Withdraw ₳592,780 for Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improvin....
211 DReps voted · 68 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote · 2 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 1 to yes, 2 to abstain, together voting with 69.6M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes12M ₳Rationale
「275M ADA Administered by Intersect」に含まれるすべての個別提案に対して、エクレシア投票の段階では必ずしもすべてに賛成していたわけではありませんが、最終的には本ガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じました。Cardanoエコシステム全体への貢献を高く評価し、その前進を後押しする立場から、今回提出された39件すべての提案に賛成票を投じる判断をいたしました。\n\nWhile I did not necessarily support every individual proposal included in "275M ADA Administered by Intersect" during the Ekklesia vote, I ultimately voted Yes on this governance action. Recognizing its overall contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and in support of continued progress, I cast a Yes vote on all 39 proposals submitted under this initiative.
- YesRevoted11.9M ₳Rationale
Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.
We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.
Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.
Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.
In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.
Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.2M ₳Rationale
While important intent, I am not compelled by the impact-value ratio communicated in this proposal. I think it needs more information/quantification of the amount of people reached and the tangible impact of educational/onboarding/development efforts.
- YesChanged9.5M ₳Rationale
Updated Vote YES
This proposal ultimately aligns with my needs of finding continuous improvement opportunities within Cardano as a whole. After having gone through the recent governance days workshops I would like to see this work continue. We need more actionable data to drive governance discussions and decisions going forward. This directly serves Cardano’s core principles—people, purpose, technology, research, and opportunity—while educating the community and enabling continuous improvement. Therefore, we should be making efforts to fund governance's success in what ways we can.Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
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
- Abstain8.9M ₳Rationale
RCADA has chosen to** abstain at this time while reserving the option to review and update this vote prior to the voting deadline**. This approach allows RCADA to allocate focus where immediate evaluation is most impactful, particularly on proposals that are close to threshold or raise significant procedural or constitutional concerns. If this proposal reaches the approv-al threshold prior to our review, the abstention will stand as a neutral signal of deferral, not op-position. Should further analysis be warranted, RCADA will update this vote accordingly.
- No7.7M ₳No rationale
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
I voted NO to the Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire proposal on Ekklesia. I repeat my NO vote here.
I generally am in favor of initiatives that aim to improve Cardano's governance system. So, my default position coming to a proposal like this is to be interested in it such proposals. I am a DRep so obviously, I would be partial to it.
The proposed outcome here is a 'State of Governance' report that will be produced by engaging the Cardano community through various channels.
I think that a proposal of this type - because it is being proposed by one of the founding entities - runs a risk of being less objective. Admittedly, I would be more worried if IOG was directly participating in governance as a DRep or a CC member.
I agree with the proposed statement that to "truly evolve beyond Minimum Viable Governance (MVG) and unlock Cardano's full potential, we must establish a robust, data-driven foundation for continuous improvement."
What I think is missing in this proposal is outside views. The proposal to me reads like to much of a Cardano-centric approach to MVG and its criticisms. I think that most of the players involved behind this proposal are too close to the process to be as neutral as outsiders can be.
Essentially, I would have liked to see more Cardano-unaffiliated governance researchers and experts involved with this proposal.
I would even start with presuppositions such as "This initiative ... ensuring Cardano remains a leader in decentralized decision-making.". I think that the Beyond Minimum Viable Governance proposal should be objective enough to determine whether Cardano's MVG is a leader and in which segments of decentralized decision-making, while also finding out where - if anywhere - it trails behind others. Starting with presuppositions that it is a leader, sort of stacks the decks of cards towards an outcome that will mean we are slapping ourselves on the back.
To use IOG own example from developing Leios, IOG recently decided to part ways with Well Typed on the upcoming work on Leios. There are good arguments for changing vendors, and I think that shaking up things from time to time may be good.
In this case, after MVG has been delivered, I would have prefered to read a proposal that shakes things up a bit. This proposal offers that the "project will be driven by a robust coalition of experienced stakeholders dedicated to the advancement of Cardano's governance. nput Output's Voltaire team will provide core leadership, leveraging their unique role as the architects of Cardano's governance framework. As the team responsible for implementing key governance mechanisms---including the Cardano Constitution, the DRep liquid democracy model, and various on-chain and off-chain tools---we possess strong insight into their performance and optimization potential.".
I am afraid that the team will not be able to be objective enough without strong outside experts to realistically assess any failures or shortcomings in the current governance system.
Yes, there will be other players: Constitutional Delegate Committee Members (already participated in creating/approving MVG), Partner organizations (also already involved in determining MVG) and Active community members (still no outside - indepedent - non-Cardano participation).
As I want more outside expertise and more critical thinking from outside the Cardano governance bubble, I vote NO again. However, I would vote YES for a resubmitted proposal by this team - if it were to include a much more significant non-Cardano outside governance expertise and voices. Probably, even if it was sligthly more expensive. - Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted5.5M ₳Rationale
Our governance system undoubtedly requires continuous research and improvement, and I believe IO's Voltaire team is the ideal vendor for this task. I fully support their efforts to enhance Cardano's governance framework.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Our governance system undoubtedly requires continuous research and improvement, and I believe IO's Voltaire team is the ideal vendor for this task. I fully support their efforts to enhance Cardano's governance framework.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
This proposal directly aligns with STORM Partners’ DRep principles: it enhances ecosystem efficiency and promotes governance adoption by operationalizing post-MVG feedback loops. Given the importance of building a sustainable, self-improving governance process for the upcoming years, this is a timely and essential investment.
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.8M ₳Rationale
Quantitative approach to improving the governance model is sound. Supporting it.
Quantitative approach to improving the governance model is sound. Supporting it.
- Abstain4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tf...c3clg6), pois o estado de participação da comunidade ainda é muito baixo em comparação ao potencial saudável, visando diminuir o poder das baleias e descentralizar a tomada de decisão. Para isso, é necessário continuar estudando, debatendo e modificando as estruturas de governança. 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_action13tf...c3clg6), because the level of community participation is still very low compared to a healthy potential, aiming to reduce the power of whales and decentralize decision-making. For this, it is necessary to continue studying, debating, and modifying governance structures. Furthermore, the expense justification presented, as well as the evaluation and control metrics, were well presented. - No4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4M ₳Rationale
I can not approve of this for the same reasons given on initial submission which is since it is almost assured that IOG will be the primary receiptient of public funds going forward, having IOG running the processes which will design how future funds will be allocated is litteraly the definition of “regulatory capture”. The project’s intentions are good, and IOG should participate, but not lead or be the primary influence on this project.
As the proposal submitter and Voltaire Team Lead has also resigned, I see that as another reason that we are not better off with IOG being the lead for this project.
- No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.9M ₳Rationale
I vote NO, not a priority of my DRep, too much capital for not enough clarity.
Strength and honor.
- No3.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Voltaire期におけるガバナンスの健全性評価・改善提案の体系化を目指す本提案は、データに基づく意思決定とプロトコル改善の基盤づくりとして意義があります。構造化された評価レポートとアクション可能な提言の提出が含まれており、低予算で高い公益性が期待できるため賛成します。
This proposal introduces a structured framework for evaluating and improving Cardano's governance through data-driven metrics and reporting. By moving beyond Minimum Viable Governance and enabling iterative improvement, it supports long-term system integrity. Given the public value and modest cost, I vote in favor.
- No2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
We have a ton of people working on the effectiveness of governance. We have all these governance days and workshops all over the world. We are going to do this in a decentralized way whether or not this gets funded.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale