Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical ...
170 DReps voted · 54 with a rationale · 9 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes13.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on governance action b3d452bff7769d7f557ec6b8974760ee6c5e496c276652b654032966621e0ccf#4.
First, I have to report a slight conflict of interest; Sundae Labs built and administered the treasury portal used by intersect to distribute funds, and receives a small ongoing stipend to cover the infrastructure and maintenance costs of the portal; additionally, we are occasionally contracted to improve the portal or smart contracts.
However, this revenue does not represent a significant portion of our overall revenue; does not represent a significant portion of Intersects operating costs, and has never been perceived, by either party, as being dependent on our vote; indeed, to date most of these contracts have been signed before Intersect asked for funding.
There is, of course, some risk that subconciously, I am voting yes to ensure Intersect has funding for future contracts with Sundae Labs, but on reflection, I find that risk small. Nevertheless, if we secure future contracts from Intersect, I will ask that it be covered from a profit center supported by their administrative charge on treasury withdrawals they manage, rather than treasury funding.
I do not believe a conflict of interest is an immediate and unconditional reason to vote abstain. I believe conflicts of interest should be identified, analyzed, steps taken to expunge them, disclosed, and then, only if the conflict of interest continues to cloud the ability to judge a proposal on its merits alone, abstained.
In the past, I have erred extremely on the side of caution: Abstain on anything that has even a resemblence of conflict of interest from my part. However, given how involved I am in the ecosystem, this has made it increasingly difficult to simultaneously participate in governance, and robs those who delegate to me, and trust me to weigh and discharge my conflicts of interest in the interest of the Cardano ecosystem well, of a voice.
So, At the behest of several delegators, I have decided to relax this policy slightly; A conflict of interest will still always be clearly disclosed, but will no longer mean an automatic abstention of non-vote from me.
If this changes whether you wish to delegate to me, I will understand. I'm happy to provide endorsements to several good dReps on request.
With that said, I am voting YES on this proposal. I believe, and have seen in the wake of recent incidents, that Intersect is a net benefit to the ecosystem (barely) in proportion to the cost.
In the wake of the SecondFi incident, Intersect mobilized a diverse cast of experts to catalog the incident and provide appropriate outreach to some impacted parties.
Additionally, their triage and response to ongoing responsible disclosures of bugs and vulnerabilities in the Cardano node, along with orchestration of the recent Hard Fork, were reasonably effective.
Overall, I appreciate the trend towards cheaper and more effective governance under Jack Briggs direction. I would like to see this trend continue, however; Whether that be further cost cutting, improvement of the ADA price, or getting more mileage out of the same dollar, all such efforts are needed and would be welcome.
For example, while orchestrating the Van Rossum hard fork is an incredibly difficult, industry wide endeavor (and by no means do I think I could do better personally), I'm positive that future hardforks can apply lessons learned from this one and reduce inter-organizational friction and shorten timelines to adoption. Learning how to communicate impactful changes compared to interesting or exciting changes, for example, is the year-over-year compounding and institutional knowledge that Intersect should be building up to ensure that either costs continue to fall, or if costs stagnate, the Cardano community gets more out of them.
So, overall, I appreciate the efforts Intersect has taken to slim their budget. I know first hand how hard that kind of belt-tightening can be. And for the sake of Cardano, those gains need to compound year after year.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Yes13.3M ₳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/ - Yes12.1M ₳Rationale
We support this proposal because it funds critical ecosystem capabilities that are essential to the continued security, resilience, and effective governance of Cardano. We understand that the requested funding would support technical stewardship of core Cardano infrastructure, incident response, release and hard-fork coordination, governance coordination, and other critical processes that require sustained expertise and operational capacity. These are ecosystem-wide public goods whose failure could have consequences far exceeding the cost of maintaining the necessary coordination and stewardship capacity.
We consider Intersect's demonstrated execution history a significant strength of this proposal. The organization has already played an important role in coordinating major protocol upgrades, supporting technical and incident-response processes, facilitating governance activities, and contributing to the stewardship of critical open-source infrastructure. This provides a meaningful basis for confidence that the requested funding is directed toward real and ongoing ecosystem needs rather than speculative future activity.
We are also encouraged by the proposal's accountability mechanisms, including milestone-based funding, evidence-backed reporting, external assurance, and structured treasury-management controls. We believe that these mechanisms provide important safeguards for the responsible use of Treasury funds and create a framework through which progress and performance can be evaluated over the funding period.
The proposal is strongly aligned with Cardano's governance objectives. It supports the continued decentralization and maturation of the governance system, strengthens the technical resilience of the protocol, helps coordinate critical ecosystem processes, and contributes to the sustainability of the open-source infrastructure on which Cardano depends.
While we recognize the importance of continued scrutiny regarding cost efficiency, scope, organizational concentration, and long-term sustainability, we believe these considerations are best addressed through ongoing transparency, milestone reporting, and governance oversight rather than by leaving critical ecosystem functions insufficiently funded.
Having previously supported this proposal through the Intersect Hydra Voting process, we are pleased to maintain a consistent position on-chain and vote yes on this governance action.
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.8M ₳Rationale
Intersectは、Cardanoのガバナンス運営、エコシステム全体の調整、および技術ガバナンスを支える重要な組織です。その継続的な活動は、Cardanoエコシステムの安定性と持続的な発展に重要であると判断し、本提案に賛成します。\n\nIntersect plays an important role in supporting Cardano's governance coordination, ecosystem-wide coordination, and technical governance. I support this proposal because its continued work is important to the stability and long-term development of the Cardano ecosystem.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- 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. - Yes7.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.9M ₳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.
- No5.8M ₳No rationale
- Abstain5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.1M ₳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_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sgx6wlxf), 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_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sgx6wlxf), 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. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.8M ₳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.
- Yes3.4M ₳No rationale
- No3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.6M ₳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. - Yes2.5M ₳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.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳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. - Yes2.1M ₳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
No25d 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.
No27d agoSuperseded
- Yes2M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged1.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain7d agoSuperseded
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳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.
- No1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- 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.
- 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