Withdraw ₳314,800 for PyCardano administered by Intersect
151 DReps voted · 46 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I voted YES for this proposal in the Ekklesia temperature check. I have now come to a position where I think that this might not be the best way forward. Meaning that direct funding of smaller open source maintenance and enhancement proposals directly from the treasury might not be the best approach going forward.
As I have already indicated my support for this proposal in Ekklesia, I will not overcomplicate matters by changing my vote at this - the final treasury withdrawal stage. So my original vote indication remains in place and I vote YES. Note: if this were to be resubmitted in 2026, I would consider this carefully.
Why? I am more in favor of seeing proposals like this funded through an initiative such as the OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development. I voted YES for the OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development.
Such budgetary initiatives do not have to come from the OSC, it could be another umbrella group of open source advocates / body that will prioritize and correctly value certain critical packages of maintenance and enhancement work on open source tools that are important for the Cardano ecosystem.
This group or groups would ideally rank the importance / relevance of these open-source tools and software kits or platforms, as well as realistically estimate how much maintenance / enhancement is needed and when it is critical.
Multiple tiny contracts approved by the treasury complicate oversight, whereas larger open-source infrastructure umbrella programs can rank repos by impact and rotate funding annually. The more exceptions the Treasury grants, the harder it becomes to enforce future budget discipline.
I imagine the maintenance and improvement of open source tools or platforms as something that could be tentatively grouped. Of course, these larger maintenance and enhancement support groups (like the OSC) for open source tooling could start discriminating against certain tools. In those cases, if a proposer is dissatisfied with the ranking or grouping, they could always directly apply to the Treasury with a rationale why the proposal needs funding and why it cannot obtain it elsewhere - but only directly from the Treasury.
Note: some other similar open source maintenance and enhancement proposals might differ in their perceived importance - and my vote indication in Ekklesia. I am currently considering to mostly mirror my voting indications from Ekklesia - in order to not overcomplicate the process. Exceptions will be indicated. - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 6M ₳ Rationale
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
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
PyCardano is a critical, open-source library with real-world usage within the ecosystem. It enables transaction creation in Python without third-party tooling, directly supporting Cardano’s developer accessibility.
With upcoming protocol updates, continued maintenance is essential. This proposal aligns with STORM Partners’ goals to enhance ecosystem efficiency and attract diverse developer talent. We vote YES. - Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Full off-chain capability in Python is crucial for building DApp backend. PyCardano should be actively funded and maintained.
Full off-chain capability in Python is crucial for building DApp backend. PyCardano should be actively funded and maintained.
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES as core engineering is a top priority of my DRep.
Strength and honor.
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
Python's popularity and significance make a lightweight library solution for Python developers highly valuable. I support this proposal to enhance Cardano's accessibility for Python developers.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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
I like the project. I support its development and understand its value, but I can’t vote “YES” on allocating the funds when the description doesn’t say a single word about where the specific amount of ADA comes from or how it will be used. Why 314k? Why not 214? 514? 321? 42?
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
PyCardanoは、Python開発者向けに軽量かつ依存性の少ないCardano用トランザクションライブラリを提供しており、9,000件/月以上のダウンロード実績と170以上のプロジェクト利用が確認されています。エコシステム多様化と開発者体験の向上に寄与する提案として、賛成します。
PyCardano provides a lightweight, dependency-free Python library for interacting with the Cardano blockchain. With over 9,000 monthly downloads and wide adoption, it effectively lowers the barrier for Python developers. I vote in favor due to its clear utility and ecosystem impact.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Clear goals in the proposal. Includes support for 12 months which i like. Would like to see more involved community engagement KPIs.
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting Yes. PyCardano is a leading Python library for interacting with Cardano. This proposal funds maintenance, protocol updates, and bug fixes to ensure it remains stable and functional.
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No. While PyCardano is a valuable library for Python developers in the Cardano ecosystem, the nature and scale of the work—focused on continued development and maintenance—make it better suited for Project Catalyst. Catalyst offers a more targeted, iterative funding environment for tools like this, where community feedback and demand can guide development priorities. Treasury funding should prioritize foundational infrastructure and initiatives with broad, strategic impact—this proposal does not meet that threshold.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.
It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.
I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:
- Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
- Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
- Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
- I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.
I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:
❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ Rationale
This is a very important project for the Cardano developer community. It is filling a real need (Python tooling), has a good history and the budget is reasonable for the scope and impact. There is no real duplication at this quality and level of integration in Cardano.
No-nonsense: Cardano's developer community is still many years behind Ethereum in terms of mature, accessible tooling (especially for non-Haskell/JS devs) and Python is the language of millions of developers around the world (in data science, finance, etc.) and if we want Cardano to get talent outside the Haskell cult, then it is non-negotiable that we have native, robust Python tooling. PyCardano is the only Python library that can create and sign Cardano transactions without the need for kludgy 3rd party serialization tools, reducing friction, bugs and the onboarding pain of developers who would otherwise just build on another chain.
This proposal fits very well with the plan to make Cardano more accessible and useful to a wider dev community by lowering the barrier of entry. It helps to foster innovation outside the very small circle of Plutus/Haskell in-group. We need more bets like this if we want a healthy, growing dev community.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
Python dev community support is a good investment.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale