Withdraw ₳424,800 for Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by Intersect
190 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 6 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted137.4K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes0y agoSuperseded
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process. - Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳Rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.9K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes39.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Hardware Wallets Maintenance – ₳424,800
Why I voted YES:
Ledger, Trezor, and Keystone hardware wallets are critical for Cardano users to securely manage their funds and interact with the chain. This proposal ensures continued compatibility with protocol upgrades and addresses bugs, security, and developer needs — all maintained by the original team (Vacuumlabs) since 2018.Key benefits:
• 🔄 Updates for Ledger, Trezor, and cardano-hw-cli
• 🛠️ Support for Keystone integration
• 🔐 Security-focused maintenance and bugfixing
• 🧪 Ledger audit costs covered (a Ledger requirement)
• 👨💻 Ensures hardware wallet support for upcoming Cardano featuresWithout this, wallet integrations risk falling behind, impacting usability and trust. This proposal protects the ecosystem’s hardware access layer — vital for adoption and decentralization.
- Yes29K ₳No rationale
- No26.7K ₳Rationale
"Currently it is not known which features in Cardano Roadmap will affect hardware wallets integrations."
Then send me the bill after you fix the problems. No thanks.
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.6K ₳Rationale
I vote for this proposal
- YesRevoted8.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes335.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes13.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes6.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale