Withdraw ₳605,000 for A free Native Asset CDN for Cardano Developers
211 DReps voted · 63 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 17.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 16.7M ₳ Rationale
Long-Term Sustainability
The idea of a native asset CDN—serving token icons, metadata, and branding—is helpful for improving UX and consistency across wallets and dApps. However, it is not a critical protocol service and does not directly impact network resilience or security.Builder and Ecosystem Growth
A well-executed CDN could make asset integration smoother for developers and improve token discoverability for users. Yet, the technical complexity and impact are limited, and much of the value can be delivered using existing web infrastructure at a fraction of the proposed cost.Decentralization and Community Engagement
The service would be public-facing and improve uniformity in asset presentation across interfaces. Still, it does not meaningfully increase decentralization or empower new participants, and the proposal lacks a clear open governance or stewardship model for long-term sustainability.Treasury Spending Concerns
₳605,000 for a relatively lightweight web service is excessive. Comparable services—static asset hosting, cache/CDN distribution, metadata indexing—could be delivered reliably for ₳100,000–₳150,000 with ongoing maintenance. The proposal does not justify the inflated cost with itemized budgeting or technical constraints. Given the overestimation, lack of critical urgency, and weak accountability mechanisms, we recommend voting NO on this proposal. If resubmitted with a leaner scope and clearer delivery plan, it may be reconsidered. - Yes 16.4M ₳ Rationale
Treasury withdrawals
Software Development Proposals:
Development budgets should not be funded from the treasury. Instead, the treasury should be used to incentivize feature completion through grants. The treasury should not operate as a venture capital fund or to fund ongoing development budgets. It should be results oriented and decoupled from budgeting. Dracula DAO Deep will make exceptions this round for projects that deliver specific, high value features or results at a reasonable ask amount.Marketing Proposals:
Marketing budgets are the best way to fund these types of efforts. Judgement should be used based on the ask amount and value proposition.Research Proposals:
Research budgets should be evaluated based on the track record of the team being funded, the value proposition and whether the results are released to the public.DAO Funding:
DraculaDAO believes DAOs should find other ways to support operations other than public treasury funds.Bitcoin:
Dracula DAO Deep is against purchasing Bitcoin with treasury funds, and are generally not in favor of a tight Bitcoin / Cardano partnership. Bitcoin DeFi is ok as long as the value proposition remains with Cardano. Cardano is already Bitcoin++ and treasury funds should not be used to encourage or sustain BTC energy waste and outdated consensus model.Yes - MLabs Core Tool Maintenance. Ask is reasonable.
Yes - Midgard Optimistic Rollups. This is urgently needed as an L2 solution for Cardano and the ask is reasonable.
Yes - Hardware Wallets Maintenance. This is necessary and ask is reasonable.
Yes - Pallas Rust Tooling. Core tooling used by many projects and ask is reasonable for the specific deliverable.
Yes - UTxO RPC
Yes - Lucid Evolution Maintenance
Yes - zkFold ZK Rollup
Yes - Dolos. Ask is reasonable with specific deliverable.
Yes - Ledger App rewrite
Yes - Paid Open Source Model. This looks like a nice way to take the VC function out of the treasury and start towards incentivizing projects through features and benefits like bug bounties. Willing to take a chance on this, but will vote no in the future if results are disappointing.
Yes - Gerolamo node in typescript
Yes - MLabs Core Tools: Plutarch. Ask is reasonable
Yes - ZK Bridge
Yes - Eternal maintenance
Yes - Scalus Development Platform
Yes - Cexplorer.io
Yes - Native Asset CDN
Yes - Adastat.net
Yes - Intersect MBO. DraculaDAO does not like the high ask amount and the budgeting approach, but for Intersect MBO there may not be a better way like there is with software development. Therefore DraculaDAO supports this proposal, realizing this possibly breaks with the general guidelines DraculaDAO described above.
Yes - Beyond Minimum Viable Governance. Focused feature set and reasonable ask. IOHK should use this approach for all its teams.
Yes - Cardano Summit
Yes - Unified Global Events Marketing
Yes - Quadratic Funding. Reasonable ask for a specific feature.
Yes - Cardano Ecosystem Pavilions
Yes - High-yield RWA Asset. Direct communication with this vendor increased our faith in this project and have changed our stance on this.
Yes - Expanding Stablecoin / Native Asset Support. This was marginal in terms of ask amount and number of features grouped together.
Yes - OpShin
Yes - PyCardano
Yes - Cardano Product Committee
Yes - BloxBean Java Tools
Yes - Input Output Research
Yes - MLabs ResearchAbstain - Input Output Core Development. This is simply a warning shot as DraculaDAO expects this proposal will pass. We are generally in favor of the initiatives and features being delivered by IOHK, but believe the ask is too high as a single budget line item and do not want to set a precedent of another ask of similar magnitude for the next budget cycle. Instead, IOHK should divide its deliverables into features and ask the treasury for grant incentives delivered on completion of the each feature (see Beyond Minimum Viable Governance as what we see as a good example). We are not in favor of such a large withdrawal encompassing such a large number of features. In general we do not support using the treasury for budget line items as mentioned in the introduction to this rationale.
Abstain - Blockfrost Community Budget. We support Blockfrost and operate an icebreaker node. There are no specific features mentioned, just an ongoing budget line item, which we do not support. We will support Blockfrost in other ways.No - Web3 developer stack for Bitcoin integration. DraculaDAO does not support a tight integration with Bitcoin.
No - TWEAG Proposals. We see value there but the ask is too large and too many deliverables bundled together.
No - Catalyst 2025. Ask is too large as a single budget request.
No - Cardano Builder DAO. Treasury should not be used to incentivize features, not fund ongoing budgets for software development or DAOs.
No - Market making should have other ways to fund operations. - Yes 14.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 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 12.8M ₳ No rationale
- 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.
- No 11.3M ₳ 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.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 10.5M ₳ 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
- No 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ 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. - No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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 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
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- No 5.3M ₳ 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.
- No 4.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos pela "ABSTENÇÃO" nesta ação de governança (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlpjq3z9u5), 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_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlpjq3z9u5), 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. - No 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.2M ₳ 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. - No 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ 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.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ Rationale
I have gained a little more clarity on this proposal and so I am changing my position on it.
- Yes 2.8M ₳ No rationale
- 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.
- No 2.6M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ 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.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Proposal was well outlined and seems extremely reasonable.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 2.1M ₳ No rationale