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.
- Yes584.2M ₳Rationale
Yoroi DRep votes YES on Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical support. The Cardano community has spoken clearly through the Hydra off-chain voting platform, and Yoroi is committed to honouring that voice.
- Honouring the Community Mandate: With a supermajority of over 67% in the off-chain governance process, this proposal carries a strong and unambiguous signal of community support. Yoroi votes Yes in alignment with that collective decision.
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
Please check the following link for the reasons for the vote.（投票理由は次のページを参照してください。)
- Abstain332.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes293M ₳Rationale
EMURGO as a DRep votes YES on Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical support, with rationale outlined below.
This proposal successfully completed the off-chain community governance process on the Hydra voting platform, crossing the required 67% approval threshold. EMURGO respects the legitimacy of this community-led process and votes YES in recognition of the mandate that the Cardano community has clearly expressed. For these reasons, EMURGO votes yes.
- Yes254.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain222.9M ₳Rationale
We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.
- Yes174.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain165.7M ₳No rationale
- Abstain120.2M ₳Rationale
This document includes the Cardano Foundation’s voting decisions and individual voting rationales for the 11 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions submitted following the Intersect-facilitated budget process.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Our approach is designed to ensure both transparency and efficiency, applying a consistent evaluation framework (see the “Cardano Foundation Voting Decisions for the 2026 Intersect Budget Process”) to each proposal and presenting our reasoning in a single, comprehensive document.
No material changes have been made to the individual proposals since the budget proposals were approved in Hydra Voting, therefore our votes on these withdrawals reflect our original assessment and vote. Our voting decisions on the 11 treasury withdrawals are made available in the table below.
Fund administration clarity is an important consideration for our voting decisions. Our expectation is that expect Intersect, as administrator, will manage funds diligently, provide public transparency on contracts, and ensure robust oversight, holding recipients accountable for deliverables.
Conclusion
The Cardano Foundation’s votes on these 11 treasury withdrawal governance actions are the direct execution of a single, comprehensive review process that began during the Hydra Voting phase. Although we present one aggregate rationale for efficiency, each proposal and governance action was individually assessed against a consistent framework anchored in our publicly stated principles.
Voting Record
Governance Action ID Title Vote Rationale gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sqcw2nc5 Withdraw 3,961,538 ada for Bringing Real-World Payments to Cardano with Wirex YES The Wirex proposal credibly contributes to adoption and utility because the deliverables provide card-based financial services and open payment rails linked to on-chain balances. The proposal is expected to expand real-world payment utility and leverage Wirex's established scale to create a plausible path toward increased ecosystem usage to justify treasury investment. The budget justification would benefit from establishing explicit Cardano-specific user migration volumes, ADA spending targets, and a delineation of open-source components. However, the team demonstrates a strong operational history and extensive multi-jurisdictional transaction experience. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sztttste Withdraw 540,750 ada for by TxPipe Dolos: Maintaining Cardano's Lightweight Data Node, Year 2 YES The Dolos by TxPipe proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure and research excellence because the deliverables target a mature, non-Haskell alternative node implementation that directly decentralizes data access. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement and support long-term network resilience by safeguarding critical node diversity. Furthermore, the team has a proven track record of continuous infrastructure delivery and verifiable software releases across prior cycles, and the budget is appropriately justified given a clean cost structure for a part-time maintainer that features a transparent return-to-treasury clause for unused contingency reserves. However, the proposal would benefit from less generic milestone definitions that commit to specific protocol-version readiness for upcoming hard forks and more defined deliverables to support its speculative AI-integration scope. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8syhyg4hw Withdraw 1,310,960 ada for Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026 NO The Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026 proposal has potential to contribute to security, continuity, and ecosystem access as the deliverables target a critical access layer to ensure ongoing hardware wallet compatibility for ADA holders. However, the budget is not appropriately justified and compared to previous funding cycles for similar scopes seems too high. Additionally, the project presents substantial execution and accountability risks, evidenced by incomplete milestones and significant delivery delays in the 2025 cycle, alongside a repository changelog that suggests an undocumented complete rewrite rather than routine maintenance. Without explicit clarifications regarding vendor responsibilities, itemized cost increases, and structured milestone definitions managed via clear, centralized ecosystem demand, the current proposal lacks the necessary transparency for public funding. Based on this, CF votes No. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sxypfkyr Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support YES IntersectTSC credibly contributes to the development of Cardano governance and supports infrastructure and research excellence. The proposed milestones strongly align with the strategic priorities and 'Our Cardano' principles by funding critical operations for the Parameter Committee, CIP Editors, and Hard Fork Working Group. The proposal is expected to generate meaningful on-chain activity through direct network usage, transaction volume, governance participation, and enhanced by WP1 expert event engagements. The team has a proven track record of delivering ecosystem grants and meaningful outcomes, as evidenced by their coordination of the Plomin and Chang hard forks. The budget is appropriately justified given the phased milestone structure with clearly defined acceptance criteria and provisions for independent oversight, including independent third-party audit verification via Appold and an absolute return-to-treasury policy for all unspent capital. However, it is recommended that WP1 track active delivery metrics rather than event attendance, and mandate the publication of post-event reports to turn travel into a strategic intelligence asset, while WP3 must enforce its promised total independent recusal framework. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sgx6wlxf Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical stewardship for the Cardano ecosystem ABSTAIN This Intersect proposal credibly contributes to open governance coordination, technical stewardship, and ecosystem outreach as the deliverables successfully support the off-chain coordination model outlined in the Cardano 2030 Strategy. However, the immediate impact of its 2026 technical budget to on-chain network growth remains obscured by substantial operational ambiguities. This is because its technical focus risks introducing unnecessary parallel management layers rather than directly driving clean, high-impact technical utility. Furthermore, while the organization has demonstrated experience managing an evolving decentralized landscape over the past two years, the total requested budget of 25,400,000 ADA is not appropriately justified given a lack of granular, itemized baseline financial accounting and clear 2025 actual expenditure statements to verify true value-for-money. Additionally, extensive work packages within the proposal heavily overlap with core software maintenance, repository stewardship, and infrastructure monitoring solutions already maintained by the ecosystem, while the current committee framework introduces administrative overheads that require swift structural streamlining to prioritize tangible, democratic, and measurable outcomes. Based on this, CF votes Abstain. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8s24l0u4y Withdraw 3,810,423 ada for Mithril Protocol YES The Mithril Protocol proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure, scalability, and research excellence by providing critical light-client verification models, Layer 2 anchoring primitives, and SNARK-based certificate compression frameworks. The proposal is expected to drive long-term protocol maintainability, cross-chain interoperability, and future-proof network resilience, thereby justifying treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has a proven track record of peer-reviewed engineering delivery and technical execution, and the budget is appropriately justified, as the requested funding is consistent with the strategic importance of the core infrastructure tracks. However, the proposal would benefit from a clearer, itemized breakdown of staffing costs and full-time equivalent (FTE) allocations to address headline cost concerns, as well as a more explicit articulation of broader system impacts regarding network decentralization and production wallet integration pathways. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8svfsvefn Withdraw 1,162,746 ada for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Plutarch and Ply YES The MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure and developer experience by providing essential maintenance and ongoing enhancements for widely used developer tools. While maintenance itself is not expected to generate immediate on-chain activity, safeguarding heavily used builder infrastructure protects the ecosystem from severe disruption and ensures that future transaction volume and adoption remain sustainable. Furthermore, the team has a demonstrated track record of delivering foundational developer tools, and the budget is appropriately justified given that it represents a fairly reasonable and standard funding request for specialized repository oversight. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sw64d667 Withdraw 540,750 ada for Oura by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano’s Event Pipeline YES The Oura by TxPipe proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure, developer decentralization, and ecosystem accessibility by providing essential open-source event data pipeline tooling that directly benefits a wide range of active deployments. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement and protect ecosystem growth from the adverse risks of critical tool attrition to justify treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has established a reliable track record of building foundational developer solutions, and the budget is appropriately justified given that the funding request is neither excessive nor unrealistic for a dedicated maintenance resource. However, the proposal would benefit from increased clarity regarding its SLAs and explicit expectations for the full-time maintainer. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8ssd0ztd8 Withdraw 540,750 ada for Pallas by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano's Core Rust Libraries, Year 2 YES The Pallas by TxPipe proposal credibly contributes to infrastructure and research excellence because the deliverables target core, low-level building blocks that directly support critical downstream network dependencies like Amaru. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement and safeguard foundational infrastructure that justifies treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has demonstrated the necessary expertise to maintain the solution, and the budget is appropriately justified given the essential utility and ongoing ecosystem reliance on the repository. However, the proposal would benefit from clearer resource guarantees to ensure the allocated developer actively manages and maintains the codebase. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8sj72rg72 Withdraw 1,684,050 ada for Tx3 by TxPipe: Open API Layer for Cardano's dApp Protocols ABSTAIN The Tx3 by TxPipe proposal has potential to contribute to adoption, utility, and ecosystem growth as the deliverables target a standardized open interface layer, multi-language SDKs, and agent-facing tools designed to make decentralized protocols discoverable and composable. While this proposal has potential to drive future protocol-level engagement and enhance developer experiences, its immediate on-chain impact remains prospective rather than proven. Although the team has demonstrated a credible foundation with active public repositories and strong strategic alignment, the budget is not appropriately justified given an overly broad 12-month scope backed by a thin financial breakdown. Additionally, the proposal lacks crucial technical and governance evidence, including a specific protocol candidate list, detailed FTE allocations, cloud sizing parameters, explicit SLA assumptions, and concrete acceptance criteria. Based on this, CF votes Abstain. gov_action1k02990lhw6wh74t7c6ufw3mqaek9ujtvyan99dj5qv5kvcs7pn8s5z9qdza Withdraw 540,750 ada for UTxO RPC by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano’s Integration Standard, Year 2. YES The UTxO RPC by TxPipe proposal credibly contributes to ecosystem growth, infrastructure, and interoperability by providing a standardized integration surface and multi-language SDKs that systematically reduce developer friction. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement by reinforcing node and client diversity across key projects like Amaru, Dingo, and the Haskell Cardano node that justifies treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has demonstrated a specialized track record as a protocol maintainer with strong public code and runtime evidence, and the budget is appropriately justified given the essential nature of shared open infrastructure. However, the proposal would benefit from increased specificity in its milestone definitions, including clearly defined maintenance SLAs, explicit mapping for version compatibility targets, and proper license file cleanup across all active repositories. Based on this, CF votes Yes. - Yes92.2M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I have decided to change my NO vote to Abstain on the proposal: Intersect – Governance Coordination and Technical Stewardship for the Cardano Ecosystem.
Intersect plays a critical role and should receive funding for most of its technical functions, especially given the lack of a viable alternative at this time. My initial NO vote was primarily a response to its shortcomings as a governance coordinator.
Because this is a bundled proposal, expressing disagreement with the governance coordination aspect effectively forced a rejection of the entire proposal.
However, following a constructive discussion with Jack Briggs, I was assured that governance coordination will undergo fundamental changes, with DReps becoming an active part of the process. Additionally, there will be a concerted effort to introduce a bucket system or categorized funding. I want to support this positive direction, which is why I am adjusting my position to Abstain.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqpBuy me a beer:
https://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0Earlier votes
No7d agoSuperseded
As a DRep, I vote NO on the proposal: Intersect – Governance Coordination and Technical Stewardship for the Cardano Ecosystem.
My rationale:
This proposal bundles several materially different functions into one Treasury withdrawal. It combines Intersect operations and governance coordination, core technical stewardship, incident response, repository management, and the management of undefined critical processes.
Some of these functions are essential, and Intersect has demonstrated practical capability in multiple areas. I do not want my NO vote to be interpreted as opposition to funding technical continuity.
However, I cannot support these important technical functions when they are bundled with governance coordination that I consider unsuccessful.
Intersect attempted to coordinate governance primarily through its membership structure, committees, and internal processes, but communication and coordination with DReps were limited.
The 2026 budget process also failed. Only a limited number of DReps actively provided feedback during the process, and it did not result in a shared Treasury strategy, clear funding priorities, allocation categories, or meaningful coordination among DReps.
Charles Hoskinson has also publicly described the current governance-coordination model as a failure. His opinion does not determine my vote, but it demonstrates that concerns about the effectiveness of the current model are not limited to DReps.
I would be willing to support a concrete governance-coordination strategy that includes DReps as active participants. Such a plan should establish structured communication, strategic planning, proposal prioritization, Treasury allocation principles, and measurable outcomes.
It may be more effective to allocate a defined coordination budget directly to an open and accountable DRep-led process. DReps carry responsibility for evaluating Treasury proposals and making final funding decisions, so they should have the capacity to design the coordination structures they need.
I also consider the financial disclosure incomplete. Intersect receives a standard 3% administration fee from third-party proposals for which it acts as administrator.
This potentially represents significant additional income. The proposal should disclose administration-fee income received during the previous period, expected income for the new period, how it is used, and whether this income offsets the requested operational budget.
The proposal also states that detailed milestones will be published later through the project's smart-contract metadata. DReps should be able to assess milestones, acceptance criteria, staffing, costs, and payment schedules before approving the withdrawal, not after Treasury funds have already been committed.
This proposal should be unbundled. This would allow DReps to support the valuable technical work while independently evaluating Intersect's governance performance and operational budget.
I am prepared to support a standalone proposal for technical stewardship, core repositories, release coordination, security, and incident response. However, I cannot approve the entire bundled package as submitted.
For these reasons, I vote NO.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqpBuy me a beer:
https://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0 - Yes88.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes86M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on the treasury withdrawal of 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical stewardship.
Why SIPO votes Yes, and how SIPO reads the size. This is the batch's largest ask and SIPO treats it plainly. Of the 25,400,000, some 18,800,000 — 74% — funds technical stewardship, incident response and release coordination, including the core Cardano repositories; 6,000,000 funds Intersect's operations and ecosystem coordination; 600,000 covers management of critical processes. The bulk is therefore not organizational overhead but the technical care of the core repositories. The overall ask has been reduced year over year from $7.875M to $6.35M, and the prior treasury funding received by Intersect and its committees — 22,385,000 ada — is disclosed in the proposal. Intersect has coordinated two network upgrades, is preparing a third, and led ecosystem coordination during the November 2025 chain partition incident. SIPO is voting Yes on Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support in this same batch; rejecting the operating budget that sustains that committee while funding the committee itself would be incoherent.
SIPO attaches two additional expectations to this action specifically: a granular breakdown of Work Package 2 (18,800,000) — repositories covered, headcount and contractors, and the incident-response record; and, before the next annual request, a long-term sustainability and cost-sharing model, so that this function does not become a permanent and unexamined treasury dependency. SIPO also expects articulation, at ecosystem level, of how Haskell repository stewardship relates to the multi-client future (Amaru, Dingo and others), so that scope does not silently duplicate.
SIPO DRep votes on this action as part of the 2026 Intersect Budget Process infrastructure batch — eleven treasury withdrawals submitted in a single transaction by Intersect on behalf of vendors, each having achieved the required 67% support threshold in the 2026 Intersect Budget Process Hydra Voting phase.
Shared basis. All eleven withdrawals share a single on-chain recipient: the 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract at the script credential stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v, built on the Sundae Labs treasury-contracts framework. Disbursement is milestone-gated through a Project-Specific Smart Contract; authorization requires a quorum spanning Intersect admins, Intersect leadership and independent trusted entities; an Oversight Committee of six external parties — Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, NMKR, Sundial and Eternl — independently verifies key administrative actions using on-chain logic; the contracts cannot be staked with an SPO and are delegated to the auto-abstain DRep; and a public dashboard lets the community audit the flow. This is the strongest fund-control class SIPO recognizes, and the same structure SIPO has already supported on Cardano Critical Integrations V2, Cardano Vision 2026, IO Hydra and Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure. SIPO voted Yes on the Cardano Budget Process Framework and holds that treasury allocation should converge and mature through that route; having supported the route, SIPO does not reject its outputs absent a specific defect. This withdrawal complies with the 350M Net Change Limit covering Epochs 613 to 713 and with guardrail TREASURY-02a.
Expectations attached to this Yes. (1) Milestone-level reporting through the TRSC and PSSC of what was disbursed, to whom, and against which deliverable, surfaced on the public dashboard. (2) Continued open-source release of the funded work, and a clear statement of which work is baseline maintenance versus new development. (3) Continued independence of the Oversight Committee, and transparent tracking of cumulative treasury receipts by the recipient and by Intersect. (4) Where scope could overlap with other funded efforts, articulation at ecosystem level of the boundary, so that scope does not silently duplicate.
This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、Intersect: Governance coordination and technical stewardship（25,400,000 ada）のトレジャリー引き出しに、期待事項付きで賛成（YES）を投じます。
SIPO が賛成する理由と、規模の読み方。本バッチ最大の要求であり、率直に扱います。25,400,000 のうち約 18,800,000（74%）は、コア Cardano リポジトリを含む技術スチュワードシップ・インシデント対応・リリース調整に充てられます。6,000,000 が Intersect の運営とエコシステム調整、600,000 が重要プロセスの管理です。したがって大半は組織の間接費ではなく、コアリポジトリの技術的な世話そのものです。要求総額は前年の $7.875M から $6.35M へ減額され、Intersect と各委員会がこれまでに受領したトレジャリー資金 22,385,000 ada も提案書で開示されています。Intersect はネットワークアップグレードを 2 回調整し、3 回目を準備中で、2025 年 11 月のチェーン分断インシデントではエコシステム調整を主導しました。SIPO は同じバッチ内で Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support に賛成しています。その委員会を支えている運営予算を拒みながら委員会だけに資金を出すのは、論理的に一貫しません。
SIPO は本アクションに固有の期待事項を 2 点追加します。Work Package 2（18,800,000）の粒度ある内訳 — 対象リポジトリ、人員と contractor、インシデント対応の実績 — を示すこと。および次年度要求の前に、長期的な自立・費用分担モデルを提示し、本機能が恒久的で検証されないトレジャリー依存にならないようにすること。加えて、Haskell リポジトリのスチュワードシップが multi-client の将来（Amaru・Dingo 等）とどう関係するかをエコシステムレベルで明確化し、スコープが暗黙裡に重複しないようにすることを期待します。
SIPO DRep は、本アクションを 2026 Intersect Budget Process インフラ・バッチ（Intersect が各 vendor を代表して単一トランザクションで提出した 11 件のトレジャリー引き出し。いずれも 2026 Intersect Budget Process の Hydra Voting フェーズで必要な 67% の支持閾値を達成）の一部として評価しました。
共通の根拠。11 件すべてが単一のオンチェーン受領先を共有します: script credential stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v の 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract（Sundae Labs の treasury-contracts フレームワーク）です。払い出しは Project-Specific Smart Contract を通じてマイルストーンでゲートされ、承認には Intersect の admin・leadership・独立した trusted entity にまたがる定足数を要します。6 社の外部 Oversight Committee（Sundae Labs・Cardano Foundation・Dquadrant・NMKR・Sundial・Eternl）がオンチェーンロジックで主要な管理アクションを独立検証します。コントラクトは SPO にステークできず auto-abstain DRep に委任され、公開ダッシュボードでコミュニティが資金の流れを監査できます。これは SIPO が認める最強クラスの fund-control であり、SIPO が既に支持した Cardano Critical Integrations V2・Cardano Vision 2026・IO Hydra・Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure と同一の構造です。SIPO は Cardano Budget Process Framework に賛成しており、トレジャリー配分はこのルートで収斂・成熟すべきだと考えます。ルートを支持した以上、特段の瑕疵がない限りその産物を拒みません。本引き出しは Epoch 613〜713 を対象とする 350M Net Change Limit および guardrail TREASURY-02a に準拠しています。
本賛成に付す期待事項。(1) TRSC / PSSC を通じて、何が・誰に・どの成果物に対して払い出されたかをマイルストーン単位で報告し、公開ダッシュボードに反映すること。(2) 資金提供された成果のオープンソース公開を継続し、どこまでが baseline の保守で、どこからが新規開発かを明示すること。(3) Oversight Committee の独立性を維持し、受領者および Intersect の累計トレジャリー受領額を透明に追跡すること。(4) 他の資金提供済の取り組みとスコープが重複しうる場合、その境界をエコシステムレベルで明確化し、暗黙裡に重複しないようにすること。
本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Yes84.3M ₳Rationale
Intersect serves the ecosystem in very important coordination roles. I also haven't seen any viable alternative for those functions.
- YesRevoted76.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- YesChanged75.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
No26d agoSuperseded
- Yes74.5M ₳Rationale
I support this proposal because Intersect currently plays an important role in coordinating Cardano governance, network upgrades, incident response, repository stewardship, and ecosystem-wide operational activities.
As Cardano continues to decentralize, maintaining a neutral coordination layer remains important for the network's stability and resilience.
That said, this is a large funding request, and its outcomes are less tangible than open-source software deliverables. I therefore expect strong transparency through measurable KPIs, regular public reporting, and clear accountability for how treasury funds are used.
Overall, I believe this funding is justified at the current stage of Cardano's governance evolution, and I vote Yes, while encouraging continued improvements in efficiency, transparency, and long-term sustainability.
Intersectは、Cardanoのガバナンス運営、ネットワークアップグレードの調整、インシデント対応、リポジトリ管理など、現時点のエコシステムにおいて重要な役割を担っています。
特に、分散化が進む中で中立的な調整機能を維持することは、Cardanoの安定運用にとって必要であると考えます。
一方で、本提案は予算規模が大きく、成果がソフトウェアのように可視化されにくい性質があります。そのため、定量的な成果指標、透明性の高い進捗報告、支出の説明責任を継続的に果たすことを強く期待します。
総合的には、現時点ではCardanoの運営基盤を維持するために必要な投資であると判断し、賛成します。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on this proposal primarily for its critical focus on technical stewardship and ecosystem defense. I am hugely supportive of the security allocations here.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am voting YES on this proposal primarily for its critical focus on technical stewardship and ecosystem defense. I am hugely supportive of the security allocations here. Being well aware of the current threat landscape, with Cardano increasingly in the firing line, I want to reinforce the absolute necessity of not merely tracing and mitigating attacks, but proactively preventing them. Hardening our infrastructure must be a top priority, and that requires investing directly in the talented individuals within our ecosystem who have the expertise to fight back, assist and coordinate, ensuring trust.
On a personal note, I have been speaking with Jack on and off; he has consistently been extremely welcoming of feedback, and it is clear this receptive approach and ownership has driven the significant operational improvements we have seen over the past year. Funding this proposal ensures continuous network resilience, proactive security, and structured ecosystem coordination at an improved efficiency.
- Yes69.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes66M ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged53.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting Abstain on this proposal.
Recent concerns have been raised about oversight of Intersect's budget process and the management of potential conflicts of interest. Until those concerns are addressed transparently, I think it's best to abstain.
Earlier votes
Yes2d agoSuperseded
I am voting Yes on the Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical stewardship proposal.
Decentralization is core to Cardano, but I don't think it is a principle that can be applied equally to every operational domain.
Work where speed and clear accountability are decisive, such as core node maintenance, hard fork coordination, and incident response, is realistically handled more efficiently by a single accountable organization that can move quickly than by waiting on distributed community consensus. I see this proposal as addressing that kind of work.
- Intersect has an actual track record of performing this role.
The evidence is its coordination of two network upgrades and its leading of the response to the November 2025 chain partition incident. This is not an abstract promise but already-demonstrated operational capacity, and this backbone is still needed for the network's continuity and rapid response. That 74% of the budget (₳18.8M) is allocated to WP2 technical stewardship also shows that the essence of this proposal is core infrastructure operation, not organizational upkeep.
- It pairs a reduced ask with control mechanisms.
The request has been reduced from $7.875M to $6.35M compared to last year, and the structure includes milestone-based drawdowns, independent audit by Appold, and the return of unspent funds to the Treasury. The concern about concentrating funding in a single organization is legitimate, but I believe this proposal substantially mitigates that concern through its control mechanisms.
This Yes is not unconditional trust in Intersect as an organization, but a judgment about the practical necessity of operational continuity for the network.
- Yes50.5M ₳Rationale
Same rationale as the one presented for the Intersect budget.
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on this proposal. This year's Net Change Limit (NCL) has been set well above the level I consider sustainable. Under my published voting framework, an appropriate NCL is roughly 15% of the previous year's staking rewards (on the order of ₳82M), whereas the NCL currently in force is several times that amount. Because the treasury is already authorized to disburse far beyond my personal NCL threshold, I am voting No on all treasury withdrawal proposals until aggregate withdrawals are brought back within a sustainable limit — regardless of the individual merits of any single proposal. This vote reflects a position on total treasury spend, not a judgment on the value of your specific project. Reference: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem/ [Japanese version follows] 本提案に反対票を投じます。今年のNet Change Limit（NCL）は、私が持続可能と考える水準を大幅に上回って設定されています。公開済みの投票フレームワークでは、適正なNCLは前年のステーキング報酬の約15%（₳82M程度）ですが、現行のNCLはその数倍に達しています。トレジャリーは既に私のpersonal NCL（個人として許容する上限）を大きく超える出金が認められている状態にあるため、出金総額が持続可能な範囲に戻るまで、個別提案の良し悪しに関わらず、すべてのトレジャリー出金提案に反対票を投じます。本投票はトレジャリー支出全体に対する立場の表明であり、貴提案の価値そのものを否定するものではありません。参照: https://coffeepool.jp/notes/drep-voting-framework-for-sustainable-ecosystem-jp/
- Abstain50M ₳Rationale
Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.
More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703
- Yes49.5M ₳No rationale
- No47.6M ₳No rationale
- No40.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain37.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes36.9M ₳No rationale
- No34.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes34.3M ₳Rationale
Socious votes Yes. This 25,400,000 ADA withdrawal funds Intersect's core operations: coordinating network upgrades across Cardano's environments, incident response and security coordination, stewardship of critical repositories, and the committee structure — Technical Steering, Open Source, Civics, Product, and Budget — through which the ecosystem currently deliberates, sets technical direction, and budgets. This is the operational backbone of the very governance and budget process that vetted this cycle's vendor proposals, and defunding it mid-cycle would create coordination risk far out of proportion to the cost; the funds are disbursed under the smart-contract-controlled, milestone-based administration that governs the whole budget batch. Socious supports the Intersect budget process and votes Yes on the withdrawals that came through it.
Sociousは賛成します。本引き出し（25,400,000 ADA）はIntersectの中核業務 — Cardano全環境にわたるネットワークアップグレードの調整、インシデント対応とセキュリティ調整、重要リポジトリの管理、そしてエコシステムが審議・技術方針決定・予算編成を行う委員会機構（Technical Steering、Open Source、Civics、Product、Budget） — に資金を供給するものです。これは、今期のベンダー提案を審査した予算プロセスそのものを支える運営基盤であり、サイクル途中で資金を絶つことはコストに見合わない調整リスクを生みます。資金は予算バッチ全体に適用されるスマートコントラクト管理・マイルストーンベースの執行で支出されます。SociousはIntersectの予算プロセスを支持し、同プロセスを経た引き出しに賛成票を投じます。
- Yes31.4M ₳Rationale
The technical coordination, incident response, and core node stewardship included in this proposal constitute essential infrastructure required to maintain Cardano’s operational continuity. Under my voting criteria, these functions fall within “life‑support infrastructure,” which must be prioritized for Treasury funding. The proposal also provides measurable outputs, on‑chain verifiable fund flows through TRSC/PSSC smart contracts, and independent oversight via Appold and the Oversight Committee, satisfying my requirements for accountability and transparent governance.
While Intersect’s current reliance on Treasury funding remains a long‑term concern, the organization demonstrates strong governance controls and milestone‑based disbursement. I expect continued progress toward diversified funding models.
Based on the above, this proposal meets the threshold for approval under my consistent evaluation framework, and I vote Yes. - Yes30.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
Intersect has been quietly doing excellent work behind the scenes for some time now. In the past I have been skeptical about the many different shoes they tried to fill in the Cardano ecosystem, but they have exceeded my expectations in almost every domain. I regularly see Intersect members in committee meetings holding vendors accountable. And looking at the treasury withdrawal contracts still holding sizeable amounts of undisbursed funds, it's clear that they are doing their due diligence in their duties as the budget administrator to ensure that milestones are met. In many ways, Intersect has grown to be the organization that many of us felt were lacking with some of Cardano's founding entities. I am happy to continue subsidizing the many successes of Intersect with treasury funds by voting YES on this proposal.
- NoChanged27.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1mo agoSuperseded
- Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted26.1M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes29d agoSuperseded
Critical operational infrastructure. Supports technical stewardship, incident response, release coordination, repository management, and governance continuity. Reduces operational risk while improving ecosystem resilience.
- Yes25.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect. In addition to core administration services, Intersect is an important hub for bringing the ecosystem together to solve ecosystem problems.
- No23.5M ₳Rationale
No MBOs.
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal action “Intersect: Governance coordination and technical stewardship for the Cardano ecosystem” (b3d452bff7769d7f557ec6b8974760ee6c5e496c276652b654032966621e0ccf#4).
First of all, voting YES to the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) proposal while voting NO to the Intersect core proposal seems nonsensical to me. It is highly unlikely that the former would exist without the latter. Secondly, requests to unbundle the proposal while seeing the value in the technical element, while the technical element is ~75% of the ask here seems equally perplexing.
Voting as someone who is both an SPO and a DRep, I am someone who downloads the source code for node upgrades from the Intersect repositories, and for the van Rossem hard fork (and Chang and Plomin before that) I received my information from the Hard Fork Working Group, who have operated under the Intersect Technical Steering Committee and coordinated three hard forks now. What happens to these repositories and to future hard fork coordination if funding stops?
We are all so keen to see Leios come to fruition and yet are we prepared to pull the rug out from under the coordination layer that has successfully overseen three hard forks now? It is not just the technical when it comes to Leios either. Constitutional changes are required to accommodate new block types and parameters, and the Civics, Technical Steering and Parameter committees are already in discussions with IOG on the best way to move forward here. Without funding, will Intersect still be able to support this coordination through to Leios? Coordination is often unseen and unsexy work but it is often the critical work that takes place in the background. When I turn my bathroom taps on every morning, I don’t think about the plumbing and the processes that result in the clean water that comes out, it just happens, I only notice something wrong when something breaks or that plumbing is no longer there.
It is unfortunate that the 3% administration fee did not exist last year as it would have likely helped reduce the ask here this year now that the Treasury Reserve Smart Contract is showing 500M+ ada under administration. However, the realisation and the move to this administration fee model in 2026 is encouraging as it makes the 2026 funding more of a bridge to a more sustainable Intersect and less of a recurring treasury dependency. The fixed fee should mean that Intersects revenue from these services should scale with their utilisation going forward.
With the future of Emurgo uncertain and IOG moving more of the technical scaffolding towards Intersect, I don’t think now is a good time to possibly lose another major entity from the ecosystem. Intersect might not be perfect and everyone has their own opinions and views on what it should be but the unseen work that stewards the core blockchain technology is too valuable to be haggling over it at this critical juncture for Cardano.
- Yes21.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
As voted in Ekklesia, I vote yes on this proposal. I had hoped Intersect would bundle the winning proposals in one.
- No17.3M ₳Rationale
Withdraw 25,400,000 ada for Intersect: Governance coordination and technical ...
- No16.7M ₳Rationale
The main concern is that this is a very large withdrawal for Intersect’s core coordination and technical stewardship functions, but the proposal does not make the marginal value clear enough. A significant part of the scope appears to overlap with Intersect’s normal role as the ecosystem coordination body.
If these functions are essential to Intersect’s mandate, they should be presented with much clearer operational detail, measurable deliverables, spending breakdowns, and boundaries against other Intersect-related withdrawals.
We are also concerned about continued fragmentation of Intersect funding across multiple proposals. Intersect and its committees have already received significant treasury funding, and the ecosystem needs a clearer picture of total Intersect cost, recurring obligations, and what each additional withdrawal specifically adds.
This is not a vote against governance coordination or technical stewardship. It is a vote against approving another large operational withdrawal without stronger budget transparency, clearer accountability, and better separation from Intersect’s core budget.
- No14.1M ₳No rationale