Withdraw ₳3,126,000 for Ecosystem Exchange Listing and Market Making service...
209 DReps voted · 60 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No 16.4M ₳ 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 Cardano is already Bitcoin++ and treasury funds should not be used to encourage or sustain BTC energy waste and outdated consensus model.Yes - MLabs Core Tool Maintenance.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. - Yes 14.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 13.3M ₳ 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.
- No 12.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 12.2M ₳ 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.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 9.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.1M ₳ 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. - No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ 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
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 5.3M ₳ 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.
- No 4.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos pela "ABSTENÇÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlzsz6jpjn), 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_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlzsz6jpjn), 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. - Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.2M ₳ 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.
- No 4M ₳ No rationale
- No 3.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 3.7M ₳ 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.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ 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.
- No 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ 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.
- No 2.6M ₳ 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.
- No 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Let's get Cardano NTs on some T1 exchanges!!
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale