Withdraw ₳605,000 for A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers
211 DReps voted · 70 with a rationale · 22 changed their vote · 4 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 21 to yes, 1 to abstain, together voting with 512.6M ₳ of voting power.
- Yes14.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes12M ₳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.
- YesRevoted11.9M ₳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.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes10.9M ₳No rationale
- No10.3M ₳No rationale
- No10.2M ₳Rationale
I do not recognize this proposal as a priority due to the skepticism of the ROI. The analysis on dev hours saved is compelling but it strikes me as a potential savings. As I understand it, this proposal is more of a reduction in the barrier to entry, as opposed to a direct mechanism for onboarding new developers. I think this proposal is a worthwhile pursuit but not a priority at this point in time.
- Yes9.5M ₳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 seucrity) -- 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.
- No7.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes7.6M ₳Rationale
I voted ABSTAIN on the "A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers" proposal over the Ekklesia voting tool during the Intersect budget vote stage. I have spent days going back and forth over this proposal and how can I align it with my views about what can we do with Treasury funds sustainably.
Essentially, I always have a lingering feeling that if we fund something commercial for "18 months" - we are really kicking the can down the road. And later in that many months we have the same can and just less money available.
Yes, this is an important tool for the NFT world to display Cardano native assets (NFTs &FTs) efficiently. The team members are known for their committment to Cardano and this works in favor of the proposal - as they have already built in our ecosystem and know it.
NFTCDN is a managed Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) provider that here is asking essentially for direct funding of NFTCDN to make it free for all Cardano builders for 18 months under an SLA contract.
My knee-jerk reaction is to say no. However, this will ease the ability of other teams building on Cardano to integrate NFTs and FTs... However, they have shown the the cost can be seen as lower - if we factor in savings in other projects that will be able to use this service for free.
Still, I am wary of precedents, so I asked the proposers over X (Twitter) about "any intentions, plans, considerations about open sourcing your codebase?" [ https://x.com/InputEndorsers/status/1949430196945178975 ]. Fortunately, the team saw the question and responded. "@nftcdn_io Jul 28 Hey - great question & we appreciate you asking! 💙 Short Answer: If funded, this proposal gives us the usage data to pursue one (or more) of 3 possible future directions for NFTCDN: Open-source, Decentralise, or Transfer (e.g. to a gov-aligned org stewarding core Cardano infra). Longer Answer: Following valuable feedback from @yuta_cryptox and other DReps, we've scoped three strategic routes post-proposal:(i) Open-sourcing NFTCDN for the Cardano public to use, (ii) decentralising NFTCDN, so that no one person/company is responsible for running it, or (iii) transferring NFTCDN to a public-good org that can scale it w/ sustainable ops (e.g. low-cost-country resourcing) to operate and/or maintain. Each route has pros/cons, and none of them are straightforward, but they all serve the long-term goal; ensuring Cardano's native asset display capability is accessible, resilient and easy for developers. This proposal enables us to collect meaningful usage and impact data, which will underpin the case for any of these options and our aim is to bring option papers for DRep signalling which would convert to proposal(s) for execution.Hope this answers your question!" [ https://x.com/nftcdn_io/status/1949900316549202270 ]
To summarize, I intend to vote YES to this proposal, thanks to this clarification. However, my expectation is that the proposers behind this proposal will come up with detailed and credible options to put in front of DReps about the future direction of NFTCDN: Open-source, Decentralise, or Transfer. If these options are not clearly developed - based on meaningful usage and impact data, which will underpin the case for any of these options - well before the 18 month funding expires, I will not support a similar future funding request for NFTCDN. - Yes7.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes6.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5M ₳No rationale
- No5.3M ₳Rationale
The proposal offers ecosystem benefits and aligns with STORM Partners’ goals to lower dev friction. However, the service is closed-source and vendor-controlled, making it a centralized dependency without community ownership. In our view, the funds should prioritize shared, open, forkable infrastructure, not subsidize vendor-based platforms and proprietary SaaS models.
- No5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes5.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.9M ₳No rationale
- No4.8M ₳Rationale
It is more like an one-time fee rather than said 'free'. Also, the technical competency of the CDN network and reliability is not justified.
It is more like an one-time fee rather than said 'free'. Also, the technical competency of the CDN network and reliability is not justified.
- Yes4.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain4.2M ₳Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos pela "ABSTENÇÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tf...q3z9u5), por não conseguir estimar no momento o custo-benefício desta solução, em comparação a ações orçamentárias mais prioritárias que identificamos. Sugerimos que o projeto busque financiamento de forma incremental através do Catalyst.
[English]
We chose "ABSTENTION" on this governance action (gov_action13tf...q3z9u5), because we are currently unable to estimate the cost-benefit of this solution compared to more prioritized budgetary actions we have identified. We suggest that the project seek funding incrementally through Catalyst. - No4.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes4M ₳Rationale
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.
- No4M ₳No rationale
- No3.9M ₳Rationale
I'm voting no, as per list described in my tweet:
https://x.com/OracleAltcoin/status/1917257059071934483Core engineering first, decentralization of influence and conservative with the treasury.
Strength and honor. - YesChanged3.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes3.5M ₳No rationale
- No3.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
Proposal was well outlined and seems extremely reasonable.
- Yes2.7M ₳Rationale
NFTCDNを18ヶ月間無料提供することで、ネイティブアセットを扱う開発者のコスト・実装負荷を大幅に削減する実用的な提案です。既に稼働中のインフラを無償化するモデルであり、実績とスケーラビリティを兼ね備えているため、賛成します。
This proposal makes the already operational NFTCDN free for Cardano developers for 18 months. It provides scalable infrastructure for native assets and significantly lowers development barriers. Given its clear utility and modest cost, I vote in favor.
- Yes2.6M ₳No rationale
- No2.5M ₳Rationale
Even with all its usefulness, this is still a private company asking the treasury to pay for its commercial service. This sets a precedent for subsidizing a business rather than funding infrastructure development. What happens after 18 months? Will they ask again? And what if the funding doesn’t come through? What happens to the projects that have already integrated the service? Unfortunately, I see a risk of the ecosystem becoming dependent on a single centralized service.
- Yes2.5M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.5M ₳Rationale
I have some room left in the 150M cap I had set out to hit and this proposal will help builders survive which is a group we need to maintain to be relevant.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes2.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged2.2M ₳Rationale
I have become convinced this product is mor in demand for tooling than I initially thought. I will therefore support it.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale