Withdraw ₳3,126,000 for Ecosystem Exchange Listing and Market Making service...
209 DReps voted · 68 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote · 2 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 5 to yes, 5 to no, together voting with 592.1M ₳ of voting power.
- YesRevoted11.9M ₳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
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes10.3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged9.5M ₳Rationale
Voting deviates from decisions 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
No1y 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
- NoChanged8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA is voting **NO **on GA51, the ₳3,126,000 treasury withdrawal for Flowdesk’s exchange listing and market making program, because while we recognize the value of improving liquidity and exchange access, the proposal fails to provide sufficient verifiable detail and does not align with our funding priorities, thus does not address core ecosystem priorities and carries structural risks we have flagged in prior related votes.
The governance action lacks clearly published, objective selection criteria for which Cardano Native Tokens (CNTs) will benefit, measurable ROI metrics and transparent delivery timelines. This creates a risk of centralized discretion and decision-making dependency on a single vendor, Flowdesk and on Intersect’s administrative control, rather than fostering a competitive and open-access market-making environment.
I believe treasury funding should first address foundational ecosystem needs — such as scaling infrastructure, improving developer experience and supporting dApp growth — which would naturally generate high-quality tokens and organic demand for exchange listings.This proposal prioritizes a downstream outcome over the upstream growth that drives long-term value. Furthermore, RCADA previously abstained on the ₳275M Intersect-administered budget Info Action due to concerns about bundling and Intersect’s dual role in budget facilitation and execution; GA51 inherits those same structural issues despite being more narrowly scoped.
The proposal also fails to present a clear sustainability plan for maintaining liquidity and exchange access after this one-time funding, creating a risk of repeated treasury withdrawals for similar services. For these reasons — lack of verifiable detail, misaligned priorities, risk of centralization, consistency with our prior stance and absence of a long-term model — RCADA cannot support GA51.
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
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.
- Yes8.1M ₳No rationale
- No7.7M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I voted NO on this proposal during the budget structuring stage that was organized over Ekklesia by Intersect. I have not changed my original intention. I thank the proposers for submitting this proposal. This proposal intends to provide a Treasury-financed Ecosystem Exchange Listing and Market Making service pool which will provide MMAAS (Market Making as a Service). The eligible tokens are SNEK, IAG, MIN and HOSKY, as well as stablecoins USDM, USDA, iUSD, DJED, KINKA (gold backed). This proposal has not convinced me that the Treasury should fund the listing of tokens on exchanges. This entire process - if it is to be performed with treasury funds - should be part of a grand strategy that should look into the merits, costs and benefits for the entire Cardano ecosystem. We have so far heard different narratives about the responsibilities of different Founding Entities and their alleged failures to help list Cardano native tokens on Tier-1 exchanges. We are unable to get a definitive narrative that explains the background of these efforts and responsibilities.
So, we sort of start from zero, but we do not start from zero. Treasury Funding is not Genesis ADA. We all see that some Founding Entities still retain significant amounts of Genesis ADA and this ADA is deployed in governance to swing votes directly or indirectly through a choice of DReps. Without full accountability regarding what was whose responsibility and what was a success and what was a failure, I do not feel that the Cardano Treasury should double fund something that was allegedly supposed to have happened so far. I prefer to make strategic investments in open source infrastructure that reinforces decentralization. Subsidies to native tokens - should probably be a rare exception, not the rule. - Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.5M ₳Rationale
I will not support funding exchanges to list Cardano Native Tokens (CNTs). While it might be reasonable if technical challenges were present, CNTs operate similarly to ADA, making their integration into exchanges straightforward and negating the need for such payments.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳Rationale
As demonstrated by SNEK’s Kraken listing, we believe that CNAs can reach tier-1 exchanges through organic traction and strategic execution without treasury intervention. STORM Partners believes treasury funds should be allocated toward reinforcing decentralized infrastructure and on-chain liquidity rather than subsidizing centralized listings with unclear long-term ROI.
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged4.8M ₳Rationale
Upon investigation, a concern on the listing fee of 500K ADA per exchange has been raised. Even when a concern was raised, no fair justification on how the listing fee was calculated or proposed was given either from Emurgo or Intersect. Vetoing until founding entity's justification and true sense of responsibility is displayed.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
We must secure tier 1 exchange supports immediately.
We must secure tier 1 exchange supports immediately.
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos pela "ABSTENÇÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tf...z6jpjn), pois acreditamos que os tokens a serem listados em exchanges de nível 1 deveriam ser especificados na proposta, ao invés de haver uma indicação genérica. Tratamos como tokens prioritários stablecoins CNT (DJED, IUSD, USDM, USDA), e pela proposta não trazer essa especificação ou priorização, nos abstemos de apoiá-la neste momento. Recomendamos a re-submissão do projeto especificando os tokens e respectivas exchanges em que as listagens ocorrerão.
[English]
We chose "ABSTENTION" on this governance action (gov_action13tf...z6jpjn), because we believe that the tokens to be listed on tier 1 exchanges should be specified in the proposal, rather than having a generic indication. We consider CNT stablecoins (DJED, IUSD, USDM, USDA) as priority tokens, and since the proposal does not bring this specification or prioritization, we abstain from supporting it at this time. We recommend the project be resubmitted specifying the tokens and the respective exchanges where the listings will take place. - Yes4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4M ₳No rationale
- No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.9M ₳Rationale
I vote NO, this is not a priority of my DRep and I believe in organic listing: if a project attracts interest, it will be listed.
Strength and honor.
- No3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳Rationale
Beneficial for the whole cardano ecosystem in the long run - worth it imho
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳Rationale
I initially voted no for this proposal during the Ekklesia voting process as I felt other proposals were more deserving of budget allocation.
Since not all of my selected proposals made it into the treasury withdrawal process, I have extra room in my personal NCL.
After further research and review of the project team and its existing legitimate work, I am convinced that this service will be a worthwhile contribution to the Cardano 2025 Budget.
I would expect that this service should be funded by EMURGO or the Cardano Foundation, as getting Cardano Native Assets listed on exchanges and with enough liquidity is essential for the continued survival of our ecosystem and falls within the roles of these entities. This is something that has been ignored by EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation, so I am happy to see someone else stepping up to fill this key role.
I have changed my vote to YES for this proposal, and it fits within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Let's get Cardano NTs on some T1 exchanges!!
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
FlowdeskによるMMAASは、Cardanoネイティブトークンの上位取引所上場と流動性整備を支援する現実的なアプローチです。Snek/Iagonでの実績があり、資金はListing Fee Poolとして管理されるため、適切な選別・透明性が担保されれば戦略的意義は大きく、賛成します。
This proposal establishes a market making and exchange listing support pool led by Flowdesk, addressing critical barriers to CNT adoption. With prior MMAAS experience (e.g. Snek, Iagon) and a clearly scoped listing fee structure, I support this as a strategic investment in liquidity and visibility.
- No2.6M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
The proposal to pay for listings creates a dangerous precedent — one where tomorrow you might be charged ten times more, or face a delisting instead. It’s essentially extortion, which is illegal in most jurisdictions.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale