Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
211 DReps voted · 78 with a rationale · 13 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes19.9M ₳Rationale
As a Drep, I vote yes on this proposal in line with my Ekklesia vote earlier this year.
- No17.4M ₳Rationale
Project Catalyst is the more appropriate mechanism to seek funding such a project.
- Yes17.3M ₳No rationale
- No16.7M ₳Rationale
Long-Term Sustainability
While real-world asset (RWA) tokenization is a promising narrative, this proposal lacks sufficient detail to prove it will deliver sustainable value to the Cardano ecosystem. The use of treasury funds to subsidize an unproven business model carries high strategic and reputational risk.Builder and Ecosystem Growth
The proposal does not offer infrastructure, tooling, or reusable components that benefit Cardano developers or projects. It primarily supports a single vertical use case with unclear technical, legal, or economic frameworks.Decentralization and Community Engagement
There is no transparency on how assets will be selected, who controls the platform, or how the community participates. The proposal is structurally centralized and offers no assurances of open access or governance input.Responsible Treasury Spending
₳3,000,000 is a massive ask for a speculative, profit-driven venture with limited ecosystem integration and unclear delivery terms. The risk-to-return ratio is far too high, and public funds should not serve as seed capital for opaque real estate projects. We strongly recommend voting NO. - Yes16.4M ₳Rationale
Treasury withdrawals
Software Development Proposals:
Development budgets should not be funded from the treasury. Instead, the treasury should be used to incentivize feature completion through grants. The treasury should not operate as a venture capital fund or to fund ongoing development budgets. It should be results oriented and decoupled from budgeting. Dracula DAO Deep will make exceptions this round for projects that deliver specific, high value features or results at a reasonable ask amount.Marketing Proposals:
Marketing budgets are the best way to fund these types of efforts. Judgement should be used based on the ask amount and value proposition.Research Proposals:
Research budgets should be evaluated based on the track record of the team being funded, the value proposition and whether the results are released to the public.DAO Funding:
DraculaDAO believes DAOs should find other ways to support operations other than public treasury funds.Bitcoin:
Dracula DAO Deep is against purchasing Bitcoin with treasury funds, and are generally not in favor of a tight Bitcoin / Cardano partnership. Bitcoin DeFi is ok as long as the value proposition remains with Cardano. Cardano is already Bitcoin++ and treasury funds should not be used to encourage or sustain BTC energy waste and outdated consensus model.Yes - MLabs Core Tool Maintenance. Ask is reasonable.
Yes - Midgard Optimistic Rollups. This is urgently needed as an L2 solution for Cardano and the ask is reasonable.
Yes - Hardware Wallets Maintenance. This is necessary and ask is reasonable.
Yes - Pallas Rust Tooling. Core tooling used by many projects and ask is reasonable for the specific deliverable.
Yes - UTxO RPC
Yes - Lucid Evolution Maintenance
Yes - zkFold ZK Rollup
Yes - Dolos. Ask is reasonable with specific deliverable.
Yes - Ledger App rewrite
Yes - Paid Open Source Model. This looks like a nice way to take the VC function out of the treasury and start towards incentivizing projects through features and benefits like bug bounties. Willing to take a chance on this, but will vote no in the future if results are disappointing.
Yes - Gerolamo node in typescript
Yes - MLabs Core Tools: Plutarch. Ask is reasonable
Yes - ZK Bridge
Yes - Eternal maintenance
Yes - Scalus Development Platform
Yes - Cexplorer.io
Yes - Native Asset CDN
Yes - Adastat.net
Yes - Intersect MBO. DraculaDAO does not like the high ask amount and the budgeting approach, but for Intersect MBO there may not be a better way like there is with software development. Therefore DraculaDAO supports this proposal, realizing this possibly breaks with the general guidelines DraculaDAO described above.
Yes - Beyond Minimum Viable Governance. Focused feature set and reasonable ask. IOHK should use this approach for all its teams.
Yes - Cardano Summit
Yes - Unified Global Events Marketing
Yes - Quadratic Funding. Reasonable ask for a specific feature.
Yes - Cardano Ecosystem Pavilions
Yes - High-yield RWA Asset. Direct communication with this vendor increased our faith in this project and have changed our stance on this.
Yes - Expanding Stablecoin / Native Asset Support. This was marginal in terms of ask amount and number of features grouped together.
Yes - OpShin
Yes - PyCardano
Yes - Cardano Product Committee
Yes - BloxBean Java Tools
Yes - Input Output Research
Yes - MLabs ResearchAbstain - Input Output Core Development. This is simply a warning shot as DraculaDAO expects this proposal will pass. We are generally in favor of the initiatives and features being delivered by IOHK, but believe the ask is too high as a single budget line item and do not want to set a precedent of another ask of similar magnitude for the next budget cycle. Instead, IOHK should divide its deliverables into features and ask the treasury for grant incentives delivered on completion of the each feature (see Beyond Minimum Viable Governance as what we see as a good example). We are not in favor of such a large withdrawal encompassing such a large number of features. In general we do not support using the treasury for budget line items as mentioned in the introduction to this rationale.
Abstain - Blockfrost Community Budget. We support Blockfrost and operate an icebreaker node. There are no specific features mentioned, just an ongoing budget line item, which we do not support. We will support Blockfrost in other ways.No - Web3 developer stack for Bitcoin integration. DraculaDAO does not support a tight integration with Bitcoin.
No - TWEAG Proposals. We see value there but the ask is too large and too many deliverables bundled together.
No - Catalyst 2025. Ask is too large as a single budget request.
No - Cardano Builder DAO. Treasury should not be used to incentivize features, not fund ongoing budgets for software development or DAOs.
No - Market making should have other ways to fund operations. - Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- No13.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳Rationale
RCADA has chosen to abstain at this time while reserving the option to review and update this vote prior to the voting deadline. This approach allows RCADA to allocate focus where immediate evaluation is most impactful, particularly on proposals that are close to threshold or raise significant procedural or constitutional concerns. If this proposal reaches the approv-al threshold prior to our review, the abstention will stand as a neutral signal of deferral, not op-position. Should further analysis be warranted, RCADA will update this vote accordingly.
- YesRevoted12.1M ₳Rationale
Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.
We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.
Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.
Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.
In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.
Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.
Earlier votes
Yes0y agoSuperseded
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.8M ₳Rationale
I do not observe the proposer as a positive actor that will advocate for the Cardano ecosystem as a top-priority. I do not consider the value-delivery as a considerable benefit because proposer has not demonstrated a genuine desire to build in the Cardano ecosystem without treasury funding.
- Yes10.8M ₳No rationale
- No10.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes8.8M ₳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.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I voted NO on the HAUS proposal to "Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate" in the Ekklesia voting tool. It is admittedly an interesting proposal and with Emurgo's renewed focus on RWAs under the leadership of new CEO P. Pon - I though I should pay more attention to the RWAs side of blockchain. So, I reread this proposal carefully.
The vendor wants to build an open-source Tokenized Home Equity Liquidity Protocol... and adds that they prototyped and deployed this model on a private Ethereum blockchain (not sure which one - maybe they should have mentioned which one and how it works now exactly - with some more flesh on the bones).
One problem I have with the proposal is that the case for moving from Ethereum to Cardano is not well explained. The failure or lack of success or maybe success (?) on Ethereum is also glossed over. We have an attached document on "Why Cardano is the Ideal Blockchain for Haus" - however the document is pretty shallow in my view. Also, if it is entitled "Why Cardano is the Ideal Blockchain" ... I would presume that the vendor would not even require Treasury funds for the move - "Ideal" is a pretty strong word for a business to use.
I would have loved to read about when Haus chose Ethereum and why did it not play out. Who made the decision to launch on Ethereum and why was that a mistake (if it was?). What was the main bottleneck - was it the L1 blockchain? Or was that a side issue. I just needed to read something that pinpoints that this marriage to Cardano is THE missing piece for HAUS (and by proxy for Cardano).
There also seems to have been an add on LinkedIn earlier this year about Haus Coin hiring a dev for a migration to Solana. The team responded that "1️ Solana was part of early exploration 2️ Today, Haus is focused on Cardano" [ https://x.com/haus/status/1949573434406789289 ], they also added "Thank you, great question. We think Solana is an incredible ecosystem: the developer energy, user growth, and innovation in DeFi and payments are undeniable. We’ve had great conversations with teams there. For Haus, the decision to focus on Cardano for this next phase isn’t about rejecting Solana, but about aligning with the specific things we need right now, namely, a deeply research-driven approach to security, a robust identity framework, and a governance model designed for real-world asset tokenization." [ https://x.com/haus/status/1949574817105248714 ] .
However, fortunately for HAUS, I found the "The Haus Protocol: A Technical Blueprint for Onboarding $34.5T of Real-World Home Equity to Cardanoblog post on Essential Cardano [ https://www.essentialcardano.io/article/the-haus-protocol-a-technical-blueprint-for-onboarding-dollar345t-of-real-world-home-equity-to-cardano ] - I did not see it linked on the ADA Stat governance page - nor on Gov Tools. Actually, this document - the technical blueprint - is probably the strongest supporting material they could have produced - shame they didn't link it to the governance action.
The Technical Blueprint seems an impressive piece of work and analysis: it proves the team understands Cardano’s primitives (eUTXO, CIP‑68 NFTs, Aiken, multi‑oracle patterns) and sketches a credible path to plug $HAUS into the general Cardano scene.
The team states that key infrastructure components and design patterns will be open‑sourced and audited by two Cardano‑specialist firms. They also propose to make sure that treasury grants get “repaid from a percentage of protocol operating profits”.
$HAUS coin seems to be a security. As such, its issuance and transfer are subject to securities regulations. They do outline how non‑accredited investors could join later, however this remains a plan and that filing has not started.
There are some unverified asset and revenue claims, such as the $20 million TVL, the 30,000 strong waitlist and $4.1 B pipeline are still self‑reported; no on‑chain proofs, no auditor letters.
Haus Coin on LinkedIn defines itself as a "A Cryptocurrency Revolution in Real Estate", but has 67 followers and 2-10 employees. I don't see the traction there, although I might be wrong.
The open source commitment isprospective, not evidence of an OSS repo for the ETH version today. The offered budget is a bit of a black box, lacking granularity for the ₳ 3 M ask.
Generally, I am not keen on blockchain migration proposals - when they are dependent on financing from the next blockchain that a project migrates to. Yes, it does make sense on paper - but it leaves open questions of whether these projects will always migrate to the newest platform / L1 that offers financing for migration.
What I am keen about is reading about the problems and failures and mistakes on the original L1 platform. Yet, this is usually glossed over. I mean I want details. Real nitty gritty details. I didn't see that here. I want to be convinced that this migration to Cardano is the only possible solution - or bust. That would convince me that the business model is not the problem nor the leadership - but the platform.
Anyhow, too big of an ask and risk at this moment for my appetite - I think its not a good fit for Treasury funding. Thank to the team for submitting the proposal, but I think we can spend the 3M ADA better with teams that have already deployed and committed to Cardano - by investing their own resources into Cardano - as a first step. Maybe try to build on Cardano if you believe in it so much - and then try to ask for additional Treasury funding to expand your project. Your first ask is too big for the associated risk of having the Treasury invest in your migration. - No7.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.4M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged5.9M ₳Rationale
UPDATED TO YES: https://x.com/mr_cata/status/1953907893537059110
I'm in support of the risk and challenge here to take on this type of new product development on Cardano that aims to tap into a large real estate market.
Prior Statement
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 security) -- 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
Earlier votes
Abstain11mo agoSuperseded
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 security) -- 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
- No5.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged5.3M ₳Rationale
After a closer review of the Haus proposal and deeper alignment with Cardano’s long-term strategic goals, we’ve decided to change our vote from Abstain to Yes. While initial concerns centred on execution risk, further analysis revealed key differentiators: over 30,000 users on the waitlist and a clear path to unlocking $4.1B in tokenizable equity. This positions Haus not just as a technical deployment, but as a catalytic opportunity to elevate Cardano into the top tier of real-world asset ecosystems—at a time when credible RWA traction is still rare across chains.
Equally important, the funding structure is milestone-gated, auditable, and profit-aligned with the treasury—mitigating delivery risk while reinforcing Cardano’s public-good ethos. In our view, this proposal now represents a strategic fit with Cardano’s vision as reliable infrastructure for high-assurance financial applications. We believe supporting it sends the proper signal to other institutional-grade builders exploring the ecosystem.
Earlier votes
Abstain0y agoSuperseded
STORM Partners is abstaining from this vote. While the proposal demonstrates strong narrative and includes positive signals (such as open-source promises and a commitment to repay profits to the treasury) we believe it is still early to assess the real impact of Haus' migration to Cardano. Given the high funding amount and ambitious scope, we prefer to see more concrete traction and initial delivery milestones completed before signalling support. We remain open to revisiting our position in future funding rounds, and recommend the Haus team to apply via the Catalyst Partner integration track.
- No4.8M ₳Rationale
Does not prove how 3M ADA treasury withdrawal will return in the equivalent or more value back to the ecosystem.
Does not prove how 3M ADA treasury withdrawal will return in the equivalent or more value back to the ecosystem.
- Yes4.7M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted4.4M ₳Rationale
I have chosen to support core Cardano technology developed by established teams and community members who have consistently demonstrated their dedication and expertise, particularly through the bear market. However, while the Haus team's project shows significant promise, their requested funding amount is excessive. I believe their proposal would be better suited for consideration among the upcoming Catalyst proposals in Fund 14.
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
I have chosen to support core Cardano technology developed by established teams and community members who have consistently demonstrated their dedication and expertise, particularly through the bear market. However, while the Haus team's project shows significant promise, their requested funding amount is excessive. I believe their proposal would be better suited for consideration among the upcoming Catalyst proposals in Fund 14.
- No4.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos pela "ABSTENÇÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlrqcx4rvx), pois não conseguimos visualizar efetivamente como os recursos solicitados para migração da plataforma do Ethereum para Cardano poderão desbloquear efetivamente liquidez adicional para o ecossistema Cardano. Sugerimos que o projeto busque financiamento de forma incremental através do Catalyst.
[English]
We chose "ABSTENTION" on this governance action (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlrqcx4rvx), because we cannot effectively see how the resources requested for migrating the platform from Ethereum to Cardano would actually unlock additional liquidity for the Cardano ecosystem. We suggest that the project seek funding incrementally through Catalyst. - No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
I can not in good conscience approve this withdrawal as there are too many flags for me : 1) This appears to be an opportunistic move to Cardano only if they receive treasury funding, and the team is otherwise not committed to being here. 2) I question the validity of the product after using the current versions. 3) I believe this should be risk capital funded and not public treasury funds.
- Yes3.8M ₳Rationale
I vote YES as RWAs are a top priority of the DRep:
- No3.7M ₳No rationale
- No3.4M ₳No rationale
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
This is a high risk proposal that is requesting community funding for a service that is for profit and should be getting funding from investment, a token sale, or from service fees instead of a community donation.
- No3M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳Rationale
I don’t consider this proposal important enough for the Cardano ecosystem to warrant funding from the treasury. It feels more like an investment pitch. Why should the ecosystem fund a closed, private project? Why does a project with such a large user base and revenue even need funding from the Cardano treasury in the first place?
- AbstainChanged2.8M ₳Rationale
After a more thorough review and recent community findings i have decided to change my vote to Abstain on this proposal
Earlier votes
Yes0y agoSuperseded
This proposal was thorough. Open-source. I have personally met with the Haus team and think they are fit to deliver.
- No2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳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 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.
- Yes2.6M ₳Rationale
米国住宅資産を裏付けとするリアルワールドアセット（RWA）プロトコルのCardano移植提案であり、実需性と社会的インパクトを兼ね備えたユースケースです。Hausの実績とCardanoへの移行方針、発行予定のHausCoinの設計が明確であり、₳3Mの初期導入投資として妥当と判断し賛成します。
This proposal brings a tokenized home equity protocol onto Cardano, unlocking real-world real estate liquidity and expanding RWA adoption. With a defined migration plan, a working product, and a clear tokenization model (HausCoin), I vote in favor as a strategic entry into RWA.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Getting into tokenized real estate comes with legal and regulatory challenges. Homes are things people stake their lives on and in the quickly moving blockchain space, any sort of hack or exploit could be detrimental to families. We should approach with caution and wait for further clarity and robust infrastructure. There are also challenges regarding transparency of the homes state, valuations in the bubbling housing market, and more. I am not against this idea in general, but it is too early to bet 3M on something that only a small fraction would even consider.
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale