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 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 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.
- Abstain 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
I have to question why the proposal is requesting 6 million to be spent on an event marketing campaign. This is a large amount of treasury funds. The abstract and motivation sections are based mostly on marketing jargon and comparisons to competitors and not on what a specific, concrete strategy to be different.
The proposal does not show how this amount of money will lead to a measurable return on investment or growth of the Cardano ecosystem other than "participating in events" and "hosting parties", which could be seen as a very expensive brand campaign with no return.
Cardano Foundation, Emurgo and Rare Network are reputable names involved in the proposal. But the proposal does not show how this proposal will not duplicate the marketing activities of these parties and other Catalyst funded projects.
There is no doubt that the idea to have a single face for the Cardano brand at blockchain events is a good idea. However, the amount of money requested is too large and not justified. It will duplicate the effort of other parties and will not lead to a measurable return or ROI. Cardano should focus on strategic and low-cost initiatives that will lead to growth of the protocol and the Cardano ecosystem. I vote NO. This is not a responsible use of treasury funds.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 819K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
Investment in our marketing footprint is necessary and CF is well capable of execution.
- Yes 791.4K ₳ Rationale
Live events are undoubtedly create great networking opportunities for the existing community, yet has failed in the past to reach new audiences and create new users in the ecosystem.
Support of this proposal is not easily provided, as the entities behind this have practiced the shortcomings mentioned earlier, however, few are as organized as these entities to provide the needed foundation for such events to be successful, and latest events do show better outreach.
Provided administration ensures the outcomes mentioned are realized, the money should be well spent.
- No 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 717.1K ₳ Rationale
I prioritized funding open-source tools and proposals that I believe will most effectively support Cardano’s long-term growth. I voted in favor of the highest-priority items that fit within my preferred budget cap of 250 million ADA, abstained from proposals where I may have had a personal interest, and voted NO on all remaining proposals after reaching that budget limit.
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ 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. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 587.1K ₳ Rationale
While a unified global events marketing strategy could improve Cardano’s brand recognition, the timing and scale of this proposal make it a difficult investment to justify. At the current stage of the ecosystem, our priority should be to direct significant resources toward building and refining products, tools, and infrastructure that will drive adoption organically. Once we have strong, widely-used solutions in place, marketing efforts will have a much stronger impact, as we will be showcasing proven successes rather than promoting a brand without clear flagship use cases.
Additionally, the proposal’s budget appears large in relation to measurable, on-chain returns, and it lacks clear performance metrics to evaluate success beyond brand exposure. Without concrete KPIs linked to developer engagement, dApp deployment, or ecosystem growth, there is a risk of spending heavily on visibility without tangible, lasting benefits for the Cardano network. For these reasons, I am voting NO on this proposal.
- Yes 559.5K ₳ No rationale
- No 502K ₳ Rationale
I read the PDF strategy of this document and honestly felt embarrassed for everyone involved. What they're calling a "unified globall events marketing stategy" is actually just three organizations splitting treasury money to sponsor random conferences with zero coordination. The Cardano Foundation wants to do enterprise events, EMURGO wants to do their usual ineffective ecosystem theater, and Rare Network wants to organize parties. The worst part is the vendor combination. Having EMURGO as a key partner when they've consistently failed to demonstrate measurable ecosystem value is like hiring your least competent friend to handle your most important project. Some partnerships make you weaker, not stronger, and this is definitely one of those.
Hard NO. - Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Krypto Labs have taken part in the budget debates and agree with proposer that this is something the Cardano blockchain ecosystem need.
I started with making a rationale and arguement for each proposal, but to save time i need to do bulk voting to speed this prosess up. - Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 323.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ Rationale
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting during the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process on the Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- No 298.6K ₳ Rationale
I don't think this is what Cardano needs right now.
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 258.6K ₳ Rationale
This vote was submitted based on a completed checklist. A detailed rationale is available at:
👉 https://github.com/Agora-Cardano - No 257K ₳ Rationale
I recommend voting NO on this ₳6,000,000 treasury withdrawal for the unified global events marketing strategy. While a coordinated global marketing approach to Cardano events is conceptually valuable, this proposal does not provide sufficient detail or justification to warrant funding at this scale.
The proposal lacks a granular marketing strategy with well-defined, measurable outcomes directly tied to ecosystem growth metrics. The budget is significant and not adequately broken down or clearly linked to demonstrable return on investment. The complexity of unifying multiple event marketing efforts requires strong coordination mechanisms and community buy-in, which the proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate.
Furthermore, transparency around community involvement and feedback in crafting and executing the strategy is limited. Without clear public involvement or structured co-creation, there is risk that the strategy may not align well with the diverse needs of Cardano’s decentralized ecosystem.
While the governance framework and treasury management are robust, these do not compensate for the strategic and operational uncertainties present.
A more detailed, community-driven, and outcome-focused marketing proposal with clear KPIs and modest budget ask would be needed before treasury funding can be recommended.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 245K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
My primary concern is that funding marketing initiatives through the treasury is an inappropriate use of community resources. The treasury should prioritize core protocol development, infrastructure, and research to ensure Cardano’s long-term sustainability and technical excellence, rather than marketing efforts that could be funded through private entities like Emurgo or external partnerships.Additionally, I am skeptical of the proposed hackathon and event-focused strategy. Hackathons often produce short-term buzz but lack sustained outcomes, and the proposed events risk diluting focus without clear metrics for success. Given the significant 6M ADA allocation, I believe more rigorous justification and alternative funding sources should be explored before committing treasury funds.
- No 195.9K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 190.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 184.4K ₳ 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.
- Yes 180.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 177.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 143.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 137.3K ₳ No rationale