Withdraw ₳583,000 for Eternl Maintenance administered by Intersect
166 DReps voted · 49 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.1M ₳ Rationale
Seems I forgot to attach my rationale the previous time I voted. So, let me try to sum it up off the top of my head. I voted NO in Ekklesia on the. ₳583,000 for Eternl Maintenance.
I am a heavy Eternl user and have been a user since it was CC Vault, so I am biased towards the wallet. I have started moving towards open source wallets... as I think that it is time to practice what I preach.
Furthermore, there is a lot of competition in the Cardano wallet space and the Treasury should not be picking winners and losers - by funding a subset of wallets. But if will be used to fund their maintenance, I want them open source.
The proposal states:"Reliable access to the Cardano blockchain requires trustworthy wallet solutions." Open source wallet solutions are more trustworthy.
Eternl has benefited previously from Catalyst funding, which is good. I voted to fund Eternl in Catalyst: ( https://x.com/InputEndorsers/status/1699858107130683723 ) in Fund 10.
Eternl stated in 2021 that it would open source: "Yes, we will open source the code in Q4 while we rebrand the wallet." ( https://x.com/eternlwallet/status/1436754831293784068 ). I asked the team about this intention recently but received no answer ( https://x.com/InputEndorsers/status/1947434903764894194 )
I also applaud Eternl for integrating MonsterSwap with the choice of multiple aggregators. However, my vote is NO. - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 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
- Abstain 5.3M ₳ Rationale
Eternl is a key user-facing infrastructure component of Cardano and remains one of the most widely adopted wallets across platforms. However, the closed-source nature of the product and the absence of long-term sustainability pathways raise red flags for us.
We acknowledge Eternl’s work, and our approach is to abstain on proposals that may have strong community backing but don’t yet present clear strategic value or sufficient delivery confidence. For supporting future treasury requests, we’d like to see either a plan to open-source core components, or a clear long-term sustainability pathway.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Approving in one conditional. Open source the core code for transparency. If not, no extention in the following year treasury withdrawal will be approved.
Approving in one conditional. Open source the core code for transparency. If not, no extention in the following year treasury withdrawal will be approved.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "Sim" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlpvhtd5td), pois a carteira Eternl é a mais completa e utilizada do ecossistema Cardano; financiar esse grupo de desenvolvedores é essencial para a melhoria contínua desta ferramenta, promovendo sustentabilidade, usabilidade para os usuários e garantia de inovações no produto. Além disso, a justificativa de gastos apresentada, bem como as métricas de avaliação e controle, foram bem apresentadas.
[English]
We chose to vote "Yes" on this governance action (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlpvhtd5td), because the Eternl wallet is the most complete and widely used in the Cardano ecosystem; funding this group of developers is essential for the continuous improvement of this tool, promoting sustainability, user-friendliness, and ensuring product innovation. Furthermore, the expense justification presented, as well as the evaluation and control metrics, were well presented. - 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
Approval of previously ratified project
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
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.
- No 3.7M ₳ Rationale
Eternl has proven to be a reliable wallet over the years, and its contributions to the Cardano ecosystem are undeniable. However, allocating such a substantial amount to a single wallet seems disproportionate when our ecosystem benefits from a diverse range of wallets. I would prefer supporting a more balanced distribution of ADA across the top 5-10 wallets, for instance. Additionally, before endorsing this proposal, I would require further clarification, such as details on any revenue generated by the app that could offset the proposed 30k ADA monthly cost.
- 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 ₳ 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 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.
- No 2.6M ₳ Rationale
I’m also a wallet developer, so I fully understand the costs involved — and I’m genuinely surprised by the requested amount of 583,000 for “ongoing operations.” I’m equally surprised by the “€30,000 per month” figure. It seems like the budget shouldn’t be going toward maintaining the project, but rather toward hiring a cost optimization specialist.
If the funds aren’t granted, do you have a backup plan for survival? And if your survival doesn’t depend on treasury funding, then are these funds truly necessary? Could we see an alternative business plan?
Isn’t this a misuse of influence? Don’t you think that voting on your own proposal — especially one requesting a quarter of a billion ADA — is a clear conflict of interest?
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.5M ₳ Rationale
I dont like this precedent of having the treasury cover everyone's maintenance fees. Businesses should be sustainable. I happily pay my Eternl trx fees. I am an avid Eternl user and I provide it as a wallet connect option on our site. As such, I will abstain as a middle ground.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Eternlは長年にわたりコミュニティ主導で維持されてきたマルチプラットフォーム対応の信頼性高いウォレットであり、その継続運営はCardanoエコシステム全体の安定性とアクセシビリティを支える重要インフラです。CDHとの契約を通じた支出管理も明記されており、賛成します。
Eternl is a long-standing, community-driven Cardano wallet with broad user adoption across platforms. Its continued maintenance ensures reliable blockchain access for both users and developers. With proper contract oversight via CDH and Intersect, I vote in favor.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No. While Eternl is a popular wallet, this proposal primarily funds operational costs rather than development or innovation, raising concerns about whether Treasury resources are being used sustainably. Additionally, Eternl is not open-source, limiting transparency, community contribution, and long-term decentralization. Treasury funds should prioritize open, collaborative infrastructure and foundational tooling that directly supports ecosystem growth—this proposal does not meet that standard.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.6M ₳ 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
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
While Eternl’s multi-platform presence and community-driven nature are commendable, the proposal lacks a compelling articulation of unique value or innovation that justifies dedicated ongoing funding at this scale. The Cardano ecosystem already supports several wallets, including Lace (IOG-backed) and others, which have significant user bases and development momentum. The critical question remains: how many wallets does Cardano need to maintain publicly from treasury funds? Wallet proliferation risks fragmenting developer and user attention, diluting network effects, and increasing maintenance overhead.
The proposal does not provide a comparative analysis against existing wallet solutions, nor does it address whether coordination or consolidation efforts have been explored to optimize resource allocation. Without such strategic alignment, funding Eternl in isolation risks duplicative expenditure and missed opportunities for synergy. Given the ecosystem’s need for robust, scalable infrastructure, treasury funds should prioritize projects with clear, differentiated impact and collaborative frameworks.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale