Withdraw ₳212,000 for AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer
165 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 3 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, together voting with 45.5M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳Rationale
I support Ada Stat, a valuable tool with an excellent interface. The proposed budget is reasonable, especially considering it covers a two-year period.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
AdaStat is a reliable, long-standing, open-source explorer with real usage and uptime since 2019. It strengthens ecosystem resilience through redundancy, aligns with STORM Partners’ goal to support transparent infrastructure, and offers real value to DReps, SPOs, and developers. The team is competent, the scope is reasonable, and the ask funds meaningful improvements over 24 months.
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳Rationale
Do support improving onchain governance interaction UI/UX.
Do support improving onchain governance interaction UI/UX.
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.9M ₳Rationale
I vote YES as core engineering a top priority of my DRep.
Strength and honor.
- Yes3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳Rationale
I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Continued maintenance and development + free API
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
AdaStat.netは、SPO・DRep・開発者・一般ユーザーすべてに対して高速かつ安定した情報提供を行うCardanoブロックチェーンエクスプローラーです。ガバナンス連携やREST API提供など公共性が高く、UX向上と機能拡張を含む2年間の運用支援として適切な金額であるため、賛成します。
AdaStat.net provides a fast, stable, and developer-friendly blockchain explorer with real-time SPO stats, REST APIs, and upcoming governance tools. As a trusted public utility, its continued development over the next 24 months merits support. I vote in favor.
- Abstain2.5M ₳Rationale
Adastat is an excellent explorer, but since I personally know the developer, there’s a potential conflict of interest here. That’s why I’ll abstain.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Voting Yes to fund AdaStat, a long-standing and widely used Cardano explorer. Continued funding helps ensure reliable data access and supports infrastructure decentralisation.
- Yes1.6M ₳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.
- Abstain1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳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.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting No. The ecosystem already benefits from multiple well-maintained explorers—some of which operate without Treasury support. Funding AdaStat risks creating unfair advantages and distorting healthy competition in a decentralized ecosystem. Treasury funds should be reserved for uniquely strategic or underserved infrastructure—this proposal does not meet that threshold.
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
As a DRep responsible for safeguarding Cardano’s ecosystem sustainability and transparency, I appreciate the need for reliable blockchain explorers. These are essential infrastructure pieces. AdaStat.net has proven its utility over years, which argues strongly in favor of continued support rather than risking loss of service.
My "Yes" vote is backed by the following reasoning:
- AdaStat.net is a critical piece of Cardano’s infrastructure that has proven stable and useful over years.
- The requested funding appears reasonable relative to the scope (2 years continuation).
- Lack of detailed budget breakdown and innovation roadmap is a concern but can be mitigated by strict milestone enforcement post-approval.
- Continued support aligns with Cardano’s governance transparency goals.
- Yes951.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged888K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Abstain884.5K ₳No rationale