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.
- Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 324.4K ₳ No rationale
- No 314.4K ₳ Rationale
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I don't support this withdrawal and therefore vote NO.
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I don't support this withdrawal and therefore vote NO.
- No 313.1K ₳ Rationale
I’m voting NO on this proposal. While improving liquidity and exchange access for Cardano-native tokens is a valid goal, this proposal lacks the level of detail and structure needed to responsibly and confidently allocate such a significant amount of treasury funds.
There is not a clear enough process for how decisions on token or exchange selection would be made, how listing costs would be determined, on how fairness and accountability would be ensured. This opens the door to potential manipulation and inequitable outcomes that do not necessarily align with Cardano’s culture of decentralization and community-driven growth.
As it stands, this feels more like an early-stage idea than a fully developed, executable plan. Without stronger justification, transparency, and safeguards, I cannot support this high funding request.
I would like to see this proposal return with a clearer plan to ensure demonstrable inclusion, fairness and strategy, rationale for returns to cardano eco system that are in line with the amount asked
- No 298.6K ₳ Rationale
Its a big request and I don't think its necessary
- No 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- No 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 257K ₳ Rationale
While addressing a real issue in the Cardano ecosystem—market making and listing for Cardano Native Tokens—the proposal falls short in demonstrating broad ecosystem impact, scalability, and cost effectiveness. The scope is narrow, focusing mostly on select projects, with limited quantified KPIs or measurable returns to the wider community.
The substantial ₳3.126 million budget is not sufficiently justified given the indirect nature of ecosystem benefits and lack of clear, transparent milestone-based performance metrics. Community involvement and governance mechanisms appear limited in this funding approach, raising concerns about inclusivity and longer-term sustainability.
Despite vendor experience and a solid governance framework for treasury management, the strategic value of the service at this scale is questionable, prompting caution before treasury funds are allocated.
Accordingly, I have submitted a NO vote pending a more detailed, community-aligned strategic justification and clear measurable outcomes.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 245K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
Respectfully, while the intent to boost CNT liquidity and top-tier listings is understandable, I'm skeptical of prioritizing CNTs given the Solana-like 'casino gambling' culture they've enabled elsewhere—memecoin rugs, predatory pumps, and degen speculation that extract value from retail without sustainable utility. Cardano should focus on real-world adoption, not subsidizing volatile tokens that could tarnish our ecosystem. Additionally, the proposal's complexity—with layered smart contracts, off-chain legal agreements, multi-party oversight, and phased disbursements—raises risks of administrative bloat, delays, or opaque fund allocation, even with audits. Let's allocate treasury funds to simpler, less speculative initiatives that build long-term value.
- Yes 206.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 203.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 195.9K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 190.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 184.4K ₳ 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.
- No 180.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 177.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 166.4K ₳ Rationale
The budget here is based on a reference price of $0.50 per ADA, we're at $1.00 ADA today, so we would like this request adjusted to come in line with current pricing. We need more CNT listings, and we think Flowdesk can deliver, just need to adjust the size of the request.
✅ Pros
Strategic Ecosystem Growth: The proposal directly addresses a major weakness in the Cardano ecosystem: the lack of CNTs on top-tier exchanges like Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken. Securing these listings would significantly increase the visibility, legitimacy, and accessibility of Cardano projects to a much larger pool of investors and users. 🚀Improved Liquidity and Trading: Professional market-making by a firm like Flowdesk ensures there is always a buyer and a seller for the supported tokens. This reduces price volatility, tightens bid-ask spreads, and creates a healthier, more reliable trading environment, which is essential for project growth and user confidence.
Robust Governance and Oversight: The proposal features a strong system of checks and balances. Funds are not sent directly to the vendor but are managed by Intersect using audited smart contracts. An Oversight Committee including respected entities like the Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, and others must approve key actions, preventing unilateral control and misuse of funds.
Transparent Fund Management: The process for allocating funds is clear. For exchange listings, the money goes directly from Intersect to the exchange, not through the vendor (Flowdesk), minimizing conflicts of interest. For market-making, funds go to the project, which then pays Flowdesk, providing an extra layer of accountability.
Experienced Vendor: The proposal is facilitated by Flowdesk, a firm that has already established partnerships within the Cardano ecosystem with projects like Snek, Iagon, and DexHunter. This demonstrates existing commitment and experience with Cardano's infrastructure.
🤔 Cons
Significant Cost and Price Volatility: Withdrawing ₳3,126,000 is a substantial expense for the treasury. The budget is based on a reference price of $0.50 / ₳. If ADA's price increases significantly, the treasury would be overpaying in dollar terms. Conversely, if ADA's price falls, the fund may be insufficient to cover expensive listing fees, which can be as high as $1 million per exchange.Centralization of Influence: The proposal positions Intersect and Flowdesk as key gatekeepers. Flowdesk assesses which projects are eligible for the listing funds, and Intersect manages the entire process. This concentrates significant power and influence, potentially creating a bottleneck or favoring certain projects over others.
Uncertain Return on Investment (ROI): While listings and market-making are important, they do not guarantee success. A token could be listed on a major exchange and still fail to gain traction or trading volume if the project itself lacks fundamental value or community support. It's a high-cost marketing effort with an uncertain outcome.
Creates Dependency on a Single Vendor: The initiative funnels this critical ecosystem service primarily through one vendor, Flowdesk. This creates a dependency and a potential single point of failure. If Flowdesk fails to deliver on its promises or changes its focus, it could negatively impact all participating projects.
Market-Making is Not Risk-Free: While market-making provides liquidity, it is an active trading strategy. There is an inherent risk that the service could be perceived as market manipulation, and any negative event or poor performance by Flowdesk could reflect badly on the Cardano ecosystem as a whole.
- Yes 143.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 137.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 131.7K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 131.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 111.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 105.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 103K ₳ No rationale
- No 89.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 88.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 60.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 59.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 58.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 55.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 49.7K ₳ No rationale
- No 49.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 48.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 48.4K ₳ No rationale
- No 45.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 26.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 24.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 15.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 14.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 8.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.3K ₳ No rationale