Withdraw ₳70,000,000 for Cardano Critical Integrations Budget
203 DReps voted · 66 with a rationale · 3 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes261.6K ₳No rationale
- Abstain261K ₳Rationale
[EN] Abstaining on the ₳70M TWGA for Critical Integrations, despite promising impact and strategic union of founding entities (positive balance to rivalries). Signaling for greater budget rigor, efficient resource use, robust KPIs for treasury best practices, and ensured commitment.
[PT] Abstendo-me na TWGA de ₳70M para Integrações Críticas, apesar do impacto promissor e união estratégica das entidades fundadoras (balanço positivo às rixas). Pressiono por mais rigor na descrição orçamentária, uso eficiente de recursos e KPIs robustos para boas práticas no tesouro e compromisso.
- Yes260.2K ₳Rationale
funds critical infrastructure (stablecoins, oracles, bridges) needed for DeFi and institutional growth, with strict oversight and audits.
- Abstain245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
My previous YES vote on the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget highlighted the unprecedented alignment of the five core entities and the essential role of critical infrastructure (stablecoins, custody/wallets, analytics, bridges, and oracles) in driving Cardano's growth. This withdrawal simply releases the ₳70M funding already approved by the community. It's the logical and necessary follow-through.
- Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes228.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes215.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.4K ₳Rationale
Bringing liquidity to DeFi with tier-one stablecoins!
- Yes147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes129.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am in favor of this treasury withdrawal action. This is a needed step to address some deficiencies in the ecosystem, and as I have stated in the info action vote, I believe that the Cardano community is getting very good value for money given the intended goals of the withdrawal. There is one important aspect of this withdrawal that will likely shape how the ecosystem moves forward with similar withdrawals. This is the fact that the details of the proposed various actions are not explicitly stated in the withdrawal. Instead, the proposal gives high-level goals and asks that we put the individual decisions in the hands of Intersect and the steering committee as the administrator. Intersect and the steering committee would serve as an executive function within the existing governance structure. DReps approve the budget and the main scope, while Intersect approves the details of individual allocations. I think this is a perfectly acceptable way of moving forward. In this way, DReps remain in charge of the big picture while also allowing for a more agile group to take care of the day-to-day decisions. At the very least I believe that we could not ask for a better group of proposers or a better administrator to try this way of doing things. As such, I approve of this action, and if approved, I will keep a close eye on how the administration of the budget unfolds over time.
- Yes89.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes69.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes67.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes64.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳Rationale
This NO vote is a call for a higher standard, not a blocker to progress.
We cannot afford to normalize subpar processes simply because the subject matter is urgent; doing so undermines the long-term integrity of decentralized governance.A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
While I fully recognise the necessity of this Governance Action and the value it aims to deliver to the ecosystem, I vote NO on this governance action. I dont vote no to block this GA, that train has left, I vote no to not compromise the decentralized principles that secure the Cardano network and have a unilateral celebration of that compromise go on the record. I do not condone the excuses of NDA requirements, as I can understand that the nature of the business demands privacy in numbers. I do not condone the aims of the Governance Action or want to delegitimise the effort that already went, and will still need to go in it. Also do I recognise that 70m likely wont be enough to cover all the bills. I want to respect and thank the proposers for that.
However, to me, decentralized governance relies on rigorous process standards, which the proposers simply don't follow. The "Pentad", a term I despise, spits in the face of all the effort that went into forming decentralized Governance in the past year. It appears to establish the same founding entity power structure as before Voltaire. In my mind, approving this action in its current form would validate a precedent of unilateral authority that sidesteps the inclusive oversight decentralized Governance tried to establish and our Constitution strives to uphold. - Yes50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.7K ₳Rationale
I vote YES because this proposal directly addresses one of Cardano’s most urgent strategic gaps: the lack of tier-one integrations for stablecoins, pricing oracles, cross-chain bridges, custody, wallets, and analytics. Without this infrastructure, Cardano cannot realistically compete as a settlement layer for DeFi, real-world assets, or institutional use cases.
The budget is structured with clear safeguards: Intersect serves as administrator with independent oversight, funds are held in segregated auto-abstain addresses, disbursements follow signed contracts and milestones, independent audits are funded, and unused funds are returned to the treasury after 24 months. This aligns with the treasury and administration principles in the Constitution.
As a DRep focused on human-centric, real-world adoption, I view these integrations not as speculative DeFi luxuries but as necessary “plumbing” to enable meaningful applications — from healthcare and education to agriculture and community finance. Cardano’s path to become the OS of the world requires reliable rails so that builders and institutions can serve people safely and at scale. This proposal provides those rails.
- Yes49.6K ₳Rationale
In line with my approval of the Critical integrations proposal I vote yes to withdraw the requested 70M $ADA
LourdeOuroborus Imperator Aeternalis - Yes48.6K ₳Rationale
GOOD. AGREED
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes30.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes29.3K ₳Rationale
Cardano needs to move into the future and stable coins etc are needed.
- No29K ₳No rationale
- No26.7K ₳Rationale
"Multiple partners are already at an executable stage, but with sensitive commercial negotiations underway, vendor identities and line item costs remain confidential. Vendor identities can only be disclosed once integrations are completed."
I voted yes conditionally to the info action with the assumption that this information would be made available. It has not been made available so I will now vote no to the treasury withdrawal.
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.6K ₳Rationale
This proposal is reasonable, so I vote yes.
- Yes8.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes4.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes566.9 ₳No rationale
- Yes123.6 ₳No rationale
- Yes50.5 ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted0 ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes7mo agoSuperseded