Withdraw ₳700,000 for ZK Bridge administered by Intersect
175 DReps voted · 52 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 935.4K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 655K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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 I recognize the importance of secure interoperability for Cardano, I believe this proposal introduces redundant infrastructure that does not align with the current strategic roadmap. The Cardano ecosystem has already invested significant research and development into solving cross-chain interoperability through initiatives like PartnerChains, Midnight, and the Partnerchain SDK. These are designed with native compatibility, privacy features, and governance in mind, offering a more integrated and long-term solution for bridging and cross-chain communication. I see little justification for funding a secondary zkBridge approach when core entities are already addressing the problem with scalable and secure infrastructure.
Moreover, deploying zkBridge tooling in isolation raises governance and security fragmentation risks. Without clear integration plans, formal audits, or demonstrated alignment with Intersect, IOG, or the Partnerchain roadmap, the result could be increased complexity and potential conflict with Cardano’s existing interoperability model. Given the high cost, the uncertain ecosystem alignment, and overlap with existing funded solutions, I vote NO on this proposal. In my view, treasury funds should prioritize complementary and non-duplicative efforts that enhance cohesion, not diverge from it.
- Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
Krypto Labs have taken part in the budget debates and agree with proposer that this is something the Cardano blockchain ecosystem need.
I started with making a rationale and arguement for each proposal, but to save time i need to do bulk voting to speed this prosess up. - Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 371.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 328.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 314.4K ₳ Rationale
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
In alignment with my voting on the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation process through Ekklesia platform, I support this withdrawal and therefore vote YES.
- Yes 313.1K ₳ Rationale
I’m voting YES to fund the development of a ZK Bridge for Cardano. This proposal lays the groundwork for a secure, trustless bridge that can strengthen interoperability and open new opportunities for Cardano to connect with other ecosystems.
This vote reflects my intention to move forward with previous budget approvals and voting rounds, respecting the community consensus achieved through all stages of the process. While some smaller-scale initiatives may, in future, be better suited for Catalyst or delivered as part of bundled funding, I believe it’s important at this stage to support essential infrastructure proposals like this one. Strong oversight mechanisms including audited smart contracts, multi-party governance, milestone disbursements, and transparency give me confidence that the funds will be responsibly managed.
This aligns with my DRep principles of fostering sustainable innovation and strengthening the long-term foundations of the Cardano ecosystem.
- Yes 298.6K ₳ Rationale
I'm defaulting to voting yes because there is some degree of consensus already achieved on each of these. So unless I have a significant issue with one of these proposals I will be voting yes on it.
- Yes 295.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 258.6K ₳ Rationale
🧾 Governance Action Review
Proposal: Withdraw ₳700,000 for ZK Bridge
Vendor: Eryx (administered by Intersect)
Governance Action ID: gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlq77jt4x4
Submitted: 18 July 2025
Expires: 17 August 2025
Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Budget Requested: ₳700,000
📋 Evaluation Checklist
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → ✅ Yes
Excerpt & Context:“Cardano still lacks a secure, trustless, and modular zk-based bridge infrastructure.”
“Without a native zero-knowledge bridge, Cardano is unable to safely connect with external chains, severely limiting access to external liquidity, composability with other ecosystems, and the ability to scale horizontally.”Analysis:
The solution is complementary, not duplicative. The proposal addresses a well-defined and critical gap in Cardano's infrastructure: the absence of a modular, trustless ZK-based bridge to enable interoperability with other blockchains. Current bridges rely on multisig or centralized validators — a clear security risk. A native ZK bridge would enhance liquidity, composability, and protocol flexibility. While other scalability initiatives like Hydra and Midgard are in development, they do not currently deliver production-ready or trustless cross-chain asset movement. This solution is strategically aligned with Cardano’s long-term ZK and interoperability roadmap.2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → 🟡 Partial
The proposal provides a clear, internally consistent headcount-based budget, with roles, timeframes, and ADA/USD equivalence. However, it lacks granularity: there are no work-hour estimates, and no explicit allocation for infrastructure, security, or tooling. Although documentation, workshops, and community engagement are mentioned, they appear to be bundled within the $40k PM/Ops line — with no breakdown to assess feasibility. This simplification limits transparency and makes it harder to evaluate whether key non-technical deliverables are properly resourced.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → ❌ No
Excerpt & Context:
No KPIs, quantifiable targets, or measurable outcome metrics are presented in either the metadata or the attached proposal.
Analysis:
Despite strong technical articulation, the proposal fails to define quantitative metrics such as adoption targets, developer integrations, testnet deployments, or measurable liquidity effects. Absence of KPIs weakens accountability and makes it difficult to assess post-funding success. This is a critical shortcoming.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → 🟡 Partial
Excerpt & Context:
"1. Documentation of the communication protocol
2. Bridge smart contracts in Aiken for locking funds in Cardano
3. Bridge smart contracts in Aiken for minting wrapped assets, mocking ZK proof verification
4. ZK proof of locking transaction inclusion
5. Smart contract to verify ZK proof"Analysis:
Milestones are clear and technically sound, but lack timeline segmentation, acceptance criteria, and delivery dates. There is also no breakdown of which outputs correspond to which portion of the ₳700k. This prevents full traceability of execution. The 8-month timeline is mentioned but not linked to milestone pacing.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
Excerpt & Context:
Budget in metadata = ₳700,000
Budget in PDF = ₳700,000
Legacy and current IDs match; scope and cost consistent across documents.Analysis:
No discrepancies found. Budget, scope, authorship, and Intersect admin details are all consistent across the metadata, PDF, and description.6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → ✅ Yes
The proposal is submitted by Eryx, a worker-owned cooperative with a strong track record in ZK cryptography and smart contract development. Team members are named and include verified contributors to Cardano-native tooling and privacy protocols. Notably, they have successfully completed one Catalyst-funded proposal (“ZK Proof of Innocence”, ₳150k, delivered June 2025) and are currently delivering another (“API for ZK-Snark in Aiken”, ₳200k, on schedule). These demonstrate direct, recent, and relevant engagement with the Cardano ecosystem under public accountability mechanisms.7️⃣ Conflict of Interest → ✅ No conflict
I have no personal or professional relationship with the proposer or affiliated organizations. I do not hold any financial or operational ties to Eryx, Intersect, or their related projects. Evaluation is conducted independently and impartially. Should any material conflict arise, I will abstain from voting.⚠️ Critical Summary
This proposal presents a strategically relevant initiative for the Cardano ecosystem: the development of a modular, trustless ZK-based bridge for cross-chain interoperability. The team is technically capable, with a clear track record of relevant Catalyst-funded work and active engagement in Cardano-native tooling. The scope is well-aligned with long-term ecosystem needs, particularly as zero-knowledge technology matures.However, the execution framework remains underdeveloped relative to the ₳700,000 requested. The proposal lacks any measurable KPIs or success metrics, and its milestone plan consists of general technical deliverables without defined acceptance criteria, delivery pacing, or linkage to payment conditions. The budget, while internally consistent, is overly simplistic. Given the lack of verifiability and outcome measurement, this proposal does not currently meet the desired level of accountability expected for large-scale treasury withdrawals.
🗳 Voting Rationale: ABSTAIN
I am abstaining from this vote due to the absence of objective KPIs, acceptance criteria, and milestone validation mechanisms. While the technical ambition is high and the team has proven credibility, the proposal lacks the accountability structures necessary to justify disbursement at this scale. At the same time, the initiative is not harmful, redundant, or misaligned with ecosystem priorities — which rules out a NO vote. Therefore, ABSTAIN is the appropriate choice under current conditions. - No 257K ₳ Rationale
This treasury withdrawal proposal aims to develop a zero-knowledge (ZK) bridge for Cardano to enable modular, trustless interoperability with other blockchains via a zk-proof-based communication protocol. While interoperability is a critical area for Cardano, this proposal currently focuses on a testnet proof-of-concept limited to the Cardano side, without specifying targeted partner chains or a clear path to mainnet deployment.
Key concerns influencing this no vote include:
Lack of Concrete Scope and Deliverables: The proposal provides high-level architectural goals but lacks detailed implementation plans, timelines, and defined milestones that concretely demonstrate progress towards production-ready, mainnet-capable infrastructure.
Unclear Integration and Differentiation: There is insufficient engagement with or clear distinction from other ongoing Cardano initiatives, such as Hydra, zkRollup efforts by zkFold, Tweag's Layer 2 tooling, Midgard, and other ZK proof research. This raises risks of redundancy or fragmented ecosystem efforts.
Budget Concerns: The ₳700,000 request is substantial for a preliminary, testnet-only PoC lacking demonstrated immediate ecosystem impact or user-facing integration. The proposal indicates reliance on further grant funding beyond this phase, creating uncertainty about scope control and deliverable accountability.
Open-Ended Development and Audit Risks: Essential activities such as smart contract audits, mainnet readiness verification, and security assessments are explicitly out of scope, implying significant additional future costs with no clarity on funding or delivery guarantees.
Vendor Experience Relative to Proposal Needs: Although the vendor demonstrates strong cryptographic and zero-knowledge expertise, their recent Cardano-specific deployment experience on cross-chain ZK bridges is limited.
Governance and Oversight Good Practices: The proposal meets governance requirements with clear contract management, milestone tracking, on-chain metadata, and multi-party treasury oversight, which reduces administrative risks but does not fully compensate for the substantial strategic and technical uncertainties.
Given these factors, this proposal’s risks and ambiguities outweigh the potential benefits at this stage.
A vote of no is warranted pending a future, more detailed, and tightly scoped proposal with clearer production plans, integration strategies, phased funding, and audit milestones.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ Rationale
I vote against the ZK Bridge proposal requesting 700,000 ADA due to significant overlap with Input Output Global’s (IOG) ongoing ZK bridge development for Midnight, Cardano’s privacy-focused partner chain, set for mainnet launch in early 2025. While Eryx’s expertise and the proposal’s focus on a modular, open-source toolkit are commendable, funding a parallel effort risks redundancy and inefficient resource allocation. Without clear differentiation or a detailed plan to complement IOG’s work, the Cardano ecosystem would benefit more from consolidating efforts to enhance existing interoperability solutions.
- Yes 206.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 190.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 184.4K ₳ Rationale
I am voting yes on all 39 Intersect Governance actions. The community has thoroughly reviewed the many proposals presented in the Intersect Budget Process for the 2025 budget. I was deeply involved in the entire process as an SME for the Budget Committee, and then as the Secretary for the Budget Committee.
The proposals presented represent an incredible amount of development for our ecosystem for the next year. The teams all received at least 50% on Ekklesia polling. The teams will face milestones in order to continue to receive funding. If a team fails to deliver, the process will stop them from enriching themselves without returning value.
If anything, we are spending too little on our community. We need to spend more to further develop our governance and our organized events. This is a liquid democracy. If you believe that all of these proposals deserve a chance to deliver, you can shift your delegation to my DRep ID.
- Yes 180.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 177.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 167.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 143.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 137.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 131.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 111.7K ₳ No rationale