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.
- No7.6M ₳Rationale
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
Cardano’s treasury should not become the crypto equivalent of a 2009 bank bailout. While the situations differ, the principle is the same: public funds shouldn’t underwrite private risk.
OK, maybe I started strongly (just to remind us why are we all here), but personally, I am generally not inclined towards spending Treasury funds directly for supporting individual commercial projects, regardless of how deserving they are and how much they have contributed or if there might be potential positive spillover to other projects by association.
I am not saying I am 100% right, just that I need to be convinced that it is worth it and this proposal does not convince me.
The proposal partly reads as a grant. Yes, there could be down-the-line positive externalities for other projects, but overall this proposal is outside my comfort zone for using Treasury funds.
If a single-asset promotion of this size is approved, it may encourage other memecoins (and serious projects) to line up with “list us too” requests. They will see a precedent and they will follow it.
We also have some opportunity cost here. The ask for ₳5M could fund some core tooling (HD wallet libraries, indexers, etc..) that benefit all dApps, not just one token pair.
I have to take into account that the cost of developing Aiken (compiler, standard library, language server, installer, documentation, editor integrations, testing framework and all peripheral tooling) amounted to $500k-$1M. [ https://x.com/_KtorZ_/status/1888287575464464540 ]
We do not know which token will succeed two or ten years from now and we cannot second guess the future, however we do know that if we do not have the tooling and the infrastructure the best will not emerge.
SNEK's success was largely due to the team's innovative approach, but also due to the investments in core tooling made by Cardano that may seem invisible, but these investments today power the Cardano protocol and its underlying tokens.
I think the Treasury should not give precedence to individual projects when possible to avoid selecting winners and losers.
However, I am not saying my opinion should prevail, so I will give a few suggestions to improve this Treasury Withdrawal request:- Make sure it is constitutional
- Show proof that the proposed Board of Advisors is indeed "on board" with this initiative.
I did not see confirmation that the following people have accepted the proposed roles:
a. Tal Cohen, former CEO of Kraken
b. Phillip Pon, CEO of Emurgo
c. Rapha C-Roy, CEO of Snek Foundation
d. Prominent leaders from the Cardano ecosystem and the compliance sector - more to come on this. - See point 2d above, "more to come on this" sounds like unfinished business. Finish the entire proposal before submitting a Treasury Withdrawal. Also, provide Tal Cohen's current roles, not only former ones. Provide the board's biographies, instead of one-liners.
- Many projects can make the following argument (some with less, some with more justification): "Backing this initiative isn’t simply an investment in a single token" or "This proposal isn’t just about Snek". Essentially, no investment in a token is really just an investment in a token - as there is some spillover for Cardano. Are the ecosystem-wide risks or benefits of the proposal as currently written - worth the grant ask?
- SNEK has undeniably pushed the envelope. Kraken and Crypto.com listings are tangible wins. Essentially, this proposal bundles some very legitimate Cardano ecosystem pain points with a memecoin-centric marketing spend. I think these two can be linked - but I am not convinced that the spend will resolve the Cardano ecosystem pain points that were stated.
Finally, the constitutionality of the proposal will be assessed by the Interim CC. There are some signs that there might be some possible issues for consideration in terms of constitutionality.
- No5.9M ₳Rationale
Constitutional hurdles aside, this proposal still needs some additional work and expanded upon. The Snek community and leaders have done some great work and may be deserving of treasury funds to push global listing expansion - but this proposal seems to fall short of it somehow for the funds requested and ultimately the Snek team will need to rise up to meet those expectations.
- No5.8M ₳Rationale
I think this is an opinion/suggestion suitable for Catalyst.
- Yes5.4M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳Rationale
We recognize the Snek team as one of the most committed and impactful teams in the Cardano ecosystem. Their execution track record, self-funded T1 listings, and contribution to broader CNT adoption are clear. The momentum around $SNEK has brought visibility, cultural traction, and on-chain usage that no other Cardano-native token has matched to date.
However, we are voting NO on this treasury withdrawal in its current form.
We believe exchange listings can play a role in Cardano’s growth. But we draw the line at direct treasury funding for listing fees unless there's a clear path to ROI or ecosystem-wide benefit. Funding a single-token listing without any form of repayment or collective infrastructure outcome sets a precedent that is difficult to sustain long term.We encourage the Snek team to return with a revised proposal. Specifically, one that:
Outlines a more detailed and transparent budget;
Includes a mechanism to repay the Treasury, such as a bond or revenue share based on Snek Network activity;
Or alternatively, builds a shared roadmap for CNT listings/infrastructure that can benefit the ecosystem as a whole.
The Snek team has already delivered value and earned community trust. It’s arguably the project that gave back the most to the treasury, and with a more sustainable structure and alignment with our treasury principles, we would be open to supporting a future version of this initiative.
- Yes4.8M ₳Rationale
SNEK has achieved far more than all CNT in the Cardano ecosystem combined through organic growth. When it comes to investing, you let the winner grow and cut the losers. Never the other way around. Fostering the winning project has higher chance of boosting the overall Cardano adoption.
SNEK has achieved far more than all CNT in the Cardano ecosystem combined through organic growth. When it comes to investing, you let the winner grow and cut the losers. Never the other way around. Fostering the winning project has higher chance of boosting the overall Cardano adoption.
- No4.7M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- No4.4M ₳Rationale
While I am not entirely opposed to funding exchanges to list a specific coin, the Snek proposal lacks transparency, accountability, and a clear strategic plan beyond paid advisors. Additionally, I am concerned by the Snek community's tactics, which appear to pressure DReps with their collective voting power, contradicting their claim that the proposal benefits the entire Cardano ecosystem and not only the Snek project. Moreover, as the proposal is unconstitutional, further in depth analysis is unnecessary.
- No4.2M ₳No rationale
- No4.1M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "NÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1r44w54hx553mz0sr4cc07f8tlxzj2sa57l2pt3l9pa2ldw42fc7sq5q3rtn), pois, embora o projeto SNEK seja a principal memecoin e principal projeto em marketcap da rede, já está listado em algumas exchanges de nível 1, e a proposta parece genérica em não determinar em qual exchange os fundos serão alocados. Nos parece muito mais oportuno que os principais projetos da rede se juntem para submeter uma ação de governança comunitária focada em listar determinados tokens em exchange específica, como a Binance. É a nossa sugestão.
[English]
We chose to vote "NO" on this governance action (gov_action1r44w54hx553mz0sr4cc07f8tlxzj2sa57l2pt3l9pa2ldw42fc7sq5q3rtn), because although the SNEK project is the main memecoin and the leading project by market cap on the network, it is already listed on some tier 1 exchanges, and the proposal seems generic by not specifying which exchange the funds will be allocated to. It seems much more appropriate for the main projects of the network to join together to submit a community governance action focused on listing specific tokens on a specific exchange, such as Binance. That is our suggestion. - No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
This would amount to picking winners of one among many with public funds. While Snek is a huge asset to the ecosystem, it is a commercial venture capable of standing on its own, and favoring it over others with public funds is inappropriate and should be unnecessary.
That the proposal is also unconstitutional was another reason to look askance at it.
- No3.8M ₳Rationale
I'm voting NO because I don't believe the treasury should be used for marketing or listings.
My top priorities as a DRep are: prioritizing core engineering, protecting the treasury, decentralizing influence, and investing in real-world assets (RWAs).
Strength and honor.
- No3.1M ₳Rationale
I appreciate what SNEK has done for the Cardano ecosystem to date, and getting listed on two major exchanges as a CNT is a huge win for ADA.
I also see value in community contributions towards getting CNTs listed on major exchanges, as it is a huge issue that is holding our entire ecosystem back.
Without CNT listings, we are not going to overtake Ethereum or Solana (unless they crash and burn). This is something I had expected IOG / Cardano Foundation / EMURGO to facilitate, use genesis ADA for, and build bridges between exchanges and community projects. Sadly this has not happened, and I feel is a huge failure of responsibility on their part.
Despite this, I appreciate that there are builders trying to make CNT listings happen, so thank you.
Here are my concerns and why I have to vote no for now:
- The GA is unconstitutional, and its not something nitpicky that is worth overlooking. Constitutionality nitpickiness is an abuse of power IMO, so as a DRep I also vote based on the spirit of the proposal and how big or small any errors are.
Article IV Section 3: The proposal does not appear to be part of an approved Cardano ecosystem budget. This would be an example of constitutional nitpickiness. There are always going to be proposals submitted that are outside the approved ecosystem budget, and it is our job to review edge cases. What I would expect is some kind of socialization of the proposal before dropping it on chain. Then you will get feedback, and have time to garner support from the community.
Article IV Section 4: No allocation is made for independent audits or defined oversight mechanisms. This is a requirement.
Article IV Section 5: The proposal does not specify that the receiving wallet is undelegated or delegated to the auto-abstain option. This is a requirement.
The ask of 5 Million ADA without clear details or a clear plan/KPIs is too much. Bringing hard data to the table showing the impact of the Kraken and Crypto.com listings will help your case. Having a business plan that can sell this proposal to the community will help even more.
I would expect 5 Million ADA would get us multiple CNT listings for a variety of tokens, not just SNEK. As this is a huge ask for only SNEK, I'd expect some kind of repayment plan or community compensation plan in exchange for the ADA given, since ultimately this will be supporting only one private project token and not the broader community.
The board of directors plan looks stacked, this can be both a good and bad thing. How much of this budget is being allocated to paying them?
Please take this feedback as constructive and resubmit after taking time to socialize your proposal. I'd like to be able to give you a yes with revisions made.
- No3M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.8M ₳No rationale
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted2.7M ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
- NoRevoted2.6M ₳Rationale
この提案はCardano Native Token（CNT）の採用促進に一定の意義はあるものの、特定トークン（SNEK）だけをトレジャリーで支援することは、中立性や公共性の観点から問題があります。
今後の制度的前例となるおそれもあり、より包括的で公平な支援枠組みが整備されるまで、このような個別支援には反対します。
While this proposal may help promote CNT adoption, using treasury funds to support a single token (SNEK) raises concerns about neutrality and public accountability.
It also risks setting an unfavorable precedent. Until a broader and fair framework for token support is established, we oppose such individual funding.Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
この提案はCardano Native Token（CNT）の採用促進に一定の意義はあるものの、特定トークン（SNEK）だけをトレジャリーで支援することは、中立性や公共性の観点から問題があります。
今後の制度的前例となるおそれもあり、より包括的で公平な支援枠組みが整備されるまで、このような個別支援には反対します。********
While this proposal may help promote CNT adoption, using treasury funds to support a single token (SNEK) raises concerns about neutrality and public accountability.
It also risks setting an unfavorable precedent. Until a broader and fair framework for token support is established, we oppose such individual funding.Yes11mo agoSuperseded
Snek上場支援によりCardano Native Token全体の流動性・発見可能性が高まる可能性があるため、CNT市場の発展に寄与するという観点から条件付きで賛成します。ただし資金使途の透明化、進捗報告、CNT全体への波及効果の文書化が必要です。
We conditionally support the Snek listing initiative as it has the potential to enhance the liquidity and discoverability of Cardano Native Tokens (CNTs) as a whole, contributing to the broader development of the CNT market. However, this support is contingent upon: (1) transparency in fund allocation, (2) regular progress reporting, and (3) clear documentation on how the initiative will benefit the broader CNT ecosystem.
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
You'll get em next time
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- No2M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.8M ₳Rationale
Voting Abstain as it has been indicated this is going to be resubmitted as an info action, possibly with a different approach: https://x.com/goofy_crisp/status/1951735721103925507
- No1.8M ₳Rationale
I am voting No. The requested amount is excessively high, and exchange listings—especially for specific tokens—should occur organically through demonstrated market demand, not be subsidized with large Treasury outlays. Funding listings for a single meme coin sets a concerning precedent and offers limited long-term ecosystem value.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.5M ₳No rationale
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I’m voting NO. SNEK has real momentum and has already paid for big listings itself, but using 5M ADA from the Cardano Treasury to list and market one token isn’t a public-good expense. It sets a precedent for project-specific listing fees, shifts focus off on-chain growth (CEX trading doesn’t require the Cardano network), and diverts funds from things that help everyone—developer tools, ADA/stablecoin liquidity, compliance frameworks any token can reuse, UX, and core upgrades. We’ll get better long-term onboarding from ecosystem work like BOS, Midnight, and later Leios—tech alone isn’t enough, but public money should build foundations, not promote a single ticker. For marketing-style asks, Project Catalyst is the better venue where the whole community (not just DReps) reviews and votes.
Side note for newcomers: if you enjoy the culture, check out Snek and its playful cousin Snok, plus NikePig—they’re part of Cardano’s meme “family” and fun to follow.
(snek.com) (snok.lol) (nikepig.com) - No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
The premise of the proposal is that SNEK is the flagship Cardano token that will unlock liquidity, visibility and user acquisition like DOGE or SHIBA. This is a false analogy: DOGE or SHIBA are broad meme tokens with cultural impact, and significant utility or community use beyond hype, while SNEK is a highly speculative niche meme token of little intrinsic value or utility. The claim of "over 42,000 wallets" and "2 billion ADA in all-time trading volume" is not a sign of ecosystem value in itself, especially when the price of the token has mostly been down. This in itself is a red flag as to the sustainability and strategic value of the proposal to anchor Cardano's exchange visibility on a token whose price and utility are questionable.
The proposal also confuses the success of SNEK with the needs of the whole ecosystem and states that "funding SNEK's growth is also funding Cardano's global competitiveness". This is a dangerous false analogy: the strength of Cardano is in its protocol, scientific basis and diverse ecosystem of real-world use cases projects. Prioritizing a single speculative token for treasury funding is a waste of resources that could be used for infrastructure, developer tools, Layer 2 scaling solutions or for a more sustainable and holistic ecosystem governance improvement.
These 5 million ADA budget is too large, especially since there are no budget breakdowns, deliverables or risk mitigation plans at this stage. While it states that the project was self-funded to $4 million, it does not convincingly show that the additional treasury funds will yield a proportional ecosystem-wide return or how these expenditures differ from market listing fees and liquidity provision already done by other projects. The lack of transparency on cost efficiency and ROI is a red flag about the stewardship of community funds.
This is a clear NO from my side!
- NoRevoted1M ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
- No964.1K ₳No rationale