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.
- YesChanged6.8M ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- Abstain6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳Rationale
Again, the description of this treasury withdrawal action is only a partial excerpt of the original proposal from the Intersect budget process. It leaves out elementary contents and remains underdefined here in my opinion. This is making the treasury govenance process even more fragmented as it already is.
With respect to the contents presented here, ist is unclear, if the Cardano ecosystem would still benefit, if the original platform disappeared. This remains a grey area, thus my vote is "No".
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.2M ₳Rationale
We recommend voting NO on this proposal due to several concerning points.
First, this is essentially a subsidy for the business operations of a private company (Sellout), with nearly half of the budget going towards salaries for Web2 personnel (Project Lead, DevOps, UI/marketplace development, trade show marketing) rather than building public infrastructure for the Cardano ecosystem. The Treasury is funding the internal business costs of a company, not a shared open product.
Second, the revenue-share "return" mechanism (25% of fees until the investment is recouped) is merely a contractual commitment; there is no guarantee of its enforcement if Sellout ceases operations or revenue falls short of expectations, and this risk falls entirely on the Treasury.
Third, the projected figures (200+ events, 75,000+ tickets, $6M on-chain revenue) are based on unverified optimistic assumptions, while Phase 1 is only self-funded by Sellout on a much smaller scale.
Fourth, nearly $1 million for a single ticketing platform, primarily serving the US market, is a significant expense compared to the actual ripple effects on the entire Cardano ecosystem.
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- No4.5M ₳No rationale
- No4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança "Withdraw 4,969,231 ADA for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform" (gov_action1xk6...p0ga3d), pois, embora reconheçamos a relevância de ampliar o uso da Cardano em aplicações do mundo real por meio de uma plataforma de ingressos já em operação, entendemos que o valor solicitado, de ₳4.969.231, é elevado para uma iniciativa comercial cuja adoção em larga escala, volume de transações e retorno financeiro ao Tesouro ainda dependem de projeções futuras. Reconhecemos que a proposta incorpora mecanismos positivos de governança, controle e transparência, incluindo desembolsos condicionados ao cumprimento de marcos, auditoria independente, relatórios públicos periódicos e um modelo de participação nas receitas geradas pela plataforma. No entanto, avaliamos que esses mecanismos não eliminam as incertezas relacionadas à execução do projeto, à adoção pelo mercado e à efetiva recuperação dos recursos investidos. Dessa forma, entendemos que a relação entre custo e benefício ainda não está suficientemente demonstrada para justificar esse nível de financiamento pelo Tesouro. Consideramos que evidências mais concretas de demanda, utilização e sustentabilidade financeira fortaleceriam a justificativa para um eventual apoio em uma versão futura da proposta.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action "Withdraw 4,969,231 ADA for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform" (gov_action1xk6...p0ga3d), because although we recognize the value of expanding Cardano’s real-world adoption through an existing ticketing platform, we believe the requested ₳4,969,231 is a substantial investment for a commercial initiative whose large-scale adoption, transaction volume, and financial return to the Treasury remain dependent on future projections. We acknowledge that the proposal includes positive governance, oversight, and transparency mechanisms, such as milestone-based disbursements, independent audits, regular public reporting, and a revenue-sharing model designed to return value to the Treasury. However, we believe these safeguards do not fully address the uncertainties surrounding project execution, market adoption, and the effective recovery of the invested funds. For these reasons, we believe the proposal has not yet demonstrated a sufficiently compelling cost-benefit case to justify this level of Treasury funding. Stronger evidence of market demand, real-world usage, and long-term financial sustainability would provide a more solid basis for supporting a future version of the proposal. - No4M ₳Rationale
I see this as a commercial endeavour which if practical should be able to obtain financing through traditional startup funding routes, and should not need public money.
As an experienced angel investor, I look at the pitch and from an investor's point of view it would be an easy no from me, and thus I can not in good faith support allocating public funds to support a business I wouldn't invest in myself.
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳Rationale
1000% YES, we should be funding proposals like this! A real world use case for Cardano that brings transaction volume and real revenue from a proven team.
On top of this, there is a treasury repayment plan in place. Why people are voting no on this proposal baffles me. They are willing to perpetually fund research until the treasury runs dry, but won't fund an obvious asset that brings actual tx volume and real world utility for Cardano. It's crazy, I seriously hope DReps change their votes for the better. If we aren't funding proposals like this, then what is the point of Cardano as a blockchain?
Thank you Anvil and Sellout.io team, I appreciate what you are doing for Cardano and all ADA holders!
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.7M ₳Rationale
Originally I was going to Abstain on this proposal, as I am a direct beneficiary of the contracted work.
After seeing how multiple parties have voted thus far in the 2026 governance rounds, I have decided to vote YES. My delegators expect this as supporters of Anvil.
Thank you to everyone who supports us on this mission, we can't wait to make Cardano the Ticketing Blockchain!
Earlier votes
Abstain2mo agoSuperseded
Originally I was going to Abstain on this proposal, as I am a direct beneficiary of the contracted work.
After seeing how multiple parties have voted thus far in the 2026 governance rounds, I have decided to vote YES. My delegators expect this as supporters of Anvil.
Thank you to everyone who supports us on this mission, we can't wait to make Cardano the Ticketing Blockchain!
- No2.7M ₳Rationale
私は本Treasury Withdrawalに反対します。
Sellout x AnvilによるCardano-native ticketing platformは、既存Web2 ticketing businessをCardanoへ接続し、実ユーザー、実売上、on-chain ticketing activityを生み出す可能性がある点は評価します。また、milestone-based disbursement、TRSC/PSSC、oversight、audit、contingency returnを含む資金管理設計も重要です。
しかし、本提案ではTreasuryから4,969,231 ADAが引き出される一方、revenue-share repaymentは$1,093,231のUSD建て返済に見えます。もし返済義務がUSD建てであれば、ADA価格が上昇した場合、TreasuryはUSD価値としては回収しても、ADA枚数としては元本を大きく下回る可能性があります。これはCardano TreasuryのADA建て資産保全という観点から不十分です。
商業案件にTreasury資金を使う場合、revenue shareは重要ですが、返済基準、換算レート、25% fee shareの対象、5% permanent feeの扱い、監査権限、公開報告が明確でなければなりません。特に、TreasuryからADAで支出する以上、少なくとも4,969,231 ADAの回収、またはADA建てとUSD建ての双方を保護する仕組みが必要です。
したがって、現時点では本提案を支持できません。ADA建て返済条件、revenue-base definition、quarterly audit、Treasury-controlled receiving vehicleが明確化された形での再提出を望みます。
I vote No on this Treasury Withdrawal.
I recognize the value of bringing a real Web2 ticketing business onto Cardano. The proposal has several positive elements, including an existing Phase 1 deployment, clear adoption targets, milestone-based disbursement, TRSC/PSSC fund control, oversight, audit, and a revenue-share repayment mechanism.
However, the Treasury is being asked to withdraw 4,969,231 ADA, while the repayment commitment appears to be denominated as $1,093,231. If repayment is USD-denominated, then an increase in the ADA price would allow the proposer to repay far fewer ADA than the amount withdrawn from the Treasury. This may recover the USD value, but it does not protect the Cardano Treasury in ADA-denominated terms.
For a commercial adoption proposal, revenue share is important, but it must be precise and Treasury-protective. The proposal should clearly define whether repayment is measured in ADA or USD, how exchange rates are calculated, what revenue base the 25% fee share applies to, how the 5% permanent fee is calculated, and what audit rights and public reporting obligations apply.
I would reconsider if repayment is structured to protect the Treasury in ADA terms, for example by continuing until at least 4,969,231 ADA, or the greater of 4,969,231 ADA and $1,093,231 equivalent, has been returned to the Cardano Treasury.
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.5M ₳Rationale
Take it to the moon!
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
Take it to catalyst
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.1M ₳Rationale
I am voting ABSTAIN on the Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Production Ticketing Platform proposal.
I want to be clear that this is not a rejection of the proposal’s merit. I support the goal of bringing real-world adoption to Cardano, and ticketing is a credible use case for blockchain technology. On-chain ticket issuance, secondary market controls, royalty enforcement, anti-scalping mechanics, and improved user onboarding could all create meaningful value if executed well.
I also recognise that this proposal appears stronger than many generic adoption proposals. It has an existing business behind it, evidence of real-world traction, a live Phase 1, and a specific plan for further deployment. That deserves credit.
However, I am not comfortable voting YES at this time.
My concern is not primarily with the idea itself, but with the current treasury framework. This is a growth/adoption and commercial rollout proposal, not core infrastructure maintenance, wallet security, protocol readiness, or open-source developer tooling. Under my current approach, this type of proposal should be assessed inside a pre-agreed growth/adoption budget bucket rather than competing against every other treasury request from one long, undifferentiated NCL pot.
I have been advocating for NCL reform: shorter windows, category-level budget buckets, market-aware spending, a strategy for strong and weak ADA markets, and clearer rules around treasury investment or commercial-growth funding. Until that framework exists, I am reluctant to vote YES on discretionary growth/adoption spending, even where the proposal has merit.
At the same time, I do not want to vote NO and actively block a proposal that has a credible real-world adoption case. This is not comparable to weaker or more speculative proposals where I believe a clear NO is warranted.
For me, ABSTAIN is the most accurate vote. It recognises that the proposal may have value, while withholding support because the current NCL and treasury framework is not yet mature enough for this category of spending.
A future version of this proposal could be more compelling if submitted within a clearer growth/adoption budget category, with stronger public-good framing, measurable Cardano-specific adoption targets, clear ecosystem return, and a treasury framework that distinguishes commercial rollout from core public-good funding.
For these reasons, I vote ABSTAIN.
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
Voting yes. The proposal is strong and Anvil has a solid track record.
The Sellout ticketing platform is a great idea. Building on Cardano enables the platform to enforce royalties, control scalping, and provide a more open marketplace for ticket buyers and sellers. Onboarding is handled in the background, so users won’t even need to know they’re using blockchain.
If successful not only will this result in ongoing transaction volume for Cardano, the full treasury investment will be returned over time using 25% of marketplace fees. This then drops to a permanent 5% rate when paid off.
This is exactly the kind of business the treasury should support. As with any investment there is risk. But the team has delivered previously and I believe they have a good chance of success.
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on "Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform." I support bringing a real ticketing business and users to Cardano, and I recognize the proposal's milestones, audit, and revenue-share intent. But the Treasury would fund 4,969,231 ADA of private commercial expansion while repayment is fixed at $1,093,231 rather than at least the ADA principal, and its revenue base and payment cadence remain deferred to future contracting. The proposal also includes Web2 work, marketing, and trade-show activations without a hard public-good guarantee that the resulting infrastructure is reusable beyond Sellout. I would support a revised version with ADA-principal protection, enforceable repayment terms, and explicit reusable public infrastructure.
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
One big flaw in this proposal is the lack of useful KPIs from Phase 1. It says that Phase 1 is running on the Cardano mainnet and was fully funded by Sellout, with over $130k spent on on-chain event creation, CIP-68 ticket minting, transfers, and attendance checks. However, it doesn’t give any solid data! There're no details on transaction volumes, user retention, wallet activations, or revenue numbers, to name but a few I'd expect. To make matters worse, the proposal doesn’t include an honest look at what was learned, the challenges faced, or the mistakes made that could help inform and lower risks for Phase 2.
This lack of transparency is concerning. It's a syndrome within the Cardano ecosystem where developers appear to think that simply asking for more funding to continue their work is enough, without providing evidence of what has been built, whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and if the rewards surpass the risks. Without meaningful metrics and reflections, the proposal is unfinished and undermines confidence in the team’s ability to hit their ambitious goals.
- No984.8K ₳No rationale
- No969.9K ₳No rationale
- No966.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳Rationale
We vote YES on this proposal because it represents a concrete real-world adoption opportunity for Cardano. Ticketing is a strong use case for blockchain technology: ownership, transfers, resale rules, royalties, anti-scalping mechanisms, check-ins and transparent lifecycle data can all benefit from on-chain infrastructure. This proposal is especially interesting because it is not starting from zero. Sellout already has an existing Web2 user base, event pipeline and ticketing business, while Anvil brings Cardano-native development experience.
We also appreciate that the proposal includes measurable adoption targets, milestone-gated delivery, an independent audit, public reporting and a revenue-share mechanism designed to repay the Cardano Treasury over time. This makes the proposal more accountable than a simple grant. While we recognize that this also supports a commercial product, we believe the broader ecosystem value is meaningful if the integration succeeds. Bringing real users, real events and real ticketing activity on-chain could become an important enterprise adoption case study for Cardano. For these reasons, we support this proposal.
- No927.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes926K ₳No rationale
- No884.5K ₳No rationale
- No866.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes829.9K ₳Rationale
We support Intersect's budget process. This proposal is part of it.
- Yes796.1K ₳Rationale
I like investing in real-world use cases.
- Abstain737.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain622K ₳No rationale
- Yes604.7K ₳Rationale
YES, Phase 1 live on mainnet, 200K users, $6M+ contracted anchor deployment. Revenue-share repayment (25%→5%). Detailed budget, strong oversight. Working product de-risks execution. Would support more strongly with explicit open-source commitment for contracts.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
This is the strongest commercial adoption proposal currently active. Phase one is already live on mainnet, funded entirely by Sellout's own capital. This is not a promise. It is a working product with two hundred thousand registered users and three hundred fifty plus events per year. The Yellowstone Club two thousand twenty-six concert series is contracted, not speculative, with six million dollars plus in projected on-chain ticket revenue. The revenue share repayment mechanism creates genuine alignment. Twenty five percent of marketplace and royalty fees flow back to the Treasury until the full amount is repaid, then five percent permanently. This is rare and appropriate for a commercial proposal with public infrastructure spillover. The budget is detailed and honest, with every full-time equivalent, conference, and audit cost specified. The oversight structure through Sundae Labs Treasury Reserve Smart Contracts and a six-member independent Oversight Committee is robust. Anvil's two hundred fifty plus Cardano projects and Sellout's operational platform since twenty seventeen provide credible execution capability. I would support this more strongly with an explicit open-source commitment for the CIP sixty eight ticketing contracts and marketplace smart contracts. The DRep discomfort with funding a for-profit business is legitimate and shared. But the self-investment, working product, contracted anchor deployment, and repayment mechanism make this a justifiable exception.