Withdraw ₳26,840,000 for Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor...
183 DReps voted · 57 with a rationale · 1 changed their vote · 8 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, together voting with 153.8K ₳ of voting power.
- Yes11M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes9.5M ₳Rationale
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgMy votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgReady to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).
We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and seucrity) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.
My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt
- Yes7.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
I will keep the rationale brief for expediency - as 38 proposals were submitted concurrently by Intersect today. I voted YES for this proposal in the previous Ekklesia temp check and will vote YES now again.
The IOG proposal is a continuation of work on a several seemingly critical pieces of research for Cardano - as well as some new research. The team has delivered Cardano's unique architecture and vision. It is an omnibus proposal - I think some of these bundled research items seem clearly more important than others. Their timelines might be a bit questionable, and as all research, some will fizzle out. However, some research might lead to new strands of knowledge and Cardano - as a science-based blockchain - cannot stay static in an ever-shifting environment. This proposal also probably serves as a good example for other ambitious teams that may see this proposal as inspiration to deliver competing omnibus research proposals and competing research agendas for Cardano's future in 2026. Like IOG is doing here. - Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳Rationale
I support the IOG team's expertise to advance the Cardano roadmap through their proposed research initiatives.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
IOG has delivered much of Cardano’s foundational architecture through rigorous, peer-reviewed research. This proposal extends that work, funding 20 research streams and 6 technology validations in areas critical to Cardano’s evolution.
While the omnibus format includes streams of varying impact and a somewhat elevated FTE, Cardano’s research-first approach is a core differentiator, and continued investment in long-horizon R&D is essential to maintain its narrative and positioning in the L1 landscape. At STORM Partners, we support this as a strategic reinforcement of that vision. - Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳Rationale
Research driven advancement is the core value of Cardano. We should continue to re-invest into research.
Research driven advancement is the core value of Cardano. We should continue to re-invest into research.
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted4M ₳Rationale
In general, I believe IOG has delivered on the roadmap it promised in Miami in 2019. The organization has acted in good faith, transforming an idea into the robust ecosystem we have today.
A great deal of credit goes to Charles Hoskinson for his vision, leadership, and the long-term goals he set to build a better world. These ideals have guided Cardano’s development to this point.
As such, I am strongly inclined to continue funding IOG’s work to improve and expand the Cardano chain. I continue to place trust in their technical expertise and overarching vision for the ecosystem.
That said, I found this proposal difficult to vote for. I do not believe IOG, as the de facto leader of the ecosystem, has set an appropriately high standard for how funding requests should be presented in the Voltaire era. We are in a transitional phase—from IOG-led development to a more open, multi-developer ecosystem. I had expected IOG to set the benchmark during this shift, and in this proposal, I believe they fell short.
Specifically:
• I agree with the Cardano Foundation’s abstention rationale: IOG failed to adequately address legitimate community concerns. Reasonable requests for clarity around milestones, timelines, and KPIs—particularly for a large, publicly funded proposal—were largely ignored. Rather than engaging constructively, Charles publicly characterized these requests as personal attacks.
• While IOG is a trusted actor, a proposal that boils down to “trust us, we’ll do it right” sets a poor precedent—not just for IOG, but for all future proposers. Cardano needs a competitive funding process that minimizes overbilling, gold-plating, and unnecessary complexity. This proposal did not embrace that standard. It bundled disparate components into one massive, non-negotiable package, limiting meaningful community oversight and feedback.
• By leveraging its role as the chain’s most critical developer to present the proposal as an “approve it as-is or we walk” ultimatum, IOG crossed a line. This was an inappropriate use of its position.
• Finally, Charles’s public threats on Twitter about the consequences of rejecting the proposal were harmful to the very public budgeting process he helped envision. Voltaire governance is meant to empower non-specialist DReps who are still learning how to evaluate complex proposals. It requires patience and a collaborative tone. Heavy-handed responses to scrutiny hindered the growth of this process rather than advancing it.Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
In general, I believe IOG has delivered on the roadmap it promised in Miami in 2019. The organization has acted in good faith, transforming an idea into the robust ecosystem we have today.
A great deal of credit goes to Charles Hoskinson for his vision, leadership, and the long-term goals he set to build a better world. These ideals have guided Cardano’s development to this point.
As such, I am strongly inclined to continue funding IOG’s work to improve and expand the Cardano chain. I continue to place trust in their technical expertise and overarching vision for the ecosystem.
That said, I found this proposal difficult to vote for. I do not believe IOG, as the de facto leader of the ecosystem, has set an appropriately high standard for how funding requests should be presented in the Voltaire era. We are in a transitional phase—from IOG-led development to a more open, multi-developer ecosystem. I had expected IOG to set the benchmark during this shift, and in this proposal, I believe they fell short.
Specifically:
• I agree with the Cardano Foundation’s abstention rationale: IOG failed to adequately address legitimate community concerns. Reasonable requests for clarity around milestones, timelines, and KPIs—particularly for a large, publicly funded proposal—were largely ignored. Rather than engaging constructively, Charles publicly characterized these requests as personal attacks.
• While IOG is a trusted actor, a proposal that boils down to “trust us, we’ll do it right” sets a poor precedent—not just for IOG, but for all future proposers. Cardano needs a competitive funding process that minimizes overbilling, gold-plating, and unnecessary complexity. This proposal did not embrace that standard. It bundled disparate components into one massive, non-negotiable package, limiting meaningful community oversight and feedback.
• By leveraging its role as the chain’s most critical developer to present the proposal as an “approve it as-is or we walk” ultimatum, IOG crossed a line. This was an inappropriate use of its position.
• Finally, Charles’s public threats on Twitter about the consequences of rejecting the proposal were harmful to the very public budgeting process he helped envision. Voltaire governance is meant to empower non-specialist DReps who are still learning how to evaluate complex proposals. It requires patience and a collaborative tone. Heavy-handed responses to scrutiny hindered the growth of this process rather than advancing it. - Yes4M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.9M ₳Rationale
I'm voting yes, as per list described in my tweet:
https://x.com/OracleAltcoin/status/1917257059071934483Core engineering first, decentralization of influence and conservative with the treasury.
Strength and honor. - Yes3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳Rationale
I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Along with the core proposal, i still think we could use more favorable rates when it comes to FTEs. That said, i have been around this proposal since it was first submitted to the product committee. I think the team did a good job of listening to feedback and this is an important part of long term development. I voted yes.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Cardano Visionに基づく5年間の研究開発ロードマップの一環として、科学的エビデンスに基づくテーマ別研究を継続支援する提案であり、スケーラビリティ・相互運用性・持続可能性の中長期的な発展に貢献すると判断。研究成果がプロトコル実装に接続される仕組みも提示されており、適切な報告体制を前提に賛成します。
This proposal supports the continuation of Cardano Vision’s multi-year research agenda, focusing on long-term impact across scalability, interoperability, and sustainability. With a track record of peer-reviewed output and a funnel model connecting research to implementation, I support this proposal assuming transparent execution and reporting.
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Yes, IOG are the developers of Cardano, but questions arise regarding the rational use of funds and the pace of development. How many deadlines have been missed? How many initiatives have failed to reach completion within a reasonable timeframe? What about the Rust team? What about adhering to your own specifications during development? I support the continued growth of Cardano. I oppose monopolization. Abstain.
And why do you never mention the amounts earned by your private staking pools over the past 5 years? Seriously. Tens of millions of ADA. Isn’t that enough funding and motivation to continue developing the network?
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.5M ₳Rationale
I dont like setting the precedent that we need to constantly spend 10s of millions on research. There are some costs that companies should bear themselves. If tech companies want to stay in business they will do their own research regardless of whether this gets funded. I think abstaining is a good middle ground.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳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.
- Yes1.5M ₳Rationale
This kind of technical development is what we need. IOR has proven their skills and good faith already. It's critical for advancing Cardano’s scalability, sustainability, and interoperability, but also for continue writing papers that helps not only Cardano, but also Cryptos in general.
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳Rationale
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already undergone extensive scrutiny and received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision and the work these prospective developers have put in by voting yes on all the proposals from the Intersect Budget team.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale