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 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting No. NFTCDN is a closed-source service run by a single vendor with no clear plan for long-term availability or community involvement. Funding covers only 18 months of free use, risking dependency and sudden costs afterward instead of building lasting community-owned infrastructure.
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No. While infrastructure to support asset delivery can benefit the ecosystem, this proposal is not open-source, which limits transparency, community contribution, and long-term sustainability. Treasury-funded infrastructure should be openly accessible and collaboratively maintained to align with Cardano’s values of decentralization and openness. Without open-source licensing or clear governance, I cannot support this funding request.
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ Rationale
I have become convinced this product is mor in demand for tooling than I initially thought. I will therefore support it.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
Vote: YES
Rationale:
Funding NFTCDN for 18 months will remove major cost (~$100k) and time (9+ months) barriers for projects needing native asset delivery, saving an estimated $5.5M and 39,000 dev hours across the ecosystem. This directly supports Cardano’s 2025 goals for developer experience and adoption, accelerates launches, and improves end-user performance through shared, enterprise-grade infrastructure.While centralization and sustainability risks exist, they are mitigated by SLAs, third-party oversight, and the limited funding term. The ROI and adoption potential justify support.
VOTE0016
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.2M ₳ 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
We are requested to fund a proposal for NFTCDN to help Cardano native asset media delivery for Cardano developers by offering a paid service free for 18 months. The problem is real but the proposed solution duplicates what CDNs do already without evidence of unique value or widespread benefit to the community.
The value proposition is overly optimistic and unproven, the budget is not transparent and the proposal raises questions about lock-in, sustainability and strategic fit.
I would vote NO: Cardano should invest in infrastructure that is open, sustainable and well-justified, not vendor-dependent stopgaps.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ Rationale
This proposal will provide a common good that the community can leverage and accelerate growth by lowering costs.
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
An investment with a high ROI, since it allows projects to focus on core deliverables instead of otherwise redundant CDN infra.
- No 791.4K ₳ Rationale
While the need for performant websites exists, we must not forget that content comes with rights. The providing and duplication of ALL MEDIA content en masse is likely breaking copyright laws without the proper licensing of the underlying content despite the fact that many of the files may be publicly accessible. When it comes to off-chain data, a can of worms is opened...
Due to the nature of specialized usages of data within applications, security concerns, as well as the plethora of backend tools developers have at their disposal, approaching off-chain data development so generally seems impractical.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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 or NCL 2025, abstained from proposals where I may have had a personal interest, and voted NO on all remaining proposals after reaching that budget limit.
- No 716.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 670.2K ₳ Rationale
A mobile governance platform like Tempo.Vote could be a game-changer for Cardano. Mobile is where most people live their digital lives, and if governance is to be truly inclusive, it has to meet users where they are. By making it easier for people to participate in governance from anywhere, this project could significantly widen the circle of active voters and contributors. While they have not yet delivered a funded Catalyst project, this also means they are hungry to prove themselves — and the scope of this proposal suggests they’ve thought big about what’s possible. Their vision for integrated mobile governance and a lending pool for governance participation is bold and could inspire more innovation in this space. The requested budget, though substantial, reflects the complexity of building secure, reliable, and scalable governance infrastructure. Investing in a team willing to push Cardano governance into mobile-native territory could yield long-term dividends in participation, decentralization, and adoption. The features outlined — especially mobile-first governance actions and a governance-focused lending mechanism — show ambition and an understanding of gaps in current tooling. Backing them now could accelerate the pace at which governance on Cardano becomes truly global and always-accessible. In short, this proposal represents a high-upside bet on expanding participation, experimenting with new governance incentives, and positioning Cardano as the most user-friendly blockchain for decentralized decision-making.
- No 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
I have voted in favor of this action to demonstrates my intention to execute without delays and move the treasury expenditure process forward. I also want to note that I will not seriously consider individual requests from the treasury for less that 1,500,000 ADA moving forward. I reserve the right this round because I feel the process was not properly explained to proposers and DRep and it would be unfair to implement this personal guardrail at this time. Requests below that threshold are better suited for Catalyst funding or bundled together in MBO, DAO, or conglomerate entities. TWA (Treasury Withdrawal Actions) need be comprehensive and not ad hoc as that makes oversight more costly and inefficient.
A budget and all included line items has already been approved, and now is the time to disperse funding and enable further development of the Cardano network. The proposal was selected through a well-defined process, and I will fully support it out of respect for the will of the broader Cardano community and a belief in respecting the consensus we achieved together under the Intersect-administered budget process. The process reflects a coordinated, strategic approach to funding Cardano’s ecosystem-critical infrastructure. The community has thoroughly reviewed the proposal. I was actively involved in the entire process and the proposal presented represents development that provides a tangible benefit to our ecosystem. It would be a mistake to underfund our ecosystem’s development when we can sustainably provide the required funding with our available treasury reserves.
Furthermore there are exceptional oversight mechanisms in place to ensure a minimum amount of wast, fraud, and abuse of treasury expenditures, such as Intersect’s smart contract framework (audited by TxPipe and MLabs), Multi-party oversight (including Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, NMKR, etc.), A clear milestone-driven disbursement model, and full transparency via TRSC/PSSC dashboards.
These governance and assurance systems meet the constitutional standards for accountability and risk management and provide confidence in efficiency and execution. - Yes 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 587.1K ₳ Rationale
While the technical capabilities of NFTCDN are impressive, I vote NO on this proposal because I do not believe Cardano Treasury funds should be used to subsidize infrastructure that ultimately operates under a centralized, private service model. Making a paid service temporarily free does not align with the long-term sustainability and open-source values of the Cardano ecosystem. The proposal lacks a clear path toward decentralization or open governance, and funding it could set a precedent for subsidizing private SaaS offerings that do not return ownership or control to the community.
- Yes 534.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 521.2K ₳ Rationale
I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.
- Yes 502K ₳ Rationale
After further consideration and direct engagement with the NFTCDN team, I’m flipping my vote to support this proposal.
Why I Originally Voted NO:
My initial concerns centered on whether we should be subsidizing private infrastructure services with treasury funds, especially at this scale ($1.4M ADA). It felt like we might be picking winners and losers in the infrastructure space, potentially crowding out other solutions or creating market distortions.
What Changed My Mind:
The team’s outreach clarified several key points that shifted my perspective:
This isn’t just subsidizing one company but it’s removing a $100k+ barrier that’s preventing smaller developers from building on Cardano. That’s real ecosystem infrastructure. NFTCDN has been operating since 2022 with demonstrated reliability. We’re not funding an experiment - we’re scaling a working solution. The claimed $5.5M cost avoidance and 39k dev hours saved across the ecosystem represents serious value if even partially realized.
If native asset display is costing developers six figures and 9+ months to build in-house, that’s exactly the kind of barrier treasury funds should eliminate.
This proposal transforms expensive infrastructure complexity into a simple API call.
Let’s see what builders create when we remove the plumbing problems. - Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 438.7K ₳ No rationale
- No 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Cardano have this service allready through Blockfrost that got funding from Catalyst and now treasury withdraw. NMKR also provide this.