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.
- 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 174.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 166.4K ₳ 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.
- 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 88.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 64.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 60.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 59.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 55.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 48.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 48.4K ₳ No rationale
- No 45.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 28.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 25.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 22.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 15.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 838.1 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 335.1 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 13.5 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.3 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 0 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 0 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 0 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 0 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 0 ₳ No rationale