Withdraw ₳6,000,000 for Cardano Summit 2025 and regional tech events
172 DReps voted · 51 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 12.2M ₳ Rationale
Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.
We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.
Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.
Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.
In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.
Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
「275M ADA Administered by Intersect」に含まれるすべての個別提案に対して、エクレシア投票の段階では必ずしもすべてに賛成していたわけではありませんが、最終的には本ガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じました。Cardanoエコシステム全体への貢献を高く評価し、その前進を後押しする立場から、今回提出された39件すべての提案に賛成票を投じる判断をいたしました。\n\nWhile I did not necessarily support every individual proposal included in "275M ADA Administered by Intersect" during the Ekklesia vote, I ultimately voted Yes on this governance action. Recognizing its overall contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and in support of continued progress, I cast a Yes vote on all 39 proposals submitted under this initiative.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I voted NO on this proposal in Ekklesia, but thanks to Intersect's decision to unbundle the single treasury withdrawal action into multiple ones, I have been able to reconsider some of my original votes. However, my vote for this proposal remains a NO.
I wanted to see a lower budget or a lower scope for the Cardano Summit proposal.
I will quote from the proposal: "The Cardano Summit is not optional". I tend to agree with this. Let me add, I have never attended a Cardano Summit live (only virtually) - so I am also speaking from an outsider's point of view.
What I disagree is the bundling of the Cardano Summit with the 4 x Regional Cardano Tech Events into one take-it-or-leave-it proposal. Forced with the choice, I leave it. My hope is that a pure Cardano Summit proposal will be put forward.
Also, the proposal does state the strenghts of its co-hosts. One of the arugments is: "The Cardano Foundation's proven delivery of three consecutive, globally impactful Cardano Summits". The PDF adds that IOG financed it in 2021. I see Emurgo has not financed a Cardano Summit - although it has participated as a sponsor previously. Not criticising, just reiterating the facts.
The proposal does not explain why The Cardano Foundation - as one of the major backers - is modifying the previous model of funding the Cardano Summit by itself (2022, 2023, 2024) into a new model where the Summit is being financed from the treasury. Without the explanation - I can only presume that the reason is that this is no longer seen as a sole financial responsibility of the Cardano Foundation.
When was this decision made? Why is it not a responsibility of the CF - we are left to guess. It seems it is the Treasury's baby now. Well, as a DRep - I would like a Cardano Summit proposal pure and simple. My feeedback is that is too expensive and ambitious - for one the Summit proposal should be separated from the 4 Regional Events and I would reconsider my vote.
I commend the proposers for exploring how to create a path towards a revenue-based Cardano Summit in the future - by 2029, according to projections. - Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 6M ₳ No rationale
- No 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
This initiative is aligned with STORM Partners’ DRep mandate: it attracts capital and talent, amplifies Cardano’s global presence, and promotes ecosystem collaboration.
The proposal also introduces forward-looking sustainability, with the end goal of making the Cardano Summit a self-sustaining event.
STORM Partners' direct experience with previous summits affirms the value of having a Cardano-only anchor event that unifies messaging, showcases achievements, and attracts talent, regulators, enterprises, and builders alike.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Only supporting it in hopes of serious B2B partnerships. Will re-evaluate this decision next year.
Only supporting it in hopes of serious B2B partnerships. Will re-evaluate this decision next year.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting no, as per list described in my tweet:
https://x.com/OracleAltcoin/status/1917257059071934483Core engineering first, decentralization of influence and conservative with the treasury.
Strength and honor. - No 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
While this is a large withdrawal, the kpis for developer growth, and the previous track record of Cardano not being at enough global events leads me to support this withdrawal.
- No 3.7M ₳ Rationale
The proposed budget for the Cardano Summit appears excessive, as ticket sales and sponsorships should offset most costs in a European city. Furthermore, the lack of financial transparency for the "regional tech events" raises concerns. While I recognize the value of an annual Cardano event, I cannot support this withdrawal.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.
I believe the Cardano Foundation should be compensated for the costs of the Cardano Summit and regional tech events.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ Rationale
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
A couple of months ago, I supported the resolution to bundle all of the Intersect Budget Proposals into 1 or 2 formal on-chain governance votes.
Each of these proposals has already undergone extensive scrutiny and received 50% or greater support from the active DReps in the ecosystem, and I will honor that prior decision and the work these prospective developers have put in by voting yes on all the proposals from the Intersect Budget team.
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
This proposal not only gives us the Summit but also regional events with 800,000 ADA allocated to each of the four regions (WADA, RareEvo, Emurgo, ADA Solar). This will help us continue to have valuable IRL events. Doing these events require advanced planning, deposits, and constant collaboration. It is critical that we pass this and keep our flagship events moving forward.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
グローバルおよび地域レベルでの開発者連携・採用促進・ユースケースの可視化を目的とする本提案は、Cardanoの認知と実需の拡大に直接寄与すると判断します。複数拠点でのサミット展開に明確なKPIが設定されており、各地域パートナーとの分散実行モデルも評価できるため、賛成します。
This proposal supports both global and regional Cardano Summits with defined KPIs and decentralized execution by local ecosystem partners. As a strategic move to grow adoption, visibility, and developer engagement, I vote in favor based on its clear structure and tangible community impact.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
I actually like that this one bundles a lot of different teams, who i personally think have quality experience in doing this. I went to the event last year, and it was awesome. I'm hoping to see this event stick around as i think it's important to have a 'Cardano Only" event that showcases our top teams and accomplishments of the year.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting Yes. The Cardano Summit is a cornerstone event in the ecosystem. This proposal supports global reach by funding regional events to improve access and foster collaboration.
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes. The Summit is a flagship event for the ecosystem—critical for global visibility, community engagement, and cross-sector collaboration. However, the proposal’s inclusion of “regional tech events” lacks sufficient detail, making it difficult to assess scope, impact, or cost-effectiveness. Additionally, for a request of this magnitude, clearer milestones and accountability structures are necessary to ensure responsible execution. Despite these concerns, the strategic importance of the Summit itself justifies support, with the expectation that future proposals will deliver greater transparency and specificity.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ 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
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.