Withdraw ₳69,459,000 for Catalyst 2025 Proposal by Input Output: Advancing De...
159 DReps voted · 44 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
- Abstain 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I voted ABSTAIN on Ekklesia. I ABSTAIN again. I try my best to keep myself in check (objective) as much as I can - of course, this is limited by my biases. I like that project Catalyst has funded many of the successful Cardano teams and projects. It has given a chance to many outsiders to launch their businesses.
Specifically in this case I have served as a Project Catalyst community reviewer too long (since Catalyst Fund 2) and a milestone reviewer (since Catalyst Fund 10). I have been paid for these roles thousands of ADA overall.
When Intersect included the budgetary proposal for Project Catalyst in its voting tool Ekklesia, I abstained from voting - due to conflict of interest. Project Catalyst has funded some of our best teams, yet - I do not want to use that as an excuse to vote YES, as my remuneration from Catalyst may be clouding my judgement.
I do not want to be a tipping vote in favor of my own compensation. Why? Is this showboating? Vanity? Well, my reasoning is that - I have no platform as a DRep to call out conflicts of interest in other parts of the ecosystem - if I do not actively try to curb my own conflicts of interest.
I try to keep myself in check, because I don't want to be forced to keep my mouth shut if I see detrimental behavior elsewhere.
Apologies to Catalyst Team, however, I cannot be a DRep properly if I can't hold myself in check.
- Yes 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/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgMy votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
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
- Yes 5.3M ₳ Rationale
Catalyst has been Cardano’s primary engine for community-led innovation since 2020. While imperfect and sometimes criticized, it remains the single most important mechanism for bottom-up experimentation and enterprise/builder onboarding.
Moreover, the funds will alow the team to improve its decentralized backend, and do some necessary improvements to the voting UI, among other interesting initiatives, like RPGF and voting improvements.
With ₳61M allocated for upcoming rounds (F14–F16), this initiative sustains momentum while evolving towards a more evolved, resilient and decentralized innovation mechanism.
- No 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Direct treasury withdrawl and approval by dreps seem more ideal if the onchain governance process can be streamlined further. Decentralized Catalyst voting sounds attractive, but this adds maintenance overhead in the long term.
Direct treasury withdrawl and approval by dreps seem more ideal if the onchain governance process can be streamlined further. Decentralized Catalyst voting sounds attractive, but this adds maintenance overhead in the long term.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
Catalyst is a great community tool, there is a dedicated team behind it and should be supported!
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ 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 PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
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
Not a fan of giant bulk withdrawals from treasury, prefer larger number of smaller withdrawals that would get approved based on their merit by the community governance. Furthermore, don't see any mention of how existing Catalyst Treasury funds are utilized as a part of the next Catalyst Fund round, or whether there are any plans to return unused funds to Cardano treasury...
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.5M ₳ Rationale
This is a lot of ADA for a community focused innovation effort. I'd prefer to see less than 20 million per round and less than 3 rounds per year. Also 10 million to run this is rather significant for a <20 person team.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
CatalystはCardanoの中核的な公共財資金配分システムであり、本提案はその基盤を構造的に強化・再設計するもので、ロードマップと完全に整合しています。
₳69Mという規模は大きいものの、コミュニティ配布分が大半を占め、実質的にはインフラ刷新と資金分配基盤の透明化・分散化投資と見なせます。
Intersectによるスマートコントラクト管理体制、外部監査、契約構造が明示されており、ガバナンスの進化に資する投資と評価し、賛成します。＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
Catalyst is a key driver of decentralized innovation on Cardano, and this proposal lays the groundwork for its structural modernization in line with the 2025 roadmap.
Although ₳69M is a substantial amount, the majority (₳61M) is allocated directly to community funding rounds, while the remainder supports critical upgrades to infrastructure, interfaces, and operations.
Given the use of audited smart contracts, legal contract structure with CDH, and external oversight via a five-entity committee, this proposal offers both strategic impact and operational accountability. I vote Yes in support of long-term decentralized governance infrastructure. - Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
No explanation needed. This is a must have.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Catalyst provides a vital role in the Cardano ecosystem by giving builders a clear pathway to access funding for innovative ideas. Continuing to support funding rounds ensures that community-led development remains active and well-resourced.
Introducing RetroPGF strengthens Catalyst by making it possible to reward projects that have already delivered real value. This helps retain experienced builders and encourages high-quality work that benefits the broader ecosystem.
Investing in infrastructure upgrades is also important. Enhancements to decentralisation, governance tools, and user experience will enhance Catalyst’s usability, transparency, and resilience. These improvements will make Catalyst more accessible and better aligned with Cardano’s focus on decentralised governance.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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
- Yes 1M ₳ Rationale
Cardano cannot have a fragile, obsolete funding system if it wants to stand against the backdrop of new age Web3 ecosystems. This proposal is not only needed, it is long overdue. We have the history, the pain points are real, the oversight is strong, and the budget is large but proportional to the scope and the impact.
If we want Catalyst to be credible, inclusive and scalable– Vote Yes. If we want to leave the Cardano engine of innovation to sputter in place – Vote No and prepare for the consequences. My vote: YES. Let's get it done right, and then burn every deliverable to the ground.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 881.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 810K ₳ No rationale