Withdraw ₳6,000,000 for Unveiling the First Unified Global Events Marketing S...
180 DReps voted · 59 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 14.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 13.3M ₳ 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.
- 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
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.1M ₳ 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. - No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ 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
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ 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.
- No 4.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.2M ₳ 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. - No 4M ₳ No rationale
- No 3.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ 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.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.8M ₳ 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.
- No 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- 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.
- Abstain 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting Yes. While I have concerns about the fragmented ownership of the project four separate entities—which may pose coordination and accountability challenges—the strategic importance of a unified, professional marketing effort for Cardano is too great to ignore. Effective global outreach is critical to drive adoption, strengthen the brand, and support ecosystem growth. With proper oversight and clear deliverables, this initiative has the potential to deliver high-impact results worthy of Treasury investment.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.5M ₳ 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.