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 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- No 793K ₳ Rationale
Prefer to see this one at Catalyst.
- No 791.4K ₳ Rationale
Cexplorer.io remains a widely used tool and is one that is greatly beneficial. However, the proposal, in my view, is far too vague for there to be a functional administration. The proposal aims to fund long term sustainability yet fails to provide any milestones nor a breakdown of overhead that would provide data to suggest a long-term plan of sustainability would be achieved with the funds received.
I believe trust in administration can only be obtained with defined processes within the proposal stage, as no further community control is afforded after passing. Therefore, even well intentioned, yet deserving entities not reaching this threshold of trust may not be funded without it.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
I have voted in favor of this action to demonstrates my intention to execute without delays and move the treasury expenditure process forward. I also want to note that I will not seriously consider individual requests from the treasury for less that 1,500,000 ADA moving forward. I reserve the right this round because I feel the process was not properly explained to proposers and DRep and it would be unfair to implement this personal guardrail at this time. Requests below that threshold are better suited for Catalyst funding or bundled together in MBO, DAO, or conglomerate entities. TWA (Treasury Withdrawal Actions) need be comprehensive and not ad hoc as that makes oversight more costly and inefficient.
A budget and all included line items has already been approved, and now is the time to disperse funding and enable further development of the Cardano network. The proposal was selected through a well-defined process, and I will fully support it out of respect for the will of the broader Cardano community and a belief in respecting the consensus we achieved together under the Intersect-administered budget process. The process reflects a coordinated, strategic approach to funding Cardano’s ecosystem-critical infrastructure. The community has thoroughly reviewed the proposal. I was actively involved in the entire process and the proposal presented represents development that provides a tangible benefit to our ecosystem. It would be a mistake to underfund our ecosystem’s development when we can sustainably provide the required funding with our available treasury reserves.
Furthermore there are exceptional oversight mechanisms in place to ensure a minimum amount of wast, fraud, and abuse of treasury expenditures, such as Intersect’s smart contract framework (audited by TxPipe and MLabs), Multi-party oversight (including Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, NMKR, etc.), A clear milestone-driven disbursement model, and full transparency via TRSC/PSSC dashboards.
These governance and assurance systems meet the constitutional standards for accountability and risk management and provide confidence in efficiency and execution. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 502K ₳ Rationale
I would be a hypocrite if i voted no on this one. I use it like everyday, and i know that revenue streams for these typeof tools are very very limited, yet they keep delivering. 50,000+ monthly users don't lie about utility. Blockchain explorers are critical infrastructure that everyone uses but somehow nobody wants to fund until they break.
- Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 431.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Krypto Labs have taken part in the budget debates and agree with proposer that this is something the Cardano blockchain ecosystem need.
I started with making a rationale and arguement for each proposal, but to save time i need to do bulk voting to speed this prosess up. - Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 371.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 323.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ Rationale
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ Rationale
I’m voting YES to fund Cexplorer.io, a widely used, developer-focused blockchain explorer that provides valuable insights and tooling for the Cardano ecosystem. This funding supports critical infrastructure maintenance, bug fixes, and feature development to sustain long-term usability.
While the proposal indicates plans to open-source the platform, it is not yet fully open-source. I expect to see clear progress toward open-sourcing reflected in milestones. If future proposals from this team do not demonstrate meaningful movement in this area, I will not continue to support further funding requests.
This vote aligns with my DRep priorities of supporting strong, sustainable infrastructure while promoting openness and community-driven development.
- Yes 298.6K ₳ Rationale
I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 258.6K ₳ Rationale
🗳 Governance Action Review
Proposal: Withdraw ₳266,667 for Cexplorer.io – Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer for Cardano
Vendor: Cexplorer.io (administered by Intersect)
Governance Action ID: gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlpyflfc4s
Submitted: 18 July 2025
Expires: 17 August 2025
Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Budget Requested: ₳266,667🧭 Evaluation Methodology and Rationale
Due to the volume and complexity of Governance Actions submitted in this cycle, a full deep-dive into each technical and budgetary scope was infeasible within the available voting window.Rather than abstain, I applied a hybrid evaluation methodology: AI-assisted content parsing combined with structured human review. A standardized checklist guided all assessments, with deliberate human judgment applied to all final decisions. No vote was cast without manual validation of feasibility, scope alignment, and accountability.
📋 Evaluation Checklist
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → 🟡 Partial
📌 Evidence:“Cexplorer.io serves over 50,000 monthly users and processes millions of data requests…”
“It supports developers, SPOs, researchers, and everyday users with tools for exploring transactions, addresses, tokens, and stake pools.”🔍 Analysis:
Cexplorer is a mature, well-maintained, and widely adopted explorer. With over 50,000 monthly users and millions of data requests served, it demonstrates clear utility and trust from the Cardano community.This strong usage serves as a compelling value proposition, underscoring its effectiveness and relevance. However, high adoption alone does not establish systemic uniqueness. The ecosystem already benefits from a range of explorers and data tools — including Koios, Blockfrost, Cardanoscan, Adastat, and others — which provide overlapping functionality for many of the same use cases.
While Cexplorer may offer unique/performance advantages and UX refinement, the proposal does not establish it as a strategically irreplaceable or infrastructure-critical component. Its role is important, but complementary — reinforcing ecosystem resilience rather than forming a single point of dependency.
Accordingly, the proposal partially meets the threshold of ecosystem essentiality.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → 🟡 Partial
📌 Evidence:“Milestone 1: ₳66,667... Milestone 2: ₳66,667... etc.”
“Team Size: 2 backend developers, 1 frontend developer, 1 part-time UI/UX designer, 1 DevOps, 1 part-time coordinator.”
“Fixed-price milestone contract.”🔍 Analysis:
The budget is reasonably structured, with total costs evenly distributed across four project phases. Team roles are defined and correlate with deliverables. However, no detailed line-item breakdown is provided by cost category (e.g., infrastructure, design, QA, DevOps, audit).This lack of granularity weakens transparency and makes it harder to assess proportionality of labor vs. tooling vs. hosting vs. management. For ₳266,667 over 18 months, a clearer breakdown would have improved accountability.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → ❌ No
📌 Evidence:“Continuous uptime of core services (>99.9% availability)”
🔍 Analysis:
The proposal includes only a single forward-facing KPI — maintaining >99.9% uptime for the explorer — which, while technically relevant, is wholly insufficient as a measure of impact.Despite referencing strong historical usage metrics (50,000+ monthly users), the team failed to define future-facing adoption or engagement targets. No KPIs are presented for:
Growth in user base
API usage or developer integrations
Performance improvements (e.g. latency, throughput)
New user acquisition
Developer satisfaction or feature adoption
Community-reported usage or impact proxies
For a proposal claiming to enhance developer experience and platform accessibility, the absence of even baseline success metrics raises concerns. Without measurable outcomes, it's impossible to gauge whether the proposed work will meaningfully advance the platform’s utility, reach, or ecosystem alignment.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → ✅ Yes
📌 Evidence:
The proposal outlines four fixed-price milestones of ₳66,667 each, covering a 12–18 month period. Each milestone includes a general description of focus areas and expected outputs.Definitions of Done are presented in qualitative terms (e.g., “continuous uptime,” “feature publicly released,” “documentation published”).
🔍 Analysis:
The milestone structure is coherent and matches the nature of the proposed work. It reflects a reasonable phased approach to infrastructure maintenance, platform evolution, and developer experience enhancement. The timeline and deliverable types align with standard expectations for long-term platform support.However, acceptance criteria lack precision. The proposal does not include measurable targets, functional specifications, or verification methods for each milestone.
While such omissions are not uncommon in infrastructure funding proposals, greater specificity would enhance auditability, strengthen accountability, and reduce ambiguity during milestone reviews.
Overall, the milestone plan is structurally sound but would benefit from clearer acceptance thresholds.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
📌 Evidence:Total budget (₳266,667) matches milestone allocation (4 x ₳66,667)
ADA-to-EUR conversion (₳266,667 ≈ €185,000) is coherent
Metadata, scope, and delivery framework are aligned across all sources
🔍 Analysis:
The proposal is internally coherent. All components — budget, timeline, and deliverables — are consistent with each other. The legal contracting process with Intersect is clearly defined. No inconsistencies or structural contradictions were identified.6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → ✅ Yes
📌 Evidence:“Cexplorer.io (formerly Adapools) has been live since 2020…”
“The team has strong experience in backend systems, frontend development, API design, and DevOps...”
“The team has successfully delivered one Catalyst-funded project, with two more in progress.”🔍 Analysis:
The team is well-established in the Cardano ecosystem, with a verifiable track record of delivery. Cexplorer has been publicly available and actively maintained. The team is technically capable and has completed one Project Catalyst-funded proposal, with two others nearing completion.Importantly, we reviewed the scopes of those two ongoing Catalyst proposals — “Cexplorer 2.0” and “Advanced DRep & SPO Analytics” — to assess for potential redundancy. Based on milestone documentation and stated outcomes, there appears to be no significant scope or budget overlap with the current Governance Action.
While there is some thematic alignment (e.g., developer features, SPO insights), the Catalyst-funded projects focused on one-time platform redevelopment and a discrete analytics module. In contrast, this proposal addresses post-launch infrastructure support, operational continuity, incremental improvements, and ongoing developer engagement over 12 to 18 months.
This continuity is consistent with long-term infrastructure stewardship. However, as with all treasury-funded work, continued transparency and community oversight will be essential to ensure clear separation of scope and accountability over time.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest → ✅ No known conflict
🔍 Analysis:
There is no direct, material conflict of interest between the evaluator and the proposal team. If such a conflict were to arise, I would abstain from voting as per my policy.🧠 Critical Summary
This proposal requests ₳266,667 to fund the ongoing maintenance and incremental development of Cexplorer.io — a widely used Cardano blockchain explorer focused on developer experience. The team is technically capable and has a solid history of delivery within the ecosystem, including prior successful Catalyst-funded projects. The structure of the proposal is coherent, the budget is proportionally framed, and the project phases are reasonably articulated.However, the lack of outcome-oriented KPIs, the absence of measurable impact targets, and the minimal granularity in cost justification raise concerns around strategic accountability and transparency. While the proposal refers to significant historical usage, it fails to define how continued treasury funding would result in measurable gains for the ecosystem. Acceptance criteria are vague, and qualitative claims (e.g., improving UX or reducing friction) are not verifiable.
Notably, an audit of the team’s ongoing Catalyst projects suggests no significant scope duplication, and this Governance Action appears to serve as a logical continuation — funding long-term sustainability after the delivery of Cexplorer 2.0.
This proposal stands at the intersection of justified continuity and under-specified accountability. It offers value, but does not meet the full bar of rigor expected for funding at this level.
🗳 Voting Decision: ABSTAIN
Rationale:
While the proposal presents clear strengths — including team credibility, ecosystem relevance, and operational readiness — it lacks sufficient impact framing, success metrics, and auditability to justify an unequivocal YES. At the same time, the proposal’s overall structure, continuity of scope, and absence of critical flaws do not justify a NO.Given this balance of considerations, I will abstain from voting. My abstention reflects both the importance of supporting infrastructure continuity and the need to uphold standards of accountability and measurable outcomes in treasury-funded work.
- Yes 257K ₳ Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal for ₳266,667 to support Cexplorer.io, a critical and high-usage blockchain explorer providing Cardano developers, stake pool operators, and the broader community with real-time, detailed blockchain insights. The proposal's continuous maintenance and planned enhancements ensure that Cexplorer remains reliable, scalable, and equipped with advanced features tailored to ecosystem needs.
The vendor team brings solid, proven experience in backend and frontend blockchain infrastructure with specific Cardano knowledge and architectural expertise. The contract management embeds clear milestones and acceptance criteria, with third-party milestone assurors and community transparency supported on-chain via Sundae Labs treasury smart contracts.
The budget request is reasonable for operational continuity and planned expansions, with a strong value proposition in maintaining critical infrastructure that underpins ecosystem transparency and developer productivity. Cexplorer.io’s position as a trusted platform with significant monthly user engagement highlights its importance.
The governance framework around contract delivery, treasury management, and oversight committee controls adequately mitigate risks related to execution and fund management.
Approval of this proposal will sustain and grow a foundational tool that directly benefits Cardano’s developer experience, staking community, and research efforts — integral to Cardano’s ecosystem health and growth.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
With 50,000+ monthly users and robust tools for transactions, stake pools, and governance, Cexplorer.io enhances Cardano’s transparency and dApp ecosystem, justifying this investment. The team’s proven track record, delivering reliable performance since 2020 and nearing completion of Cexplorer 2.0. However, this is a one-time YES vote. I expect the vendor to pursue self-sustainability (e.g., user fees or partnerships) for future funding, as Cardano’s treasury should not repeatedly subsidize private vendors.
- Yes 206.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 190.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 184.4K ₳ Rationale
I am voting yes on all 39 Intersect Governance actions. The community has thoroughly reviewed the many proposals presented in the Intersect Budget Process for the 2025 budget. I was deeply involved in the entire process as an SME for the Budget Committee, and then as the Secretary for the Budget Committee.
The proposals presented represent an incredible amount of development for our ecosystem for the next year. The teams all received at least 50% on Ekklesia polling. The teams will face milestones in order to continue to receive funding. If a team fails to deliver, the process will stop them from enriching themselves without returning value.
If anything, we are spending too little on our community. We need to spend more to further develop our governance and our organized events. This is a liquid democracy. If you believe that all of these proposals deserve a chance to deliver, you can shift your delegation to my DRep ID.
- Yes 180.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 177.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 143.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 137.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 111.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 103K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 88.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 64.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 59.6K ₳ No rationale