Withdraw ₳5M for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek
186 DReps voted · 68 with a rationale · 9 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No584.2M ₳Rationale
Summary
Yoroi DRep votes NO on the governance action to fund the proposal titled Withdraw ₳5M for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by SnekRationale
The proposal highlights a proven and driven team with a history of delivering Tier 1 listings and building CNT adoption. These contributions have brought visibility to Cardano that is rare among community-led projects.
The current request, however, lacks a clear funding structure that ensures tangible returns for the ecosystem or a framework that other projects can directly reuse. Treasury resources should prioritize proposals that offer both specific deliverables and lasting community benefits.Conclusion
We encourage Snek Foundation to return with an updated plan, starting with an info budget action as defined in the constitution, which establishes ecosystem-wide benefits, and includes mechanisms that provide lasting value beyond a single asset. - No435.8M ₳Rationale
I will always be grateful for the enormous contributions made by the Snek project.
This proposal will not pass anyway due to its unconstitutional nature, but even so, I am voting NO because I believe the following points are necessary:
As Charles pointed out, I recommend adding a treasury repayment plan here, as well as KPIs and target values and related historical analysis.
Since the exchange has already been listed on Kraken, I think it would be effective to analyze the impact of the listing on the ecosystem and attach the results of that analysis.
For each of the "Ecosystem Benefits" listed, I would appreciate it if you could provide an analysis of KPIs and target values, showing how much each value has increased as a result of the Kraken listing, and how much further you expect it to increase with the additional exchange listings listed. This will allow us to grasp quantitative information about the benefits the ecosystem will gain from this proposal.
Then, when the proposal is completed, we will be able to compare those target KPIs with the actual values and determine whether the proposal was ultimately a success or failure.
(Not just whether the promise was formally fulfilled, but whether it ultimately had an impact on the ecosystem worth 5 million ADA)私はSnekプロジェクトの巨大な貢献にいつも感謝しています。
この提案書は憲法違反のためいずれにせよ通ることはありませんが、それを差し引いても次のような点が必要だと思うためにNOを投票します。
チャールズさんの指摘するように、ここにトレジャリーへの返済計画を追加し、かつ、KPIとターゲット値およびそれに関する過去の分析を追加することを推奨します。
すでにKrakenへの上場が行われているため、その上場によるエコシステムへの効果を分析し分析結果を添付することが効果的だと思います。
「Ecosystem Benefits」に列挙される各々は、Krakenの上場により各々どの数値がどの程度上昇しており、追加で列挙されている取引所の上場により、さらにどれほど上昇することを見込んでいるのか、KPIとターゲット値の分析を設定していただけると幸いです。そのようにすることで、この提案書でエコシステムがどのような利益を得るのか定量的な情報を把握することができます。
そしてこの提案書の実行が終了した時、それらの目標KPIターゲットと実際の値を見比べて、この提案書が結果的に失敗したのか成功したのかを判断することができます。
（形式的に約束を果たしたかどうかだけではなく、結果的にエコシステムに５M ADAに見合うインパクトを与えたのかどうか） - Yes332.2M ₳No rationale
- No293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO as DRep votes NO on governance action titled “Withdraw ₳5M for Cardano's Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek”
Rationale
The Snek team has demonstrated exceptional execution capability, securing Tier 1 listings through self-funding and driving unmatched adoption for a Cardano-native token. These achievements are commendable and recognized.However, EMURGO maintains a principle that treasury allocations for exchange listings should be tied to clear, measurable benefits for the broader ecosystem, either through collective infrastructure, demonstrable long-term ROI, or repayment to the Treasury. In its current form, this proposal focuses on a single-token listing without such mechanisms in place, creating a precedent that may be difficult to sustain.
Conclusion
We invite the Snek team to submit a revised version that:Provides a corrected, transparent budget
Establishes either a repayment model or a shared infrastructure plan
Aligns deliverables with measurable ecosystem-wide outcomesWith such adjustments, EMURGO would be open to reassessing support.
- No222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted NO on gov_action1r44w54hx553mz0sr4cc07f8tlxzj2sa57l2pt3l9pa2ldw42fc7sq5q3rtn;
This proposal includes CEXs which SNEK is already listed on. We would like to see a list (prepared by CF and SNEK), which shows which CEXs are technically capable of handling/listing CNTs and where the problem is 'just' the liquidity. Overall we would like the respective token communities to provide the liquidity for their tokens themselves, most of them have that also baked into their tokenomics anyway. Non-the-less: With a proper treasury repayment plan we might vote in favor in the future. Keep up the great work SNEK team.
- Abstain120.2M ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation, as a DRep, votes ABSTAIN on both treasury withdrawal proposals submitted by the Snek team. As the proposals are substantively identical, this rationale applies to both.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
We recognize that the Snek team is actively revising their initiative into a new proposal that addresses community feedback. We are currently voting abstain on these two governance actions to give them space to complete this work, and we look forward to reviewing their revised submission soon.
We strongly support and continue to work on the goal of expanding exchange access for Cardano Native Tokens (CNTs) and recognize Snek's significant contributions. The Snek team has achieved impressive market traction to secure the first Tier 1 exchange listings for a CNT, a milestone for the entire ecosystem. They have succeeded because of the strong user interest their project has generated and the related business opportunity it offers for exchanges.
However, our vote on any treasury proposal must be based on the quality, structure, and accountability of the action itself. The current proposals leave several areas open for clarification, particularly regarding financial detail, a sustainable funding model, and constitutional validity. These considerations prevent us from casting a YES vote at this time.Conclusion and Path Forward
Rather than voting NO on the two governance actions, we are voting ABSTAIN to signal our clear support for the Snek team on their journey to refine their initiative. We understand they are incorporating feedback and preparing a new proposal. This is a process we wish to encourage.
We believe Snek is well-positioned to address the challenge of CNT listings, and we are eager to review and support a revised proposal that aligns this important goal with the high standards of accountability and sustainability that the Cardano community deserves. We look forward to the new submission. - AbstainChanged92.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I’ve voted NO on the proposal to pay listing fees for Snek. I don’t believe this expense is justified.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I’m happy to see meme coins emerging on Cardano. I appreciate the Snek project and its vibrant community—they represent grassroots creativity and a unique social experiment.
That said, I don’t believe meme coin projects should seek ADA from the Treasury. Here’s why.
Meme coins should drive on-chain activity. Listing them on centralized exchanges (CEXs) works against that goal—users can buy and sell there without interacting with the Cardano network, meaning no fees or engagement on-chain.
While CEXs are a key entry point into crypto, only a small percentage of users actually create on-chain wallets. Despite hundreds of millions registered on CEXs, only about 1–5% become on-chain users.
If meme coin teams believe CEX listings benefit their project, they’re free to pursue that path—but it shouldn’t be funded by the Cardano Treasury.
Snek has around 40,000 users, while Cardano has over 1.3 million ADA stakers. ADA remains the primary onboarding asset, and we shouldn’t downplay its central role. Snek might help onboard some users, but its impact on Cardano’s overall success is limited.
As for marketing, spending 5 million ADA on listing fees isn’t the best use of funds. There are already marketing-focused proposals among the 39 withdrawals that offer better value.
On liquidity, our goal should be to strengthen ADA/stablecoin pairs (like USDM, USDA), not ADA/SNEK. That’s a more strategic path for Cardano’s growth.
Snek’s current market cap is $244 million. The team has reportedly reserved 10% (currently, around $24 million) for marketing, partnerships, and CEX listings. That’s a substantial budget for a meme coin. Given these resources, additional funding from the Cardano Treasury isn’t necessary.
One current withdrawal proposal requests ₳3,126,000 to support listings on top-tier CEXs: “Ecosystem Exchange Listing and Market Making service.”
I suggest the Snek team collaborate with this group to support CEX listings across the entire Cardano ecosystem, rather than pursuing separate funding.
Paying listing fees from the Cardano Treasury sets a problematic precedent. CEXs typically charge each project individually—it’s not a technical hurdle, it’s a business model. If we fund Snek’s listing, other projects will expect the same, leading to unsustainable demands on Treasury funds.
We must be clear: the Treasury is not meant to cover listing fees. Projects should plan and fund these efforts independently.
I understand that my perspective may disappoint members of the Snek community, and I genuinely regret that. However, DReps have a responsibility to think long-term when it comes to Treasury spending. Decisions must be strategic—not driven by popularity or short-term excitement.
Cardano is being built as a decentralized global financial and social operating system. Meme coins like Snek absolutely have a place in that vision, but they are not the core priority.
I also hope the community gives the same level of attention and scrutiny to the other 39 current withdrawal proposals as they have to those submitted by the Snek team. Every proposal deserves thoughtful consideration.
- No86M ₳Rationale
SIPO Voting Statement – No on “Withdraw ₳5M for Cardano’s Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek”
SIPO has carefully reviewed this proposal and will vote No.
While we acknowledge the cultural significance of Snek within the Cardano ecosystem and the achievements of the Snek Foundation in funding prior exchange listings, we believe Treasury resources must remain dedicated to collective public goods that strengthen the entire ecosystem.Our reasons are as follows:
1. Treasury funds must serve ecosystem-wide infrastructure and governance
The Cardano Treasury exists to fund projects that provide public goods and long-term resilience to the ecosystem. Directing ₳5M to support listings and liquidity for a single community token does not align with this principle.
2. Snek has already demonstrated self-sufficiency
The Snek Foundation has successfully self-funded over $4M in prior listings, proving that it has the capacity to pursue further exchange integrations without Treasury subsidies.
3. Risk of setting a precedent
Approving this proposal would encourage other token projects to request Treasury funds for private listings or marketing. This could distort priorities and divert resources away from core infrastructure, governance, and open-source development.
4. Dependence on centralized exchanges
Treasury resources should not be used to subsidize outcomes dependent on third-party platforms outside the control of the Cardano community. Exchange listings carry uncertain long-term value and may not sustainably contribute to Cardano’s decentralization goals.SIPO respects Snek’s role as a cultural and community-driven project. However, we maintain that Treasury funds must be safeguarded for initiatives that provide lasting, ecosystem-wide benefits — such as governance tools, developer infrastructure, research, and protocols that strengthen Cardano as a whole.
Therefore, SIPO votes No on this proposal.
⸻
SIPO 投票声明 – 「Withdraw ₳5M for Cardano’s Global Listing Expansion - Powered by Snek」に対する反対票
SIPOは本提案を慎重に検討した結果、反対（No） を投じます。
Snekがカルダノ・コミュニティ内で果たしてきた文化的役割や、Snek Foundationが自助努力で主要取引所への上場を実現してきた実績は高く評価します。しかし、カルダノ財務資金はあくまで「エコシステム全体の公共財」を強化するために用いられるべきであり、特定トークンの上場や流動性供給に充てることは適切ではありません。その理由は以下の通りです。
1. 財務資金はエコシステム全体の基盤整備に使うべき
カルダノ財務は、公共財やガバナンス、長期的なインフラ強化に資するプロジェクトのために存在します。単一トークンの上場支援はこの趣旨に沿いません。
2. Snekはすでに自立性を証明している
Snek Foundationは過去に4百万ドル以上を自ら調達し、主要取引所上場を達成してきました。これまでの成功は、今後も自己資金で継続可能であることを示しています。
3. 前例化のリスク
本提案を承認すれば、他のトークンも同様に財務資金による上場・マーケティング支援を求める前例をつくってしまい、公共財優先の原則が揺らぐ危険があります。
4. 中央集権的取引所への依存
財務資金を、カルダノ・コミュニティの管理外にある中央集権的な取引所上場に充てることは、長期的な分散化の目標と整合的ではありません。上場の効果も持続的とは限りません。SIPOはSnekの文化的・コミュニティ的価値を尊重します。しかし、財務資金はカルダノ全体のインフラ、ガバナンス、研究、開発者支援など「全体を強化する公共財」にこそ投じるべきだと考えます。
よって、SIPOは本提案に対して反対票を投じます。
- No84.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳No rationale
- No73.1M ₳Rationale
I am a huge supporter of Snek, its team, and community. However, I am voting NO. When the treasury is asked to fund a project's growth, there must be a clear pathway for value to be returned. Lacking a repayment or profit-share model, I cannot support this precedent for treasury use.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I am a huge supporter of SNEK, its team, and what they contribute to Cardano. Their self-funded success is exemplary. However, I will be voting a principled NO on this proposal.
My reasoning is crucial for treasury sustainability: when public funds are used for a project's commercial growth, a clear pathway for treasury replenishment must be included. This proposal lacks such a mechanism. I fully support SNEK's mission, but I cannot support a funding model that socializes costs without a plan to return value to the community.
- No69.4M ₳No rationale
- No66M ₳Rationale
This would anyways be rejected by the CC but voting "no" for confirmation.
- Abstain62.7M ₳Rationale
I support the Snek project and see its value in the Cardano community. I do not want to block its growth.
The request for ₳5M is a large spend with limited proven benefit to the wider ecosystem. There is no clear return on investment or detailed plan. The proposal also skips the required information governance action step.
Abstaining reflects my personal support for the project while signalling that the funding request is too high and lacks the process standards I expect. - Abstain53.8M ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged50.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes11mo agoSuperseded
- No50.4M ₳Rationale
This proposal does not sufficiently meet the Governance Action standards as regulated by the current Cardano Constitution. It lacks the required details and must be re-submitted with proper information to ensure compliance and legitimacy. [Japanese ver.] 本提案は、現行のカルダノ憲法で規定されているガバナンスアクションの基準を十分に満たしていません。必要な詳細情報が欠けているため、適切な内容を備えたうえで再提出されるべきです。
- No50M ₳Rationale
I have already supported a broader budget proposal that addresses the listing of multiple tokens. While I do think that exchange listings can benefit the Cardano ecosystem as a whole, I am voting No here since this proposal targets only one specific token.
- No49.5M ₳Rationale
Although a supporter of the project the ecosystem treasury should be only deployed for efforts that benefit all and not specifically one project even if 2nd order effects do benefit the community. Winners and losers cannot be selected through this process
- No48.6M ₳No rationale
- No42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- No37.8M ₳No rationale
- No34.6M ₳No rationale
- No34.3M ₳Rationale
We are voting No on this proposal, as we believe it is not aligned with the current Cardano Constitution. As a DRep, we consider it important to exercise our judgment in line with the principles of responsible treasury use.
- No33.5M ₳Rationale
Cardano Global Listing Expansion Powered by Snek Treasury Withdrawal Rationale
Summary
SNEK is a successful and high-impact community token within the Cardano ecosystem. However, this treasury withdrawal request does not meet constitutional requirements. While my vote as a DRep is not based on constitutionality alone, I also serve on the Interim Constitutional Committee and take that perspective seriously. For that reason, I will vote NO on this proposal.
Rationale Statement
This vote is not a dismissal of anything the Snek team has accomplished. On the contrary, the achievements listed, Tier 1 exchange listings, perpetual integrations, physical products, and millions in self-funded investments, demonstrate they are a highly capable and successful project.
That success raises a question: Why is this request for public treasury funding even necessary? Treasury funds should be reserved for initiatives that meet clear constitutional standards and provide open, ecosystem-wide benefit.
While as a DRep I am not responsible for determining constitutionality, I also serve on the Interim Constitutional Committee, and in that role, I do evaluate the constitutional compliance of proposals. This one fails on several fronts:
- Article IV Section 3: The proposal does not appear to be part of an approved Cardano ecosystem budget
- Article IV Section 4: No allocation is made for independent audits or defined oversight mechanisms
- Article IV Section 5: The proposal does not specify that the receiving wallet is undelegated or delegated to the auto-abstain option
These are not optional details. They are requirements designed to protect the treasury and uphold decentralized governance.
For these reasons, I cannot support this request. Treasury governance must remain aligned with constitutional constraints and ecosystem-wide priorities.
Snek is clearly a leading Cardano token. But projects with strong private funding should not be the first in line for public treasury spending, especially when the proposal fails to meet the fundamental requirements for constitutional compliance.
- No27.9M ₳Rationale
I appreciate what SNEK has done for the Cardano ecosystem but I find a 5M ADA ask to support SNEK listing on exchanges to be a bit too much. I'm personally more skeptical of memecoins than most, but I also think that our focus should really be on stablecoin liquidity and exchange listings more than any other CNT.
- No27.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain26.1M ₳Rationale
N/A
- No23.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳No rationale
- No21.5M ₳Rationale
This is a combined rationale for the two treasury withdrawal governance actions submitted by the Snek Foundation, with the action ID’s: “4ff43f1eab5252ef00ba6f1429dc23715e3899834f10c067e8065c8364d5559a#0” and “1d6aea56e6a523b13e03ae30ff24ebf9852543b4f7d415c7e50f55f6baaa4e3d#0”. A combined rationale is provided to give further context to the “NO” vote submitted here.
First and foremost, this is not a reflection of my views regarding Snek’s achievements, their position in the ecosystem to date, or whether treasury funds should be used for project listings and is an assessment of the handling of the submission of these two proposals.
While constitutionality is the remit of the Constitutional Committee and not DReps, it plays a role in assessing the handling of these two proposals. On August 2 2025, two treasury withdrawal actions were submitted less than an hour apart, with a combined governance action deposit of 200,000 ada. It appears as though the second action was submitted in haste following an input error that resulted in the first proposal requesting only 5 ada instead of 5 million ada. This is the first and foremost issue with the first governance action and any DRep voting yes without recognising this fact raises questions about their levels of due diligence when it comes to voting. Constitutional or otherwise, the on-chain treasury withdrawal request is for 5 ada and not the proposed 5 million ada in the proposal text.
A deeper assessment of the timeline of events raises further questions (times in UTC+1). The provided withdrawal address was first funded at 13:13:24 on August 2 2025 with the stake key registered and delegated to a DRep at 13:14:12, breaking the first constitutional requirement for treasury withdrawals before the proposal was even submitted (https://cardanoscan.io/address/addr1q9gcxfl9fe9ulluvtc2sxj6xux7jfa49zzq4aheyywqm0k3gudvqrjyfk4nqpvscu2ggqg67x9e0dk5l5p4s6msvkpys6qv4v6). This address was then funded with the 100,000 ada deposit funds at 13:15:55 with the first governance action submitted at 13:46:02 (https://cardanoscan.io/govAction/gov_action1fl6r784t2ffw7q96du2znhprw90r3xvrfugvqelgqewgxex42kdqq9tgrd5).
Less than an hour later, likely after noticing the 5 ada not 5 million ada error, the provided address was funded with a second round of 100,000 ada at 14:21:48 and a second action submitted at 14:34:22 with the correct 5 million ada value instead of 5 ada (https://cardanoscan.io/govAction/gov_action1r44w54hx553mz0sr4cc07f8tlxzj2sa57l2pt3l9pa2ldw42fc7sq5q3rtn). In the meantime, at 17:43, the Snek X account tried to make light of the situation claiming that this submission was intended for testnet (https://x.com/snek/status/1951685280462749958), despite a mainnet wallet being funded twice with 100,000 ada which is more than just a “button clicking error”. This post was a display of incompetence at best, deception at worst, and should have just honestly owned up to the mistake.
Following further feedback on social channels about constitutionality, the stake address was then delegated to the auto-abstain DRep at 18:13:19 in order to correct that constitutional requirement but with the absence of a previous budget info action, among other shortcomings, the damage there had already been done.
People can claim that “governance is still new” in defence of the handling of these proposals however, with 15 info actions (5 general, 4 NCL, 6 budget), 3 protocol parameter updates, 1 update constitution action. 1 hard fork initiation, 40 treasury withdrawal actions and 1 update constitutional committee action all on-chain prior to these proposals being submitted, that defence is wearing thin. We have plenty of precedents for these things that potential proposers can now look back on and see why actions may or may not have passed / been deemed constitutional/unconstitutional. We also have testnets exactly for this reason, use them! Not only can they help get things right first time but it also allows an opportunity to socialise the proposal and receive any feedback for any potential failings before committing 200,000 ada in deposits.
The submitters of these proposals should have waited after the first one, despite the 5 ada error, as it would have still allowed chance for feedback on other areas before hastily committing to another deposit. Additionally, it was short-sighted also to rush, in the wider context of the epoch timing, the epoch ended 3.5 hours after the second submission, voting periods are measured in epochs and by submitting so late in the epoch they actually sold themselves short of up to 116 hours additional voting time than had they submitted earlier in the epoch.
All-in-all the hasty mishandling of this situation raises questions for me, especially when requesting 5 million ada from the treasury while so nonchalantly throwing 200,000 ada at governance action deposits, now locked for the full voting period with a pair of ill-prepared governance actions.
- No21.4M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this proposal.
While I acknowledge Snek’s contribution to Cardano's visibility, using ₳5 million from the public treasury to fund CEX listings for a single community token raises significant concerns about precedent, risk, and fairness. Exchange listings are traditionally private investments with high cost and uncertain returns — not guaranteed public goods.
This proposal’s benefits to the broader Cardano ecosystem are largely indirect and speculative, and the execution — while backed by experience — remains centered around a single token’s success.
I believe the treasury should focus on neutral infrastructure, ecosystem-wide tools, and long-term decentralization — not funding centralized listings or liquidity for individual tokens.
Vietnamese
Tôi quyết định bỏ phiếu KHÔNG cho đề xuất này.
Dù tôi ghi nhận đóng góp của Snek trong việc tăng nhận diện Cardano, việc sử dụng 5 triệu ADA từ công quỹ để tài trợ cho việc niêm yết một token cộng đồng duy nhất trên các sàn tập trung đặt ra nhiều lo ngại về tiền lệ, rủi ro và tính công bằng. Việc niêm yết sàn thường là khoản đầu tư cá nhân mang tính rủi ro cao và không đảm bảo mang lại lợi ích công.
Lợi ích mà đề xuất này mang lại cho hệ sinh thái Cardano chủ yếu là gián tiếp và mang tính suy đoán, trong khi việc triển khai vẫn xoay quanh thành công của một token cụ thể.
Tôi cho rằng công quỹ nên được ưu tiên sử dụng cho hạ tầng trung lập, công cụ phục vụ toàn hệ sinh thái và thúc đẩy phi tập trung lâu dài — không phải để tài trợ cho việc niêm yết hay cung cấp thanh khoản cho token riêng lẻ.
Japanese
私はこの提案に対して反対票を投じることに決めました。
SnekがCardanoの認知度向上に貢献してきたことは評価しますが、単一のコミュニティトークンを中央集権型取引所に上場させるために、5百万ADAの公的資金を使用することには、前例、リスク、公平性の観点から多くの懸念があります。
取引所への上場は通常、高リスクで私的な投資であり、公共の利益を保証するものではありません。この提案がCardanoエコシステムにもたらす利益は間接的かつ推測的であり、その実行も特定のトークンの成功に依存しています。
私は、公的資金は中立的なインフラ、エコシステム全体に貢献するツール、そして長期的な分散化の促進に優先的に使用されるべきであり、特定トークンの上場や流動性提供のための資金に使われるべきではないと考えます。
- No21.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No17.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain17.3M ₳Rationale
I will abstain from this vote because i think the idea its good and there is power in the snake community but it can be improve a little bit more. im confident in your skill to evolve as a community. Best of Luck
- No16.4M ₳No rationale
- No14.2M ₳No rationale
- No14.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain13.3M ₳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.
- No12.1M ₳Rationale
Wada acknowledges the positive role that SNEK has played in energizing the Cardano community, expanding participation, and onboarding new members into the ecosystem. We support the project’s community value and recognize its cultural impact, particularly in how it has drawn wider attention to Cardano through community-driven initiatives. Our position is not in opposition to the growth of SNEK, but rather in alignment with maintaining the integrity and sustainability of the governance process and the treasury that serves the entire ecosystem.
After careful consideration, we will be voting no on this proposal. Our decision rests first on the matter of constitutional process. The proposal was submitted as a Treasury Withdrawal Action without the required Budget Information Governance Action that should precede such a request. This omission constitutes a procedural flaw that cannot be overlooked. While DReps are not the Constitutional Committee, we are bound to respect the framework and ensure our voting reflects adherence to the principles outlined in the constitution. Upholding this process is critical to maintaining legitimacy and confidence in Cardano’s governance.
We are also concerned with treasury stewardship. The request for ₳5 million represents a significant outlay of community funds, yet there is no mechanism for returning value to the treasury, whether through repayment, revenue sharing, or another form of accountability. This absence creates a situation where the treasury bears all the risk with no defined path for benefit or replenishment. If such a precedent were established, it could open the door for other projects to seek large sums of treasury funds for exchange listings or similar activities without providing measurable returns to the ecosystem. This risks compromising the long-term sustainability of the treasury and its ability to support a diverse range of initiatives in the future.
In addition to process and precedent, we find the proposal lacking in terms of defined metrics and accountability structures. There are no clear key performance indicators, timelines, or measurable outcomes that would allow the community to assess the effectiveness of the proposed exchange listings. While the proposal specifies which exchanges are being targeted, it fails to address what the listing fees would be or how the ₳5 million figure was calculated. Without such clarity, it becomes difficult to evaluate whether the requested funding will achieve its intended impact, leaving the use of treasury funds without adequate transparency or accountability.
- NoRevoted10.9M ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
- No10.8M ₳No rationale
- No10.4M ₳No rationale
- No8.8M ₳Rationale
本提案に反対します。現行の憲法上、この提案は違憲となるため可決は難しいと考えます。さらに、SNEKの上場支援は特定トークンに偏っており、Cardano全体への還元効果は限定的であると判断します。\n\nI vote No on this proposal. Under the current Constitution, this proposal is unconstitutional and therefore unlikely to be approved. Furthermore, supporting the listing of SNEK is overly focused on a single token, and I believe its benefits to the broader Cardano ecosystem are limited.
- Abstain8.1M ₳No rationale