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.
- Yes955.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain949.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain931.8K ₳No rationale
- No929.9K ₳No rationale
- No861.5K ₳No rationale
- No825.2K ₳Rationale
This Treasury Withdrawal Governance action did NOT have a previously approved budget info action.
- Abstain798.4K ₳Rationale
Normally I would vote NO to specific listing proposals, but due to the lack of foundation support to make this happen, I will consider this as a substitute to that.
While voting abstain for now, I'm willing to move to YES, if a direct ROI for the treasury is provided, or if the number of Cardano native assets included in the initiative is expanded.
Best of luck.
- NoRevoted794.5K ₳Rationale
I own Snek, and recognize what they do for Cardano. This will likely go down as unconstitutional. My NO vote is because this proposal crosses a fuzzy line between private enterprise and public Cardano infra investment. If I were ever to vote YES on a proposal like this, there would have to be a direct return on investment back to the Treasury.
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
Unless there is a ROI path back to Treasury, no.
- No782.8K ₳Rationale
Treasury Withdrawal: Cardano Global Listing Expansion (SNEK)
I am voting NO on the proposed 5,000,000 ADA treasury withdrawal for SNEK exchange listings. While exchange presence for Cardano native tokens presents legitimate challenges, this proposal represents a concerning use of community funds that could establish problematic precedents for treasury governance.
My Decision Framework
My opposition to this proposal rests on three fundamental concerns:
1. Inappropriate Use of Community Treasury
The treasury exists to fund public goods and ecosystem infrastructure, not to subsidize the commercial activities of individual tokens. SNEK has already invested $4 million of its own funds into exchange listings—demonstrating both the ability to self-fund and the primarily private nature of these benefits. The proposal's claim that SNEK listings will meaningfully drive ADA adoption lacks supporting evidence and ignores that users can already purchase ADA directly on these platforms.
2. Dangerous Precedent for Future Governance
Approving this withdrawal opens the treasury to any token claiming indirect "ecosystem benefits." Without clear criteria distinguishing public goods from private ventures, we risk a flood of similar proposals. The advisory board structure, while featuring respected names, provides no binding oversight or clear success metrics. This undermines our responsibility as stewards of community resources.
3. Questionable Return on Investment
At approximately $2 million per major listing (based on their stated costs), the efficiency of this approach is highly questionable. The proposal provides no concrete metrics for measuring ecosystem impact—no targets for new user acquisition, ADA volume increases, or timeline-bound deliverables. The benefits appear concentrated among SNEK holders while costs are socialized across all ADA holders.
Conclusion
I recognize the SNEK team's achievements and their desire to expand Cardano's exchange presence. However, the appropriate path forward involves continued self-funding or traditional capital raising, not community treasury allocation. I encourage future proposals to focus on genuine public infrastructure—such as open-source CNT integration tools that any project could utilize—rather than subsidizing individual token listings. Our treasury governance must maintain high standards that reflect Cardano's position as a leading blockchain ecosystem.
- No763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes759K ₳Rationale
SNEK is love, SNEK is life. Fund the SNEK.
- No731.5K ₳No rationale
- No717.5K ₳No rationale
- No705.1K ₳Rationale
This new proposal all they did was fix the error. I feel the same. 5 Million Ada will be worth $25,000,000 soon. We need guarantees for that type of cash.
- Abstain625.9K ₳Rationale
I am voting to abstain on this proposal, not from opposition to SNEK's mission, but from a commitment to strict principles in treasury management. As both a SNEK holder and Cardano ecosystem supporter, I believe in measuring, testing, and proving value before large-scale investment.
The time to test an investment is before you spend your money. SNEK has proven concept with $4M self-investment and successful major exchange listings, but we need controlled testing of smaller treasury allocations with measurable results before committing 5M ADA to unproven returns.
The only purpose of treasury investment is to generate ecosystem value. It is profitable or unprofitable according to its actual returns. What are the measurable benefits to the Cardano ecosystem per ADA invested? The current proposal lacks commitment to repay or share profits with the treasury. This fails the fundamental standard that public investments should generate quantifiable returns.
SNEK drives trading volume and user engagement, but it remains unproven whether 5M ADA investment yields proportional ecosystem benefits. We lack controlled data comparing exchange versus decentralized trading impact on Cardano fees. Never fund campaigns where the public takes all the risk while private interests take all the profits. Here, the treasury risks 5M ADA with no repayment clause while the SNEK team benefits from enhanced token liquidity, exchanges profit from listing fees and trading revenue, and ecosystem benefits remain indirect, unmeasured, and unguaranteed.
Instead of a 5M ADA grant, offer this as a loan repayable from listing success, with trading fee percentages returned to treasury, aligning private profits with public benefit.
Before any funding, establish baseline metrics for current Cardano transaction fees, trading volumes, and wallet creation. Define success through minimum ecosystem ROI thresholds and require monthly transparent impact reports with verifiable data. Answer the fundamental questions: What exact results do you expect per dollar spent? How will you measure success versus failure? What controlled test proves this works? Who profits from this investment?
I abstain because I believe in SNEK's potential but demand rigor in treasury allocation. The Cardano ecosystem deserves measured, tested, profitable investments, not hopeful gambles with public funds. Test small, measure carefully, prove value scientifically, then scale with confidence. This builds a sustainable, profitable ecosystem benefiting all stakeholders, not just token holders.
Apply scientific principles to treasury management. Protect the ecosystem while enabling genuine innovation to flourish through proven, measurable success. When investments generate verified returns, everyone profits. When they fail rigorous testing, everyone is protected. - No605.7K ₳No rationale
- No589.7K ₳Rationale
While I applaud the initiative, I dont see the value to use the treasury to support this meme.
- No587.6K ₳Rationale
While I deeply appreciate the significant contributions the SNEK project has made to the Cardano ecosystem, I vote NO on this proposal. Beyond concerns over its procedural constitutionality, the proposal lacks key elements that are essential for responsible treasury governance, including a treasury repayment plan, clearly defined KPIs, target values, and relevant historical analyses to demonstrate impact.
Treasury funds must be allocated with transparency, accountability, and measurable outcomes in mind. Without these safeguards and clarity around how funds would be repaid or how success would be evaluated, support cannot be justified—even for projects with meaningful past contributions. - No520.2K ₳Rationale
I voted no because the proposal lacks the required Budget Info action and therefore cannot pass. Beyond that, the stated ecosystem benefits are not supported by a clear, KPI-backed delivery plan, making it difficult to assess value for money, accountability, and most importantly how the benefits would reach other projects and the wider community. I would support a resubmission as a Budget Info action, along with a concrete roadmap, measurable KPIs, detailed budget and beneficiary pathways, risk-mitigation and governance arrangements, and open deliverables to ensure broad, equitable impact.
- No501K ₳Rationale
Already voted in support of this proposal, I am seeing it for the second time
- No499K ₳No rationale
- No478.4K ₳No rationale
- No478.3K ₳No rationale
- No466.2K ₳No rationale
- No450.2K ₳Rationale
I am voting no to this proposal, this ₳5M ask reads partly like a grant with unclear ecosystem wide payoff, sets a precedent for “list us too” requests. SNEK’s wins are real, but much of its success, and the ecosystem’s, comes from foundational tooling, which treasury should prioritize.
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- No412K ₳No rationale
- No385.2K ₳Rationale
This is not the way to propose a treasury withdraw as it is unconstitutional according to Cardano constitution.
Looking forward to read an Gov info action with a budget, administrator and KPI's - No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain365.7K ₳No rationale
- No325.4K ₳Rationale
I believe projects should not get funded by the treasury for listings on centralized exchanges.
- No314.4K ₳Rationale
I’m voting NO on this proposal because it is unconstitutional and also raises fairness & sustainability concerns as described in my Rationale below.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
I’m voting NO on this proposal based on the following rationale:
A Treasury withdrawal is only permitted if it is authorised and made according to an approved budget. Since there is no budget item / Info Action for this specific proposal, it is unconstitutional under the current Constitution.
I acknowledge the valuable work of the Snek team and recognize their need for support as they work toward getting their token listed on exchanges. Snek is indeed one of the most actively traded tokens on Cardano, with consistent performance and strong trading volumes within our ecosystem. That said, using Treasury funds directly for exchange listings raises serious fairness and sustainability concerns. If we choose to subsidize Snek’s listing, then logically we would need to extend the same support to other tokens in the Cardano ecosystem. This is something that would be neither feasible nor financially sustainable for the Treasury.
In my view, the better path is for Snek to pursue listings gradually, driven by community support, organic demand, and natural market growth.
As a final point, I’d like to add that I would be far more open to supporting a similar proposal if it included a sustainable element, for example by replenishing the Treasury gradually through a share of future profits. That kind of mechanism could then be replicated across other CNTs in the ecosystem, making such proposals more balanced and responsible.
- No313.4K ₳Rationale
I’m voting NO on this proposal. My decision is not a reflection on the Snek project’s past contributions or its place in the ecosystem, but rather on the handling and quality of these specific submissions.
- Abstain298.9K ₳Rationale
I just don't know. Thus I will abstain. I'm not sure about funding a meme coin project, but at the same time the issue this proposal aims to address has been a serious topic of discussion within the Cardano community for a long time.
- No271.8K ₳No rationale
- No270.1K ₳Rationale
After careful review, I am unable to support this proposal in its current form due to multiple critical constitutional and operational shortcomings relating to Cardano’s governance standards for treasury disbursement.
Key issues necessitating a NO vote:
Constitutional Noncompliance
No Named Administrator:
The proposal does not specify an Administrator (such as Intersect or Cardano Development Holdings) responsible for the contractual, fiduciary, and oversight duties associated with Cardano Treasury withdrawals, as required by Article IV of the Cardano Constitution.No Legal Contract Commitment:
There is no explicit commitment to a legal, off-chain contract with defined milestones, deliverables, dispute resolution, and reporting. This is mandatory for all treasury withdrawals to ensure enforceability and accountability.Lack of Milestone-Based Escrow:
The proposal does not establish milestone-based, smart contract–gated disbursement. Funds appear poised for full or discretionary release, with no clear controls to ensure payment only upon delivery of new exchange listings or defined KPIs.Lack of Third-Party Assurance and Oversight:
The proposal leaves out provisions for an independent oversight agent—such as Cardano Foundation or NMKR—to serve as milestone verifier and ensure funds are released only when contractual obligations are met.Operational Risks
No Smart Contract Controls or Delegation Policy:
There is no commitment to use the Sundae Labs Treasury Reserve Smart Contracts (TRSC/PSSC) or multi-signature custodial controls; nor is there any assurance that funds will be delegated only to an auto-abstain DRep (not to a Stake Pool Operator), violating best practices in treasury security.No Process for Vendor KYB/KYC:
The proposal does not affirm that the Snek Foundation (or principals) will provide pre-funding verification, Know-Your-Business (KYB) or Know-Your-Customer (KYC) documentation.No Refund/Clawback or Unused Funds Handling:
While there is mention of returning unused budget, there is no contractual guarantee, escrow mechanism, or refund process described for unsupported, failed, or incomplete listings.Transparency and Overlap
Risk of Duplication:
The proposal does not clarify coordination or non-overlap with existing, already-funded Cardano exchange listing and market-making pools (e.g., Flowdesk). There is risk of duplicated listing efforts or double fee payments.Inadequate Public and On-Chain Reporting Commitments:
While intent for transparency is stated, there is no binding provision for on-chain metadata, announcement of exchange targets, or progress tracking following the established Cardano treasury reporting practice.In summary:
While the proposal is high-impact and the vendor has strong credentials, Cardano’s constitutional governance exists to prevent treasury capture and enforce stewardship. Treasury funds must be administered only under named, contractually bound, multi-party and externally assured processes. In the absence of these basic protections, a YES vote would undermine decentralization, transparency, and accountability for the entire ecosystem.I am therefore compelled to vote NO until these core operational and constitutional deficiencies are remedied.
- NoRevoted260.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
No11mo agoSuperseded
No11mo agoSuperseded
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
While SNEK has driven community engagement and secured notable exchange listings, its memecoin-driven approach risks prioritizing speculative hype over sustainable ecosystem growth. Cardano’s treasury should fund serious proposals with broader ROI—such as developer tooling, real-world adoption, or infrastructure scaling—that deliver long-term value to all projects, not just a single token. Allocating 5M ADA to a memecoin, even one as prominent as SNEK, may replicate volatile ‘casino’ culture seen elsewhere, diverting resources from initiatives that strengthen Cardano’s fundamentals and global competitiveness.
- No238.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain235.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes200.5K ₳Rationale
I'm not a Snek holder, but I respect their tenacity.
This will break down barriers, and that will benefit all CNT's. - No185.6K ₳Rationale
Other teams in the community are also completing this work, without treasury funds. It is no doubt an important task, but one that is happening organically.
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- No166.4K ₳Rationale
Huge ask for something that should happen organically when volume is high enough.
- No159.6K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes145.9K ₳No rationale