Withdraw ₳212,000 for AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer
165 DReps voted · 49 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
「275M ADA Administered by Intersect」に含まれるすべての個別提案に対して、エクレシア投票の段階では必ずしもすべてに賛成していたわけではありませんが、最終的には本ガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じました。Cardanoエコシステム全体への貢献を高く評価し、その前進を後押しする立場から、今回提出された39件すべての提案に賛成票を投じる判断をいたしました。\n\nWhile I did not necessarily support every individual proposal included in "275M ADA Administered by Intersect" during the Ekklesia vote, I ultimately voted Yes on this governance action. Recognizing its overall contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and in support of continued progress, I cast a Yes vote on all 39 proposals submitted under this initiative.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I originally voted NO for this proposal in the Ekklesia temp poll check because I presumed it would remain closed source. Now I am voting YES.
The reasons for my change in voting intention:
a. ADAStat this is one of the essential tools that we now use in the governance era of Cardano. Yet, its closed nature was off-putting to me. I do not want governance and its tools to be a locked garden.
b. I asked ADAStat over X (Twitter) whether they would open source the code:
https://x.com/InputEndorsers/status/1947431858968666491ADASTat team responded:
Hi, thanks for your interest! AdaStat will be open-sourced in the very near future, regardless of the outcome of the budget vote. Right now, we’re cleaning up the code, updating dependencies, and making other improvements to minimize the risk of vulnerabilities due to outdated components. Once that's done, the entire codebase - both front end and back end - will be published on GitHub.https://x.com/ada_stat/status/1947559172473528735
c. with the public commitment to open source the platform, I will change my vote - in order to prevent further delays. However, I do this under the assumption that this commitment will be respected by ADAStat
NOTE: In general, I have now come to a position where I think that this might not be the best way forward for maintenance and enhancement proposals of open source tools. Meaning that direct funding of smaller open source maintenance and enhancement proposals from the treasury might not be the best approach going forward.
if this were to be resubmitted in 2026, I would consider this carefully. Why? I am more in favor of seeing proposals like this funded through an initiative such as the OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development. I voted YES for the OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development.
Such budgetary initiatives do not have to come from the OSC, it could be another umbrella group of open source advocates / body that will prioritize and correctly value certain critical packages of maintenance and enhancement work on open source tools that are important for the Cardano ecosystem.
This group or groups would ideally rank the importance / relevance of these open-source tools and software kits or platforms, as well as realistically estimate how much maintenance / enhancement is needed and when it is critical.
Multiple tiny contracts approved by the treasury complicate oversight, whereas larger open-source infrastructure umbrella programs can rank repos by impact and rotate funding annually. The more exceptions the Treasury grants, the harder it becomes to enforce future budget discipline.
I imagine the maintenance and improvement of open source tools or platforms as something that could be tentatively grouped. Of course, these larger maintenance and enhancement support groups (like the OSC) for open source tooling could start discriminating against certain tools. In those cases, if a proposer is dissatisfied with the ranking or grouping, they could always directly apply to the Treasury with a rationale why the proposal needs funding and why it cannot obtain it elsewhere - but only directly from the Treasury. - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgReady to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).
We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.
My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ 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.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Do support improving onchain governance interaction UI/UX.
Do support improving onchain governance interaction UI/UX.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES as core engineering a top priority of my DRep.
Strength and honor.
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ 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.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ 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.
- Abstain 2.6M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Continued maintenance and development + free API
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ 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.
- No 1.8M ₳ 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.
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale