Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
211 DReps voted · 79 with a rationale · 8 changed their vote · 4 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 5 to yes, 1 to no, 2 to abstain, together voting with 151M ₳ of voting power.
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
I am voting no for this governance action, as Catalyst is better suited for testing such ideas. The proposal risks significant funds with a team that has not yet built on Cardano. While I support projects that are new to the ecosystem, initial community funding should be more limited to confirm the team’s ability to deliver, and should be requested through Catalyst rather than as a treasury withdrawal.
- No1.6M ₳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.
- No1.5M ₳Rationale
The cost is too high keeping in mind the Regulatory complexity that it will have (different states different regulations that might change over time), and reliance on unproven waitlist conversion
Too risky - No1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳Rationale
DRep voting Update:
NO Vote Rationale – Haus Tokenized Real Estate (₳3,000,000 Treasury Withdrawal)
This is a tough decision, as the proposal targets a promising real-world asset tokenization use case that aligns well with Cardano’s long-term vision. However, at this stage, I believe the requested funding level is premature.
With a significantly lower budget, I would be more open to supporting it as an experimental pilot. Additional independently verifiable details about the team would also improve confidence. I encourage the proposers to refine their approach and consider reapplying in a future round or through Project Catalyst, where a phased entry could better validate their model. The concept has potential, and I hope to see it develop further.
DREP ID: drep1y2jd3c4hg...2e9zm6
VOTE0023
- 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.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I appreciate the Haus team's effort in developing a product that has the potential to connect Real World Assets (RWA) with Cardano through real estate tokenization.
However, I have decided to vote No on the ₳3,000,000 treasury withdrawal proposal for the following reasons:
Lack of an open and competitive selection process:
This proposal did not emerge from a transparent or competitive process among similar RWA projects. Funding a single vendor with such a large amount without a fair selection mechanism poses risks to transparency and budget efficiency.Insufficient basis to measure impact on Cardano:
While the team has deployed on Ethereum and presents impressive TVL numbers, there is no concrete evidence that this model is suitable for or will gain traction within the Cardano ecosystem.Unclear legal readiness:
Real estate tokenization involves complex regulatory requirements in the U.S., EU, and globally. The proposal does not provide sufficient clarity on how these legal hurdles will be addressed, especially as the product transitions to Cardano.No prior contribution to Cardano ecosystem:
Given limited resources and the number of long-standing builders in need of support, I prioritize proposals from teams with a demonstrated commitment and history of contribution to Cardano.In the spirit of protecting fairness, transparency, and effective use of public funds within the ecosystem, I do not support this proposal at this time.
Vietnamese
Tôi đánh giá cao nỗ lực của nhóm phát triển Haus trong việc tạo ra một sản phẩm có tiềm năng kết nối Real World Assets (RWA) với Cardano thông qua mô hình token hóa bất động sản.
Tuy nhiên, tôi quyết định phản đối (vote No) đề xuất rút ₳3,000,000 từ ngân quỹ vì các lý do sau:
Thiếu quy trình đánh giá mở và cạnh tranh công khai:
Đề xuất không xuất phát từ một quy trình mời thầu minh bạch hay cạnh tranh mở giữa nhiều dự án tương tự trong lĩnh vực RWA. Việc tài trợ một nhà cung cấp duy nhất với số tiền lớn mà không qua cơ chế lựa chọn công bằng đặt ra rủi ro về tính minh bạch và hiệu quả sử dụng ngân sách.Thiếu căn cứ rõ ràng để định lượng tác động trên Cardano:
Dù nhóm dự án đã triển khai sản phẩm trên Ethereum và có số liệu TVL ấn tượng, chưa có bằng chứng cụ thể cho thấy mô hình này phù hợp hoặc sẽ được đón nhận tích cực trong hệ sinh thái Cardano.Chưa có cơ sở rõ ràng để đánh giá mức độ sẵn sàng pháp lý:
Việc token hóa bất động sản liên quan đến các quy định pháp lý phức tạp tại Hoa Kỳ, EU và quốc tế. Tôi không thấy đủ thông tin chi tiết để đảm bảo rằng các rào cản pháp lý sẽ được giải quyết thành công, đặc biệt khi sản phẩm đang trong giai đoạn chuyển đổi sang Cardano.Không khuyến khích rút quỹ cho dự án chưa có lịch sử đóng góp trong hệ sinh thái Cardano:
Trong bối cảnh nguồn lực có hạn và nhiều đội ngũ builder lâu năm đang cần hỗ trợ, tôi ưu tiên các đề xuất đến từ các nhóm đã có cam kết và đóng góp rõ ràng cho Cardano.Với tinh thần bảo vệ tính công bằng, minh bạch và hiệu quả sử dụng quỹ công của hệ sinh thái, tôi không ủng hộ đề xuất này tại thời điểm hiện tại.
Japanese
Hausチームが不動産トークン化を通じてReal World Assets（RWA）をCardanoと接続する可能性を持つ製品を開発した努力に敬意を表します。
しかし、以下の理由により、₳3,000,000のトレジャリー引き出し提案には**反対票（No）**を投じました。
公開競争のない選定プロセスの欠如：
この提案は、RWA分野における他の類似プロジェクトとの透明性ある競争的なプロセスから生まれたものではありません。公正な選定メカニズムを経ずに1つのプロジェクトに多額の資金を提供することは、透明性と予算効率に対するリスクを伴います。Cardanoに与える影響の定量的根拠が不十分：
Ethereumでの展開とTVLの実績はあるものの、このモデルがCardanoエコシステムで適切に機能する、あるいは支持を得られるという具体的な証拠が示されていません。法的準備状況が不明確：
不動産のトークン化は、米国、EU、国際的に複雑な法規制が伴います。Cardanoへの移行段階にある本プロジェクトが、これらの法的障壁をどうクリアするかについて、十分な情報が示されていません。Cardanoエコシステムへの過去の貢献がない：
限られたリソースの中で、Cardanoに既に貢献してきた開発者を優先すべきと考えます。エコシステムにおける公平性、透明性、公共資金の効果的な活用を守るという観点から、現時点では本提案を支持しません。
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
This proposal requests a ₳3,000,000 treasury withdrawal to fund Haus’ tokenized real estate project on Cardano, migrating its HausCoin home equity liquidity protocol from Ethereum to Cardano’s mainnet. The platform enables homeowners to sell fractional ownership of their home equity for cash liquidity, while giving investors exposure to a stable, appreciating, real-world asset class. Haus has validated its model with $20M TVL on Ethereum and maintains a 30,000-person waitlist representing $4.1B in tokenizable home equity. Funds will finalize product development, establish liquidity pools, build a compliant legal framework, and drive adoption via partnerships and marketing. The team brings deep experience in blockchain, fintech, and real estate, with a proven record of scaling multi-billion-dollar ventures. Treasury disbursements will follow a milestone-based plan via TRSC/PSSC smart contracts, overseen by Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, Xerberus, and NMKR, with transparent, on-chain reporting, ensuring accountability and alignment with Cardano governance. This withdrawal is part of the approved ₳275M Intersect budget, advancing the integration of real-world assets into Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem. For all these reasons, I vote yes.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting No. Does this really need Treasury funding? Could it not be funded privately? There’s no clarity on the regulatory framework, nor jurisdictional compliance. The risks—legal, financial, and reputational—are high, and liability is unclear.
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
This proposal to tokenize US home equity on Cardano is interesting in concept but without a clear strategic rationale, planning or differentiation from other RWA projects. The $3M is too much for a proposal without transparent budget and risk controls and we are still missing the regulator and liquidity issues and the risk of duplication of effort.
I propose a no vote as we need to keep our treasury for projects with clear rationale, ecosystem importance and a proven impact.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes951.2K ₳No rationale
- No929.9K ₳No rationale
- No927.7K ₳No rationale
- No888K ₳No rationale
- Abstain884.5K ₳No rationale
- No870.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes866.3K ₳No rationale
- No796.1K ₳Rationale
I need to better understand exactly how this can take on legacy Trad-Fi. I'd like to see this idea more fully developed before a funding commit.
- Yes792.3K ₳Rationale
This proposal matches the approved 2025 budget item High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate. The vendor has a proven track record in blockchain and real estate tokenisation, with existing TVL and regulatory groundwork. Moving this protocol to Cardano aligns with the strategic goal of increasing real-world asset adoption. Treasury oversight and milestone-based payments are in place through Intersect’s smart contract framework and external assurance. No constitutional tenets are breached.
- No742.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes678.7K ₳Rationale
Haus promises to add their existing application to Cardano, potentially onboarding their existing customer base to Cardano. Many may question why a company dealing with millions of dollars of assets needs millions in treasury withdraws, but should Haus deliver on their claims, Cardano will have a real world project that can add to the value of the chain.
- No663.8K ₳No rationale
- No636.4K ₳Rationale
I prioritized funding open-source tools and proposals that I believe will most effectively support Cardano’s long-term growth. I voted in favor of the highest-priority items that fit within my preferred budget cap of 250 million ADA, abstained from proposals where I may have had a personal interest, and voted NO on all remaining proposals after reaching that budget limit.
- No604.7K ₳Rationale
This proposal represents a use of treasury funds for a private commercial venture that lacks the infrastructure foundation, governance transparency, and ecosystem-wide benefits necessary to justify direct treasury withdrawal. The tokenized real estate concept, while potentially valuable, constitutes a single vertical use case that primarily benefits the proposing company rather than providing reusable infrastructure or tools for the broader Cardano community. The proposal fundamentally misaligns with treasury funding priorities by requesting subsidization of an unproven business model that carries significant strategic risks and more broadly, for the reputation of the Cardano ecosystem. Project Catalyst or post treasury funding allocation instruments like loans represents the appropriate mechanism for experimental initiatives requiring market validation, while direct treasury withdrawals should support proven, Cardano-aligned infrastructure that scales ecosystem capabilities rather than individual commercial ventures.
Critical technical prerequisites for real-world asset tokenization remain unaddressed, particularly the absence of decentralized Oracle infrastructure necessary for reliable property valuation and market data feeds. Without these foundational components, the proposal relies on centralized systems that contradict blockchain principles and create single points of failure that could compromise the entire platform. The governance structure lacks transparency regarding asset selection criteria, platform control mechanisms, and community participation pathways. The proposal offers no assurances of open access, decentralized oversight, or meaningful governance input from the Cardano community, creating a structurally centralized system that uses public funds to benefit private interests. The legal and regulatory framework remains insufficiently detailed despite claims of compliance readiness, particularly regarding cross-jurisdictional requirements for tokenized real estate trading across US, EU, and international markets. These complexities require extensive validation before treasury commitment rather than funding development of uncertain regulatory solutions. The proposal fails to demonstrate how the initiative creates lasting value for Cardano beyond attracting temporary TVL (Total Value Locked) that could migrate to other platforms. Without open-source components, reusable infrastructure, or developer tools that benefit the broader ecosystem, the investment primarily supports private commercial interests rather than public infrastructure development.
Treasury funds should prioritize proven initiatives that strengthen Cardano's foundational capabilities, support decentralized infrastructure development, and create reusable components that benefit multiple projects and developers. This proposal represents a private business venture seeking public funding for market validation that would be more appropriately pursued through alternative funding mechanisms or private investment channels. Furthermore, supporting this proposal would establish concerning precedents for treasury utilization that prioritizes private commercial ventures over public infrastructure development and ecosystem-wide benefits. - No598.8K ₳Rationale
I voted no, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.
- Yes591.1K ₳No rationale
- No582.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes579.1K ₳No rationale
- No573.2K ₳Rationale
While a coordinated event strategy could enhance Cardano's visibility, the proposal’s significant budget request makes it difficult to justify at this point. As a DRep, I believe resources should first be prioritized on delivering tangible, user-facing products and infrastructure that provide clear value for developers and end users. Once those foundational tools and dApps are mature and driving real adoption, marketing initiatives will naturally amplify proven success rather than abstract visibility.
Moreover, the proposal lacks well-defined performance metrics and measurable KPIs tied to developer engagement, ecosystem growth, or on-chain activity. Without these benchmarks, the effectiveness of such a campaign remains speculative, and the risk is that the investment yields limited long-term ecosystem benefit. For these reasons, I vote NO on this proposal. - No568K ₳No rationale
- No503.6K ₳Rationale
Deep breath
Okay, so haus wants 3 million ADA to tokenize home equity because they have a 30,000-person waitlist and $4.1 billion in "tokenizable" equity.
I have... questions.
So many questions.
First, if you already have $25M AUM and are generating revenue, why do you need treasury funding? Second, what's the regulatory framework for tokenized home equity in every jurisdiction you plan to operate? Third, how exactly does the legal structure work when someone defaults on their tokenized equity? Fourth, what happens to token holders if the housing market crashes?
Fifth, who's liable when (not if) something goes wrong? Hard No for me. - Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳No rationale
- No379.3K ₳No rationale
- No371K ₳No rationale
- Yes366.6K ₳No rationale
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
This vote aligns with my Ekklesia votes, where I voted yes to the highest priority budget line items that fit within my preferred 200m ADA budget, abstained from voting on any line items that I may have had personal interests in, and voted no to everything else.
- No338.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale