Withdraw ₳592,780 for Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improvin....
211 DReps voted · 67 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes328.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳No rationale
- No314.4K ₳Rationale
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I don't support this withdrawal and therefore vote NO.
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I don't support this withdrawal and therefore vote NO.
- Yes313.4K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES on this proposal as it aligns with my principles of supporting sustainable development, ecosystem resilience, and community-driven innovation within Cardano. The proposal presents a clear rationale, contributes meaningfully to the network’s growth, and includes oversight mechanisms that help ensure responsible use of treasury funds.
Where appropriate, I support moving forward with funding that strengthens Cardano’s long-term foundations and reflects the community’s shared goals.
- Yes298.9K ₳Rationale
No strong opinion. Defaulting to YES
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
I recommend a YES vote for the ₳592,780 treasury withdrawal for "Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving." This proposal addresses a fundamental gap in the Cardano ecosystem by enabling continuous, transparent, and community-validated governance measurement and improvement.
The delivery team, led by IOG’s Voltaire specialists with backing from constitutional committee members, WADA, Intersect, and community partners, brings unparalleled experience in Cardano’s governance mechanics and stakeholder engagement. The project will create the first systematic, data-driven “State of Governance” report, track and publish governance KPIs, synthesize community feedback through multiple engagement pathways, author actionable CIPs/CPSs, and publish a replicable playbook for future improvement cycles.
The budget is reasonable for the scope, the delivery controls are strong, and the outputs will benefit DReps, committees, protocol maintainers, and ordinary users. The framework and open process will raise the standard of Cardano governance by providing a clear baseline, methodology, and improvement pathway, promoting greater transparency and resilience in decentralized decision-making.
- Yes262.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
I vote “Nay” on this initiative due to its untimely implementation. While enhancing Cardano’s governance is valuable, the ecosystem, fresh from the Voltaire phase, needs time to consolidate existing mechanisms like CIP-1694 and the Constitution. Launching an evaluation process with workshops and reports now risks diverting resources from stabilizing current governance structures. I recommend deferring this initiative until the ecosystem has matured further.
- Yes208.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes200.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes185.6K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes on all 39 Intersect Governance actions. The community has thoroughly reviewed the many proposals presented in the Intersect Budget Process for the 2025 budget. I was deeply involved in the entire process as an SME for the Budget Committee, and then as the Secretary for the Budget Committee.
The proposals presented represent an incredible amount of development for our ecosystem for the next year. The teams all received at least 50% on Ekklesia polling. The teams will face milestones in order to continue to receive funding. If a team fails to deliver, the process will stop them from enriching themselves without returning value.
If anything, we are spending too little on our community. We need to spend more to further develop our governance and our organized events. This is a liquid democracy. If you believe that all of these proposals deserve a chance to deliver, you can shift your delegation to my DRep ID.
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- No166.4K ₳Rationale
Voting no here because funding only covers the initial research phase, we would prefer to see a full cost schedule up front to weigh that cost against what is being delivered.
✅ Pros
Proactive and Data-Driven Approach: 🧐 This initiative aims to establish a structured, evidence-based process for evolving governance. Instead of reacting to problems as they arise, it proactively seeks to measure the health of the system, identify risks, and make informed improvements, professionalizing a critical aspect of the ecosystem.Led by a Highly Experienced and Credible Team: 🧑🏫 The project is driven by Input Output's Voltaire team, the very people who designed and implemented the core components of the current governance system (CIP-1694, Constitution). Their deep expertise is supplemented by a coalition including Constitutional Delegates, WADA, and Intersect, which minimizes execution risk and ensures a high-quality outcome.
Focus on Community Engagement: 🤝 The plan isn't just an internal review. It heavily incorporates community feedback through workshops, surveys, and interviews. This ensures that the final recommendations are grounded in the real-world experiences and pain points of the people participating in governance (DReps, SPOs, ada holders).
Delivers Tangible and Actionable Outcomes: 📝 While the project involves research, its outputs are concrete. It will deliver a public 'State of Governance' report, a playbook for repeating the process, and, most importantly, initial drafts of CPSs or CIPs. This directly translates research into the formal mechanisms for enacting change on Cardano.
Strong Governance and Fund Management: The treasury withdrawal is managed by Intersect using audited smart contracts and is overseen by a committee of trusted community entities (Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, etc.). This structure provides high accountability and transparency for how the funds are used.
❌ Cons
Risk of Centralized Influence: 🤔 While the team's experience is a pro, the leadership from Input Output (IOG), Cardano's founding entity, could also be seen as a con. There is a risk that IOG's inherent biases or vision could disproportionately steer the outcome, potentially centralizing the direction of governance evolution rather than it being a purely grassroots effort.Lack of a Direct, Quantifiable Financial ROI: 💰 Unlike a proposal for a dApp or infrastructure, the value of this project is abstract. It's difficult to calculate the direct financial return on a "healthier governance system." For those who prioritize treasury spending on things with clear, measurable utility or profit potential, this expenditure may seem too intangible.
Significant Cost for Non-Technical Deliverables: The request is for nearly 600,000 Ada. Critics could argue this is a high price for what is essentially a research, consultation, and report-writing project. It raises the question of whether this work could be accomplished more affordably or through volunteer community efforts.
Funding Only Covers the Initial Research Phase: ➡️ The proposal explicitly states that this funding is for the research and initial drafting of proposals. It clarifies that "further funding would be required" to advance a CPS to a CIP or to implement a CIP. This means the community is paying a significant sum for what is only the first step in a much longer and potentially more expensive process.
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳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. - Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes89.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes89.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳Rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳Rationale
not necessary and much of it should be the job of govtools or tempo
- Yes53.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain52.4K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.7K ₳Rationale
This funds a data-backed, repeatable process to evaluate and improve Cardano governance beyond MVG—delivering a State of Governance report, KPI dictionary/dashboards, CPS/CIP drafts, and a public playbook with broad community input—at a proportionate ₳592,780 under Intersect’s milestone and on-chain oversight.
The proposal is aligned with Articles III & IV by strengthening measurement, transparency, and actionable improvements across governance.
Key risks to monitor: independence/COI (ensure evaluators aren’t solely assessing mechanisms they built), duplication with parallel efforts (coordinate scope/timelines), representation bias in workshops/surveys (guarantee diverse, role-balanced participation), and actionability/publication (publish all artifacts on time under open licenses with clear KPIs and implementation steps). - Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Voted YES on Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire.
🔍 Why I support it:
• Provides a structured, data-driven way to evaluate Cardano’s governance health
• Publishes a “State of Governance” report and actionable KPIs
• Engages the community through workshops, surveys, and interviews
• Translates insights into CPSs and CIPs for long-term evolution
• Led by IOG’s Voltaire team + a coalition of experienced contributorsThis is a foundational step toward maturing Cardano’s governance beyond MVG. It’s not just about tools—it’s about understanding what’s working, what’s not, and what’s next.
Track all my votes: https://tempo.vote/drep-profile
DRep: DeepStatecraft - No26.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- No8.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale