Withdraw ₳314,800 for PyCardano administered by Intersect
151 DReps voted · 49 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
I have voted in favor of this action to demonstrates my intention to execute without delays and move the treasury expenditure process forward. I also want to note that I will not seriously consider individual requests from the treasury for less that 1,500,000 ADA moving forward. I reserve the right this round because I feel the process was not properly explained to proposers and DRep and it would be unfair to implement this personal guardrail at this time. Requests below that threshold are better suited for Catalyst funding or bundled together in MBO, DAO, or conglomerate entities. TWA (Treasury Withdrawal Actions) need be comprehensive and not ad hoc as that makes oversight more costly and inefficient.
A budget and all included line items has already been approved, and now is the time to disperse funding and enable further development of the Cardano network. The proposal was selected through a well-defined process, and I will fully support it out of respect for the will of the broader Cardano community and a belief in respecting the consensus we achieved together under the Intersect-administered budget process. The process reflects a coordinated, strategic approach to funding Cardano’s ecosystem-critical infrastructure. The community has thoroughly reviewed the proposal. I was actively involved in the entire process and the proposal presented represents development that provides a tangible benefit to our ecosystem. It would be a mistake to underfund our ecosystem’s development when we can sustainably provide the required funding with our available treasury reserves.
Furthermore there are exceptional oversight mechanisms in place to ensure a minimum amount of wast, fraud, and abuse of treasury expenditures, such as Intersect’s smart contract framework (audited by TxPipe and MLabs), Multi-party oversight (including Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, NMKR, etc.), A clear milestone-driven disbursement model, and full transparency via TRSC/PSSC dashboards.
These governance and assurance systems meet the constitutional standards for accountability and risk management and provide confidence in efficiency and execution. - Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted545.4K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes385.2K ₳Rationale
Krypto Labs have taken part in the budget debates and agree with proposer that this is something the Cardano blockchain ecosystem need.
I started with making a rationale and arguement for each proposal, but to save time i need to do bulk voting to speed this prosess up. - Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Yes381.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes370.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
After a detailed review of the proposal titled "Withdraw ₳314,800 for PyCardano", I have decided to vote YES. This proposal directly supports the ongoing development and enhancement of PyCardano, a vital Python library that underpins many ecosystem tools, wallets, and applications. By funding this initiative, the community ensures:
Sustained Developer Support:
PyCardano offers an accessible, well-documented, and reliable interface for developers building on Cardano, improving overall productivity and lowering barriers to entry.Ecosystem Stability and Growth:
Maintaining this key library helps secure developer workflows that rely on it for integration with Cardano’s ledger and transaction model, benefiting a broad scope of projects.Alignment with Strategic Goals:
The proposal clearly aligns with the broader ecosystem objectives to support developer experience, tooling excellence, and mature software infrastructure critical to Cardano’s long-term health and innovation capacity.Reasonable Funding Request:
The budget is proportional to the scope of work planned, supporting a focused effort by a qualified and proven team. The procedural framework includes milestone tracking and accountability, assuring that deliverables align with community expectations.Supporting the PyCardano project through this proposal will help maintain a key piece of the Cardano development stack, fostering both innovation and reliability across many integrated solutions. Therefore, I fully support this proposal and vote YES.
- 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
I could see myself supporting this next year but right now it feels like bad timing. While PyCardano’s goal of enabling Python developers to interact with Cardano is promising, the ecosystem is currently navigating significant governance and scaling upgrades, including the Chang and Plomin hard forks, Ouroboros Leios, and Midnight integration. With 39 proposals vying for treasury funds, Cardano needs to consolidate existing tools like Plutus and prioritize core infrastructure before investing in additional developer libraries. Deferring this initiative until the ecosystem stabilizes would ensure resources are allocated to immediate priorities, enhancing long-term stability and adoption.
- Yes238.6K ₳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.
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳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. - Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳Rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.9K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Voted YES on: PyCardano – Lightweight Python SDK for Cardano
Why I support it:
• 🐍 Enables seamless Cardano interaction in native Python — no need for third-party serialization tools
• 🔧 9K+ monthly downloads & 170+ GitHub dependencies — already critical infrastructure
• 🚧 Maintains compatibility with upcoming protocol upgrades like Leios and Midnight
• 🌱 Lowers the barrier to entry for Python devs and expands the Cardano builder base
• 👨💻 Led by Jerry, a proven contributor and steward of the projectThis isn’t just a library — it’s foundational for long-term developer growth and DApp accessibility on Cardano.
🗳️ DRep: DeepStatecraft
🔗 View Proposal - No14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain335.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes13.5 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale