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.
- No370.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- No323.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳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.
- No313.4K ₳Rationale
While I appreciate interest in building a tokenized real estate platform on Cardano, I believe this type of initiative is better suited to Project Catalyst, where ecosystem-facing applications can be assessed alongside other growth-oriented proposals.
At this time, I’m reserving support for direct treasury funding for projects that are core to Cardano’s infrastructure, tooling, or governance. The proposal’s high funding request and focus on a specific business vertical do not meet that threshold for me, despite the project's potential.
That said, I welcome continued interest from teams like Haus in building on Cardano and would encourage them to explore other community funding pathways.
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
I've never liked this proposal. I don't like the idea of using treasury funds to invest in real estate. The current real estate market is unnaturally high. Also, the amount of trust this product demands is unacceptable. Real world assets are still not mature technology. While I'm open to the idea of funding RWA tooling development, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of investing treasury funds into RWAs made with the currently available technology. Not only do I think it's a bad time to invest in real estate, I think it's a bad idea to invest in immature tokenization products.
- No271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting NO on this proposal to fund "High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano Tokenized Real Estate" with ₳3,000,000.
The proposal presents an exciting vision: onboarding a tested, tokenized US home equity protocol and a real estate-backed token (HausCoin) onto Cardano. However, this experiment comes at a high cost with many unresolved questions. The approach faces significant US/EU regulatory headwinds, must prove legal clarity for tokenized home equity, and lacks immediate, demonstrable ecosystem benefit. The business case is compelling but primarily future-focused, and Cardano’s treasury would assume extensive technical, regulatory, and adoption risk that should be managed and validated incrementally instead.
While I support real-world asset innovation, more risk-managed, modular, and transparent approaches are warranted before deploying treasury-scale funding for high-risk, long-horizon ventures. For these reasons, I cannot support the proposal as written.
- No262.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain261K ₳Rationale
This vote was submitted based on a completed checklist. A detailed rationale is available at:
👉 https://github.com/Agora-Cardano - Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
While the project’s goal of integrating real-world assets (RWAs) into Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem is promising, I believe treasury funds should prioritize core protocol development, security, and governance enhancements over commercial ventures. Haus’s experienced team and $4.1B waitlist demonstrate strong potential, but the project’s commercial nature suggests it could attract private funding, reducing the need for treasury support. Additionally, regulatory and technical risks in transitioning to Cardano, combined with the opportunity cost of diverting 3M ADA from broader ecosystem initiatives, warrant caution. I recommend exploring alternative funding models to ensure treasury resources are used for maximum community benefit.
- No238.6K ₳No rationale
- No208.3K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged200.5K ₳Rationale
I don't think this will work, but the community voted to fund it, so I'll support the WA to make that happen.
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
Business plan is doomed to failure.
- No196.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes185.6K ₳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.
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- No166.4K ₳Rationale
We love what the Haus team is attempting to do on Cardano, but we really want to see more robust regulatory support for tokenized RWA Real Estate before signing off on such a large amount of ADA.
✅ Pros
Major Real World Asset (RWA) Integration: 🏡 This project aims to tokenize a multi-trillion dollar asset class—U.S. home equity—and bring it on-chain to Cardano. A successful implementation would be a landmark achievement, demonstrating Cardano's utility for high-value, tangible assets and positioning it as a leading platform for RWAs.Proven Business Model with Existing Traction: 📈 This is not just an idea. Haus has already prototyped its platform, completed 36 transactions, secured $20 million in TVL, and is generating revenue ($150k ARR). Furthermore, they have a 30,000-user waitlist representing a potential $4.1 billion in home equity, which dramatically de-risks the venture and shows strong product-market fit.
Exceptionally Experienced 'All-Star' Leadership: 🌟 The leadership team is composed of seasoned executives with impressive track records at major tech and finance companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Planet Labs (NYSE: PL). They have experience scaling companies to multi-billion dollar valuations and IPOs, as well as direct experience with L1 blockchains. This level of professional expertise is rare and inspires high confidence in their ability to execute.
Strong Focus on Regulatory Compliance: ⚖️ Tokenizing real estate involves significant legal complexity. The Haus team demonstrates a clear understanding of this, highlighting their work on a regulatory-compliant framework and an SEC Reg D approval for their HausCoin. This proactive approach to legal challenges is critical for the project's long-term viability and reduces regulatory risk for the Cardano ecosystem.
High Potential for TVL and DeFi Activity: 💧 If even a fraction of their waitlist is onboarded, it could bring billions of dollars in real-world value onto Cardano's DeFi ecosystem. The proposal outlines plans for liquidity pools and integrations that would enable new use cases like lending against home equity, yield farming, and staking, which would drive significant on-chain activity and demand for ADA.
❌ Cons
Very Large Treasury Request: 💰 At ₳3,000,000, this is a massive request from the community treasury. While the potential upside is enormous, it represents a very significant capital allocation towards a single project. DReps must weigh whether this is the most effective possible use of such a large sum compared to funding multiple smaller projects.High External Regulatory and Legal Risk: 🏛️ Despite the team's best efforts, the regulatory landscape for tokenized securities and real-world assets in the U.S. is still uncertain and constantly evolving. A negative regulatory shift or an enforcement action by an agency like the SEC could severely hinder or even halt the project, a risk that is largely outside of the team's control.
Migration and "Chain-Hopping" Risk: ⛓️ Haus is an existing project migrating from another platform to Cardano, attracted in part by treasury funding. This raises the "hired mercenary" concern: what is their long-term commitment to Cardano? There's a risk they could "chain-hop" again in the future if another ecosystem offers a more lucrative deal, potentially leaving Cardano after the ecosystem has invested heavily in them.
Complex Market and Liquidity Challenges: 📉 The project's success depends on creating a robust, two-sided market. It needs a constant supply of homeowners willing to sell equity and a corresponding demand from investors. If the U.S. real estate market experiences a downturn, homeowner interest could wane, and the value of the tokenized assets could fall, leading to illiquidity and potential losses for investors.
Centralization of a Foundational RWA Protocol: 🏢 The community is funding a single, centralized, for-profit company to build and operate what could become a cornerstone RWA protocol on Cardano. The underlying off-chain legal structures, company operations, and management are all centralized with the Haus team. This creates a significant dependency on their performance and governance for a key piece of the ecosystem's infrastructure.
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process. - Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- No89.9K ₳No rationale
- No89.7K ₳No rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale
- No58.6K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳Rationale
this belongs into catalyst. Has nothing to do with the chain itself
- No52.4K ₳Rationale
I do not believe this project (Haus) has a well enough established track record that supports a withdrawal of this size. I'd much prefer to see Haus launch a less ambitious pilot project on Cardano to prove and convince the community that they come in good faith and are truly capable of building what they claim and growing it to a level that strongly supports Cardano growth.
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain49.7K ₳Rationale
Disclosure: I’m licensed to perform real estate transactions in Florida.
Vote: ABSTAIN
₳3M is a large allocation to a single private issuer without clearly defined open-source deliverables.
Key U.S. compliance questions (HEA/TILA–Reg Z, SEC/ATS, custody) remain unresolved; TVL/waitlist figures are not independently evidenced and the open-source scope isn’t defined.
I’d support upon binding, auditable milestones (regulatory pathway, transfer-restricted issuance, ATS/transfer-agent integration, UCC-12 coverage), explicit open-source deliverables, and third-party validation.
ICC lens: Conditionally compatible with Articles III & IV if open-source artifacts and accountability are guaranteed.
Key risk: Regulatory enforcement blocking operations; inability to enable compliant secondary trading/custody; failure to deliver migration + open-source outputs. - Abstain49.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Voted YES on Haus – High-Yield RWA Asset for Cardano.
🏡 Why I support it:
• Brings tokenized home equity to Cardano — a $16T market
• Real product with $20M TVL, $25M AUM, and a 30K+ waitlist
• Fractional real estate ownership + liquidity for homeowners
• Bridges TradFi + DeFi with a U.S.-compliant legal framework
• Led by experienced execs from Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and NYSE:PLRWA is a major frontier. This proposal positions Cardano as a serious player.
Track all my votes 👉 https://tempo.vote/drep-profile
DRep: DeepStatecraft - No26.7K ₳Rationale
If you don't have this: 'Haus will develop a regulatory-compliant framework for issuing and trading tokenized real estate in the U.S., EU and international markets.' already then there is no point in funding this.
HELOC's are not this simple. How will someone buy their HELOC back? The whole point of a HELOC is that you can buy it back for a reasonable amount. How do you guarantee someone will be able to buy this back?
Present your framework before asking for money.
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale