Withdraw ₳600,000 for Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart...
166 DReps voted · 47 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
During the voting stage on Ekklesia, I voted ABSTAIN as I wasn't really sure about the merits of the proposal. Yes, the UTXo chains narrative is in vogue, but still this is a hefty ask from the treasury. I was especially interested in the open source aspects of GoMaestro's (Maestro's) output. I have to admit I did not have enough time to look into it during the Ekklesia voting stage - so, I ended up Abstaining.
With Intersect now submitting 39 different Treasury Withdrawal actions, I am now able to move from a more protective stance towards the treasury withdrawals to a slightly less protective one - as Intersect is not bundling dozens of proposals together. I was using the initial Ekklesia voting to mostly support proposals that I was more certain about.
In the case of the "Complete Web3 developer stack to make Cardano the smart contract layer for Bitcoin" proposal, I noticed a tweet from Maestro's Marvin DeFi stating that: "Maestro will be open-sourcing its core multi-chain indexer framework.We were going to share this later, but since multiple people have contacted me regarding our Budget Proposal. I wanted to make it clear to everyone." [ https://x.com/MarvinDefi/status/1918923821979164936 ]
The key featuers of the developer stack will be:- Multi-chain compatible
- Modular and extendable UTXO indexer
- Block reorganization rollback protection
- Battle-tested, billions+ in request volume
Maestro has already received investments from Emurgo - which I think seems to be a very good decision by Emurgo to strenghten core Cardano projects - which are also trying to bring to life the compatibility narrative among UTXO chains.
From what I searched, it seems that Maestro provides open-source blockchain indexing and data-layer tools for UTXO chains like Cardano, Bitcoin, Dogecoin. Their API-based services include UTxO indexing, blockchain event notifications, mempool monitoring, market price feeds, smart‑contract triggers, wallet management, and transaction orchestration, all built on the same Apache-2.0 license opensource foundations.
- No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 6M ₳ Rationale
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
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
This proposal offers strategic upside by positioning Cardano as a smart contract hub for Bitcoin, an ambition that aligns with STORM Partners’ mission to enhance Cardano’s market position, liquidity access, and institutional appeal. Maestro has proven its ability to deliver infrastructure at scale, and the outlined integrations could directly benefit DeFi, wallets, and L2s. In our point of view, the scope, timing, and strategic leverage justify treasury support at this stage.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
API abstraction service for BTC on Cardano does bring value to the ecosystem, thus supporting it.
API abstraction service for BTC on Cardano does bring value to the ecosystem, thus supporting it.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "Sim" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlpvhtd5td), pois a carteira Eternl é a mais completa e utilizada do ecossistema Cardano; financiar esse grupo de desenvolvedores é essencial para a melhoria contínua desta ferramenta, promovendo sustentabilidade, usabilidade para os usuários e garantia de inovações no produto. Além disso, a justificativa de gastos apresentada, bem como as métricas de avaliação e controle, foram bem apresentadas.
[English]
We chose to vote "Yes" on this governance action (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlpvhtd5td), because the Eternl wallet is the most complete and widely used in the Cardano ecosystem; funding this group of developers is essential for the continuous improvement of this tool, promoting sustainability, user-friendliness, and ensuring product innovation. Furthermore, the expense justification presented, as well as the evaluation and control metrics, were well presented. - Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES because core engineering is the priority of my DRep account.
Strength and honor.
- No 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
Funding approval of previously ratified proposal
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
Voting Rationale for 2025-08 Treasury Withdrawals
The following outlines the general lenses and beliefs that guided my voting decisions on the 39 withdrawal proposals submitted under Cardano’s Voltaire governance. I am reusing this rationale for proposals that aligned with these principles and did not require additional explanation due to unique mitigating concerns.
⸻
Cardano: State of Play
The vision of the Cardano ecosystem—to create a fairer financial system, less subject to the whims of individuals, elites, nations, or cultures—remains worthy of support. In general, we are progressing toward that goal.
The bedrock tenet of any blockchain is trustworthiness. While Cardano’s base layer and transaction integrity are mature, the ecosystem has not yet reached the scale needed to fulfill its mission. Infrastructure that supports scaling—especially when open-sourced—should be prioritized for funding.
Because the ecosystem currently allows for anonymity and lacks effective mechanisms to penalize bad actors, it is vulnerable to abuse. Public funding is at risk from fraud, budget inflation, frivolous proposals, and well-intentioned but economically unviable ideas. Given that grift is currently viable, all funding requests must be critically reviewed—with a strong default bias toward skepticism.
However, in any new system, failure and error are expected. The many problems we’ve seen in this first funding cycle are normal and should be treated as feedback to help us improve, not as reasons to disengage.
⸻
Fiscal Philosophy
I view the Cardano treasury as a sovereign wealth fund—a public resource meant to grow over the long term. Spending should be closely aligned with income.
Most projects should ultimately sustain themselves by generating revenue commensurate with their value. But Cardano is still an immature economic system, and many valuable contributions will require public funding at this stage—analogous to early government support for foundational infrastructure.
⸻
Approach to the Budget Process
This first Voltaire budget cycle has experienced serious growing pains. I do not believe that builders should be asked to shoulder the full financial risk of an immature, unclear, and delayed funding process.
Many proposers have worked through most of 2025 without knowing whether their funding would come through. This has impaired their ability to allocate resources intelligently.
I believe the greater ecosystem risk lies in failing to fund projects that were already approved by the community—under the reasonable assumption that funding would follow—than in inadvertently funding a few proposals that should have been rejected. Accordingly, I adopted a bias toward optimism and benefit of the doubt.
However, in cases where proposals appeared excessively extractive, failed to demonstrate economic value in line with their requests, or raised too many concern flags, I voted “no” despite that bias.
⸻
Bias Toward Core Infrastructure and Open-Source
Cardano is first and foremost an infrastructure system. Public funding is best directed toward foundational layers and tooling, rather than toward products that should be able to find product-market fit and attract users or investors.
Public money should come with public return—either in the form of open-sourced outputs or equity-like participation in future value creation.
⸻
Additional Beliefs and Disclosures
I believe in the wisdom of crowds. My votes are based on independent reading of the proposals, personal communications with teams, and my own biases and interpretations. I assume some of my conclusions are incorrect—but trust that the collective judgment of voters will yield a generally sound outcome despite individual errors.
I voted in good faith and without compensation. I have no proposals of my own and no financial interest in any proposal beyond that of any other ADA holder.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
Maestro's advanced tooling, including its high performance UTXO indexing APIs and managed smart contract solutions, will significantly enhance Bitcoin DeFi and smart contract capabilities while strengthening the Cardano Layer 2 ecosystem (Midgard, etc).
- 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.
- Yes 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 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
- No 2.5M ₳ Rationale
We already funded sundial and IOG who are both working on this type of work. I am hesitant to put more money when we already have 2 teams working on this that are being paid. This first funding round is about minimum viable.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Maestroによる本提案は、CardanoをBitcoinのスマートコントラクトレイヤーとして機能させるインフラ構築を目指しており、流動性・ユースケース拡張の両面で戦略的意義が大きいと判断します。UTXO互換性を活かした実装計画と、₳600Kという予算規模も適切であり、賛成します。
This proposal by Maestro aims to position Cardano as the smart contract layer for Bitcoin, enabling access to BTC liquidity and expanding Cardano's DeFi footprint. With an infrastructure plan grounded in UTXO compatibility and a reasonable budget, I support this strategic initiative.
- Abstain 2.5M ₳ Rationale
I have a personal bias here as i believe this is in direct competition with my business
- Yes 2.1M ₳ 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
I am voting yes. The scope and ambition of this project—if successful—could significantly expand the value of Cardano. Given the potential upside, I believe this is a calculated risk worth taking with Treasury funds.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 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 recommend a No vote on this treasury withdrawal in its current form. I urge the proposers to refine their technical roadmap with demonstrable prototypes, provide quantitative economic forecasts, and strengthen community involvement mechanisms. Only with these enhancements can we confidently support a project that promises to bridge Cardano and Bitcoin in a meaningful, sustainable way. Cardano’s future depends on strategic discipline, not unchecked optimism.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale