Withdraw ₳424,800 for Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by Intersect
190 DReps voted · 50 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I voted YES for this proposal in the Ekklesia temperature check. I think is one of the essential proposals from the point of view of an end user who uses a cold wallet to secure his or her Cardano / ADA funds. What I would like to see in the future is more competition from competent teams that wish to do further cold wallet integrations and improvements of end user experience with different and novel ADA and native token storage methods.
- No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgReady to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).
We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.
My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
This proposal directly aligns with STORM Partners’ objective of retaining and securing Cardano users by ensuring uninterrupted access to the network through HW. Cold wallets are foundational for institutional and retail confidence, and Vacuumlabs has consistently delivered secure integrations for years. While we would prefer a more detailed funding breakdown, the strategic value of this proposal justifies the maintenance allocation.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Continued Ledger/Trezor support is critical to the security of Cardano network especially when SPOs are using hardware wallets. It will also secure Cardano ecosystem users' hard earned assets.
Continued Ledger/Trezor support is critical to the security of Cardano network especially when SPOs are using hardware wallets. It will also secure Cardano ecosystem users' hard earned assets.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting yes, as per list described in my tweet:
https://x.com/OracleAltcoin/status/1917257059071934483Core engineering first, decentralization of influence and conservative with the treasury.
Strength and honor. - Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting Rationale for 2025-08 Treasury Withdrawals
The following outlines the general lenses and beliefs that guided my voting decisions on the 39 withdrawal proposals submitted under Cardano’s Voltaire governance. I am reusing this rationale for proposals that aligned with these principles and did not require additional explanation due to unique mitigating concerns.
⸻
Cardano: State of Play
The vision of the Cardano ecosystem—to create a fairer financial system, less subject to the whims of individuals, elites, nations, or cultures—remains worthy of support. In general, we are progressing toward that goal.
The bedrock tenet of any blockchain is trustworthiness. While Cardano’s base layer and transaction integrity are mature, the ecosystem has not yet reached the scale needed to fulfill its mission. Infrastructure that supports scaling—especially when open-sourced—should be prioritized for funding.
Because the ecosystem currently allows for anonymity and lacks effective mechanisms to penalize bad actors, it is vulnerable to abuse. Public funding is at risk from fraud, budget inflation, frivolous proposals, and well-intentioned but economically unviable ideas. Given that grift is currently viable, all funding requests must be critically reviewed—with a strong default bias toward skepticism.
However, in any new system, failure and error are expected. The many problems we’ve seen in this first funding cycle are normal and should be treated as feedback to help us improve, not as reasons to disengage.
⸻
Fiscal Philosophy
I view the Cardano treasury as a sovereign wealth fund—a public resource meant to grow over the long term. Spending should be closely aligned with income.
Most projects should ultimately sustain themselves by generating revenue commensurate with their value. But Cardano is still an immature economic system, and many valuable contributions will require public funding at this stage—analogous to early government support for foundational infrastructure.
⸻
Approach to the Budget Process
This first Voltaire budget cycle has experienced serious growing pains. I do not believe that builders should be asked to shoulder the full financial risk of an immature, unclear, and delayed funding process.
Many proposers have worked through most of 2025 without knowing whether their funding would come through. This has impaired their ability to allocate resources intelligently.
I believe the greater ecosystem risk lies in failing to fund projects that were already approved by the community—under the reasonable assumption that funding would follow—than in inadvertently funding a few proposals that should have been rejected. Accordingly, I adopted a bias toward optimism and benefit of the doubt.
However, in cases where proposals appeared excessively extractive, failed to demonstrate economic value in line with their requests, or raised too many concern flags, I voted “no” despite that bias.
⸻
Bias Toward Core Infrastructure and Open-Source
Cardano is first and foremost an infrastructure system. Public funding is best directed toward foundational layers and tooling, rather than toward products that should be able to find product-market fit and attract users or investors.
Public money should come with public return—either in the form of open-sourced outputs or equity-like participation in future value creation.
⸻
Additional Beliefs and Disclosures
I believe in the wisdom of crowds. My votes are based on independent reading of the proposals, personal communications with teams, and my own biases and interpretations. I assume some of my conclusions are incorrect—but trust that the collective judgment of voters will yield a generally sound outcome despite individual errors.
I voted in good faith and without compensation. I have no proposals of my own and no financial interest in any proposal beyond that of any other ADA holder.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ Rationale
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already undergone extensive scrutiny and received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision and the work these prospective developers have put in by voting yes on all the proposals from the Intersect Budget team.
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
It is important to support the basic elements of crypto UX. Hardware wallet support must be a priority.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
ハードウェアウォレット（Ledger, Trezor, Keystone）の継続的な保守・機能拡張は、Cardano利用者の安全性とアクセス性を維持するために不可欠です。Vacuumlabsによる実績ある保守体制と、cardano-hw-cliなど開発者向けツールの維持も含まれており、妥当な金額であるため賛成します。
Continued maintenance of Ledger, Trezor, and related tooling is essential for secure and reliable user access to Cardano. With proven delivery by Vacuumlabs and support for developer tools like cardano-hw-cli, I vote in favor given the critical infrastructure scope and reasonable cost.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Critical Infrastructure, would like to see a better breakdown of funding but all in all it's a pretty straightforward initiative.
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting Yes. This proposal ensures Ledger, Trezor, and Keystone hardware wallets stay compatible with Cardano as the protocol evolves. It funds critical maintenance, updates, bug fixes, and audits.
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes on the proposal to withdraw ₳424,800 for Hardware Wallets Maintenance, administered by Intersect. Hardware wallets are a critical component of Cardano’s security and user sovereignty, providing a safe and trusted way to interact with the blockchain. This proposal ensures the continued maintenance, compatibility, and improvement of hardware wallet support across key platforms.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
HW maintenance ensures user security. I there is no compatibility with them community would have a huge problem.
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.
It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.
I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:
- Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
- Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
- Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
- I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.
I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:
❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.