Withdraw ₳212,000 for AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer
165 DReps voted · 49 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
I have voted in favor of this action to demonstrates my intention to execute without delays and move the treasury expenditure process forward. I also want to note that I will not seriously consider individual requests from the treasury for less that 1,500,000 ADA moving forward. I reserve the right this round because I feel the process was not properly explained to proposers and DRep and it would be unfair to implement this personal guardrail at this time. Requests below that threshold are better suited for Catalyst funding or bundled together in MBO, DAO, or conglomerate entities. TWA (Treasury Withdrawal Actions) need be comprehensive and not ad hoc as that makes oversight more costly and inefficient.
A budget and all included line items has already been approved, and now is the time to disperse funding and enable further development of the Cardano network. The proposal was selected through a well-defined process, and I will fully support it out of respect for the will of the broader Cardano community and a belief in respecting the consensus we achieved together under the Intersect-administered budget process. The process reflects a coordinated, strategic approach to funding Cardano’s ecosystem-critical infrastructure. The community has thoroughly reviewed the proposal. I was actively involved in the entire process and the proposal presented represents development that provides a tangible benefit to our ecosystem. It would be a mistake to underfund our ecosystem’s development when we can sustainably provide the required funding with our available treasury reserves.
Furthermore there are exceptional oversight mechanisms in place to ensure a minimum amount of wast, fraud, and abuse of treasury expenditures, such as Intersect’s smart contract framework (audited by TxPipe and MLabs), Multi-party oversight (including Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, NMKR, etc.), A clear milestone-driven disbursement model, and full transparency via TRSC/PSSC dashboards.
These governance and assurance systems meet the constitutional standards for accountability and risk management and provide confidence in efficiency and execution. - No 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 431.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Krypto Labs have taken part in the budget debates and agree with proposer that this is something the Cardano blockchain ecosystem need.
I started with making a rationale and arguement for each proposal, but to save time i need to do bulk voting to speed this prosess up. - Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 371.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 323.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ Rationale
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ Rationale
I’m voting YES to fund AdaStat.net. It’s a long standing, trusted blockchain explorer providing essential real-time data and governance support for the Cardano ecosystem. Funding ensures its continued reliability, open-source development, and independence as critical infrastructure.
I share the view that AdaStat should move toward self-sustainability over time. However, at this stage, continued treasury support is necessary to maintain ecosystem resilience and avoid risking loss of a key tool relied upon by SPOs, DReps, and developers. Future proposals should demonstrate progress toward reducing reliance on direct treasury funding.
- Yes 298.6K ₳ Rationale
I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 258.6K ₳ Rationale
🗳 Governance Action Review
Proposal: Withdraw ₳212,000 for AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer
Vendor: AdaStat.net (administered by Intersect)
Governance Action ID: gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlpgcp0jyh
Submitted: 18 July 2025
Expires: 17 August 2025
Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Budget Requested: ₳212,000🧭 Evaluation Methodology and Rationale
Given the unprecedented volume and technical depth of the 39 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions submitted in this cycle, a comprehensive, proposal-by-proposal audit of budgets, scopes, and implementation frameworks would demand a level of time and resourcing incompatible with the available review window.Rather than abstaining from participation, I adopted a hybrid evaluation methodology that combines AI-assisted content parsing with structured human analysis. This standardized checklist framework was designed to streamline high-volume assessment while preserving critical reasoning, contextual understanding, and value-based judgment.
All final decisions reflect deliberate human oversight — AI outputs serve to accelerate comprehension and comparison, but no vote is cast without manual review and a principled assessment of relevance, feasibility, and accountability.
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → 🟡 Partial
Excerpt:
“AdaStat.net supports this goal by providing real-time, mobile-optimized, and feature-rich explorer for Cardano…”
Analysis:
AdaStat is a useful and well-designed tool. As a Cardano dRep, I personally use AdaStat and appreciate its clean UI and governance-focused features — particularly for tracking votes, dReps, and transaction metadata in a lightweight, mobile-friendly environment.The proposal reports approximately 20,000 unique users per month, based on server-side logs — a strong indicator of adoption and community trust. In addition, I am aware that many community members and fellow dReps frequently rely on AdaStat for easy access to governance data, which reinforces its perceived value and usability in the ecosystem.
That said, high usage does not equate to systemic criticality. While AdaStat may offer particular UX and design benefits, the proposal does not establish it as a functionally unique or strategically indispensable component of the Cardano stack. Its core features significantly overlap with other available tools — such as Cexplorer.io, GovTool, Tempo Vote, and Koios — which already serve similar roles in governance and data accessibility.
In this context, I view AdaStat as an important redundant infrastructure, which is valuable for resilience and user choice — but not as a single point of dependency for the community. Redundancy has merit, but lack of uniqueness limits the argument for essentiality. The proposal itself does not make a case for AdaStat being critical to the continuity of governance processes.
AdaStat remains a complementary and relevant tool, but does not meet the threshold of ecosystem essentiality as defined here.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → 🟡 Partial
Excerpt:
“Each team member contributes part-time (1 hour/day), totaling 100 hours/month… salary rate is $50/hour… infrastructure costs ~$300/month… Total: $5,300/month × 24 months = $127,200 = ₳212,000.”
Analysis:
The proposal outlines a simple but internally coherent budget, based on four part-time contributors working a combined 100 hours per month, at a rate of $50/hour, plus infrastructure expenses of $300/month. The total of $127,200 (₳212,000 at the provided exchange rate) appears reasonable and proportionate to the stated scope and 24-month duration focused on ongoing maintenance, infrastructure uptime, and UI/UX improvements.However, a critical limitation is the lack of clarity regarding budget boundaries between this proposal and the team’s previously funded Catalyst project — which also covers AdaStat development, including performance upgrades, governance integrations, and backend refactoring.
There is no explicit breakdown of which deliverables belong to the Fund11 proposal versus this Governance Action. Because of that, it is not possible to rule out funding overlap, and the absence of separation between scopes introduces a gray area that affects budget traceability and public accountability.
While the requested amount is modest and aligned with market norms, the lack of delineation between concurrent proposals leads to a partial score for this item.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → ❌ No
Analysis:
The proposal does not provide any measurable success indicators, quantitative or qualitative:No performance targets (uptime, API traffic);
No community impact metrics;
No before/after comparisons or usage data.
This is a critical weakness in terms of outcome visibility, community accountability, and monitoring capacity.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → 🟡 Partial
Excerpt:“Duration: 24 months, which corresponds to 24 Milestones (1 Milestone = 1 Month)... milestones will be outlined within the metadata of a legal contract with Intersect.”
Analysis:
Monthly pacing is declared, but no public milestone list, no acceptance criteria, and no clear deliverable schedule are included in the proposal. Voters cannot evaluate what will be delivered, when, or how success will be determined. Everything is deferred to a legal contract that is not made available. This is insufficient for transparent governance.5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
Analysis:
The ADA amount matches the USD-based estimates using the provided conversion rate. There are no discrepancies between metadata, body text, and requested amount. The proposal is properly linked to the overarching ₳275M Info Action budget structure.6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → 🟡 Partial
Excerpt:“AdaStat.net has been actively developed and maintained since Shelley Incentivized Testnet in 2019…”
Analysis:
The team is clearly identified, publicly known, and technically competent, with a long-standing product that has maintained availability and community relevance. However, it is important to note that the same team is currently executing another project funded through Project Catalyst (Fund11) — a reboot of AdaStat.net — which was awarded ₳180,300 and remains in progress at the time of this Governance Action.That earlier project includes multiple deliverables that may overlap with the current proposal — such as UI/UX improvements, performance enhancements, governance data integrations, and backend restructuring. While two milestones have been completed, others have experienced notable delays: for example, the beta version originally targeted for July 2024 was only released in March 2025.
The current proposal does not reference this ongoing Catalyst-funded work, nor does it provide a clear delineation between previously funded scope and new objectives. This omission makes it more difficult for voters to assess the proposal’s added value and to understand how it complements — rather than duplicates — existing commitments.
When teams submit proposals while still delivering on active grants, it is generally considered good practice to:
Provide a brief summary of ongoing work;
Clarify which elements are already funded vs. newly proposed;
Offer assurance that new funding will not be used to complete existing obligations.
These elements are not present in this submission, and their absence affects transparency and evaluability, even if unintentionally.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest → ✅ No Conflict
Analysis:
I have no financial, contractual, or institutional ties to AdaStat.net, its proposers, or Intersect. This evaluation was conducted independently and without conflict of interest.🧩 Critical Summary
AdaStat.net is a widely used and appreciated Cardano blockchain explorer, offering a clean UI, real-time data access, and governance-focused features — including lightweight, mobile-optimized tools that many dReps and community members rely on. The reported 20,000 unique monthly users is a strong indicator of adoption, and the tool plays a valuable role in providing accessible, on-chain data to a broad user base.The budget request is modest and appears proportionate to the intended scope of 24 months of maintenance and development. The team has demonstrated long-term engagement and technical reliability, and the proposal outlines a straightforward operational model with part-time team contributions and reasonable infrastructure costs.
However, the Governance Action presents important limitations:
It does not differentiate its scope from an active Catalyst-funded project also focused on AdaStat development. This lack of clarity creates a gray area around budget separation, raising the risk of unintentional funding overlap.
The proposal does not include impact metrics or KPIs, nor a public milestone structure — limiting transparency and evaluability.
While the tool has proven value, the proposal does not articulate a uniqueness argument or establish AdaStat as critical or irreplaceable within the broader governance tooling ecosystem.
Still, redundancy in infrastructure can be healthy and strategic — and the community’s demonstrated use of AdaStat reinforces its relevance.
🗳 Voting Recommendation: ABSTAIN
This Governance Action presents a valuable and respected tool, maintained by a technically capable team, with clear signs of ecosystem adoption. However, due to the absence of scope separation from an existing funded project, and the lack of KPIs and public milestones, I am unable to confidently assess the proposal’s added value or ensure accountability in its execution.For these reasons, I choose to abstain from voting. I encourage the team to address these gaps in a future iteration by providing stronger scope delineation, measurable outcomes, and milestone transparency — which would allow the community to fully support the continued growth and utility of AdaStat.
- Yes 257K ₳ Rationale
I vote YES for the ₳212,000 treasury withdrawal to fund AdaStat.net, a proven, independently maintained, and open-access Cardano blockchain explorer.
AdaStat offers vital real-time access to chain data, governance activities, stake pool performance, REST API integration, and a mobile-ready, fast UX/UI—all provided continuously for over five years.
Maintaining a diverse set of independently operated explorers is crucial to preserving Cardano’s decentralization, transparency, and network resilience. AdaStat’s focus on open standards, governance data, and broad community utility (SPOs, DReps, CC, developers, and end users) aligns directly with Cardano’s core values.
The budget is reasonable for 24 months of technical development, performance upgrades, and operational support, representing high value for sustaining ecosystem-critical infrastructure. Project delivery and risk are well managed via a milestone-based legal contract, treasury multisig, Oversight Committee, and 3rd-party assurance.
AdaStat’s independent operation helps mitigate single-point-of-failure risk, broadens community tooling, and increases accessibility of Cardano’s data to the global community, underpinning growth and adoption.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 245K ₳ No rationale
- No 238.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
- Need for Self-Sustainability: While AdaStat.net is a valuable blockchain explorer enhancing transparency and usability, I believe such projects should pursue self-sustaining funding models (e.g., premium features, API subscriptions, or community donations). Relying on treasury funds risks long-term strain on Cardano’s finite resources, especially when viable monetization paths exist.
- Ecosystem Competition: Cardano supports multiple blockchain explorers (e.g., CardanoScan, CExplorer), some of which operate without treasury funding. Allocating funds to AdaStat.net may favor one project over others, potentially undermining competition and decentralization in the explorer ecosystem.
- Opportunity Cost: The treasury’s 275,269,340 ADA budget funds 39 proposals, and resources allocated to AdaStat.net could be better directed toward critical protocol development or scalability solutions. Without a specified ADA amount, it’s challenging to assess the proposal’s cost-effectiveness relative to other priorities.
- Encouraging Innovation: Denying treasury funding encourages the AdaStat.net team to explore innovative revenue models, setting a precedent for other infrastructure projects to achieve financial independence. This aligns with Cardano’s goal of a sustainable, decentralized ecosystem.
- Governance Responsibility: While AdaStat.net’s contributions since 2019 are commendable, the community’s recent scrutiny of large treasury withdrawals (e.g., the 140M ADA stablecoin proposal) underscores the need for fiscal discipline. Voting "nay" prioritizes projects with clear treasury dependency and maximizes long-term ecosystem value.
- Yes 206.4K ₳ No 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 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
- No 59.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 58.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 55.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53K ₳ No rationale
- No 49.3K ₳ No rationale