Withdraw ₳4,000,000 for Expanding Stablecoin / Cardano Native Asset Support...
147 DReps voted · 49 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I voted NO for this proposal on Ekklesia and I have decided to vote NO again. This is a sizeable request from the treasury so it does require due consideration. The withdrawal amount is for ₳4,000,000.
This is a proposal submitted by Anzens which is the main legal entity behind Cardano-native stablecoin USDA - in my understanding. Might be wrong about the relationship between the two, if so, mea culpa.The proposal does claim the following:
"Despite Cardano's $700M+ DeFi ecosystem, its native assets---including stablecoins---are severely underrepresented on centralized exchanges (CEXs) and OTC desks."
Alas, the proposal does not explain why are they severely underrepresented. There must be a reason - and I do not think that the ₳4,000,000 requested is the sole reason.
Maybe wrongly, I presume that some of the founding entities may have had as part of its original mandate to help with the integration of Cardano native assets on centralized exchanges (CEXs) and OTC desks. Maybe not.
As far as I am aware some of the founding entities still do have some genesis ADA that was probably allocated partly towards purposes such as this one.
Hence, without a deeper analysis of the reasons behind the "severe underrepresention on centralized exchanges (CEXs) and OTC desks" - Was it resistance on the part of the CEXs? Was it a lack of will on the part of the founding entities? Was it a lack of capacity? Was it technical complexity? Was it low consumer demand? I feel that we should not plough ₳4,000,000 into a problem whose origins and true causes we do not understand properly.
Do we have any open source products coming out of this proposal? Treasury only funds should favor public‑good pieces (custodian/native‑asset integrations, open APIs, SDKs, whatever).
Finally, we do have several fiat-based commercial stablecoins in the Cardano system. I would prefer to see joint proposals that benefit all of them in as wide a scope as possible - while maximizing the value for public
Strategic problem - but narrow proposal. We do need liquidity, ramps, institutional custody for native assets - I was not convinced that Anzens with treasury funding can address issues that Emurgo, Cardano Foundation and IOG were together unable to resolve so far.
This package seems oversized, overoptimistic, under‑evidenced, and mixes “business expansion” with public‑good claims. - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
Voting YES my vote deviates from my other voting actions back in May 2025 on Ekklesia. I am pushing for more support for stablecoins within the ecosystem.
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
This proposal addresses key bottlenecks in Cardano adoption: stablecoin liquidity, fiat ramps, and institutional custody. It delivers critical infrastructure to boost homegrown stablecoins adoption like USDA and USDM.
The vendors commit to reinvesting earnings into Cardano liquidity and adoption incentives. The deliverables directly enhance DeFi participation and enterprise utility. STORM Partners supports this high-leverage, infrastructure-focused initiative. - No 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Emurgo can use their genesis ADA for market making USDA ecosystem.
Emurgo can use their genesis ADA for market making USDA ecosystem.
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
Though the requested amount is substantial, I acknowledge the need to bolster our stablecoins and enhance on- and off-ramp tooling. Considering the projected cost-effectiveness and the team's expertise, I will support the withdrawal.
- No 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.8M ₳ Rationale
This is a high risk proposal that is requesting community funding for a service that is for profit and should be getting funding from investment, a token sale, or from service fees instead of a community donation.
If exchange platforms wish to have community funding, then they should be also offering the community a portion of their company in exchange for the requested ADA to offset the high risk of this proposal.
- 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 don’t consider this proposal important enough for the Cardano ecosystem to warrant funding from the treasury. It feels more like an investment pitch. Why should the ecosystem fund a closed, private project? On top of that, it uses vague phrasing like “expanding native asset support in wallets” — why be so abstract?
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.5M ₳ Rationale
This is a large ask for a private company. I realize this is not Emurgo anymore so they dont have the genesis ada bank at their disposal. With USDA and USDM at basically the same market cap it seems unfair to pick a single winner at this time. If we could instead invest in both with liquidity and not private funds I would get behind that. The Treasury is supposed to fund public goods.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
カルダノ・ネイティブ資産（特にUSDA）のカストディ・取引所・法定通貨連携の課題に直接取り組む実務提案であり、ステーブルコイン流通のボトルネック解消に貢献すると評価します。明確な提携候補・取組対象が示されており、ユーティリティ拡張の戦略的投資として賛成します。
This proposal addresses key infrastructure gaps preventing broader adoption of Cardano-native assets like USDA, focusing on custodian support, exchange listings, and fiat on/off ramps. With clear objectives and named partners, I support it as a strategic step toward real-world utility expansion.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- 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. Cardano native assets still lack proper support beyond our ecosystem, and stablecoin adoption remains low. This proposal addresses key infrastructure gaps such as custody, exchange access, and fiat ramps that will help make Cardano native assets more accessible.
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No. While stablecoins are important for ecosystem utility, this proposal appears to primarily benefit a single company. Treasury funds should be used to build public goods and open systems that serve the entire ecosystem—not to subsidize the growth of individual businesses.
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 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
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
The proposal deals with real problems: liquidity, custody, fiat ramps, but it does so in a way that looks like a big public grant for the expansion of a private company. The amount requested is too much without supporting transparency at this time and given that there are similar efforts ongoing elsewhere in the Cardano ecosystem. There is a high risk of duplicated effort, vendor lock in and no ecosystem impact. The Treasury is supposed to fund public goods, not underwrite the go to market costs of one stablecoin issuer or ramp provider.
Let's see more evidence of open infrastructure deliverables, competitive costings, and clear non-duplication before we spend millions of ADA on what smells like a vendor subsidy. Cardano needs public goods infrastructure, not a private market share wars funded out of the Treasury.
- 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
We need some positive traction on stablecoin liquidity and on/off ramps to fit in with a broader context of regulation rework in the US that has put quite a bit of attention on this area. I appreciate the possibility of success having a positive return back to the Treasury.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 717.1K ₳ Rationale
I prioritized funding open-source tools and proposals that I believe will most effectively support Cardano’s long-term growth. I voted in favor of the highest-priority items that fit within my preferred budget cap of 250 million ADA, abstained from proposals where I may have had a personal interest, and voted NO on all remaining proposals after reaching that budget limit.
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale