Withdraw ₳6,000,000 for Cardano Summit 2025 and regional tech events
172 DReps voted · 55 with a rationale · 7 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No1.1M ₳Rationale
I vote No on this proposal in its current form. The 6 million ADA budget is excessive, poorly justified, and risks inefficient treasury use. We must prioritize lean, measurable, and strategically focused initiatives that preserve treasury health while still driving adoption and innovation. Let’s demand a revised proposal with transparent budgeting and phased milestones before committing such a significant sum.
- Yes1M ₳No rationale
- Yes971.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes949.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes931.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes881.2K ₳No rationale
- No820.1K ₳No rationale
- No798.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes794.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain763.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes717.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes705.1K ₳No rationale
- No655.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes625.9K ₳Rationale
This proposal addresses a critical gap in Cardano's global marketing strategy by establishing unified, professional brand presence across key international markets through a coordinated series of regional tech events and a flagship European summit. Cardano has historically lacked centralized representation at major blockchain conferences, resulting in fragmented messaging and diminished brand recognition compared to competing Layer 1 platforms.
The strategic approach leverages trusted ecosystem partners including Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Rare Evo, WADA, and ADA Solar to execute regionally focused events that maintain brand consistency while addressing local market needs. This consortium brings proven track records in large-scale event delivery, from the Cardano Foundation's three successful global summits to EMURGO's TOKEN2049 participation and regional partners' community engagement expertise.
The global campaign addresses multiple ecosystem challenges simultaneously through targeted developer onboarding via Dev Days and hackathons, enterprise education initiatives, real-world use case showcasing, and strategic partnership development. These activities directly combat the persistent narrative that building on Cardano is difficult while demonstrating tangible utility to mainstream audiences and potential enterprise adopters.
The investment scale enables meaningful impact across five major regions with attendee targets of 500-800 per event, creating sufficient market presence to compete effectively with other blockchain platforms' marketing efforts. Regional autonomy ensures cultural relevance while maintaining unified Cardano branding and messaging consistency.
Capital attraction, talent acquisition, and media coverage represent essential outcomes for ecosystem growth that require professional, large-scale marketing initiatives beyond community-driven efforts. The summit structure creates networking opportunities between developers, entrepreneurs, enterprises, and regulatory bodies that facilitate strategic partnerships and collaborative solutions to scaling challenges.
The governance framework provides appropriate oversight through audited smart contracts, multi-party committees, and milestone-based payments with third-party assurance, ensuring responsible treasury fund management while enabling professional event execution.
Supporting this proposal strengthens Cardano's competitive positioning in global markets through unified brand presence, developer engagement, and enterprise outreach that directly contributes to adoption acceleration and ecosystem growth. The combination of professional execution capability, strategic market coverage, and transparent governance makes this investment essential for maintaining Cardano's visibility and attractiveness in an increasingly competitive blockchain landscape. - No605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes589.7K ₳No rationale
- No587.6K ₳Rationale
While global events like the Cardano Summit and regional tech gatherings can boost marketing and community engagement, as a DRep, I have significant concerns about the justification for treasury funding here.
Firstly, based on the commitments and transparency expected from Core Entities like the Cardano Foundation regarding their Member Based Organization model, I feel those obligations have not been fully met, which reduces my trust in the governance and management of these events.
Secondly, from my personal experience attending the Cardano Summit 2024, I fail to see why treasury funds should support an event where ticket sales generate revenue. Such funding priorities seem questionable, especially when community members can independently purchase access.
Finally, many countries and community members cannot attend such events due to geopolitical or financial restrictions. Therefore, treasury resources should prioritize projects that represent and benefit the entire Cardano community inclusively, rather than costly events with limited accessibility.
For these reasons, I will vote NO on this proposal. - Yes545.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes501K ₳Rationale
This is probably a controversial take but i think Cardano needs this event that happens every year that people look forward to. I particularly think the regional approach is smart, because not all people from everywhere can go to certain places due to visas or finances. This is going to encourage real developer engagement across continents.
Events drive ecosystem energy in ways that Medium articles and twitter AMAs just can't. When developers leave excited to build something, that's worth way more than 6M ADA. - Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- No450.2K ₳Rationale
The 6 million ADA price tag feels too high without a clearer breakdown
- Yes442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes385.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- No381.1K ₳No rationale
- Abstain370.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes328.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes291.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
I vote YES on this proposal to fund the Cardano Summit 2025 and associated regional tech events.
The Cardano Summit series has long been a cornerstone in the ecosystem, serving as a critical platform where developers, community members, enterprises, regulators, and other stakeholders converge to share knowledge, foster collaboration, and accelerate Cardano’s adoption globally. The 2025 proposal builds on this legacy with a hybrid model: one flagship global summit in Europe alongside four regionally focused events—in the US, Africa, LATAM, and Asia—to expand reach and enhance local engagement.
This initiative directly supports several of Cardano’s 2025 roadmap priorities: driving developer onboarding through targeted Dev Days and hackathons; showcasing real-world applications; strengthening community and governance dialogue; and attracting capital, talent, and media attention.
I appreciate the strong consortium of co-host partners bringing deep regional expertise and proven event management capabilities. The plan’s clear KPIs for attendance, speakers, and sessions provide measurable milestones for success. I also welcome the ongoing efforts to establish a dedicated Summit Steering Committee and evolving financial models aimed at growing sustainability over time.
However, I have some questions and concerns that must be addressed as the initiative progresses:
Clarification is needed on the ownership and governance relationship between the Cardano Foundation and the broader ecosystem with respect to these events, including intellectual property, trademarks, and contractual responsibilities.
The average attendance figures, while meaningful, may not fully capture the Summit’s ecosystem impact; more granular KPIs reflecting post-event developer engagement, ecosystem contribution, and project growth would strengthen accountability.
I further seek transparency on detailed cost breakdowns for each event and how treasury funds translate directly into ecosystem expansion beyond event execution.
Community participation and inclusivity should be prioritized to ensure these remain accessible public goods, allowing broad ecosystem representation without pay-to-play barriers.
Additionally, I acknowledge some DReps voice concerns about the combined funding of flagship and regional events as a single proposal, the scale relative to alternative outreach approaches, and the shift of funding responsibility from founding entities to the treasury.
In summary, I support this funding request as a necessary strategic investment in Cardano’s global growth and ecosystem development, recognizing the Summit’s unique role as an onboarding and collaboration hub. Simultaneously, I emphasize the need for ongoing transparency, community involvement, and clear demonstration of the value these events deliver to maximize treasury efficiency and long-term ecosystem benefit.
- Yes262.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain261K ₳Rationale
This vote was submitted based on a completed checklist. A detailed rationale is available at:
👉 https://github.com/Agora-Cardano - Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
While I think the amount seems excessive and would prefer these events been funded out of ticket sales and donations going forward, 2025 is a year of momentum and I agree this can help further boost the momentum. If it wasn't for the momentum that Cardano has picked up recently I would have voted no as I would have preferred the 6,000,000 ADA going towards technological investments rather than marketing ones.
- Yes238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳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
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳Rationale
The Cardano Foundation has successfully delivered on similar initiatives multiple times before, so I have no doubt they will achieve the goals outlined in this proposal. I’ve had the privilege of working with them as a local community summit host for four consecutive years since the inception of the Cardano Summit. Wishing the team all the best in hosting the Cardano Summit 2025!
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳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. - Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- No92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳Rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale