.g. "first general-purpose permissionless rollup on Cardano"), but provides no quantitative metrics or KPIs. There are no specific adoption targets, performance benchmarks, usage goals, or integration milestones.While the alignment with ADA-denominated fees and L1 interaction implies economic value, these remain vague projections. There is no way to assess whether the goals — economic or technical — will be achieved, and no mechanisms for accountability.
Any proposal requesting >₳2M should provide measurable indicators of success, and this one does not.
Conclusion: Absence of quantifiable KPIs is a critical transparency and impact weakness. Rated No.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables
Rating: 🟡 Partial
Rationale:
The proposal mentions that milestones will be defined and administered via a legal contract between Intersect and the vendor, with third-party assurance. However, no milestones are explicitly listed within the Governance Action or attached PDF, and no detailed deliverables or acceptance criteria are disclosed at this time.Although some implementation areas are described (e.g., permissionless fraud proofs, L2 execution environment), there is no itemized delivery schedule, timeline, or work package granularity. There is also no mention of auditing, security reviews, or documentation, despite the protocol’s complexity.
The proposal hints at “mainnet readiness by end of year,” but this vague target is not broken down into accountable phases.
Conclusion: The lack of visible, verifiable deliverables limits community visibility and oversight. Rated Partial.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency
Rating: ✅ Yes
Rationale:
The budget amount (₳2,162,096) matches the value signaled in the Info Action and appears consistent across metadata, justification, and legal process descriptions.Conclusion: Internally consistent. Rated Yes.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record
Rating: ❌ No
Rationale:
Anastasia Labs is a technically competent team with a strong presence in the Cardano open-source ecosystem. They have delivered 5 completed proposals under Project Catalyst, and their contributions to tools like Lucid and developer SDKs are widely recognized.However, significant concerns persist regarding delivery bandwidth and transparency:
The team currently has 8 active Catalyst-funded proposals, and a majority appear to be delayed based on milestone progress and delivery timelines.
Among them is the most relevant: the Midgard proposal funded with ₳500,000, under which only the first milestone has been delivered, four months behind schedule. The remaining milestones — including smart contracts, validator logic, node infrastructure, and mainnet deployment — are still pending.
Critically, the current Governance Action fails to disclose or explain this ongoing Midgard development funded via Catalyst. The new treasury request of ₳2.16M includes deliverables that substantially overlap with those already approved and funded. These include fraud-proof mechanisms, state management, inbox/outbox contracts, infrastructure deployment, and API services.
Although ₳500,000 was approved via Catalyst, it is being paid incrementally based on milestone delivery. The full amount has not been disbursed.
Conclusion: Given the overlapping scope, incomplete delivery of prior funding, and lack of disclosure or coordination, this criterion is rated No. A full public clarification is needed before additional funding can be responsibly approved.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
Rating: ✅ No Conflict
Rationale:
No significant or material conflict of interest exists. This evaluation is provided independently, without financial involvement, partnership, or prior engagement with the proposal team.
🗳 Final Recommendation
Vote: ❌ NO
Rationale:
While the Midgard proposal addresses an urgent and structurally important need — permissionless scalability on Cardano — the execution context is problematic. The lack of disclosure about existing Catalyst funding, vague budgeting structure, absence of quantitative KPIs, and opaque milestone planning weaken both the credibility and accountability of this Governance Action.Midgard may well deserve future funding, but not until the current funded proposal is delivered and transparent clarification is made regarding scope overlaps and resource allocation.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
While the Midgard project presents an ambitious vision for scaling Cardano through optimistic rollups, I have several concerns that lead me to vote "nay" on the proposed ~2 million ADA treasury withdrawal:
- Lack of Detailed Budget Breakdown: The proposal does not provide a clear allocation of the ~2 million ADA, making it difficult to assess whether the funds are justified or efficiently used. Without transparency on costs for development, marketing, or third-party assurance, it’s challenging to evaluate the project’s value for money.
- Development Risks and Ambitious Timeline: Midgard is still in development, and the goal of mainnet readiness by year-end is ambitious. Given the complexity of building a first-of-its-kind permissionless rollup solution, unforeseen technical challenges or delays could jeopardize delivery, potentially wasting treasury funds.
- Opportunity Cost: The ~2 million ADA is a significant portion of the treasury. Other Cardano projects, such as dApps, marketing initiatives, or infrastructure improvements, might offer more immediate or tangible benefits to the ecosystem. Prioritizing Midgard over these alternatives requires stronger evidence of its near-term impact.
I believe the Cardano treasury should prioritize projects with clearer cost breakdowns and more immediate ecosystem benefits. I encourage further refinement of the Midgard proposal, including detailed milestones and community engagement, before reconsidering funding.
- Yes 206.4K ₳ No rationale