Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform
151 DReps voted · 58 with a rationale · 4 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 4 to yes, together voting with 12.6M ₳ of voting power.
Voting concentration
7 of 151 DReps cast half of the voted power.
Largest voter 13.3%, top 5 combined 42.7% of 4.3B ₳ voted.
The 8 largest voters together held as much voting power as the 67.0% threshold required in yes votes.
- Abstain457.4M ₳Rationale
"Yoroi DRep votes ABSTAIN on Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform. Yoroi recognises the importance of responsible governance during periods of ecosystem uncertainty.
- Ecosystem Situation: The trust our delegators place in Yoroi requires that we act only when we can do so with full confidence. In light of the current situation, Yoroi is choosing to withhold its vote on this proposal and will reassess our position once conditions allow for a considered decision."
- No441.6M ₳Rationale
Please check the following link for the reasons for the vote.（投票理由は次のページを参照してください。)
- Abstain350.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain304.6M ₳Rationale
"EMURGO as a DRep votes ABSTAIN on Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform, with rationale outlined below.
Given the ongoing situation in the ecosystem, responsible governance requires us to act with full clarity and confidence. Until the current situation reaches resolution, EMURGO prefers to withhold judgment rather than vote without the certainty our mandate demands. We will revisit this proposal once the situation is resolved."
- No278.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes216.7M ₳Rationale
We vote on Intersect budget items as we did on Ekklesia.
- Yes185M ₳No rationale
- Yes182.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes170.6M ₳Rationale
This document includes the Cardano Foundation’s voting decisions and individual voting
rationales for 3 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions connected to the 2026 Intersect-facilitated budget process: Ticketing Platform, Daedalus Wallet Maintenance & Improvements and Cardano Builder DAO.A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We apply a consistent evaluation framework (see "Cardano Foundation Voting Decisions for the 2026 Intersect Budget Process") and present our reasoning in a single document. Fund-administration clarity is a central consideration: our expectation is that treasury funds are held and released under diligent, transparent, independently-overseen administration with robust custody controls and milestone-based accountability.
For the Ticketing Platform and Daedalus withdrawals, no material change has emerged since our original budget assessment, and our YES votes reflect that assessment. For the Cardano Builder DAO, we are changing our vote from YES to NO due to a change in the proposal relating to the administration of the funds. The updated proposal discloses that the full 20,000,000 ada is paid upfront to a self-selected "independent council" and held under a three-person native multi-sig with only two of three signatories disclosed. This creates continuity and security risks which would usually mitigated by a setup such as the TRSC/PSSC framework with independent external oversight and milestone-gated disbursement.
Voting Record
Governance Action ID Title Vote Rationale gov_action1fda...ccn9gc Cardano Builder DAO (2026) NO The proposal aligns with Cardano governance and ecosystem growth, and the team has a demonstrated record of delivering ecosystem grants, running on-chain governance rounds, and returning unused funds to the treasury. However, the disclosed fund administration, 20,000,000 ada withdrawn upfront to a self-selected council held under a partially-disclosed three-person native multi-sig, outside the independently-overseen TRSC/PSSC framework used for comparable withdrawals, does not provide adequate custody security, key-management assurance, or governance-risk controls at this scale. On this basis, CF changes its vote from Yes to No. gov_action1xk6...p0ga3d Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform YES This proposal by Anvil seems to credibly contribute to adoption and utility: the system uses CIP-68 metadata, native multi-asset issuance, and on-chain royalty enforcement to support a ticketing business already serving 200,000 users. The proposal is expected to generate meaningful on-chain activity through direct network usage with documented 12-month targets of NFT mints, on-chain interactions, new wallets, and in ticket revenue processed on-chain. Anvil team has a proven track record of Cardano delivery, and Sellout has operated a functioning ticketing platform since 2017. The budget is appropriately justifi ed given the clearly defi ned deliverables, milestone-gated disbursement, third-party security audit, and the equity provision to the Cardano treasury. However, Yellowstone Club anchor deployment and the relatively modest Sellout self-funding to date, compared to the requested amount, should be tracked through quarterly reporting. Based on this, CF votes Yes. gov_action1mr0...4yjd6j Se7en Labs: Daedalus Wallet Maintenance and Improvements 2026–2027 YES The Daedalus Wallet proposal credibly contributes to adoption, utility, and ecosystem growth because its deliverables provide essential maintenance and functional extensions to Cardano's foundational full-node wallet infrastructure. The proposal is expected to drive sustained protocol-level engagement by reactivating idle legacy user accounts and securing independent network access suffi cient to justify treasury investment. Furthermore, the team has demonstrated the necessary expertise to maintain the solution, and the budget is appropriately justifi ed given a fair balance between core upgrades and optional, refundable security audit allocations. However, the proposal would benefi t from clearer long-term fi nancial planning, with the understanding that approval should not imply a commitment to continued annual treasury support. Based on this, CF votes Yes. These three votes are the outcome of a review anchored in our publicly stated principles. The Ticketing Platform and Daedalus withdrawals carry forward our original YES assessments unchanged. For the Cardano Builder DAO we vote NO, due to security and continuity concerns related to the custody and administration arrangements.
NOTE on 'Internal Voting':
The fields constitutional and unconstitutional below reflect the CF governance teams' individual opinions whether they are for or against the proposal. Reason for this inconsistency is, that CIP-136 is at the moment only applicable to CC rationales, but we want to record the internal opinions of our DRep assessment transparently as well. - No105.9M ₳Rationale
While I recognize that this proposal is backed by a real business with an existing product and user base, I do not believe the Cardano Treasury should fund the commercial expansion of a private company.
If Phase 1 has already demonstrated product-market fit, then Phase 2 should primarily be financed through business revenue or private investment. A successful commercial venture should be able to raise capital based on its own business case rather than relying on Treasury funding.
I am also concerned that this proposal includes expenses such as marketing campaigns, trade shows, and business expansion activities that are more appropriately funded by the company itself rather than the Cardano Treasury.
The Treasury should prioritize investments in public goods, open-source infrastructure, core protocols, and ecosystem-wide resources that the private market is unlikely to fund on its own.
Although this project could generate value for Cardano if successful, I do not believe it is appropriate for the Treasury to absorb the commercial risk of expanding a private business.
For these reasons, I vote No.
本提案は実際の事業基盤やユーザーを持つ企業による提案ですが、その事業拡大費用をCardano Treasuryが負担すべき理由は十分に示されていないと考えます。
既にPhase1を自社資金で開発・運用しているのであれば、Phase2についても事業収益や投資家からの資金調達を通じて実現するのが本来の企業活動です。市場性や収益性に自信があるのであれば、事業として自立して成長すべきであり、Treasuryを事業資金の代替手段として利用すべきではありません。
また、マーケティング、展示会、事業開発など、民間企業の成長投資と考えられる項目までTreasuryで負担することには賛同できません。
Cardano Treasuryは、民間企業の事業拡大を支援するためではなく、公共財やエコシステム全体が恩恵を受けるインフラ、プロトコル、オープンソース技術など、市場だけでは十分に供給されない領域へ優先的に投資すべきです。
本提案が成功すればCardanoにも利益はあるかもしれませんが、事業リスクまでTreasuryが負担することは適切ではないと判断し、本提案には反対します。
- Abstain96M ₳No rationale
- Abstain93.3M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I vote ABSTAIN on the proposal: Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform.
My rationale:
I see both positives and serious concerns.
On the positive side, this proposal is connected to a real company with an existing ticketing business. Sellout appears to be a real service with real users, and Anvil is a credible Cardano development partner. I also appreciate that the proposal attempts to bring a real-world commercial use case to Cardano, which is something the ecosystem should generally welcome.
However, I remain skeptical about the actual added value of blockchain in this specific use case.
A tokenized ticket has clear value before the event, but after the event, its utility becomes much weaker. Unless there is a concrete loyalty, collectible, or future-access model, the NFT mostly becomes an expired ticket record. The proposal does not sufficiently explain why this long-term on-chain footprint creates meaningful value for users or for Cardano.
There is also a more fundamental issue: owning an NFT ticket does not by itself guarantee admission to the event. The buyer still depends on a trusted third party. In this model, the NFT is not the same as owning a fully on-chain asset like ADA. It represents an off-chain promise that must still be honored in the real world.
The proposal also appears to rely heavily on custodial wallets and hidden blockchain UX. That may be good for normal users, but it weakens the self-custody argument. If ticket buyers do not manage their wallets, do not interact with Cardano directly, and continue to rely on Sellout’s system for redemption, then Cardano risks becoming a backend ledger rather than essential infrastructure.
I am also concerned about the economics of minUTxO. If every purchased ticket becomes a CIP-68 NFT, then ADA must be attached to token-bearing UTxOs. At a small scale, this may be manageable. At a larger scale, it becomes a real operational capital requirement. If old tickets remain in wallets after events, the minUTxO requirement can keep growing over time. This is a significant barrier to scaling the product.
Related to this, the proposal does not clearly explain who owns or benefits from the ADA used for minUTxO. If the wallets are custodial, then Sellout appears to control the ADA reserve required to operate the system. If this ADA is delegated, staking rewards may also accrue to Sellout unless another arrangement is clearly defined. If a customer exports a ticket to self-custody, it is unclear whether the customer receives the required min ADA together with the NFT, whether they must provide ADA themselves, or how that ADA is later recovered.
This is not a minor implementation detail. It affects user experience, capital requirements, ownership, staking rewards, and the real meaning of self-custody.
In addition, ADA locked for minUTxO should not be treated as strong economic activity or productive TVL. It is mostly operational liquidity required to make the NFT design work. It may support staking, and it may sit under the control of the custodial operator, but it is not the same as active capital used in DeFi or organic user demand for ADA.
The repayment mechanism is positive in principle, but I am not convinced it is strong enough. Based on the expected ticket volume and fee-share structure, repayment of roughly $1.09M could take many years, possibly around 15 years under conservative assumptions. That makes the repayment more like long-term upside than strong Treasury protection.
I am also uncomfortable with the Treasury funding a private company’s product development, Web2 integration, salaries, marketing, and business expansion unless the Cardano-specific value is very clear. In this case, I do not think the proposal fully proves that Cardano is necessary for the core ticketing business.
Many parts of ticketing can be implemented in Web2. Users are also not strongly motivated to take advantage of self-custody if the event experience still depends on the ticketing provider and venue.
For these reasons, I cannot vote YES.
At the same time, I do not want to vote NO because this is still a real business trying to use Cardano in a real-world service. I want Cardano to be adopted by actual companies and not only by crypto-native projects.
If the team can prove the model, generate real usage, and show that Cardano brings measurable value to organizers, artists, venues, or buyers, then this could become useful learning for the ecosystem.
Therefore, I abstain.
I would like to see a future version with a clearer explanation of why Cardano’s role in the ticketing system is important, how self-custody works in practice, how minUTxO is handled at scale, who owns the ADA attached to ticket UTxOs, who receives staking rewards, what happens to tickets after events, how users benefit from NFT ownership, and a more realistic repayment model.
I would also like to see Sellout have more skin in the game and cover part of the cost of integrating its business with Cardano.
If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance.
MANDA Pool ID:
pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8My DRep ID:
drep1y2m0g4r66...skqwqpBuy me a beer:
https://pay.cexplorer.io/pay/c0410d5b237b6ec0 - No89.4M ₳Rationale
Ideally, I think it’s a great concept, but even if the platform were built, it would likely struggle with user onboarding and wouldn't see much usage at this stage.
- Abstain89.1M ₳No rationale
- No88.1M ₳Rationale
I am unconvinced this is prudent spending given competing demands on the Cardano Treasury and how quickly the Treasury will reach zero given current spending levels.
- Yes83.9M ₳Rationale
SIPO DRep votes YES, with expectations, on the treasury withdrawal "Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform" (4,969,231 ADA).
This action funds Phase 2 of a production Cardano-native ticketing platform, operated by Sellout.io and built by Anvil Development Agency. Phase 1 — on-chain event creation, CIP-68 ticket minting, transfers, and attendance verification — is already live on mainnet, funded by Sellout's own capital (over $130k). Phase 2 delivers a secondary marketplace with on-chain royalty enforcement, per-event anti-scalping controls, custodial wallet onboarding for Sellout's 200,000+ existing users, organizer tools, an independent third-party security audit, and a launch campaign, anchored to the Yellowstone Club 2026 concert series. The ask is 4,969,231 ADA (a modeled ~$1,093,231 at the proposal's $0.22/ADA) over eight months, disbursed across five milestones.
This is a returnable treasury investment, not a grant. A defined share of marketplace and royalty revenue is repaid to the Cardano Treasury — 25% of fees until the withdrawal is reimbursed in full, then a permanent 5% — paid quarterly, with progress reported publicly. Because this is a productive, returnable deployment tied to real commercial activity, SIPO considers it on its merits rather than treating it as a structural-No brand-marketing ask. Non-speculative utility from a real business with real users is exactly the high-value-vertical activity the Cardano 2030 strategy calls for, and the Constitutional Committee voted 3-0 that the action is constitutional.
Fund control on disbursement is strong. The on-chain recipient is the 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract at the script credential stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v, on the Sundae Labs treasury-contracts framework, with milestone-gated disbursement through a Project-Specific Smart Contract, a multi-party authorization quorum, an independent Oversight Committee, and a public dashboard — the same structure SIPO supported across the 2026 Intersect Budget Process. No deliverable acceptance, no disbursement; the ~3% contingency and any undisbursed funds revert to the Treasury.
SIPO notes one material improvement since the Hydra Voting phase. SIPO reviewed and voted Yes on this proposal in that phase, where its repayment instrument was a 10% equity stake and SIPO's leading check-point was the legal and practical mechanics of that stake. The on-chain proposal replaces the equity stake with the revenue-share described above, explicitly to avoid the custody, valuation, dilution, and governance-rights problems equity raises. The proposer changed the exact instrument SIPO flagged. That is a constructive response to feedback, and it is why SIPO's Yes carries from the Hydra phase to the on-chain action rather than being reconsidered.
SIPO does not, however, treat the concerns as closed, and attaches expectations. First, and most important, the repayment: the withdrawal itself is script-gated, but the revenue-share is a contractual obligation whose exact revenue base and cadence are finalized only in Milestone 1, not enforced on-chain today. SIPO expects the M1 contracting to route repayment through an on-chain-enforced mechanism — a script escrow or a Treasury-controlled receiving vehicle — and to be published, so that the return commitment rests on more than off-chain trust. Second, custodial wallet onboarding for 200,000 non-technical users places a user-protection burden on the platform; SIPO expects the key-management, withdrawal, and self-custody-export design to be published and reviewable before launch. Third, this is an adoption-and-marketing-weighted proposal, so SIPO expects the headline KPIs — first-year transactions, new wallets, and the Yellowstone Club deployment volume — to be independently verifiable and reported quarterly, alongside repayment progress.
SIPO also records, as context rather than as a charge, that the proposer's principals have publicly described severe financial strain from years of building on Cardano. SIPO does not hold that against the proposal; the repayment is sourced from Sellout's operating revenue rather than from the builder's balance sheet, and a working business with genuine product-market fit is precisely what the treasury should be willing to back. It reinforces, rather than changes, the case for routing the repayment through an enforceable, transparent mechanism.
None of these conditions the vote. They are the basis on which SIPO will judge milestone acceptance and any future request. This vote is SIPO DRep's recorded position.
SIPO DRep として、トレジャリー引き出し提案「Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform」（4,969,231 ADA）に、期待事項を付して賛成（YES）を投じます。
本件は、Sellout.io が運営し Anvil Development Agency が構築する、本番稼働の Cardano ネイティブ・チケット販売プラットフォームの Phase 2 への資金です。Phase 1（オンチェーンのイベント作成・CIP-68 チケット mint・譲渡・出席検証）は既に mainnet で稼働しており、Sellout が自費（$130k 超）で賄いました。Phase 2 は、オンチェーン・ロイヤリティ強制付きの二次流通マーケットプレイス、イベント別のアンチスキャルピング制御、Sellout の既存 20 万人超へのカストディアル・ウォレット導線、主催者向けツール、独立した第三者セキュリティ監査、そしてローンチキャンペーンを、Yellowstone Club 2026 コンサートシリーズを anchor として実装します。要求額は 4,969,231 ADA（提案前提 $0.22/ADA でモデル上 約 $1,093,231）で、8 ヶ月・5 マイルストーンに分割して支払われます。
これは助成金ではなく、返還型の国庫投資です。マーケットプレイスとロイヤリティ収益の一定割合が Cardano 国庫へ償還されます — 手数料の 25% を引き出し額の完済まで、完済後は恒久 5% — 四半期払いで、進捗は公開報告されます。実際の商業活動に紐づく、収益を生み返還される投下であるため、SIPO はこれをブランドマーケティング型の構造的 NO として扱わず、是々非々で検討します。実ユーザーを持つ実在事業からの非投機的ユーティリティは、Cardano 2030 戦略がまさに掲げる high-value vertical の活動であり、Constitutional Committee も 3 対 0 で本アクションを合憲と判断しています。
支出面の資金統制は強固です。オンチェーン受領先は 2026 Intersect Treasury Reserve Smart Contract（script credential: stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v・Sundae Labs treasury-contracts フレームワーク上）で、Project-Specific Smart Contract を通じた milestone gate 支出、複数者の承認定足数、独立した Oversight Committee、公開ダッシュボードを備えます — SIPO が 2026 Intersect Budget Process の全件で支持したのと同一の構造です。成果物の受理なくして支払いなし。約 3% の contingency と未支出分は国庫へ戻ります。
SIPO は、Hydra Voting phase 以降の 1 つの実質的な改善を記録します。SIPO は当該フェーズで本提案をレビューし賛成を投じましたが、その時点の償還手段は 10% の equity stake（株式）であり、SIPO の筆頭確認ポイントはその株式の法的・実務的な仕組みでした。on-chain 版はその equity stake を上記の rev-share に置き換えており、これは equity が生む custody・valuation・dilution・governance-rights の問題を避けるためだと明記されています。提案者は、SIPO が指摘したまさにその手段を変更しました。これはフィードバックへの建設的な応答であり、SIPO の賛成が Hydra phase から on-chain アクションへ再検討なしに引き継がれる理由です。
ただし SIPO は懸念が解消したとは扱わず、期待事項を付します。第一に、そして最も重要なのが償還です。引き出しそのものは script で gate されますが、rev-share は契約上の義務で、正確な収益ベースと頻度は Milestone 1 で初めて確定し、現時点でオンチェーン強制されていません。SIPO は、M1 の契約で償還をオンチェーン強制の仕組み（script escrow または国庫管理の受領 vehicle）を通す形で確定し、公開することを期待します。返還のコミットがオフチェーンの信頼のみに依存しないようにするためです。第二に、20 万人の非技術ユーザーへのカストディアル・ウォレット導線は、プラットフォームに利用者保護の責任を負わせます。SIPO は、鍵管理・出金・自己 custody export の設計が、ローンチ前に公開されレビュー可能になることを期待します。第三に、本件は採用・マーケティングの比重が大きい提案であるため、SIPO は主要 KPI（初年度トランザクション・新規ウォレット・Yellowstone Club の取扱高）が独立検証可能で、償還進捗とともに四半期報告されることを期待します。
SIPO はまた、糾弾としてではなく文脈として、提案者の中心人物が Cardano での長年の開発から深刻な財務的逼迫を公に語っている事実を記録します。SIPO はそれを提案の減点とはしません。償還は builder のバランスシートではなく Sellout の事業収益から生じるものであり、真の product-market fit を持つ稼働中の事業こそ国庫が支えるべき対象です。この事実は本件の評価を変えるものではなく、むしろ償還を強制可能かつ透明な仕組みを通す必要性を補強します。
これらはいずれも本投票の条件ではありません。SIPO がマイルストーンの受理や将来の要求を判断する際の基礎です。本投票は SIPO DRep の記録上の立場表明です。
- Abstain80.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain75.3M ₳Rationale
I really like this proposal and appreciate the way it bridges Web2 users into the Cardano ecosystem. However, the risk and the overall ask of nearly 5 million ADA are just a bit too high for me to vote yes.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I really like this proposal and appreciate the way it bridges Web2 users into the Cardano ecosystem. However, the risk and the overall ask of nearly 5 million ADA are just a bit too high for me to vote yes. My main hesitation is that the repayment terms feel somewhat open-ended, without a clear deadline, minimum payment, or protection if revenues happen to fall short. Additionally, with the treasury providing ADA but being repaid against a fixed USD amount, the treasury takes on the currency risk—something that is especially important to consider given current market conditions where a rise in ADA's price would mean significantly less ADA comes back. While these financial mechanics give me pause, I won't stand in the way of this being funded as we absolutely do need initiatives like this in the ecosystem, so I am choosing to abstain.
- No53.3M ₳Rationale
I am voting No on the Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform proposal.
This is fundamentally product development for a commercial company, with little public-good character. Sellout's marketplace is their revenue product, and a commercially sound expansion should be fundable through private capital.
The revenue-share commitment does not justify Treasury support either. It is an unbalanced structure in which the Treasury bears the failure risk in full while sharing only a limited part of the upside.
The Treasury spends 4,969,231 ADA against a repayment fixed at 1,093,231 dollars, so not even the ADA principal is protected, and the revenue-base definition and payment cadence are deferred to M1 contracting, leaving no binding recovery mechanism at the time of the vote.
Even in success, the output does not flow back to the ecosystem as reusable infrastructure. The budget includes Sellout's own Web2 development, marketing, and trade-show costs, with no binding guarantee of reuse beyond Sellout.
I judge this to be closer to shifting a company's costs onto the Treasury than to investing in ecosystem infrastructure, and I vote No.
- Abstain50.8M ₳Rationale
Because of fundamental concerns with the current treasury process, I vote Abstain on all Treasury Withdrawal proposals until the treasury budgeting process undergoes fundamental reform.
More information: https://x.com/ada_stat/status/2068315882539921703
- No43.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes42.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes41.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes39.5M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on governance action 35b44189eb4795...b34e#0.
First, I have no ongoing conflicts of interest with regards to this proposal. I have had some discussions about whether Gummiworm would be a suitable solution for the layer 2 traffic he will require, but such discussions have not materialized into anything concrete, and would not constitute direct revenue to Sundae Labs in any case.
I am strongly in support of this proposal, for the same reason I have been in support of Blockfrost, Pogun, and Eternl: commercial endeavors to bring long term sustainable revenue to the Cardano treasury, and real world usage of both Cardano and its surrounding ecosystem, are, to me, king right now.
That being said, I did have some reservations that I discussed with the team and that were received well:
This allocates nearly a third of the funds to improving the existing web2 product; If this were a company approaching a strategic investor, an 8:1 fund to company ratio would be considered fairly high, and the company would likely be asked to cover their own improvement costs and count it as their own contribution to the partnership. Structurally that is difficult for Sellout to do in this market, but that means that the terms need to be more favorable to offset.
Which segue's into the terms. This is presented as a single financial instrument, but instead, I view it as two things:
- a 0% interest, long term loan with no teeth on default
- a 5% (of whatever percentage they decide to take as a cut of the fees!) return, deferred by 5 years
Typical financing deals have between 1.35x and 1.5x payback terms over that timeframe. And 5% of 600k (assuming a sigmoid, rather than an exponential as the team has done), deferred by 5 years, has a present-value of $25-75k, a pittance.
Don't get me wrong; this is still structurally better than other proposals which are pure grants, hence my somewhat useless Yes vote.
But if Anvil / Sellout wanted to strengthen this proposal, then either raising the payback to 1.5x, adding an acceleration after 5 years, or raising the percentage cut would all do wonders for this proposal, financially.
You can find a larger writeup justifying my vote here.
- Abstain37M ₳No rationale
- Abstain36.8M ₳No rationale
- No36.4M ₳No rationale
- No32.4M ₳Rationale
While the proposal demonstrates clear adoption potential and strong KPI measurability, the requested amount of 4,969,231 ADA is disproportionately high for a non‑critical, non‑infrastructure initiative. This work does not qualify as life‑support infrastructure for Cardano, and the cost structure—covering extensive labor, marketing, and conference expenses—does not meet a reasonable cost‑effectiveness threshold. The repayment mechanism is USD‑denominated and dependent on future revenue, introducing uncertainty and weakening Treasury protection. For these reasons, I cannot support this withdrawal.
- Abstain30.6M ₳Rationale
Socious abstains on this GA because we are not sure of the proposal.
- Yes30.6M ₳Rationale
Same rationale as my vote on the Intersect Budget.
- Yes28.7M ₳No rationale
- No28.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes28.1M ₳Rationale
This is a fantastic use case for Cardano with a clear ROI for the ecosystem. Should be an easy YES in my opinion.
- Yes27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes26M ₳No rationale
- Yes25.9M ₳Rationale
I am voting YES to Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption. This is a good bet at market fit with an established company to mitigate risk. This proposal positions for a real shot at adoption while helping to keep the Anvil team fed through the bear. Go get 'em Cash.
- Yes23.6M ₳Rationale
Following the advice of Real Big Fish.
- Yes22.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.7M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the treasury withdrawal action “Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform” (35b44189eb4795...b34e#0).
I voted YES for this on the Hydra Voting platform, was sad to not see it receive enough support then, but respect to the team for now trying directly on-chain instead. Similar to my support for the 5am.earth proposal – if we don’t start taking a chance on commercialisation of this chain and increasing our transaction counts then what are we even doing here. The idea of blockchain to reduce the worldwide problem of ticketing and inflated secondary sales is not new, but we have yet to see anyone solve it at scale by merging the two systems. Even the UK government, as recently as June 2026, have been pushing to explore blockchain-based ticketing for major sporting events, highlighted in a recent X post. It feels as though this is one of those “right time, right place” moments and if we don’t seize the opportunity to demonstrate a real-world implementation of a solution then we will find Cardano once again in 2-3 years watching other chains having success in this area saying to ourselves “that could have been us, remember that team that kept requesting funding for something similar in 2026”. Time to be narrative leaders instead of narrative chasers.
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
We support this proposal because it connects Cardano to a real existing ticketing business with users, events, revenue, and a clear enterprise adoption path.
Phase 1 is already live on mainnet and was funded by Sellout. Phase 2 adds a secondary marketplace, royalty enforcement, anti-scalping controls, wallet onboarding, organizer tools, audit, and public launch. The proposal also includes concrete Cardano-specific targets such as NFT tickets, on-chain interactions, new wallets, and ticket revenue settled on Cardano.
We also appreciate the treasury repayment mechanism. A 25% fee share until the treasury is repaid, followed by a smaller permanent fee, is a stronger value-capture model than most commercial adoption proposals provide.
We would still like clearer public-good guarantees around reusable infrastructure, licensing, and how other ticketing operators could use the system independently. However, the combination of existing traction, milestone-based delivery, enterprise use case, and treasury repayment makes this proposal worth supporting.
- Yes20.3M ₳Rationale
Ticketing is a strong use case for adoption in Cardano. I thus do support this proposal on second look. This is another use case which would benefit from Midnight integration, so I hope to see this project incorporate privacy features for the ticketing system once available through Midnight.
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3M ₳Rationale
Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform
- No12M ₳Rationale
本提案が目指す方向性や、チケットプラットフォームへのブロックチェーン技術の活用には一定の価値があると考えます。しかし、約500万ADAのTreasury支出については、その必要性や費用対効果が十分に正当化されているとは判断できません。そのため、本提案には反対します。\n\nI appreciate the direction of this proposal and recognize the potential value of applying blockchain technology to a ticketing platform. However, I do not believe that the necessity and cost-effectiveness of withdrawing approximately 5 million ADA from the Treasury have been sufficiently justified. Therefore, I vote No on this proposal.
- No11.9M ₳Rationale
We recognise the strong potential of a Cardano-native ticketing platform to deliver meaningful enterprise adoption, real-world utility, recurring on-chain activity, and a credible reference case for blockchain-based ticketing. The proposal also benefits from an existing product, a commercial ticketing partner, and an execution team with a positive history of completing Catalyst-funded projects. Our vote is therefore not a rejection of the use case, the team, or the potential value of the project to Cardano.
Our concern is that the requested ₳4,969,231 Treasury withdrawal is a substantial allocation to the expansion of a commercial ticketing business, while the proposal does not yet provide sufficient clarity on the proportional public value returned to the Cardano ecosystem. The proposal should more clearly distinguish which components constitute reusable Cardano ecosystem infrastructure and which primarily develop proprietary commercial capabilities that could reasonably be funded by the commercial beneficiaries themselves. Given the scale of the request, the value-for-money case requires significantly stronger evidence than the existence of a genuine industry problem and a promising enterprise opportunity.
We are also concerned that the proposed adoption case relies substantially on the onboarding of more than 200,000 existing users. A large addressable user base should not be treated as equivalent to active Cardano adoption. Critical questions remain: How many users are contractually expected to become active Cardano ticket users? How many tickets, events, transfers, secondary-market transactions, and other on-chain activities are expected? What percentage of Sellout's future ticketing activity is committed to Cardano? What minimum adoption thresholds must be achieved before later funding tranches are released?
The proposed revenue-share mechanism intended to return value to the Treasury also requires substantially more clarity. What exact legal entity is responsible for repayment? Is the obligation based on gross revenue, net revenue, or profit? What is the exact repayment formula and duration? What happens if the operating entity is sold, restructured, dissolved, or becomes insolvent? What audit and enforcement rights does the Treasury have? Without clear legal enforceability, a proposed revenue share should not be treated as equivalent to a guaranteed Treasury return.
We further seek greater transparency regarding the budget. What is the detailed breakdown of the ₳4.82 million work package across development, personnel, infrastructure, security, legal, marketing, and other costs? What independent benchmarks support these costs? Why should the Cardano Treasury bear the cost of marketing that may primarily increase the value of a private commercial business? Can marketing expenditure be separated from core technical development and released only against independently verifiable adoption outcomes?
The proposal also raises important questions about user sovereignty and long-term ecosystem resilience. If the platform uses custodial or semi-custodial wallets, who controls the assets and private keys? Can users export their tickets and assets independently of the platform? Would the tickets remain usable if Sellout or the operating entity ceased operations? Which functions are genuinely enforced by Cardano smart contracts, and which remain dependent on centralised business logic?
The proposed milestone and oversight structure is a positive feature, but the acceptance criteria must be sufficiently objective and independently verifiable. Who appoints the oversight committee? How are conflicts of interest managed? Can milestone payments be withheld where adoption or technical deliverables are not achieved? Will expenditure, audit reports, milestone evidence, and adoption metrics be publicly available?
We therefore vote NO not because the opportunity lacks merit, but because the proposal, in its current form, does not yet sufficiently resolve the risks associated with the size of the Treasury allocation, the commercial/public-good boundary, adoption assumptions, repayment enforceability, budget justification, and long-term user and ecosystem protection. We encourage the proposers to address these questions and return with a substantially strengthened proposal that could merit reconsideration.
- Yes10.3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain9.5M ₳Rationale
dOSPO/OMF: Still abstain.
ALPHAGROWTH: YES. I support this proposal because growing Cardano's DeFi ecosystem, liquidity, and competitiveness is a strategic priority. While I would have preferred stronger attribution and performance metrics upfront, I believe the proposal contains sufficient milestone-based funding, reporting, and governance oversight to justify support. On balance, the opportunity cost of delaying a coordinated growth initiative outweighs the remaining execution risk.
Bifrost: NO. While I support Bitcoin interoperability as a concept, I am not convinced this proposal sufficiently demonstrates the value it will create for Cardano relative to its cost. This is the first phase of a multi-phase initiative that explicitly anticipates a future Treasury proposal for launch and operations, yet the proposal primarily relies on the expectation that Bitcoin liquidity and activity will naturally translate into meaningful value for Cardano. I would have preferred stronger evidence that this infrastructure is likely to drive measurable adoption, on-chain economic activity, and sustainable benefit to the ecosystem before committing Treasury funding to a longer-term roadmap.
Version 12 von Bergen: ABSTAIN, however know that this is starting to get a bit morbid.
Cardano Enterprise Ticketing: ABSTAIN. I support enterprise adoption as a strategic priority for Cardano, and I believe this proposal represents a legitimate opportunity. However, I remain divided on whether this is the right path for funding initiatives of this nature. I would have preferred to see enterprise opportunities evaluated through a dedicated catalyst or accelerator-style program rather than as standalone Treasury withdrawals. Given that uncertainty—and the broader community's differing views on the appropriate funding model—I am abstaining.
- Abstain8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA abstains on Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform.
This is a constructive abstention.
RCADA supports the goal of bringing real-world enterprise adoption to Cardano. Ticketing is a credible use case for blockchain because tickets, resale, royalties, transfer rules, fraud prevention, and attendance verification can benefit from transparent ownership and programmable settlement. The proposal also has meaningful positives: Phase 1 is already live on Cardano mainnet, Sellout has invested its own capital, the platform has an existing user base, and Phase 2 includes concrete deliverables such as a secondary marketplace, royalty enforcement, anti-scalping controls, wallet onboarding, organizer tools, an independent audit, public reporting, and a revenue-share repayment commitment.
However, RCADA is not comfortable giving full support to the proposal in its current form. The request is sizeable at 4,969,231 ADA, and the proposal blends public-good infrastructure with private commercial platform expansion. Treasury funds would support not only Cardano-native ticketing infrastructure, but also Web2 integration, marketing, trade-show activations, legal setup, launch activity, and commercial rollout work for a specific ticketing business.
RCADA’s concern is not that enterprise adoption is unimportant. It is that Treasury funding should be clearly tied to ecosystem-wide value. In this proposal, some outputs appear broadly reusable and public-good oriented, while others look more like normal business development costs for a private platform. That makes it harder to justify full Treasury support at this level.
RCADA appreciates the proposed repayment structure, including the commitment to repay $1,093,231 to the Treasury through a revenue-share mechanism. That is a positive feature and makes the proposal stronger than a simple grant. However, the exact revenue-base definition and payment cadence are to be finalised during contracting, and the Treasury would still be taking early execution, adoption, and commercial-risk exposure before repayment is proven.
RCADA also notes the adoption risk. Sellout’s existing user base and event pipeline are encouraging, but existing Web2 users do not automatically become meaningful Cardano users. Custodial wallet onboarding may reduce friction, but it also raises questions about user control, transparency, education, and whether the resulting activity creates durable Cardano adoption beyond one platform.
For these reasons, RCADA abstains rather than voting yes or no. This abstention is not opposition to Sellout, Anvil, ticketing, or enterprise adoption on Cardano. It is a signal that the direction is promising, but the current proposal blurs the boundary between public infrastructure funding and commercial product expansion.
RCADA would be more comfortable supporting a future version if the Treasury request were narrowed to the clearly reusable public-good components: open-source Cardano ticketing smart contracts, CIP-68 ticketing standards, royalty and anti-scalping modules, public documentation, integration guides, independent audit outputs, dashboards, policy-ID tracking tools, and a documented enterprise adoption case study. Commercial rollout costs such as marketing, trade-show activations, Web2 platform expansion, legal entity setup, and business development should ideally be funded by the company, customers, investors, revenue, or private partnerships.
On balance, RCADA sees real potential in Cardano-native ticketing, but abstains on this proposal as submitted because the public-good case is not yet cleanly separated from private commercial expansion.
RCADA's full vote assessment can be found here:
https://brolloks.github.io/rcada-drep-votes/ - No7.6M ₳Rationale
Voting NO as currently offered
I scored this proposal using my own public rulebook and scoring system, which is available here: Cardano DRep Commercial Treasury Rule Book v11 – Intelligent Risk, Protected Infrastructure & Ecosystem Coordination Edition (https://docs.google.com/document/d/13EcIlJguBz-MJv91a3YYtb8O96K8uf9B9AOHsDOxeVE/edit?usp=sharing). The document is still evolving, but it reflects how I assess commercial and hybrid Treasury proposals.
I use AI assistance in this process because I want a scoring method that I can apply as neutrally and consistently as possible across the large number of proposals requesting funding. AI does not make the decision for me. It helps me structure the review, test the proposal against the same criteria, and spot issues I may otherwise miss. When a proposal is borderline, I look at it even more closely.
I do not support this withdrawal as submitted. The proposal has a real adoption case. Sellout is an operating ticketing company, Anvil has a visible Cardano delivery record, Phase 1 is already claimed live, and ticketing is a useful non-speculative use case for Cardano. I give the team credit for that. But v11 treats this as a very large commercial/hybrid request, not a simple adoption grant. The proposal asks for ₳4,969,231, keeps most of the customer relationship and commercial upside private, and does not give Cardano enough firm public-asset rights. The revenue share is meaningful, but the exact revenue base, receiving vehicle, cadence, and enforcement details are still pushed into M1 contracting. That is not strong enough before a vote of this size. The marketing portion also fails v11 price discipline because it lacks rate cards, vendor quotes, reusable public content/data rights, and hard retained-impact thresholds. Milestone gating, an audit, public dashboards, and Intersect/Sundae-style administration reduce risk, but they do not fix private capture, weak open-source/public-asset terms, or the opportunity cost. I would vote No / Revise and Resubmit. I would reconsider a smaller staged version with binding revenue-share terms before enactment, clear clawbacks, a public/open or protected-components schedule, independent KPI source data, stronger continuity rights, and benchmarked marketing spend.
v11 classification
Field Assessment Proposal name Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Production Ticketing Platform Applicant Anvil Development Agency, Inc. + Sellout.io Proposal type Hybrid public/commercial integration; commercial software/data platform; real-world adoption/RWA-style ticketing; separable marketing/adoption component ADA requested ₳4,969,231 Duration 8 months Correct v11 scorecard used? Yes. General Investor-Hard Scorecard for the main software/commercial build. Appendix A for the separable marketing spend. Marketing share ₳772,727, about 15.5% of the total request Main public value Potential non-speculative Cardano use: tickets, wallets, transfers, resale, royalties, check-ins, and a public case study Main weakness Very large commercial request with under-specified enforceability, weak public-asset rights, and insufficient marketing verification Vote stance No / Revise and Resubmit General Investor-Hard Scorecard — non-marketing software/commercial portion
Category Max Score Assessment Public value, additionality, ecosystem gap, and market timing 12 10 Strong use case. Real-world ticketing could bring recurring non-speculative transactions. Landscape and reuse analysis is still not deep enough for the size of the request. Team quality, traction, and adaptive execution 7 6 Anvil has visible Cardano experience and Catalyst history. Sellout appears to be a real operating business. The team is stronger than most commercial applicants. Price versus value 6 3 The budget is detailed, but the ask is large. It funds staff, private integration work, marketing, legal setup, and normal commercial expansion. Price benchmarking is weak. Applicant integrity and past delivery 8 6 Prior Anvil delivery is a positive signal. Disclosures are better than average. Some claims still need independent confirmation, especially venue contracts and revenue assumptions. Public asset, open-source, verifiability, and data rights 12 6 Audit reports, policy IDs, dashboards, and a case study help. But the core platform, user relationship, data layer, and most IP remain private. No strong open-source or forkable public asset is offered. Treasury upside, instrument fit, and risk sharing 14 10 The 25% fee share until repayment and 5% after repayment are meaningful. But exact revenue base, receiving vehicle, cadence, and enforcement are not firm enough at vote time. Very large commercial proposals need stronger terms. Milestones, verification, and anti-gaming design 13 10 Milestones are fairly concrete and include audit, testnet/mainnet evidence, reporting, and dashboards. Anti-fake-metric rules need more detail for wallets, transactions, related-party activity, and subsidized usage. Risk management, margin of safety, and obsolescence resilience 12 7 Milestone gating and Sellout’s Phase 1 co-investment help. Remaining risks include custodial wallets, privacy, ticketing compliance, venue dependency, ADA/USD volatility, and private operator lock-in. Sustainability and exit plan 8 6 Sellout could plausibly maintain the system from operating revenue. Cardano’s continuity rights remain weak if the company pivots, sells, fails, or limits access. Strategic opportunity cost, competitive neutrality, and ecosystem coordination 8 5 This could be strategically useful, but the Treasury would subsidize one private ticketing platform. Neutral access for competitors and reusable ecosystem outputs are limited. General base score 100 69 Good team and useful adoption thesis, but below the v11 bar for a large commercial withdrawal. Appendix A — Marketing & Adoption Scorecard for the separable marketing spend
Category Max Score Assessment Cardano-specific public value and strategic fit 12 9 The campaign supports a real adoption story and targets live-events industry buyers. Audience quality, not audience size 12 8 NIVA, INTIX, and Pollstar are relevant venues for the ticketing industry, but the proposal gives limited independent audience-quality evidence. Additionality, market timing, and market-failure case 10 7 Launch timing makes sense. Some spend still looks like normal private go-to-market work. Price versus market benchmarks 12 3 No rate cards, vendor quotes, sponsorship comparisons, or cost-per-qualified-lead benchmarks are provided. Applicant track record and delivery history 8 5 Big Storm appears to be a real agency and Sellout knows the market, but Cardano-specific campaign proof is limited. Concrete public deliverables and content/data rights 10 5 Educational materials and reports are mentioned, but reusable content rights, lead summaries, and source-data access are not strong enough. Conversion and retained impact 16 8 The proposal names adoption outcomes, but it lacks hard 30/60/90-day retained-impact thresholds for marketing leads and enterprise conversions. Independent verification and anti-fake-metric controls 12 6 On-chain ticketing metrics can be checked, but marketing reach, leads, audience quality, and conversion attribution need better independent verification. Co-funding, revenue share, discounts, or risk sharing 5 3 Sellout funded Phase 1 and the overall proposal includes revenue share. No clear marketing vendor discount or direct sponsor risk sharing is shown. Brand safety, conflicts, and competitive neutrality 3 2 No major red flag, but related vendor controls and neutral ecosystem access are not fully developed. Marketing base score 100 56 This portion fails Appendix A’s price, verification, public-deliverable, and retained-impact discipline. Combined v11 result
Item Result General/software score 69 / 100 Marketing/adoption score 56 / 100 Weighted diagnostic score before adjustments 67 / 100 Ecosystem Coordination Premium +1 DRep Conviction Adjustment +1 Final assessment score 69 / 100 v11 score interpretation Lean no Very-large-request threshold Fails. v11 expects 90+ or exceptional terms. Treasury-upside threshold for very large commercial proposal Fails. Scored 10 / 14, while v11 expects about 13 / 14. Public asset / open-source / verifiability threshold Fails. Scored 6 / 12, below the commercial software/data-platform bar. Risk threshold Fails. Scored 7 / 12, below the support threshold. Marketing Appendix A thresholds Fails price benchmarks, retained impact, public deliverables, and independent verification. Automatic no or revise issue Yes. The upside and public-asset package are not binding enough before the vote for a request of this size. Final vote stance No / Revise and Resubmit