Withdraw ₳750,000 for Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Carda...
209 DReps voted · 68 with a rationale · 8 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No323.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes320.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes314.4K ₳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.
- Yes313.4K ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES on this proposal as it supports a more community-led approach to shaping Cardano’s long-term direction.
While not a core infrastructure proposal, I see value in enabling clearer collective priorities, and I believe the requested funding is reasonable given the scope. With appropriate oversight through Intersect and the Product Committee, I’m willing to support this as part of broader efforts to mature Cardano’s governance and planning processes.
- Yes298.9K ₳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.
- No271.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
After a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the “Cardano Product Committee Community-driven 2030 Cardano Vision and 2026 roadmap insights collection via workshops and structured product research” proposal, I have voted YES for the following reasons:
The proposal directly supports Cardano’s governance and product roadmap objectives, fostering transparent, inclusive, and broad-based community participation in long-term visioning and yearly roadmap development.
It provides a structured, scalable process to gather diverse insights addressing challenges in adoption, developer experience, and governance that are critical for Cardano’s future evolution.
The funding amount requested is proportionate and well-justified given the scope, complexity, and deliverables involved in conducting extensive workshops and research initiatives across global and regional communities.
The Product Committee demonstrates a strong track record, expertise, and commitment to accountability, with planned public documentation, open repositories, and reporting which ensures transparency and continuous community feedback.
This initiative is essential to prevent fragmentation and to maintain Cardano’s competitive edge through well-aligned, community-informed product decision making, extending beyond purely technical development into strategic ecosystem growth and participation.
Overall, the project supports the decentralized principles of Cardano by empowering the community’s voice and fostering sustained roadmap excellence, which aligns with the ecosystem’s constitutional and governance rules.
- Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.8K ₳Rationale
I respectfully vote "Nay" on the proposed treasury withdrawal to fund the Cardano Product Committee’s community-driven 2030 Cardano Vision and 2026 roadmap insights collection. While the goal of fostering a community-led vision through workshops and structured research is commendable, I believe the Cardano ecosystem is currently managing a high volume of initiatives, which demands focus and consolidation rather than additional undertakings.The proposal’s emphasis on workshops and broad consultation, while valuable in principle, risks diverting resources and attention from critical ongoing projects. With 39 proposals already under consideration as part of the approved budget, the ecosystem’s capacity to execute effectively could be strained by adding further activities such as in-person and remote workshops. These efforts, though potentially beneficial, are not an immediate priority and could be deferred to 2026 when the ecosystem may be better positioned to absorb additional community-driven initiatives.To ensure efficient resource allocation and maintain momentum on existing priorities, I recommend postponing this initiative until the ecosystem has greater bandwidth. For these reasons, I cannot support this treasury withdrawal at this time.
- Yes235.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes208.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes200.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes185.6K ₳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.
- No178.9K ₳No rationale
- No166.4K ₳Rationale
The Vision / Roadmap deliverables sound great, but are ultimately not a tangible product. The direction of the ecosystem will emerge organically without spending treasury funds to attempt to guide it.
✅ Pros
Fulfills the Promise of Voltaire: The original Cardano roadmap, created by its founders, is now complete. For Cardano to be a truly decentralized ecosystem, the community must take ownership of its future direction. This proposal directly funds that critical transition, turning the theoretical goal of community governance into a practical reality. 🧠Proactive, Long-Term Strategic Planning: Operating without a shared vision can lead to fragmented development and wasted resources. This initiative aims to create a unified, long-term strategy for the entire ecosystem. By establishing a clear 2030 vision and a 2026 roadmap, it helps prioritize development, align builders, and make Cardano more competitive.
Establishes a Data-Driven Culture: A key part of the proposal is to create a consolidated product research function. This moves Cardano away from building based on assumptions and toward making decisions based on structured data, user feedback, and market analysis. This is a sign of a maturing, professional ecosystem.
Inclusive and Consensus-Building: The methodology relies heavily on workshops and focus groups with a wide range of stakeholders (SPOs, builders, businesses, users). This ensures the final vision isn't created in a silo but reflects the collective intelligence and diverse needs of the entire Cardano community, fostering greater buy-in.
Robust Governance and Accountability: The proposal uses the same highly secure and transparent fund management system seen in other Intersect proposals. With oversight from a committee of trusted ecosystem entities (Cardano Foundation, Sundae Labs, etc.), legal contracts, and audited smart contracts, there is a very low risk of fund misuse.
🤔 Cons
Risk of Intangible Outcomes: The main deliverables are a "vision" and a "roadmap," which are essentially documents and ideas. It can be difficult to measure the direct Return on Investment (ROI) for ₳750,000 spent on workshops and research. Some may view the outcome as too "fluffy" compared to funding a tangible software product.High Cost for Planning: This is a significant amount of money for what is fundamentally a strategic planning and research exercise. Critics could argue that these funds might be better used for direct development grants, bug bounties, or dApp incubation—activities that produce more immediate and concrete results for the ecosystem.
Execution Risk and Potential for Indecisiveness: Large-scale community consultation is complex and can be messy. The process risks getting bogged down in debate ("analysis paralysis") or producing a watered-down vision that tries to please everyone but inspires no one. There's no guarantee it will result in a clear, actionable plan.
Centralization of the Vision-Setting Process: While the input is decentralized, the process of collecting, interpreting, and drafting the final vision is managed by a single entity: Intersect's Product Committee. This gives the committee significant power to shape the narrative and potentially introduce its own biases, even if unintentionally.
Could Hinder Organic Growth: An alternative philosophy is that a truly decentralized ecosystem's direction should emerge organically from the bottom up, based on which projects succeed and fail in the open market. A formal, top-down planning process, even if community-driven, could be seen as unnecessary interference that stifles natural innovation.
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes138.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes108.3K ₳Rationale
I am voting in favor of approving the treasury withdrawal for all 39 withdrawal actions that are part of the approved ecosystem budget administered by Intersect. I am voting this way for several reasons, as I will outline here. This rationale will be included in all 39 withdrawal votes.
First and foremost, I believe that we would be making a mistake in underfunding our community with our available treasury funds. The budget system as it currently stands has some flaws, as should be expected from a first version of any system. Of the current proposals, I voted to include several in the budget when it was being formed; however, I also did not vote in favor of several others. This is, of course, the case for most DReps. If I were to vote only for the proposals I initially favoured, and all other DReps did the same, we would likely approve only 2 or 3 proposals out of 39 due to the vote split. In my view, this is not an acceptable outcome for the community, and this is why I was also opposed to the idea of having 39 separate treasury withdrawal actions. I have reviewed all 39 requests, and they all have merit. Are they exactly in line with the priorities I wanted as part of the initial budget? No. Is that reason enough to vote no on several of these and end up approving only 2 or 3 proposals in the end? I certainly don't believe so.
In addition to this, the total amount of the intersect budget is roughly 10% higher than what I voted for, and I find that to be within an acceptable margin to approve all the withdrawals.
The individual proposals also all received at least 50% community approval to be included and will be subject to reviews and milestones to receive funds.
For these reasons, I am casting my vote to approve and am wishing the best of luck to all the teams waiting for funding through this process. - Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes89.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes89.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes68.8K ₳Rationale
- No65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes58.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes53.8K ₳No rationale
- No50.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes49.7K ₳Rationale
Disclosure: As a voting member of the Product Committee involved in drafting this proposal, I recognize my role and affirm my rationale as transparent and aligned with ecosystem benefit.
This proposal addresses the gap left by the founder-led roadmap, enabling a community-driven vision and living roadmap beyond Voltaire. It consolidates scattered insights into a structured, data-driven process that informs builders, SPOs, and governance. Through inclusive participation, third-party assurance, and transparent auditing, it ensures accountable delivery. At ₳750k, the budget is modest relative to its ecosystem impact, offering strong value in shaping Cardano’s product-market fit and long-term direction.
- No48.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes46.5K ₳Rationale
I voted YES on all 39 Governance Actions — 39 times, 39 votes.
Since I supported these during Ekklesia and saw no major changes or conflicts of interest, I still stand by those decisions.
For proposals with large budgets (>500k ADA), I paid extra attention to the justification and scope. Voting isn’t just a click — it’s a responsibility. I own mine, for myself and for our CASIA community.
- No45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳Rationale
✅ Voted YES on: Cardano Product Committee – 2030 Vision & 2026 Roadmap
Why I support it:
• 📍 Post-Voltaire Vision – Transitions Cardano from founder-led to community-led long-term planning.
• 🧠 Shared Brainpower – Combines SPOs, builders, businesses, and users via workshops + research to define Cardano’s direction.
• 🧪 First-Ever Product Research Arm – Consolidates insights to guide user needs, ecosystem priorities, and product-market fit.
• 🧩 Aligns Vision + Delivery – Data-driven focus areas can be coordinated with Intersect’s Tech Steering Committee.This is what decentralized governance should look like: broad participation, structured insight, and coordinated execution. It’s a foundation for Cardano’s next chapter.
🗳️ DRep: DeepStatecraft
🔗 View Proposal - No26.7K ₳Rationale
I don't need to provide rationale for this one.
- Yes15.2K ₳No rationale
- No14.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes8.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes6.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes5.5K ₳No rationale
- No4.8K ₳No rationale