Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix
214 DReps voted · 53 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
From a strategic governance perspective, I question whether this proposal aligns optimally with the timing and thematic focus of the broader Catalyst funding rounds. Catalyst’s iterative funding cycles are designed to empower community-driven innovation and rapid adaptation. Given that Cardano.nix is a toolset with active community engagement and evolving requirements, it may benefit from the iterative feedback loops and dynamic prioritization facilitated by Catalyst 14 rather than a fixed budget allocation through Intersect. This could enhance community oversight, foster broader stakeholder input, and potentially unlock complementary contributions or enhancements from the wider developer ecosystem.
Moreover, integrating this funding into Catalyst could reinforce the principle of decentralized decision-making by allowing the community to evaluate the proposal’s evolving impact in real time. This would also align with our collective imperative to adopt a business-minded governance approach—making strategic choices that optimize treasury utilization while safeguarding the protocol’s long-term stability.
I support the necessity of this work and recognize its critical role in Cardano’s infrastructure. Yet, I advocate for a governance model that leverages Catalyst’s adaptive funding mechanisms to ensure the community remains actively engaged in shaping the evolution of foundational tools like Cardano.nix. This is not merely a question of funding but of embedding accountability, transparency, and strategic agility into the heart of our treasury disbursements. Only through such disciplined, community-centric stewardship can we secure Cardano’s future as the most decentralized and scalable PoS network in the world.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 935.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 920K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 804.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
I'm not a fan of using this process for requests of such a a small amount. However, MLabs delivers results and Nix node support is needed.
- Yes 791.4K ₳ Rationale
Providing developers more tools to improve developer experience on Cardano is worthy of support. Though I use none of the tools mentioned above as a developer, the use of the tools versus the funds requested seem to be reasonable, and these tools are demonstratable and functional.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 762.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 655K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
I have voted in favor of this action to demonstrates my intention to execute without delays and move the treasury expenditure process forward. I also want to note that I will not consider individual requests from the treasury for less that 100,000 ADA moving forward. I reserve the right this round because I feel the process was not properly explained to proposers and DRep and it would be unfair to implement this guardrail at this time. Requests below that threshold are better suited for Catalyst funding.
A budget and all included line items has already been approved, and now is the time to disperse funding and enable further development of the Cardano network. The proposal was selected through a well-defined process, and I will fully support it out of respect for the will of the broader Cardano community and a belief in respecting the consensus we achieved together under the Intersect-administered budget process. The process reflects a coordinated, strategic approach to funding Cardano’s ecosystem-critical infrastructure. The community has thoroughly reviewed the proposal. I was actively involved in the entire process and the proposal presented represents development that provides a tangible benefit to our ecosystem. It would be a mistake to underfund our ecosystem’s development when we can sustainably provide the required funding with our available treasury reserves.
Furthermore there are exceptional oversight mechanisms in place to ensure a minimum amount of wast, fraud, and abuse of treasury expenditures, such as Intersect’s smart contract framework (audited by TxPipe and MLabs), Multi-party oversight (including Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, NMKR, etc.), A clear milestone-driven disbursement model, and full transparency via TRSC/PSSC dashboards.
These governance and assurance systems meet the constitutional standards for accountability and risk management and provide confidence in efficiency and execution. - No 601.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 596.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 587.1K ₳ Rationale
Cardano.nix is not just a utility—it’s a core infrastructure component that enables developers and SPOs to reliably deploy and maintain Cardano nodes, wallets, and backend services with precision. In our own work, stable tooling like this minimizes deployment friction, accelerates onboarding, and increases long-term maintainability of production systems.
MLabs has already proven itself as one of the most technically proficient teams in the ecosystem, and maintaining Cardano.nix is crucial for the operational integrity of multiple stakeholders, including IOG, Daedalus, and emerging on-chain governance platforms like ours.
Supporting this proposal helps ensure that those building at the infrastructure layer are not left with stale or broken toolchains. As we try to attract more developers—especially from traditional Web2/DevOps backgrounds—Nix-based environments provide clarity and reproducibility that these engineers expect.
I see this proposal as an essential investment for reducing tech debt, improving developer experience, and enabling secure infrastructure at scale.
- Yes 558.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 502K ₳ Rationale
Tiny ask, massive value. Reproducible infrastructure deployment is the difference between "works on my machine" and professional-grade systems that don't randomly explode on Tuesdays. MLabs has been quietly keeping essential infrastructure running while everyone else argues about which JavaScript framework to use. No brainer for me..let's fund this.
- Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 437.8K ₳ Rationale
I vote YES on MLabs’ proposal to maintain and enhance Cardano.nix. The tool is already integral to the ecosystem, delivering reproducible, error‑resistant infrastructure for stake‑pool operators and developers. With a clearly defined scope and a proven DevOps crew behind it, this work promises high impact, and sustaining such open‑source infrastructure is essential for a stable, scalable, developer‑friendly Cardano ecosystem. The requested amount is also reasonable
- Yes 431.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
KryptoLabs as a DRep engaged in Cardano 2025 budget discussions, we are voting Yes for the MLabs Cardano.nix treasury withdrawal (Gov Action ID: gov_action18nefry4qacd80xzs2srjahxm2e4vz3c8wvrr03rrtk8mdqfuknysq66459t). Research confirms Cardano.nix’s critical role in enabling reproducible Cardano infrastructure, benefiting SPOs and developers. Based on community feedback, community support, emphasizing ecosystem strength. Approving this sustains a vital tool, aligning with Cardano’s 2025 budget priorities and fostering developer ecosystem growth.
- No 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 371.8K ₳ Rationale
Overall Rationale for Voting on Treasury Withdrawals
As a DRep participating in on-chain governance under the Voltaire framework, I have reviewed each of the 39 treasury withdrawal proposals currently up for vote.
This document outlines my generic voting rationale. My vote on each individual proposal—whether Yes, No, or Abstain—has been guided by the following considerations:
When I Voted Yes
I have supported proposals that clearly satisfy all of the following:
Relevance
The proposal addresses a clear and meaningful need in the Cardano ecosystem—whether it is developer tooling, community infrastructure, governance, or research.Reasonableness of Budget
The requested amount is proportional to the scope and deliverables. Proposals that show cost breakdowns and attempt to maximise value for money are given priority.Credibility of the Team
Preference is given to teams with a proven history of delivery in the Cardano ecosystem, open-source contributions, or community engagement. In case of newer teams, supporting references or associations are considered.Alignment with Voltaire Governance Goals
In the Voltaire era, legitimate, transparent use of the treasury is essential. I support proposals that help establish or strengthen governance processes and infrastructure.
When I Voted No or did not vote
I have voted No where one or more of the above criteria are not met, such as:
- Lack of clarity or relevance to Cardano’s needs
- Justification regarding budgets
- Weak or unknown team background
- Vague deliverables or lack of public transparency
In some cases, proposals may be promising but are premature or underdeveloped at this stage.
When I Abstained
I have chosen to Abstain when:
- The proposal shows potential but lacks enough information for a confident decision
- There are mixed signals—e.g., a good idea but poor planning, or credible team but vague milestones
- There may be overlap with other initiatives already underway
Summary
This is a generic decision-making framework I have followed across all 39 proposals. Votes are cast independently for each proposal, and the default is not Yes. Instead, each proposal must make a clear case on its own merits.
I remain open to feedback and discussion from delegators or community members regarding any specific vote.
List of Proposals and My Vote
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix - 45,217 ADA - Yes
Midgard - Optimistic Rollups administered by Intersect - 2,162,096 ADA - Yes
2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal - 96,817,080 ADA - Yes
Blockfrost Platform community budget proposal - 1,300,000 ADA - Yes
Hardware Wallets Maintenance administered by Intersect - 424,800 ADA - Yes
Pallas: Sustaining Critical Rust Tooling for Cardano - 220,914 ADA - Yes
UTxO RPC: Sustaining Cardano Blockchain Integration - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Lucid Evolution Maintenance administered by Intersect - 130,903 ADA - Yes
zkFold ZK Rollup administered by Intersect - 1,161,000 ADA - Yes
Dolos: Sustaining a Lightweight Cardano Data Node - 220,914 ADA - Yes
Ledger App Rewrite administered by Intersect - 300,000 ADA - Yes
Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart contract layer for Bitcoin - 600,000 ADA - No
OSC Budget Proposal - Paid Open Source Model for Sustainable Development - Not specified - Yes
Gerolamo - Cardano node in typescript - 578,571 ADA - Abstain
MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Plutarch - 243,478 ADA - Abstain
TWEAG's Proposals for multiple core budget project... - 11,070,323 ADA - No
Cexplorer.io -- Developer-Focused Blockchain Explorer... - 266,667 ADA - Yes
A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers - 605,000 ADA - Yes
AdaStat.net Cardano blockchain explorer - 212,000 ADA - Yes
A MBO for the Cardano ecosystem: Intersect - 15,750,000 ADA - Yes
Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire - Not specified - Yes
Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output - 69,459,000 ADA - Yes
Input Output Research (IOR): Cardano Vision - Wor... - 26,840,000 ADA - Yes
BloxBean Java Tools Maintenance and Enhancement - 99,600 ADA - Yes
Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Cardano... - 750,000 ADA - Yes - Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 321.1K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 314.4K ₳ Rationale
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I abstain from this vote.
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I abstain from this vote.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ Rationale
I’m voting YES to fund the maintenance and enhancement of Cardano.nix as important for reproducible infrastructure deployment and reliable node operations, meaning its a foundational component of Cardano’s technical ecosystem. Ongoing maintenance ensures stability, compatibility, and resilience for developers and enterprises building on the network.
While this request is relatively small and future maintenance of this type may be better suited to Catalyst or bundled into larger, long-term funding mechanisms, I believe it’s important to support this proposal now. Doing so sustains essential infrastructure while giving us time to evolve treasury processes that keep the community actively involved in shaping and maintaining foundational tools.
This decision reflects my DRep principles of supporting sustainable infrastructure, ensuring long-term ecosystem health, and enabling proven contributors to continue delivering value to Cardano.