Withdraw ₳70,000,000 for Cardano Critical Integrations Budget
203 DReps voted · 56 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 17.1M ₳ Rationale
Withdraw ₳70,000,000 for Cardano Critical Integrations Budget
- No 16.7M ₳ Rationale
We support the goal of bringing critical integrations such as stablecoins, custody, bridges, and analytics to Cardano, but the current proposal lacks the transparency needed for a ₳70M treasury withdrawal. There is no itemized cost breakdown, no clear prioritization of integrations, and limited visibility into partner selection or execution strategy. This level of opacity is not acceptable for the largest budget request in Cardano’s history. We encourage a revised version with clear costs, justification, and accountability so the community can responsibly support this important initiative.
- Yes 16.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 14.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 11.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 10.5M ₳ Rationale
This is much needed in Cardano. Iagon would be directly benefit from this by getting the Fireblocks integration reimbursed, this is the reason for the Abstain vote.
However, I would ask others to ask more details about the 3.5M ADA for legal, compliance and admin costs. This is in my view way too much for this. At worst, one contract would cost potentially 30-50k USD. I don't see how this can be 3.5M ADA.
- Yes 9.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
本提案は、Cardano Critical Integrations Budget（Info Action）に賛成した際の判断と同様に、Cardanoが抱えてきた基盤的インフラ不足という構造的課題を解決するための合理的な支出であり、同提案を実行段階へと進めるものとして賛成します。\n\nI vote Yes on this proposal for the same reasons I supported the Cardano Critical Integrations Budget (Info Action). It represents a rational expenditure to address Cardano’s long-standing structural challenge of insufficient foundational infrastructure and advances that initiative into its execution phase.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
Decentralized should not mean disorganized.
I voted yes on the budget info action, I vote yes to the treasury withdrawal.
- Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
Voting yes on this TWA proposal., as I did with the BIA. I still strongly believe this is mission critical for Cardano. This proposal is less opaque or ambiguous to me given the context of the partners already alluded to in subsequent public discussions by members of this proposal. To address some concerns around that personally - I see this as needing to be pragmatic and understanding that we're having to navigate real-world commercial agreements. We don't want to jeopardize that, even as a "public" chain, that needs to extend itself into that arena.
On top of all that, there is overwhelming support from the community represented by DReps. The majority of the people in Cardano's ecosystem are ready to see this stuff committed to and done. It's not that they are against costs, but it's understood that this is a funding operation that is just a piece of the total that's going to be needed to get many of these critical integrations done. There's reputation on the line here with multiple entities - they cannot come back from failure, in my opinion, on this and expect future withdrawals without following through on the transparency expected (where legally possible for them).
I look forward to ultimately seeing how the CCs will vote on this proposal in contrast to others when it comes to fulfilling constitutional requirements. If we look back at the purpose of our treasury (moving past the founding entities, their origination and allocated ADA) - this is it. It's a resource that, while to be protected, is intended to help scale Cardano and keep it relevant or competitive.
- Yes 5.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
[Portuguese]
Optamos por votar "SIM" nesta ação de governança (gov_action1lqun78lcznfa2gek49m3ydslakfnm8heargfp8sax9fk54yl6ghsqp042zv), pois, assim como destacamos na justificativa de voto da respectiva Info Action, ela representa um antigo desejo da comunidade: trazer para a Cardano integrações fundamentais à adoção da rede e ao consequente aumento de liquidez no ecossistema — stablecoins de nível 1, pontes e oráculos. Entendemos que, por questões contratuais, detalhamentos mais específicos sobre os gastos não puderam ser divulgados, mas consideramos satisfatório o conjunto de salvaguardas, mecanismos de gestão compartilhada, auditorias e relatórios previstos. Os novos detalhes apresentados sobre os mecanismos de gestão dos fundos demonstram comprometimento e atendem ao mais elevado padrão de responsabilidade exigido pela comunidade Cardano, reforçando a confiança e a transparência no processo.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action (gov_action1lqun78lcznfa2gek49m3ydslakfnm8heargfp8sax9fk54yl6ghsqp042zv), because, as we highlighted in the justification for our vote on the respective Info Action, it reflects an old community aspiration: bringing to Cardano the essential integrations needed to drive network adoption and increase ecosystem liquidity — tier-1 stablecoins, bridges, and oracles. We understand that, due to contractual reasons, more detailed spending information could not be disclosed, yet we are satisfied with the inclusion of safeguards, shared management mechanisms, audits, and reporting procedures. The newly presented details on fund management mechanisms show strong commitment and meet the highest standards of accountability expected by the Cardano community, reinforcing confidence and transparency in the process. - Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
Yes, as per previous vote.
- Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
Our interests are aligned and I definitely trust the entities involved. Absolutely YES, and Good Luck!
- Abstain 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.9M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.8M ₳ Rationale
Do we need all of these things to ensure Cardano succeeds? Yes.
Weren't these things the responsibility of the founding entities to use their genesis ADA to pay for and get done? Also yes.
Why weren't these expenses included in the 2025 budget? Who knows.
Why aren't EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation paying for this infrastructure since it is their financial responsibility as part of their role? They would much rather make ADA holders pay, and keep their genesis ADA to continue to influence governance.
**At the time of this vote, Emurgo controls ~16% of all governance voting power through EMURGO and YOROI, and the Cardano Foundation controls ~4.22% **
I am happy to see these critical integrations finally addressed, since they have been largely ignored by the founding entities for some time. The entire Cardano community has voiced concerns regarding the need for this infrastructure during the initial Cardano roadmap period, and only now are we seeing action (at the cost of all ADA holders).
Regardless of my vote, this action will pass - it is needed so that is good.
Why am I voting no?
ADA holders should not be footing the bill for this, EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation should be spending genesis ADA to finally fulfill their contract with the Cardano ecosystem.
This should have been included in the budget process for 2025, especially considering the large ask.
This amount surpasses my personal NCL for 2025, and there are no good reasons for me to vote yes despite this.
If EMURGO, the Cardano Foundation, and Input Output Global were all to pitch 50% of the cost to cover these expenses together, I would vote yes. They want it to be 100% covered from community pockets when EMURGO and the Cardano Foundation should actually be paying for this infrastructure.
A message to the two founding entities that continue to extract value from our ecosystem: Have some honor, take ownership, and use your genesis ADA as intended. You should be covering some of this cost and disclose what % you are contributing.
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
voting like I did on the info action. same rationale.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
今回の提案は、先に承認された「Critical Integrations Budget」を実際に執行するための手続き（Treasury Withdrawal）です。前回の投票で、Cardanoが長年不足してきた基盤──Tier1 Stablecoin、Oracle、Custody、Bridge、Analytics──を整備する戦略的重要性を認め、私はYesを投じました。
本提案では、資金は憲法に沿ってIntersectが管理し、Auto-Abstainアドレス・Oversight Committee・マイルストーン検証・未使用分返還などのガードレールが明確化されています。
これらは前回求めた透明性と監督要件を満たしており、Cardanoの成長基盤を整えるため、本WithdrawalにもYesとします。
This proposal executes the already-approved “Critical Integrations Budget” by withdrawing the allocated 70M ADA. In my previous vote, I supported this strategy because Cardano urgently needs tier-one stablecoins, oracles, custody, bridges, and analytics to overcome its long-standing infrastructure gap.
This Withdrawal specifies constitutional safeguards: Intersect administration, auto-abstain addresses, Oversight Committee review, milestone-based disbursement, and return of unused funds. These measures satisfy the transparency and accountability conditions noted in my earlier statement.
For these reasons, and for Cardano’s long-term growth, I vote Yes. - Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ Rationale
The plan for the large-scale budget is only at the outline level, making it difficult to judge. However, since there is an operating committee and oversight structure in place, we will approve it with a YES, considering its importance.
- Yes 2M ₳ Rationale
DRep VCC voted YES because this proposal reflects the will of the community and directly addresses Cardano’s most critical strategic bottlenecks at this stage of ecosystem development.
First, this decision is based on community consultation, not personal preference.
DRep VCC conducted an open community poll within the Vietnamese Cardano community. The result shows that a clear majority supports funding this proposal. This aligns with the core principle of DRep representation: voting in accordance with the voice of the represented community. Evidence of the voting results has been publicly shared: https://t.me/ADA_VIET/111872Second, the proposal directly targets the infrastructure gaps currently holding Cardano back.
Cardano does not lack core protocol technology; it lacks institution-grade integrations, including:- Tier-one stablecoins
- Institutional-grade pricing oracles
- Cross-chain bridges
- Institutional custody and wallet infrastructure
- On-chain analytics platforms
These are foundational requirements, not optional enhancements, for attracting deep liquidity, large-scale DeFi activity, RWA use cases, and DePIN adoption.
In summary, this YES vote is a clear mandate from the community to prioritize critical infrastructure and position Cardano for real, scalable economic growth
- Yes 2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting Yes. This proposal funds the essential infrastructure Cardano needs to grow as an ecosystem: tier-one stablecoins, pricing oracles, institutional custody, analytics platforms, and cross-chain bridges. These are the building blocks that let capital move efficiently, apps scale reliably, and users interact with confidence. Without them, growth is capped regardless of how strong the base layer is.
If delivered, this should materially lift TVL, attract builders, and bring in new users and liquidity from outside the ecosystem. It is a focused investment in making Cardano economically competitive, not just technically impressive.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale