Withdraw ₳220,914 for UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain Integration
193 DReps voted · 50 with a rationale
Open a row to read the 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
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
While the concept behind UTxO RPC is aligned with Cardano’s need for standardized developer tools, this proposal falls short in justifying ongoing funding at this level with insufficient evidence of broader ecosystem demand, clear impact metrics, or strategic growth plans.
The budget appears inflated relative to the scope presented here, and the proposal does not demonstrate urgency or unique value compelling enough to allocate over 200k ₳ without further refinement.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ 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 Input Output Research (IOR), administered via intersect. This proposal is substancial yet research is a key backbone for Cardano development, future-proofing and adoption of community builders with long term development vision. The project leads and intersect are encouraged to make clear and transparently verifiable milestones that demonstrate value-ad to the Cardano ecosystem for example: number of research papers released, citations, university partnerships, support to formal methods and integration teams, research lead by new professors from leading fields, and publications in journals.
- Yes 655K ₳ 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. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 587.1K ₳ Rationale
A reliable UTXO RPC service is essential infrastructure for many current and upcoming projects in the Cardano ecosystem — including Amaru, Mesh, and Lace. Beyond its present utility, UTXO RPC plays a critical role in enabling interoperability with other chains and Layer 2 solutions in the near future.
The proposal comes from TxPipe, a team that has consistently delivered high-quality tools and has already proven its value to the community. Additionally, the requested funding amount is reasonable given the scope, impact, and the technical maturity of the team.For these reasons, I cast a confident YES vote.
- Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
As a DRep, I support funding the UTxO RPC proposal for its role in enhancing Cardano’s developer ecosystem. UTxO RPC, led by TxPipe’s Santiago Carmuega, standardizes interactions with UTxO-based blockchains, improving interoperability, performance, and reusability. Its early adoption by projects like Lace, Mesh, and Amaru, alongside integration with tools like the Blaze UTxORPC Provider, underscores its value. The proposal’s modest request for 0.5 FTE blockchain developer and 0.125 FTE tech lead over 12 months ensures ongoing maintenance, bug fixes, new SDKs, and updated documentation, aligning with Cardano’s evolving needs.
TxPipe’s 3+ years of open source contributions, including Pallas, Dolos, and completed Catalyst projects, demonstrate reliability and transparency, verifiable via public GitHub repositories. The open source nature fosters community collaboration, ensuring accountability. By supporting UTxO RPC, we enable seamless dApp development, reduce complexity, and strengthen Cardano’s infrastructure. I do not see any significant risks or redundancies and the project’s focus on sustainability aligns with long term Cardano blockchain ecosystem goals. Voting yes secures a vital tool for developers, driving Cardano’s growth and adoption.
- No 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 371.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ 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 UTxO RPC’s ongoing development. This project provides a standardized interface crucial for interoperability and performance across Cardano’s developer ecosystem. It’s already widely adopted by key projects, and sustaining its maintenance ensures long term reliability and evolution of core blockchain integration tools.
This aligns with my DRep priorities of supporting strong infrastructure, long-term sustainability, and tools that enable ecosystem wide growth.
- 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 295.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 258.6K ₳ Rationale
🧭 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.
📋 Checklist Criteria Explained
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 criterion1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality
Does the proposal address a critical function within Cardano, or is it peripheral or redundant?
This criterion assesses the strategic relevance of the initiative. Proposals should contribute meaningfully to Cardano’s infrastructure, decentralization, usability, or long-term resilience. Initiatives that duplicate existing efforts or lack demonstrable alignment with ecosystem priorities may score lower.2️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers
Does the proposal define measurable success indicators or quantifiable outcomes?
This includes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), numerical targets, milestones with metrics, or other tangible proxies of progress. The absence of quantifiable measures introduces uncertainty around potential impact and limits effective performance tracking.3️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables
Are there clear, time-bound milestones with verifiable deliverables and acceptance criteria?
Effective proposals define not only what will be delivered, but also when and how success will be verified. This enables staged disbursement, delivery monitoring, and community oversight. Lack of milestone clarity may indicate execution risk.4️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record
Is the proposing team clearly identified, with relevant expertise and a verifiable delivery history?
This criterion evaluates the transparency and credibility of the individuals or organizations responsible for delivery. Established contributors with proven ecosystem involvement are preferred. Anonymous or unvetted teams may raise accountability concerns.5️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail
Is the budget transparently structured, with clear categories, amounts, and justification?
A strong proposal includes itemized costs (e.g., per workstream, staff role, tooling), explains the rationale behind budget allocations, and clarifies estimation methods. Lack of detail in budget structure reduces transparency and erodes confidence in treasury stewardship.6️⃣ Internal Consistency
Are the on-chain metadata, proposal content, and budget details aligned?
Consistency across all proposal components — including funding amounts, receiving addresses, project scope, and references — is essential. Misalignment creates confusion, undermines credibility, and may signal governance process weaknesses.7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
Does this proposal present a potential conflict of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the evaluation?
To preserve the integrity of the voting process, any proposal in which I (as evaluator) hold a significant, non-marginal conflict of interest will be automatically met with an ABSTAIN vote. Minor or indirect associations are disclosed where relevant, but only material conflicts — such as direct financial involvement, employment, or formal partnership — trigger abstention. This ensures all evaluations remain transparent, independent, and in service of the broader Cardano community.
🗳 Governance Action Evaluation – Final Review
Proposal: Withdraw ₳220,914 for Pallas – Sustaining Critical Rust Tooling for Cardano
Vendor: TxPipe (administered by Intersect)
Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Requested Amount: ₳220,914
Governance Action ID:gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlqghuqg03
📋 Evaluation Checklist
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality
🟡 Partial
Proposal excerpt:
“Currently in its early stages, UTxO RPC is already being adopted by key projects in the Cardano ecosystem, including Lace, Mesh, Amaru, and many others.”
Critical analysis:
While the proposal claims UTxO RPC is being adopted by "many projects," only three are explicitly named: Lace (IOG), Mesh, and Amaru. I could not find any public evidence of adoption by independent or community-driven wallets such as Eternl, Nami, Typhon, Flint, or Yoroi.The tool remains in an early phase, and although its goal of RPC standardization is valuable, it does not yet represent a critical dependency for the broader Cardano ecosystem.
Decision:
Given the experimental nature of the project and its limited adoption, I am casting an neutral evaluation on this criterion. Funding decisions for infrastructure of this kind should be made when clearer technical consensus or broader multi-party adoption is demonstrated.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail
✅ Yes
“0.5 FTE Blockchain Developer for 12 months = $99,412 = ₳165,686”
“0.125 FTE Tech Lead for 12 months = $33,137 = ₳55,228”The proposal provides a clear labor-based cost breakdown using daily rates and FTE percentages. The rate of $825/day for the developer and $1,100/day for the tech lead are slightly above market averages, but within reason for experienced Rust-based infrastructure work in the Web3 space.
No other cost categories (infrastructure, security, support, etc.) are included — all work is expected to be delivered via internal labor. There is no per-task hour allocation, but the transparency in rate calculations offsets this gap for a proposal of limited complexity.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers
❌ No
Evidence:
No quantifiable KPIs, metrics, or output volume estimates are provided. For example, there is no mention of:- Expected number of SDK improvements
- Number of ecosystem integrations to be supported
- Performance benchmarks
- GitHub activity milestones
- Documentation output
Analysis:
The proposal leans on qualitative impact ("simplify integrations", "support developers") without grounding these in verifiable or measurable outcomes. This limits the ability to monitor success.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables
🟡 Partial
Evidence:
“All milestones, acceptance criteria, payment amounts and expected delivery dates will be agreed between the Vendor and Intersect, acting on behalf of the CDH.”
“Acceptance of the above work is expected to be supported by a 3rd Party Assurer…”Analysis:
While the proposal asserts that milestones will exist and be governed via legal contract and third-party assurance, no concrete milestones, acceptance criteria or deliverables are defined within the on-chain proposal itself. This defers clarity to a future contract. The structure is present, but the content is not.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency
✅ Yes
Evidence:
- Requested amount: ₳220,914
- Governance Action references the broader ₳275M budget ratified in
gov_action1u9x73... - Disbursement mechanism, smart contract address, and metadata anchor are aligned.
Analysis:
No discrepancies found between declared scope, metadata, disbursement mechanism, and broader budget structure.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record
🟡 Partial
“TxPipe has helped develop several dApps… successfully completed several Catalyst proposals… participated in Partnerchain SDK…”
TxPipe has a strong technical reputation in Cardano. However, they are currently managing 8 active Catalyst proposals, most of which are delayed by weeks to months. This indicates possible overextension and unacknowledged bandwidth risk. The proposal does not disclose these commitments, nor does it offer any mitigation plan or delivery prioritization.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
✅ No Conflict
I have no professional or financial ties to TxPipe or Intersect.
🧠 Critical Summary
This proposal seeks funding to continue developing and maintaining UTxO RPC, a standardized interface for UTxO-based blockchain interaction. While the goals are promising — especially for improving developer experience and standardization — its current status does not yet justify Treasury prioritization.
Only three projects are listed as adopters. The proposal lacks broader community support, measurable KPIs, and concrete deliverables. Although the budget is clear and the team experienced, TxPipe is simultaneously handling numerous Catalyst projects, many delayed.
The governance process is meant to fund infrastructure that is strategically critical, measurably impactful, and broadly supported. This proposal does not fully meet those conditions at this time.
🗳 Voting Decision: ABSTAIN
This is a technically competent proposal with potential long-term value — but its current adoption, dependency level, and delivery clarity do not justify a Yes vote. I am casting an ABSTAIN vote to reflect this middle ground: supporting neither premature funding nor outright rejection, but signaling the need for greater validation, coordination, and ecosystem endorsement before future requests.
- Yes 257K ₳ Rationale
I voted YES on the Treasury Withdrawal titled UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain Integration requesting ₳220,914 based on its strategic importance, developer adoption, constitutional compliance, and cost effectiveness.
UTxO RPC provides crucial infrastructure for standardizing access to Cardano’s UTxO model using modern RPC endpoints, SDKs, and a shared schema language. This removes major onboarding and integration hurdles for both developers already building on Cardano (e.g. Lace, Mesh, Amaru) and those new to the ecosystem.
The proposal is well-scoped (0.625 FTEs) and continues TxPipe’s stewardship of one of the most pivotal light-client/public-access gateways in the Rust tooling landscape.
I also confirm administrative compliance and financial oversight using constitutional smart contract infrastructure (TRSC/PSSC), audited by trusted third parties (MLabs, Sundae Labs, TxPipe). All milestones are contract-governed, metadata-linked, and transparently enforced. This is especially fitting given that TxPipe itself contributed to auditing the underlying multi-signature framework.
UTxO RPC is a powerful ecosystem enabler and demonstrates the “invisible infrastructure” layer that modern blockchain platforms must deliver. I support this proposal as a constitutional Treasury action and recommend approval.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 208.6K ₳ Rationale
The UTxO RPC proposal is a reasonable and high-value investment for Cardano’s ecosystem. Its focus on simplifying developer interactions, enhancing interoperability, and supporting key projects like Lace, Mesh, and Amaru makes it a critical infrastructure component. The modest budget of 200k ADA, combined with TxPipe’s proven expertise and transparent governance processes, justifies a “yay” vote. By supporting UTxO RPC, I hope this translates to lower barriers for Cardano developers, accelerate DApp development, and strengthen its position as a scalable, developer-friendly blockchain.
- Yes 206.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 190.2K ₳ No rationale