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.
- Yes591.1K ₳Rationale
Yes, supports on-chain activity with commitment to pay back all funds.
- No579.1K ₳No rationale
- No573.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes568K ₳Rationale
This is a slight risk proposal but full heartedly believe in the team and the offering for a better massively improved ticketing system. So much potential.
- Yes503.6K ₳Rationale
When a team has already spent their own capital and built a user base before asking for ours, that tells me most of what I need to know about whether they will deliver.
The structure is the part I like most. This is a loan, not a grant. Twenty-five percent of all fees flow back to the treasury until the full amount is repaid, then five percent continues in perpetuity. So the treasury either gets its ADA back with an ongoing revenue stream, or the platform underperforms and we learn that cheaply through milestone-gated releases rather than one lump sum.
Ticketing is one of the few blockchain applications that makes plain sense to a normal person. CIP-68 tickets that can be verified, transferred, and checked at the door solve real fraud and scalping problems, and they put Cardano in front of event-goers who will never read a whitepaper..
I would like to see the repayment tracked transparently on-chain so we can all watch it perform against the milestones. But the fundamentals are sound and I think the amount being asked is fair.
It’s a yes from me. - Yes481.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.5K ₳No rationale
- No393.6K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳Rationale
My strong opinion is that treasury ADA should be exclusively used to fund basic technical infrastructure that is available to all people in the Cardano ecosystem.
Providing funding to single for-profit businesses shall in my opinion not be done from the treasury.
- No366.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes356.1K ₳Rationale
The ticketing industry suffers upwards of $3 billion of unrecoverable losses due to fraud and excessive fees; and upwards of $30 billion of overpayment by consumers due to scalpers and insider abuse. Tokenizing tickets on a blockchain and building a robust and predictable access portal for minting and transacting is one of the most promising use-cases for tokenization. In the event of a successful venture, this could also bring a consistent transaction volume to the L1 which would benefit all Ada holders. I see this as a worthy investment for the treasury, as it is a high-demand market worth capturing.
- No342.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes321.8K ₳No rationale
- No318.6K ₳No rationale
- No297K ₳Rationale
I don't see it taking off in today's market.
- Abstain285.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes275.2K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES on “Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption Ticketing Platform.” This proposal stands out because it is tied to a real operating business with an existing user base, active venue relationships, and a Cardano implementation that is already live on mainnet rather than being a speculative enterprise-adoption concept. Sellout has been operating since 2017, reports more than 200,000 registered users, over 250,000 tickets issued, and more than 350 events annually, while the proposer states that Phase 1 of the Cardano integration has already been self-funded and deployed, including event creation, CIP-68 NFT ticketing, transfers, and on-chain attendance verification.
The requested funding is for a clearly defined Phase 2: secondary market functionality with enforced royalties, anti-scalping controls, wallet onboarding for mainstream users, organizer tools, external audit work, and launch support tied to a contracted event series rather than vague adoption claims. The proposal also includes measurable and publicly verifiable targets — including events on-chain, NFT tickets issued, on-chain interactions, new wallets, and on-chain ticket revenue — together with a public metrics dashboard and quarterly reporting.
I also view the structure more favorably than many commercial adoption requests because the team has already committed its own capital to reach mainnet, the on-chain metrics are independently checkable, and the proposal includes a treasury payback commitment tied to platform revenue rather than treating the withdrawal as a pure one-way subsidy. Under current NCL pressure, a YES vote here should still be treated as a meaningful use of scarce remaining headroom as this is one of the more credible real-world adoption proposals in the queue and, on balance, still clears the bar for support.
- Yes268.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain260.8K ₳Rationale
Rationale: ABSTAIN
Infrastructure Over Commercial Verticals: During intensive protocol upgrades (Leios, Peras), Treasury funding must prioritize critical public infrastructure (e.g., Blockfrost, Daedalus) over non-essential commercial dApps.Unenforceable Revenue-Share Risks: The Cardano Treasury is not a venture capital fund and lacks cross-border legal mechanisms to recover ~5M ₳ if private operations or anchor events (e.g., Yellowstone Club) fail.
Geographic Disproportion: Allocating substantial global Treasury funds to scale a private business targeting a localized, niche US market is economically unbalanced under current conditions.
- Yes216.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.9K ₳No rationale
- No189.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes185K ₳No rationale
- No182.7K ₳No rationale
- No171.6K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged169.1K ₳History
Earlier votes
No2mo agoSuperseded
- No161.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- No157.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes149.8K ₳Rationale
As a revenue-returning enterprise adoption bet with real customers and events attached, this does passes my criteria below:
- Treasury runway is shrinking rapidly and must be protected. The 350M ADA 2026-27 NCL already risks ~21% drawdown. Aggressive prior spending + ADA weakness demands selectivity to avoid depletion before real adoption.
- Infrastructure is important, but it is not the primary bottleneck. Cardano's core tech is solid. The ecosystem stalls on adoption, liquidity, developer experience, and compelling use cases (DeFi, RWAs, revenue-generating apps). Broad infrastructure funding without adoption KPIs won't drive organic ADA demand.
- Hoskinson's concerns deserve respect, but governance requires balance. Core maintenance matters for competitiveness. DRep duty is long-term sustainability: not unlimited spending. Past allocations often failed to yield proportional TVL/users/ADA utility. Prioritize evidence-based proposals.
- Better capital allocation strategy: Favor high-leverage use-case initiatives, especially RWAs and revenue generating applications that commit to direct revenue or ADA return mechanisms back to the treasury, with clear milestones, private co-funding, and proven traction. Target specific tech unlocks only when tightly tied to measurable adoption impact. This builds real value without creating dependency.
- Yes142.9K ₳Rationale
My vote is Yes. I take this opportunity to protest the votes of Yoroi Wallet and Emurgo because they haven't explained the existing conditions of uncertainty that led them to vote No. I remind them of the enormous responsibility they bear given the number of votes they represent. I believe this proposal has great commercial potential, and they have a business on the mainnet. I support this project.
- No124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes122.8K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes because this proposal represents the kind of real-world adoption I believe Cardano should actively pursue. Rather than funding a concept or prototype, it builds upon a production system that is already live on Cardano and expands an existing business with an established user base. Bringing enterprise ticketing onto Cardano has the potential to generate sustained on-chain activity while introducing thousands of users to the ecosystem through a familiar consumer experience.
What I find especially compelling is that this proposal leverages blockchain where it offers clear advantages: verifiable ownership, programmable royalties, transparent secondary markets, anti-scalping mechanisms, and digital identity—all while abstracting away much of the blockchain complexity from end users. If executed well, it demonstrates how Cardano can solve real business problems rather than simply serving as financial infrastructure for crypto-native users.
I also appreciate that the proposal builds upon existing investment, includes milestone-based oversight, commits to an independent security audit, and introduces a revenue-sharing mechanism intended to repay the Treasury over time. While the projected adoption targets should be evaluated carefully and execution will ultimately determine success, I believe supporting enterprise integrations that create recurring utility and expand Cardano's presence in established industries is a worthwhile investment in the ecosystem's long-term growth.
- Yes95.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain90.6K ₳Rationale
Governance Action Review - Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform [EN]
1. Introduction
This Treasury Withdrawal funds Phase 2 of a production Cardano-native ticketing platform operated by Sellout.io and built by Anvil Development Agency. Phase 1 is already live on Cardano mainnet and includes on-chain event creation, CIP-68 ticket minting, ticket transfers, and attendance verification, funded by Sellout with over USD 130,000.
Phase 2 would deliver a secondary marketplace with on-chain royalty enforcement, configurable anti-scalping controls, wallet onboarding for Sellout’s existing 200,000+ users, organizer-facing tools, an independent third-party security audit, and a professional launch campaign. The anchor deployment is the Yellowstone Club 2026 concert series, with projected on-chain ticketing value above USD 6 million.
The proposal has an estimated duration of 8 months. The budget appears as 4,372,865 ADA in the proposal page and as 4,969,231 ADA in the attached abstract, with both corresponding to approximately USD 1.09 million under different ADA reference rates. Intersect serves as administrator, with milestone-based disbursement and oversight through the TRSC/PSSC framework. A revenue-share mechanism is intended to repay the Cardano Treasury until cost recovery.
2. Governance Action Analysis
Positive aspects
The proposal presents relevant merits in terms of team, execution capacity, potential impact, and financial sustainability. Anvil already has a consistent history of funding through Project Catalyst, with five proposals approved over time, approximately USD 700,000 paid to the team, four completed proposals, and a fifth with the last Proof of Achievement submitted in July 2026. This history indicates real delivery capacity, continuous activity in the Cardano ecosystem, and fulfillment of previously funded commitments.
There is also an important positive aspect in the monetization and revenue-share model. Few proposals historically funded by the Cardano Treasury have demonstrated concrete concern with financial sustainability or return to the Treasury. In this sense, the proposal aligns better with the sustainability pillar, as it does not depend only on continuous public funding and seeks to create a commercial structure capable of generating revenue and returning part of that value to the Treasury.
Regarding the budget, personnel costs appear adequate. The roles are identified, the FTEs were provided, and the hourly values deducted appear close to reasonable industry standards for the described profiles.
Negative aspects
There is, however, a legitimate concern with overlap. The Treasury has already funded initiatives related to NFT ticketing and event platforms, including NFTPass, Rare Perks / Rare Evo F10, and Rare Evo F14. This shows that the use case is not new in the ecosystem. The proposal does not seem to clearly recognize these previous initiatives, nor explain whether any code, learning, or infrastructure already funded will be reused.
The open-source scope could also be clearer. The proposal indicates that the on-chain infrastructure will be reusable by other operators under an open-source license, but does not precisely define which components will be open. It remains uncertain whether backend, APIs, dashboards, app, Web2 integrations, and other commercial parts of the platform will also be open source.
The main budget limitation is in the costs not directly associated with FTEs. Relevant allocations for marketing, infrastructure, audit, deliverables, and other areas remain generic and lack greater granularity, making a more precise cost-benefit evaluation difficult.
Risks and concerns
The overlap concern is not decisive against the proposal, because the current project appears more concrete: it starts from a partnership with Sellout, an already operational Web2 company, and seeks to integrate Cardano into an existing product instead of creating a solution entirely from scratch.
The lack of clarity around open-source scope matters because the Treasury has already funded many similar projects and, when code remains closed, the reusable public value for the ecosystem tends to be lower.
3. Vote and Rationale
Vote: ABSTAIN.
The final position is abstention. There is no opposition to the project, the team, or the potential impact. On the contrary, the proposal has strong elements that could justify a favorable vote.
However, the lack of detail in budget items outside personnel costs prevents a yes vote at this moment. The personnel costs appear adequate, with identified roles, informed FTEs, and hourly values close to reasonable industry standards. The limitation is concentrated in non-FTE costs, where relevant allocations for marketing, infrastructure, audit, deliverables, and other areas remain generic and lack greater granularity.
The condition for changing the vote would be greater detail for these budget lines, with cost composition, scope, deliverables, and a clearer relationship between budget and execution.
4. Conclusion
The proposal has relevant strengths in team track record, execution capacity, potential adoption, and a revenue-share model that may improve sustainability. Abstention is maintained because the non-personnel budget lines remain insufficiently detailed, preventing a more precise cost-benefit evaluation and a yes vote at this stage.
Revisão de Ação de Governança - Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform [PT]
1. Introdução
Esta Treasury Withdrawal financia a Fase 2 de uma plataforma de ticketing Cardano-native em produção, operada pela Sellout.io e construída pela Anvil Development Agency. A Fase 1 já está ativa na mainnet da Cardano e inclui criação de eventos on-chain, minting de tickets CIP-68, transferências de tickets e verificação de presença, financiada pela Sellout com mais de USD 130.000.
A Fase 2 entregaria um marketplace secundário com enforcement de royalties on-chain, controles anti-scalping configuráveis, onboarding de wallets para os mais de 200.000 usuários existentes da Sellout, ferramentas para organizadores, uma auditoria independente de segurança por terceiro e uma campanha profissional de lançamento. O deployment âncora é a série de concertos Yellowstone Club 2026, com valor projetado de ticketing on-chain acima de USD 6 milhões.
A proposta tem duração estimada de 8 meses. O orçamento aparece como 4.372.865 ADA na página da proposta e como 4.969.231 ADA no abstract anexado, ambos correspondendo a aproximadamente USD 1,09 milhão sob diferentes taxas de referência para ADA. A Intersect atua como administradora, com desembolso por milestones e oversight por meio da estrutura TRSC/PSSC. Um mecanismo de revenue share pretende reembolsar o Tesouro da Cardano até a recuperação do custo.
2. Análise da Ação de Governança
Aspectos positivos
A proposta apresenta méritos relevantes em termos de time, capacidade de execução, impacto potencial e sustentabilidade financeira. A Anvil já possui histórico consistente de funding pelo Project Catalyst, com cinco propostas aprovadas ao longo do tempo, aproximadamente USD 700 mil pagos ao time, quatro propostas completas e uma quinta com o último Proof of Achievement submetido em julho de 2026. Esse histórico indica capacidade real de entrega, atuação contínua no ecossistema Cardano e cumprimento de compromissos previamente financiados.
Também há um aspecto positivo importante no modelo de monetização e revenue share. Poucas propostas historicamente financiadas pelo Tesouro da Cardano demonstraram preocupação concreta com sustentabilidade financeira ou retorno ao Tesouro. Nesse sentido, a proposta se alinha melhor ao pilar de sustentabilidade, pois não depende apenas de funding público contínuo e busca criar uma estrutura comercial capaz de gerar receita e devolver parte desse valor ao Tesouro.
Quanto ao orçamento, os custos de pessoal parecem adequados. As funções estão identificadas, os FTEs foram informados e os valores deduzidos por hora parecem próximos a padrões razoáveis da indústria para os perfis descritos.
Aspectos negativos
Há, porém, uma preocupação legítima com sobreposição. O Tesouro já financiou iniciativas relacionadas a NFT ticketing e plataformas de eventos, incluindo NFTPass, Rare Perks / Rare Evo F10 e Rare Evo F14. Isso mostra que o caso de uso não é novo no ecossistema. A proposta não parece reconhecer claramente essas iniciativas anteriores, nem explicar se algum código, aprendizado ou infraestrutura já financiada será reutilizado.
O escopo open source também poderia ser mais claro. A proposta indica que a infraestrutura on-chain será reutilizável por outros operadores sob licença open source, mas não define com precisão quais componentes serão abertos. Permanece incerto se backend, APIs, dashboards, app, integrações Web2 e demais partes comerciais da plataforma também serão open source.
A principal limitação orçamentária está nos custos não associados diretamente aos FTEs. Alocações relevantes para marketing, infraestrutura, auditoria, deliverables e outras áreas permanecem genéricas e carecem de maior granularidade, dificultando uma avaliação mais precisa de custo-benefício.
Riscos e preocupações
A preocupação com sobreposição não é decisiva contra a proposta, porque o projeto atual parece mais concreto: parte de uma parceria com a Sellout, uma empresa Web2 já operacional, e busca integrar Cardano a um produto existente, em vez de criar uma solução inteiramente do zero.
A falta de clareza sobre o escopo open source importa porque o Tesouro já financiou muitos projetos similares e, quando o código permanece fechado, o valor público reutilizável para o ecossistema tende a ser menor.
3. Voto e Justificativa
Voto: ABSTAIN.
A posição final é de abstenção. Não há oposição ao projeto, ao time ou ao impacto potencial. Pelo contrário, a proposta tem elementos fortes que poderiam justificar um voto favorável.
Porém, a falta de detalhamento nos itens orçamentários fora dos custos de pessoal impede um voto sim neste momento. Os custos de pessoal parecem adequados, com funções identificadas, FTEs informados e valores por hora próximos a padrões razoáveis da indústria. A limitação está concentrada nos custos não associados aos FTEs, nos quais alocações relevantes para marketing, infraestrutura, auditoria, deliverables e outras áreas permanecem genéricas e carecem de maior granularidade.
A condição para mudança de voto seria um detalhamento maior dessas rubricas, com composição dos custos, escopo, entregáveis e relação mais clara entre orçamento e execução.
4. Conclusão
A proposta tem forças relevantes em histórico do time, capacidade de execução, potencial de adoção e um modelo de revenue share que pode melhorar a sustentabilidade. A abstenção é mantida porque as rubricas fora dos custos de pessoal seguem insuficientemente detalhadas, impedindo uma avaliação mais precisa de custo-benefício e um voto sim neste estágio.
- Yes65.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes63.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes62.7K ₳No rationale
- No56.1K ₳No rationale
- No48K ₳No rationale
- No45.3K ₳No rationale
- Abstain26.7K ₳Rationale
Not going to pass, abstain.
- Yes23.4K ₳No rationale
- No19.4K ₳No rationale
- Abstain15.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes3.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes688.8 ₳No rationale