Withdraw 4,969,231 ada for Cardano Enterprise Adoption: Ticketing Platform

On-chain governance action (Treasury Withdrawals).

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 (on-chain event creation, CIP-68 ticket minting, transfers, and attendance verification) is already live on Cardano mainnet, funded entirely by Sellout (over $130k invested). Phase 2 delivers a secondary marketplace with on-chain royalty enforcement, per-event anti-scalping controls, wallet onboarding for Sellout's 200,000+ existing users, organizer tools, an independent third-party security audit, and a professional launch campaign, anchored by the contracted Yellowstone Club 2026 concert series.

This is a direct on-chain Treasury Withdrawal governance action submitted by the proposer. Intersect serves as the budget administrator by prior agreement - holding and disbursing funds through the Sundae Labs Treasury Reserve / Project-Specific Smart Contract (TRSC/PSSC) framework with independent oversight - rather than this being a

• Proposer return address: stake1uy8vr53guapag0rfvwnumlteyls8agysvrv87pdgukp8cugm6qjgj
• Deposit: 100,000 ₳
• Submitted: epoch 639
• Expires: epoch 646

View in explorer

Nothing against ticketing, but this is a single commercial vertical asking for treasury-scale money — roughly five million ADA to build one company's product. That's what Project Catalyst exists for. The withdrawal channel should fund shared infrastructure and public goods that benefit everyone, not venture capital for one app in a crowded space with a long failure record. Wrong mechanism, wrong size.

I used to work in the music industry with bands on National Tour and the whole nine. TicketMaster has a monopoly in the ticketing industry because they paid big money to venues across the country to be the exclusive ticketing partner for them for decade plus long contracts they renew. Trying to break into the ticketing business takes a LOT of capital to buy into venues and is slow due to having to wait for previous contracts to end. Overall this proposal should be funded by partners interested in the space or with the means of pushing it in a way that matters long term, not a Treasury.

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.