Withdraw ₳6,000,000 for Unveiling the First Unified Global Events Marketing S...
180 DReps voted · 64 with a rationale · 11 changed their vote
Open a row to read the 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. - Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- No92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳Rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale
- Abstain58.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes53.2K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes48.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain46.5K ₳No rationale
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Voted YES on: Cardano Global Events Strategy (2025–2026)
Why I support it:
• 🌐 Coordinates a unified, Cardano-branded presence at global events to rival Solana, Aptos & Sui
• 🧲 Attracts developers, partners, and policymakers with focused messaging & execution
• 🤝 Delivered by trusted entities: Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Rare Network
• 🎯 Fixes fragmented branding and elevates Cardano’s visibility across L1 ecosystems
• 💡 Targets high-impact events across key markets—cost-efficient, results-drivenCardano needs a consistent, professional presence on the world stage. This proposal gets us there.
🗳️ DRep: DeepStatecraft
🔗 View Proposal - No26.7K ₳Rationale
No. We need actual businesses. Emurgo has been doing marketing for like 8 years when they could have helped us build. You can't sell potential forever. We need actual business at this time to sell and market. No thanks.
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- No4.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes378.6 ₳No rationale
- Abstain335.3 ₳No rationale
- Yes13.5 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- Yes0 ₳No rationale
- No0 ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted0 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes0y agoSuperseded