Withdraw ₳6,000,000 for Unveiling the First Unified Global Events Marketing S...
180 DReps voted · 65 with a rationale · 5 changed their vote · 4 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 5 to yes, together voting with 274.1M ₳ of voting power.
- YesChanged9.5M ₳Rationale
Updated/Changed Vote: After some further review and consideration, I am opting to support this due to what I hope is a net benefit to the ecosystem with these events down the road. While I'm personally wary of the key founding entities that are taking part in operating these initiatives - I consider this a last change through 2025-2026 to see them make something of this. The track record, from my perspective, doesn't show a lot of positivity from past events and results - it's costs with no real revenues. Traction for Cardano's ecosystem however remains a top priority of mine to move things forward - and sometimes that means taking some risks and continuing the effort to bring more key businesses and developers into the ecosystem. A vote for YES here is to help support that.
As always - We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawals for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliency, and security) -- and business that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.
My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgReady to move forward overall with the budgeting process and look forward to a smoother process next year. I voted for a lower NCL overall (200M), however found in supporting things that we really ought to have funded to keep momentum in development and enhancements on-chain (supporting both open and non-open-sourced projects) I came a bit higher than that (250M+).
We will need to strike a balance in treasury withdrawels for projects that push development forward (and therefore the chains efficiency, performance, resiliancy, and security) -- and businsess that wish to participate, of any size, and extend the capabilities and real-world use cases of Cardano.
My votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Tarrant64/mr_cata_gov/refs/heads/main/mr_cata_gov%20.txt
- Abstain8.9M ₳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.
- YesChanged7.7M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- NoRevoted7.6M ₳Rationale
I voted NO for this proposal on Ekklesia and I will vote NO again. The proposal is welcome, as all proposals are. I think it lacks any deeper introspection into why the situation is as they describe it to be. This is relevant as two proposers are Cardano founding entities.
I voted NO for this proposal on Ekklesia and I will vote NO again. The proposal is welcome, as all proposals are. I think that the proposers have failed to identify the reasons why the Cardano ecosystem "currently faces challenges in establishing a consistent and impactful presence at global blockchain events."
Two out of the three vendors: Emurgo and Cardano Foundation have been in roles that were supposed to contribute significantly to Cardano's profile at such events.
As the proposal states that "Competitors like Solana, Aptos, and Sui have established significant brand recognition by strategically aligning global events with developer-focused initiatives." - it would seem that their founding entities may have had better strategies towards this type of goals.
I think that IOG has had an outsized influence on the Cardano global image and marketing presence in general and that entrusting the CF and Emurgo with more funds to establish a consistent and impactful presence at global blockchain events - might be a mistake.
I sort of expected a much deeper analysis of why "competitors like Solana, Aptos, and Sui have established significant brand recognition". This seems like a superficial approach to a much deeper problem that is Cardano's brand image.
I am careful not to lump Rare Evo into this assessment.
I come to this proposal wondering what has prevented the founding entities from working on a unified global events marketing strategy for Cardano so far. It is 2025.
The issue is I was not convinced that this proposal will make a difference - as two of the three entities have essentially not built up the credibility that they can make this work - truly. Yes, I believe the events will be held, the boxes will be ticked, and the speeches will be held and that we will rub shoulders with Solana, Aptos, and Sui at these events - but I do not see the "Je ne sais quoi" factor that this will make a difference and that the main proposers are able to self-critically look at their own roles so far.Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted5.5M ₳Rationale
I am disappointed by the vendor's concerns about Cardano's low branding visibility and lack of strategic partnerships, as they, as two thirds of the founding entities, share responsibility for these shortcomings. Nevertheless, I will support their efforts but will closely monitor their projected outcomes to ensure accountability.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
I am disappointed by the vendor's concerns about Cardano's low branding visibility and lack of strategic partnerships, as they, as two thirds of the founding entities, share responsibility for these shortcomings. Nevertheless, I will support their efforts but will closely monitor their projected outcomes to ensure accountability.
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.3M ₳Rationale
STORM Partners votes YES on this proposal to support Cardano’s global visibility through a coordinated events strategy. While we are also backing a leaner, community-led alternative, we believe both approaches offer complementary value. This initiative benefits from experienced execution and broad reach. We encourage a future comparison of outcomes between both proposals to help the community assess cost-effectiveness and refine event strategy moving forward.
- Yes5.2M ₳No rationale
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- No4.9M ₳No rationale
- No4.8M ₳Rationale
Emurgo has no track record of securing nor proving serious B2B partnerships. Standing in an event booth does nothing for the good of the ecosystem. Prove with killer products.
Emurgo has no track record of securing nor proving serious B2B partnerships. Standing in an event booth does nothing for the good of the ecosystem. Prove with killer products.
- No4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- No4M ₳Rationale
I am not comfortable with this proposal due to its large size, the move to stop funding an event previous justified as being part of their obligation from the interest earned on genesis ADA by the Cardano Foundation, and the additional funding for Emergo, which has not performed their duties expected with their Genesis ADA for expected similar tasks.
- No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.9M ₳Rationale
I'm voting NO as marketing is not a priority of my DRep.
See: https://x.com/OracleAltcoin/status/1917257059071934483Core engineering first, conservative with the treasury and decentralization of influence.
Strength and honor. - No3.6M ₳No rationale
- No3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- No3M ₳Rationale
This proposal falls into the realm of a service the Cardano Foundation should be paying for themselves instead of requesting community ADA funding.
The CF should be willing to use their genesis ADA for contributing to the growth of Cardano, like funding global marketing for Cardano.
This is a responsibility the CF has been sorely lacking in, and I am disappointed but not surprised to see the CF asking for a handout to do this work they should already be doing.
- No2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
I attended the Cardano Summit in 2024 and it was a great event. I do not want to lose this event. I also trust the teams behind this proposal to deliver. Would love to see additional work done to address the comments and feedback that prevented people from voting yes on this.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
カルダノのグローバル認知とブランド統一に向けたマーケティング戦略は、L1チェーンとしての地位を確立するうえで不可欠です。多数の国際イベントを通じてCardanoブランドを一貫して露出させることで、他チェーンとの差別化と採用促進が期待されます。予算規模は大きいものの、目的の明確さと費用対効果の説明がなされており、実行主体にも信頼がおけるため賛成します。
A unified, Cardano-branded global marketing strategy is essential to strengthen Cardano’s visibility and adoption in the broader blockchain space. This proposal addresses a long-standing weakness in cohesive outreach. Given the strategic importance, professional execution plan, and clear branding goals, I support this proposal despite the large budget.
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.5M ₳Rationale
I am changing from No to Yes on this proposal. I have realized that I was biasing toward proposals (tech proposals) that I understood. Being no marketer myself, I have decided to trust in the people closest to this. I think this proposal will create some consistency from event to event and further drive a strong Cardano brand. I appreciate all the professional discussions on X to understand this proposal better. Now, let's get to work.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
This is a significant spend for less than 10 conferences. While I appreciate marketing at key events, this seems like overkill. Let's target the audiences that will resonate with Cardano. We can do more with less. It's not about throwing sponsorship money around. It is about mindful, sustainable presence.
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳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.
- No1.5M ₳Rationale
Currently, Cardano should prioritize technical development that drives innovation and organically builds brand reputation over costly marketing. We can focus on "Brand Marketing" once we have a broader-functionality ecosystem.
- No1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳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.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale