Withdraw ₳266,667 for Cexplorer.io -- Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer...
168 DReps voted · 50 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
「275M ADA Administered by Intersect」に含まれるすべての個別提案に対して、エクレシア投票の段階では必ずしもすべてに賛成していたわけではありませんが、最終的には本ガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じました。Cardanoエコシステム全体への貢献を高く評価し、その前進を後押しする立場から、今回提出された39件すべての提案に賛成票を投じる判断をいたしました。\n\nWhile I did not necessarily support every individual proposal included in "275M ADA Administered by Intersect" during the Ekklesia vote, I ultimately voted Yes on this governance action. Recognizing its overall contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and in support of continued progress, I cast a Yes vote on all 39 proposals submitted under this initiative.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
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
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
Cexplorer is a mature, widely used piece of infrastructure with over 50K MAUs, maintained by a proven team. It offers clear value to developers and SPOs and has a history of consistent delivery. The funding request is reasonable, the proposal is well-structured, and there’s ongoing plans of open-sourcing.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Explorer infrastructure is critical to the ecosystem.
Explorer infrastructure is critical to the ecosystem.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES because core engineering is the priority of my DRep account.
Strength and honor.
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ 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 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.
- Abstain 2.6M ₳ Rationale
I abstained from voting on Adastat to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. In this case as well, I’m taking a neutral stance.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Product works well and the community makes good usage of this. The cost is reasonable enough
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Cexplorer.ioは50,000人/月以上の利用者を持ち、開発者やSPOにとって実用的な高性能ブロックチェーンエクスプローラーとして機能しています。既に多くのdApp・モニタリング用途で使われており、透明性と開発支援の観点からの公共財としての価値が高いため、賛成します。
Cexplorer.io is a widely used and high-performance Cardano explorer serving developers, SPOs, and users with real-time blockchain insights. Its proven utility, traffic, and enhancement roadmap make it a valuable public good. I vote in favor.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Team has shown they are capable and upgrading their platform to help bring visibility to governance.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Cexplorer has a proven track record and is a widely used tool in the Cardano ecosystem. The funding request appears reasonable given its scope and impact. I’ve tested the Cexplorer 2.0 beta and am impressed by the progress made.
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Deliverables are vague. Not fully open source.
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.
It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.
I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:
- Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
- Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
- Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
- I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.
I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:
❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
The Cardano ecosystem already hosts multiple blockchain explorers, including mature, well-supported platforms like Cardanoscan and PoolTool, each catering to different user segments—from casual users to developers and SPOs. The question is not whether explorers are needed—they clearly are—but how many are sustainable and justified given our treasury constraints and strategic priorities.
Cexplorer.io claims 50,000 monthly users and millions of data requests, which is respectable, but nowhere near the scale of the leading explorers. The proposal lacks a clear differentiation strategy that justifies funding a third or fourth major explorer. It does not convincingly demonstrate unique features or innovations that would significantly advance Cardano’s transparency or developer experience beyond what existing explorers already provide.
Furthermore, the proposal’s motivation and rationale are vague and generic: "improve UX," "expand team," "ensure stability," and "continuous improvement" are standard maintenance requests that do not explain why this specific platform deserves substantial treasury funding rather than relying on community support or commercial models.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale