Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical ...
170 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote · 3 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 3 to yes, 1 to no, 2 to abstain, together voting with 248.4M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes9.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting Yes on this proposal.
I have consistently supported Intersect because I believe Cardano benefits from having a neutral coordination layer that helps turn governance decisions into execution. As governance has matured, so too has Intersect. Rather than expanding its remit indefinitely, this proposal demonstrates a more focused approach—reducing operating costs while concentrating on the responsibilities that are most critical to the ecosystem.
The technical stewardship component is particularly important. Coordinating network upgrades, maintaining core repositories, supporting incident response, and providing operational continuity are functions that are often invisible when they work well, but become immediately apparent when they do not. As Cardano continues moving toward decentralized governance and a more distributed development model, these responsibilities do not become less important—they become more important.
I also view this proposal as an investment in continuous improvement. Over the past year, Intersect has refined both its operating model and budget process, and this request reflects lessons learned rather than simply asking for more. That willingness to evolve, reduce scope where appropriate, and focus on core responsibilities is exactly what I expect from organizations receiving treasury support.
No organization should be beyond scrutiny, and continued accountability through milestone-based funding, independent assurance, and transparent reporting remains essential. However, based on Intersect’s demonstrated progression and the operational role it now fills within the ecosystem, I believe continued support is warranted. A resilient governance system requires not only good ideas, but also capable coordination and execution, and Intersect has become an important part of that foundation.
- Yes8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA votes YES on Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical stewardship.
This is a cautious YES.
RCADA supports this proposal because Intersect is currently fulfilling a necessary role in Cardano’s governance and technical operating model. The work covered by this proposal includes governance coordination, technical stewardship, release coordination, incident response, core repository support, committee coordination, and management of critical unowned processes. These are important functions for a decentralised ecosystem that is still maturing its on-chain governance framework.
RCADA also recognises the practical reality that no other DAO, organisation, or coordination body currently appears ready to provide this role at comparable scope. Cardano needs an operational coordination layer while governance, technical stewardship, and community-led processes continue to mature. Under the circumstances, Intersect has provided continuity and structure during a complex transition into Voltaire-era governance.
RCADA does not see sufficient evidence that Intersect is squandering funds. The proposal discloses prior Treasury funding, states that the current USD ask has been reduced compared with the previous year, and includes milestone-based drawdowns, public dashboard visibility, Treasury smart-contract controls, and external assurance through Appold. These are positive accountability features and support confidence that the funding can be managed responsibly.
That said, RCADA’s support is not unconditional. This is a large request at 25,400,000 ADA, and it comes on top of significant prior Treasury funding to Intersect and its committees. The size and breadth of the proposal create legitimate concerns around cost discipline, opportunity cost, scope creep, governance concentration, and long-term dependency on a single member-based organisation.
RCADA believes Intersect must hold itself to the highest standards of responsibility, transparency, and public service. The organisation should treat this funding not as entitlement, but as a mandate to deliver visible value to the Cardano ecosystem. Reporting should be clear, evidence-backed, and understandable to DReps and the wider community. Milestones, spending, incident-response work, release coordination, repository stewardship, committee outputs, and critical-process management should be communicated openly and regularly.
RCADA also expects Intersect to continue improving. This should include stronger value-for-money reporting, clearer separation between essential coordination and discretionary activity, continued reduction of unnecessary overhead, and active efforts to decentralise operational capacity over time. The goal should not be to make Cardano permanently dependent on Intersect, but to help the ecosystem become more capable, resilient, and distributed.
On balance, RCADA believes this proposal meets the standard for support because the funded functions are currently necessary, Intersect has provided useful coordination under difficult circumstances, and the proposal includes meaningful oversight mechanisms. However, this YES vote comes with clear expectations: Intersect must continue to earn community trust through delivery, transparency, fiscal discipline, humility, and a genuine commitment to strengthening decentralised governance rather than becoming a permanent bottleneck.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here:
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/ - Abstain7.6M ₳Rationale
Last year I voted YES for Intersect. This year I will abstain on voting on Intersect MBO proposals.
I am not convinced. I admit I might be misunderstanding the wider situation (Cardano without Intersect) and will leave the decision to other DReps. Next year I might vote NO if the organization cannot easily prove that all of its structures are worth it.
It is not news to Intersect, but Intersect is too dependent on the Treasury, which means it is on a very risky path. I would like to see a plan for a minimal Intersect. Like Minimal Djed. An Intersect without the nice to haves.
If the current structure is ideal, it doesn't need reform. It probably is not, so it needs further reform and to cut the number of committees and activities to essential ones. - Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳Rationale
I cannot support that, no matter how hard I try.
This proposal combines many operational functions into a single 25.4 million ADA request.
This does not work out. The proposal does not provide enough granularity, prioritization or metrics to justify that amount. The funds will simply evaporate without yielding any results. - Abstain5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança "Withdraw 25,400,000 ADA for Intersect: Governance Coordination and Technical Stewardship for the Cardano Ecosystem" (gov_action1k02...x6wlxf), pois entendemos que a proposta financia atividades essenciais para a continuidade, a estabilidade e a segurança do ecossistema Cardano. Entre elas estão a coordenação da governança, a manutenção dos principais repositórios de código, a resposta a incidentes críticos e a coordenação das atualizações do protocolo, funções que beneficiam toda a rede e sustentam sua evolução de longo prazo. Embora o valor solicitado, de ₳25.400.000, seja expressivo, avaliamos que ele é compatível com a amplitude das responsabilidades assumidas, o número de equipes envolvidas e a natureza crítica das atividades previstas. Consideramos que o orçamento apresenta uma relação custo-benefício adequada diante da relevância dos serviços prestados e do impacto que sua interrupção poderia causar ao ecossistema. Também avaliamos positivamente os mecanismos de governança, controle e transparência previstos na proposta, incluindo desembolsos condicionados ao cumprimento de marcos, auditorias independentes, relatórios periódicos com evidências das entregas, utilização de contratos inteligentes para a gestão dos pagamentos e supervisão externa da execução. Esses mecanismos proporcionam maior rastreabilidade dos recursos e fortalecem a confiança da comunidade na correta utilização da Tesouraria.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action "Withdraw 25,400,000 ADA for Intersect: Governance Coordination and Technical Stewardship for the Cardano Ecosystem" (gov_action1k02...x6wlxf), because we believe the proposal funds essential activities that support the continuity, stability, and security of the Cardano ecosystem. These include governance coordination, maintenance of core code repositories, incident response, and coordination of protocol upgrades—functions that benefit the entire network and are fundamental to its long-term development. Although the requested ₳25,400,000 is substantial, we believe it is proportionate to the breadth of responsibilities involved, the number of teams delivering the work, and the critical nature of the services provided. In our view, the proposal offers an appropriate cost-benefit balance considering the ecosystem-wide importance of these activities and the potential impact that interruptions could have on Cardano. We also view the proposal’s governance, oversight, and transparency mechanisms positively. These include milestone-based disbursements, independent audits, regular reports documenting deliverables, smart contract-based payment management, and external oversight of execution. Together, these measures improve accountability, enhance transparency, and strengthen community confidence in the responsible use of Treasury funds. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳Rationale
I see this as a administrative vote which is to process a withdrawal that DRep's have previously approved. I do not believe in throwing monkey-wrenches into approved and planned for processes, and thus I vote yes so as not to obstruct progress and momentum, and to not undermine previous decisions.
- Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに賛成します。
Intersectは、Cardanoのガバナンス調整、技術的スチュワードシップ、リリース調整、リポジトリ管理、インシデント対応、コミュニティ承認済みプロセスの管理において、現時点で重要な運用インフラを担っています。
また、本提案がSmart Contract Disbursementの考え方に合致している点を評価します。Smart Contract Disbursementとは、Treasury資金を一括で渡すのではなく、スマートコントラクト上で管理し、マイルストーン達成に応じて段階的に支払い、必要に応じて停止・返還・監査可能にする仕組みです。本提案では、milestone-based drawdowns、smart contractによるTreasury管理、外部Oversight、dashboard透明性、独立保証が含まれており、公共資金管理として望ましい方向性を持っています。
さらに、最近のSecondFi関連のウォレット・セキュリティ事案は、Cardanoにおいてエコシステム横断のインシデント調整、脆弱性開示プロセス、ユーザー保護コミュニケーションが重要であることを示しています。これは本提案の直接対象ではありませんが、Intersectが担うtechnical stewardshipとincident responseの必要性を改めて示す事例だと考えます。
一方で、本提案は高額であり、Intersectは過去にも相当額のTreasury fundingを受けています。したがって、マイルストーン、支出、監査結果、技術運用KPI、インシデント対応実績、未使用資金返還について、明確な公開報告を求めます。
私の投票は、強い説明責任・分散化・測定可能な成果を期待した上でYesします。
I support this Treasury Withdrawal.
Intersect currently provides important operational infrastructure for Cardano, including governance coordination, technical stewardship, release coordination, repository management, incident response, and the administration of community-approved processes.
I also value that this proposal aligns with the idea of Smart Contract Disbursement. In this model, Treasury funds are not simply paid out in a lump sum, but are managed through smart contracts, released step by step based on milestones, and made more transparent, pausable, refundable, and auditable when needed. This proposal includes milestone-based drawdowns, smart contract-based Treasury management, external oversight, dashboard transparency, and independent assurance. I see this as a positive direction for responsible public fund management.
Recent wallet-related security issues around SecondFi also show the importance of ecosystem-level incident coordination, vulnerability disclosure, and user-protection communication in Cardano. This is not the direct subject of this proposal, but it reinforces the need for the technical stewardship and incident response functions that Intersect is expected to support.
At the same time, this is a large funding request, and Intersect has already received substantial Treasury funding in the past. Therefore, I expect clear public reporting on milestones, spending, audit results, technical stewardship KPIs, incident response activities, and unused-fund return mechanisms.
My vote is Yes, with strong expectations for accountability, decentralization, and measurable delivery. - Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.5M ₳Rationale
Due to rationales becoming stressful and the bear market vibes - I will not be providing rationale. I voted the way that I did bc we need a 'no stress' environment more than ever.
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this Treasury withdrawal.
I recognise that governance coordination, technical stewardship, release coordination and incident response are important functions for Cardano. However, I do not believe this 25.4m ada request represents sufficient value for money in the context of the remaining Net Change Limit.
Based on the practical remaining NCL position, this proposal would consume a very large share of the remaining available budget. That creates a serious opportunity cost for other governance, tooling, infrastructure and ecosystem proposals still seeking funding.
My concern is not that the work has no value. My concern is that the proposal is too large, too bundled, and concentrates too much coordination funding into a single organisation. Cardano governance should continue moving toward a more decentralised, competitive and transparent delivery model, where critical functions are funded with clear scope, measurable outputs, lean budgets and strong accountability.
I would be open to supporting a smaller, more focused proposal for genuinely critical technical stewardship, incident response, repository coordination and governance process support. But I do not believe this broad 25.4m ada withdrawal is the right use of scarce treasury capacity at this stage.
For those reasons, I am voting NO.
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
I am voting NO on this Treasury withdrawal.
I recognise that governance coordination, technical stewardship, release coordination and incident response are important functions for Cardano. However, I do not believe this 25.4m ada request represents sufficient value for money in the context of the remaining Net Change Limit.
Based on the practical remaining NCL position, this proposal would consume a very large share of the remaining available budget. That creates a serious opportunity cost for other governance, tooling, infrastructure and ecosystem proposals still seeking funding.
My concern is not that the work has no value. My concern is that the proposal is too large, too bundled, and concentrates too much coordination funding into a single organisation. Cardano governance should continue moving toward a more decentralised, competitive and transparent delivery model, where critical functions are funded with clear scope, measurable outputs, lean budgets and strong accountability.
I would be open to supporting a smaller, more focused proposal for genuinely critical technical stewardship, incident response, repository coordination and governance process support. But I do not believe this broad 25.4m ada withdrawal is the right use of scarce treasury capacity at this stage.
For those reasons, I am voting NO.
No2mo agoSuperseded
- YesChanged1.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
BKIND votes Yes on the treasury withdrawal that funds Intersect's governance coordination and technical stewardship for June 2026 to June 2027. Most of the ask, 18.8 million of the 25.4 million ada, funds the technical stewardship, incident response and release coordination that keep Cardano secure, the function that houses Intersect's Security Council and the Intersect Bug Bounty Program. As an independent Cardano auditor I judge that this security capability must continue, and that it should be strengthened to reach the third-party code now built across the ecosystem.
Action: treasury withdrawal b3d452bff7769d...0ccf#4, withdraw 25,400,000 ada to fund Intersect's governance coordination and technical stewardship for the Cardano ecosystem from June 2026 to June 2027.
I vote Yes. I judge this action as an independent Cardano auditor who reconstructs and checks chain state with my own software rather than taking it on authority, weighing both what the withdrawal funds and what this ecosystem needs.
Most of the ask, 18.8 million of the 25.4 million ada, is allocated to technical stewardship, incident response and release coordination, the work package that also carries the core Cardano repositories. That is the ecosystem's security and incident-response function. It houses Intersect's Security Council, the group facilitated by Intersect under its Technical Steering Committee that validates, triages and remediates vulnerabilities, and it operates the Intersect Bug Bounty Program that opened in November 2025. Funding this action keeps that capability standing. Of everything in this budget, the security function is the part I would least want left unfunded.
The reason is not abstract. In my own work as an auditor the security surface of this ecosystem is widening, not narrowing, as more value and more third-party code build on Cardano, and attackers grow more capable. The November 2025 chain partition made it concrete. A single malformed delegation transaction woke a deserialization bug that had lain dormant in the code since 2022 and briefly split the network into two chains. No user funds were lost and the network stayed online, but it was resolved in roughly fourteen and a half hours only because a coordinated incident response, spanning Input Output Global, the Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Intersect, exchanges and hundreds of stake pool operators, shipped patched node versions and let Ouroboros settle the canonical chain. That coordination layer is exactly what this action funds. Without it, the next incident response has to be assembled only after the incident has already begun.
I vote Yes to keep this function, and I would go further: it should be strengthened. Early detection and safe, coordinated remediation of vulnerabilities should reach beyond the core node to the third-party code being built across the ecosystem, where a growing share of user value now sits. The Intersect Bug Bounty Program today scopes to the Cardano Core Node and Intersect-maintained repositories, with third-party contracts out of scope. Extending that reach, so that a flaw in a third-party contract is found early and closed safely rather than discovered by an attacker, invests in the resilience of the whole ecosystem and not only its core. Strengthening the security function is in that sense a decentralisation measure: it protects the many builders and users who now depend on this chain.
The ask is also proportionate. This 25.4 million ada withdrawal corresponds to a reduced annual budget, cut year over year from 7.875 million to 6.35 million dollars while preserving the critical functions, and it cleared Intersect's 2026 community budget process before it reached the chain. Funding a leaner request that protects the ecosystem's security is an easy Yes.
Operators and developers who want to compare notes on ecosystem security are welcome to email developmentbkind@gmail.com.
I vote Yes on the treasury withdrawal funding Intersect's governance coordination and technical stewardship (govActionId b3d452bff7769d...0ccf#4). The ecosystem's security and incident-response function must continue, and it should be strengthened to reach the third-party code built across Cardano.
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
I support funding these work packages. Intersect adds a lot of value to Cardano and their work to support governance and coordinate the ecosystem is important. Technical stewardship, incident response, and management of critical processes is essential work.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.5M ₳Rationale
WP2 is the non-negotiable core of this proposal. Someone has to steward the Haskell node repositories, coordinate hard forks, and lead incident response when the chain partitions — as happened in November 2025. Intersect has done this. Voting No means those functions go unmanaged, which is not an acceptable outcome for a protocol in active development.
WP1 and WP3 are harder to evaluate at this level of detail, but the reduction from last year's ask ($7.875M to $6.35M) reflects at least some fiscal discipline, and the audit by Appold provides an external check.
However, I want to register a structural concern that this proposal does not resolve: Intersect simultaneously administers treasury withdrawals on behalf of the community and receives treasury funds as a vendor. That is a conflict of interest by design. It has been tolerated because no alternative coordination layer exists yet, but it should not be normalized. The ecosystem needs to work toward a governance structure where the entity administering treasury funds and the entities receiving them are structurally separated.
This Yes vote is for the functions, not an endorsement of the current structure.
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on "Intersect: Governance coordination and technical stewardship for the Cardano ecosystem" because these functions are core infrastructure for Cardano: release coordination, incident response, security coordination, and stewardship of key repositories cannot simply be left unmanaged. The request is large and I remain concerned about Intersect becoming too dependent on treasury funding or combining administration with vendor roles. However, the proposal includes milestone-based disbursement, external assurance, oversight, and on-chain treasury tooling, and the technical continuity value outweighs the risk at this stage. Future Intersect funding should be more modular, better itemized, and supported by clear public reporting and value-for-money evidence.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale