Withdraw ₳592,780 for Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improvin....
211 DReps voted · 60 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No. While I support efforts to critically examine and improve Cardano’s governance, this proposal lacks sufficient external, independent input. The team—comprised largely of those already involved in shaping the current governance model—risks reinforcing existing assumptions rather than delivering an objective evaluation. Without meaningful outside expertise, this initiative reads as self-assessing and inward-facing. I would support a future version that brings in diverse, external voices, but this version does not meet that standard.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
I support this treasury withdrawal as it addresses a critical gap in Cardano’s post-MVG evolution — the lack of a transparent, repeatable, and data-driven framework for assessing governance performance. By producing a State of Governance report, defining KPIs, and translating findings into CPS/CIP drafts, this initiative can equip the community with a stronger foundation for evidence-based decision-making and long-term governance refinement.
While the development of such a framework earlier in the governance rollout could have provided even greater foresight, I view this proposal as a timely and valuable step. It builds on the substantial work and dedication already invested by the team and broader ecosystem, and positions us to continually strengthen Cardano’s governance model going forward.
VOTE0017
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.2M ₳ 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
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
Cardano’s governance system is indeed in need of evolution, and a data-driven, community-informed approach is the right direction. Nonetheless, this proposal’s current form lacks the rigor and strategic safeguards required to ensure it delivers meaningful, sustainable improvements. The absence of DRep incentives and budget caps is especially concerning, as these issues directly threaten governance participation quality and decentralization integrity.
I vote NO on this treasury withdrawal in its current form. I urge the proposers and the community to insist on the following before reconsideration:
- A clear incentive framework for DReps that rewards thorough analysis and participation.
- Defined budget limits per cycle with transparent, measurable KPIs tied to funding release.
- A robust plan to translate governance insights into on-chain protocol enhancements with committed follow-up funding.
- Integration of on-chain governance tooling improvements alongside off-chain community engagement.
Without these critical elements, this proposal risks becoming a costly, repetitive exercise with limited real-world impact. Cardano’s governance deserves more than incremental reporting—it demands transformative, accountable, and incentivized evolution.
Let us not settle for Minimum Viable Governance; let us demand a governance system that truly empowers and respects every stakeholder’s time and voice.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
A focused analysis of our first round of governance and clarity on potential improvement vectors keeps the Voltaire era rolling in a positive direction.
- Yes 791.4K ₳ Rationale
One of the key intentions behind Article VIII of the Constitution was to ensure governance was demonstratable, not just technically viable.
By creating "sensors" for public opinion, the feedback loops necessary to gauge this state of governance can be approached. By having verifiable pathways and workshops for voices to be heard, the community is provided an option for engaging, creating a metric we can learn from.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 717.1K ₳ Rationale
I prioritized funding open-source tools and proposals that I believe will most effectively support Cardano’s long-term growth. I voted in favor of the highest-priority items that fit within my preferred budget cap of 250 million ADA, abstained from proposals where I may have had a personal interest, and voted NO on all remaining proposals after reaching that budget limit.
- Yes 716.6K ₳ Rationale
We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Beyond Minimum Viable Governance: Iteratively Improving on Cardano Voltaire, administered by Intersect. DISCLAIMER: Dutch DRep members may be contracted to perform work for this proposal and as such benefit from its passing. Our affirmative vote is based on the current state of governance requiring ongoing improvement, with a focus on increasing decentralization, further streamlining processes and constitutional definitions.
- Yes 670.2K ₳ Rationale
A Yes vote would release ₳592,780 from the Cardano Treasury to fund “Beyond Minimum Viable Governance,” led by Intersect in collaboration with Input Output’s Voltaire team—experienced in CIP-1694 workshops, constitution drafting, and CIP authoring—alongside WADA, members of the Constitutional Delegate Committee (Ken-Erik Ølmheim, Max van Rossem, Tevo Saks), and the Intersect Constitution team. Independent oversight would come from five trusted entities: Sundae Labs, Cardano Foundation, Dquadrant, Xerberus, and NMKR. The rationale is that Cardano currently lacks a transparent, data-driven framework for assessing the effectiveness of its governance system, which risks decisions being made reactively without clear metrics or community-wide insights. This project would deliver a comprehensive State of Governance report tracking KPIs, mapping the governance ecosystem, and identifying improvement areas; engage the community through workshops, surveys, and interviews; produce a repeatable playbook so the process can be run annually; and draft Cardano Problem Statements (CPSs) or Cardano Improvement Proposals (CIPs) based on findings. I think this is genius because we as a protocol need a way to verify that our government is working as intended. This data driven framework will help identify specific areas we can improve and take targeted, evidence-based action to improve transparency, decision-making, and alignment with the community's vision.
- 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 seriously consider individual requests from the treasury for less that 1,500,000 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 personal guardrail at this time. Requests below that threshold are better suited for Catalyst funding or bundled together in MBO, DAO, or conglomerate entities. TWA (Treasury Withdrawal Actions) need be comprehensive and not ad hoc as that makes oversight more costly and inefficient.
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. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 587.1K ₳ Rationale
Although I acknowledge the importance of Input Output (IOG) as the core architect of Cardano’s governance system and its vital role in building the foundation of Voltaire, I must vote NO on this proposal. I believe that the governance framework should be designed, evolved, and owned primarily by the Cardano community itself, rather than being led predominantly by IOG. The responsibilities and initiatives mentioned in this proposal, which are currently attributed to IOG, should instead be facilitated and executed by community-led organizations such as Intersect, ensuring a more decentralized and inclusive governance evolution.
- Yes 534.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 521.2K ₳ Rationale
I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.
- Yes 502K ₳ Rationale
IOG's Voltaire team actually gets that we're past the 'ship it and hope" phase of governance. We need data, metrics, and honest analysis of what's working and what's not. This is the foundation for making our governance actually effective instead of just theoretically democratic.
Plus, the fact that they're willing to workshop this with the community instead of just issuing pronouncements from on high is growth. I say we fund it. - Yes 467.4K ₳ Rationale
I’m voting "Yes" on this proposal because it’s a crucial step toward evolving Cardano’s governance beyond Minimum Viable Governance. With this initiative, we’ll establish a transparent, data-driven process to measure key governance metrics, publish a detailed "State of Governance" report, and create actionable recommendations shaped directly by our community through workshops, surveys, and interviews. By turning these insights into Cardano Problem Statements or Improvement Proposals, we’ll ensure our governance grows in ways that reflect our shared priorities. Backed by experienced leaders, broad collaboration, and strong accountability, this project sets the stage for continuous, community-driven improvement in Cardano governance.
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 438.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
As a Cardano DRep, I vote YES on the "Beyond Minimum Viable Governance" proposal. This initiative is critical for establishing a data-driven framework to evaluate and enhance Cardano’s governance system. By benchmarking key metrics and producing a comprehensive "State of Governance" report, it addresses the current lack of transparent, structured processes to assess governance effectiveness. This will empower the community with actionable insights, foster continuous improvement, and mitigate risks through informed decision-making. With experienced leadership from Input Output’s Voltaire team and broad community collaboration, this project strengthens Cardano’s position as a leading L1 blockchain. For transparency im invited to take part in this and i initial would cast the vote abstain, tho my deligators from the Nordic crypto community told me to vote yes.
- No 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale