Withdraw ₳4,000,000 for Expanding Stablecoin / Cardano Native Asset Support...
147 DReps voted · 54 with a rationale · 10 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
This proposal addresses critical infrastructure gaps that currently limit Cardano's competitive positioning in the rapidly expanding stablecoin and digital payments market. The absence of institutional-grade custody solutions from major providers like BitGo and Fireblocks creates significant barriers to exchange listings, institutional adoption, and capital attraction for Cardano-native assets including USDA.
The initiative strategically targets four fundamental bottlenecks constraining ecosystem growth through expanding wallet and custodian support, increasing exchange and OTC desk availability, driving real-world utility beyond crypto trading, and building cost-effective fiat on/off-ramps in frontier markets. These interventions directly address the underrepresentation of Cardano's seven-hundred-million-dollar DeFi ecosystem in centralized exchange trading and institutional investment flows.
The focus on emerging markets aligns with Cardano's mission to provide financial infrastructure in underserved regions while leveraging the platform's low-fee structure for cross-border payments, remittances, and enterprise settlements. Current fiat ramps charging five to seven percent fees versus one percent for local bank transfers create substantial barriers that this proposal addresses through alternative payment rails across seventy-plus countries.
The team's combined fifty years of experience across leading financial institutions including Paxos, Western Union, Citibank, and major cryptocurrency exchanges provides proven capability in navigating regulatory requirements, building compliance frameworks, and scaling global payment networks. Their track record in stablecoin liquidity management and institutional adoption demonstrates competence essential for executing complex financial infrastructure projects.
Market expansion through USDA pairs on centralized exchanges, NEO banks, and OTC desks significantly enhances liquidity while creating trading opportunities that benefit the entire ecosystem. Integration with real estate developers, remittance companies, and payment processors expands utility beyond cryptocurrency trading into practical financial applications that drive mainstream adoption.
The governance framework including legally binding contracts, delivery milestones, external audits, and oversight by trusted entities ensures accountability while the vendor's commitment to reinvesting earnings into Cardano liquidity and adoption incentives aligns interests with long-term ecosystem success.
Supporting this proposal strengthens Cardano's position in the competitive stablecoin market while building essential financial infrastructure that enables broader participation in decentralized finance and real-world payment applications. The deliverables directly enhance utility for homegrown stablecoins like USDA and USDM, creating sustainable advantages that benefit users, developers, and the broader Cardano community through improved accessibility and market presence. - Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳No rationale
- No501K ₳Rationale
If USDA needs this much subsidy to compete with other stablecoins, maybe the market is trying to tell us something about its product-market fit.
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain385.2K ₳Rationale
As DRep for Krypto Labs I abstain from voting on the BloxBean Java Tools proposal requesting ₳99,600 for maintenance and enhancements. While these open source tools like CCL and Yaci are vital for Java developers and ecosystem growth, uncertainties in funding allocation and ROI prevent a clear stance.
Similarly, I abstain on Anzens' Stablecoin Expansion , seeking ₳4,000,000 for custody, liquidity, and fiat ramps. The initiative promises DeFi and real-world utility via USDA, backed by experienced teams, but budget details and sustainability concerns warrant neutrality and need votes by experts on this.
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes328.9K ₳No rationale
- No314.4K ₳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.
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
After careful review of the proposal requesting ₳4,000,000 ADA for expanding stablecoin and Cardano native asset support, I have decided to vote NO due to multiple fundamental concerns around clarity, accountability, and overall value for the Cardano ecosystem.
Key Concerns:
Lack of Clear Scope and Deliverables
The proposal’s problem statement accurately identifies real challenges in stablecoin infrastructure, wallet and custodian support, exchange liquidity, and fiat ramps, which are critical for Cardano’s broader adoption and DeFi growth. However, the proposal itself is vague about what exactly will be built or improved. There is no clear, detailed roadmap or description of the technical solutions, no specific milestones, and no defined metrics for success. It reads more like high-level aspirations than a concrete development plan.Unclear Accountability and Governance
It is not clearly stated who the primary developers are or the structure of the team executing this work. The contractual relationship with the treasury is nebulous, leaving open questions about intellectual property rights, ownership of outputs, maintenance responsibilities, and ongoing support. There is no clear indication if this is a grant, a service contract, or another form of funding. Without defined governance or stewardship, it is difficult to evaluate how the community’s investment will be managed or safeguarded over time.Ambiguous ROI and Value to the Ecosystem
Given the significant treasury allocation requested (₳4 million), the proposal lacks convincing justification on return on investment (ROI) for the Cardano ecosystem. There is no roadmap on sustaining or scaling the work post-initial spend or how it enhances decentralization, public good infrastructure, or developer/community engagement. The benefits appear uncertain and unspecific, undermining confidence in the effective use of treasury funds.Potential Conflict of Interest and Limited Ecosystem Benefits
The proposal seems aimed primarily at supporting a single company’s stablecoin project (USDA and its infrastructure). Treasury funds should preferentially support open, public-good infrastructure benefitting the entire Cardano ecosystem, rather than subsidizing individual commercial interests. The proposal does not clarify how it ensures open access, interoperability, or contributions back to the ecosystem beyond the funded entity.Community and Governance Alignment
The proposal lacks a defined framework for community involvement, decentralization of control, or mechanisms for transparent reporting and accountability. This is misaligned with Cardano’s governance principles emphasizing inclusive, open, and community-driven development.Alternative Funding Sources and Risk Mitigation
Stablecoin infrastructure projects, especially those of a commercial nature, should ideally attract private sector investment or revenue-driven funding. The high-risk profile and commercial orientation of this proposal make it more appropriate for venture capital or token sale funding rather than community treasury support. Without mechanisms for value recycling or return to the treasury, it risks weakening long-term ecosystem financial sustainability.Summary:
While the overarching problems this proposal seeks to address are legitimate and important for Cardano’s growth, the proposal’s lack of specificity, unclear accountability, possible commercial conflicts of interest, and poor governance alignment compel me to vote NO. I recommend resubmission with detailed technical scope, clear governance and IP frameworks, transparent budgets with defined milestones, and stronger demonstration of public-good benefits and ecosystem ROI. This will enable informed, confident community support aligned with Cardano’s decentralized vision and responsible treasury stewardship. - Yes262.6K ₳No rationale
- 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
While stablecoin infrastructure is critical for Cardano’s DeFi growth, the proposal lacks specific milestones, timelines, or technical plans to ensure delivery of complex integrations like custodian support and exchange listings. At 4M withdrawal request the bar is high. I recommend deferring this initiative until clearer deliverables and sustainability plans are provided, ensuring accountability and alignment with Cardano’s immediate needs.
- YesChanged191.1K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain11mo agoSuperseded
- 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
- 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
- No55.9K ₳Rationale
sounds good on the surface, but the deliverables are heavily skewed towards benefitting one company.
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.
Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I still stand by those decisions.
For proposals with large budgets (>500k ADA), I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Voted YES on Stablecoin Infrastructure Expansion – Anzens
💵 Why I support it:
• Tackles 4 major challenges for Cardano stablecoins:
1️⃣ No custody support from Fireblocks, BitGo, etc.
2️⃣ Lack of listings on major exchanges & OTC desks
3️⃣ Limited real-world utility in payments & remittances
4️⃣ High-cost fiat ramps, especially in emerging markets🌍 What it delivers:
• Institutional-grade custody integration (Zodia, BitGo, CipherBC)
• USDA pairs on CEXs, neobanks, and derivatives markets
• Real-world settlement with remittance firms & real estate
• Fiat ramps across 70+ countries with up to 60% fee reduction🔧 Built by veterans from Paxos, Citi, Western Union, and AZA Finance.
This is how we unlock real-world DeFi on Cardano.DRep: DeepStatecraft
🗳️ Full voting log: https://tempo.vote/drep-profile - No14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- No4.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes335.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes13.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Abstain0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale