Withdraw ₳750,000 for Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Carda...
209 DReps voted · 60 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No 16.7M ₳ Rationale
Long-Term Sustainability
Strategic alignment toward a 2030 roadmap is important, but not urgent. This work does not require its own treasury-funded committee given the existing involvement of IOG, Emurgo, and the Cardano Foundation—each of whom received large allocations of genesis ADA for ecosystem development and planning.Builder and Ecosystem Growth
While long-term visioning may indirectly benefit builders, this proposal offers no tangible tooling, infrastructure, or funding access for them. It risks funding bureaucracy over execution, with limited direct outcomes for developers or projects.Decentralization and Community Engagement
The committee is intended to support community-driven product planning, but its structure is unclear, and there are no details about how representatives are selected or how public input will meaningfully influence roadmap decisions. It risks centralizing strategic direction under a small, appointed group.Responsible Treasury Spending
₳750,000 is excessive for producing strategy documents, workshops, and coordination overhead. The founding entities—already well-funded—are responsible for ecosystem leadership and could contribute to this initiative without drawing from the treasury. Given the cost, duplication of mandate, and unclear governance structure, we recommend voting NO on this proposal. - Yes 16.4M ₳ Rationale
Treasury withdrawals
Software Development Proposals:
Development budgets should not be funded from the treasury. Instead, the treasury should be used to incentivize feature completion through grants. The treasury should not operate as a venture capital fund or to fund ongoing development budgets. It should be results oriented and decoupled from budgeting. Dracula DAO Deep will make exceptions this round for projects that deliver specific, high value features or results at a reasonable ask amount.Marketing Proposals:
Marketing budgets are the best way to fund these types of efforts. Judgement should be used based on the ask amount and value proposition.Research Proposals:
Research budgets should be evaluated based on the track record of the team being funded, the value proposition and whether the results are released to the public.DAO Funding:
DraculaDAO believes DAOs should find other ways to support operations other than public treasury funds.Bitcoin:
Dracula DAO Deep is against purchasing Bitcoin with treasury funds, and are generally not in favor of a tight Bitcoin / Cardano partnership. Bitcoin DeFi is ok as long as the value proposition remains with Cardano. Cardano is already Bitcoin++ and treasury funds should not be used to encourage or sustain BTC energy waste and outdated consensus model.Yes - MLabs Core Tool Maintenance. Ask is reasonable.
Yes - Midgard Optimistic Rollups. This is urgently needed as an L2 solution for Cardano and the ask is reasonable.
Yes - Hardware Wallets Maintenance. This is necessary and ask is reasonable.
Yes - Pallas Rust Tooling. Core tooling used by many projects and ask is reasonable for the specific deliverable.
Yes - UTxO RPC
Yes - Lucid Evolution Maintenance
Yes - zkFold ZK Rollup
Yes - Dolos. Ask is reasonable with specific deliverable.
Yes - Ledger App rewrite
Yes - Paid Open Source Model. This looks like a nice way to take the VC function out of the treasury and start towards incentivizing projects through features and benefits like bug bounties. Willing to take a chance on this, but will vote no in the future if results are disappointing.
Yes - Gerolamo node in typescript
Yes - MLabs Core Tools: Plutarch. Ask is reasonable
Yes - ZK Bridge
Yes - Eternal maintenance
Yes - Scalus Development Platform
Yes - Cexplorer.io
Yes - Native Asset CDN
Yes - Adastat.net
Yes - Intersect MBO. DraculaDAO does not like the high ask amount and the budgeting approach, but for Intersect MBO there may not be a better way like there is with software development. Therefore DraculaDAO supports this proposal, realizing this possibly breaks with the general guidelines DraculaDAO described above.
Yes - Beyond Minimum Viable Governance. Focused feature set and reasonable ask. IOHK should use this approach for all its teams.
Yes - Cardano Summit
Yes - Unified Global Events Marketing
Yes - Quadratic Funding. Reasonable ask for a specific feature.
Yes - Cardano Ecosystem Pavilions
Yes - High-yield RWA Asset. Direct communication with this vendor increased our faith in this project and have changed our stance on this.
Yes - Expanding Stablecoin / Native Asset Support. This was marginal in terms of ask amount and number of features grouped together.
Yes - OpShin
Yes - PyCardano
Yes - Cardano Product Committee
Yes - BloxBean Java Tools
Yes - Input Output Research
Yes - MLabs ResearchAbstain - Input Output Core Development. This is simply a warning shot as DraculaDAO expects this proposal will pass. We are generally in favor of the initiatives and features being delivered by IOHK, but believe the ask is too high as a single budget line item and do not want to set a precedent of another ask of similar magnitude for the next budget cycle. Instead, IOHK should divide its deliverables into features and ask the treasury for grant incentives delivered on completion of the each feature (see Beyond Minimum Viable Governance as what we see as a good example). We are not in favor of such a large withdrawal encompassing such a large number of features. In general we do not support using the treasury for budget line items as mentioned in the introduction to this rationale.
Abstain - Blockfrost Community Budget. We support Blockfrost and operate an icebreaker node. There are no specific features mentioned, just an ongoing budget line item, which we do not support. We will support Blockfrost in other ways.No - Web3 developer stack for Bitcoin integration. DraculaDAO does not support a tight integration with Bitcoin.
No - TWEAG Proposals. We see value there but the ask is too large and too many deliverables bundled together.
No - Catalyst 2025. Ask is too large as a single budget request.
No - Cardano Builder DAO. Treasury should not be used to incentivize features, not fund ongoing budgets for software development or DAOs.
No - Market making should have other ways to fund operations. - Yes 14.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 14.1M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 13.3M ₳ Rationale
RCADA has chosen to abstain at this time while reserving the option to review and update this vote prior to the voting deadline. This approach allows RCADA to allocate focus where immediate evaluation is most impactful, particularly on proposals that are close to threshold or raise significant procedural or constitutional concerns. If this proposal reaches the approv-al threshold prior to our review, the abstention will stand as a neutral signal of deferral, not op-position. Should further analysis be warranted, RCADA will update this vote accordingly.
- Yes 12.2M ₳ Rationale
Disclaimer: This is a general rationale we have prepared to support our “yes” vote on all the 39 treasury withdrawal actions. This follows careful review and consideration of the metadata of these treasury withdrawal proposals and hence is not a blanket voting practice.
We, the Wada DRep Committee, have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawal governance actions currently live on-chain and submitted under the administration of IntersectMBO. These actions are the necessary implementation step following the community's approval of the ₳275.3 million Cardano Ecosystem Budget, the necessary budget info action that precedes the treasury withdrawal process. Our support reflects not only continuity with our earlier "yes" votes on the overarching budget info action and its constituent proposals but also our confidence in the smart contract guide and project execution mechanisms Intersect has established as an administrative body for these proposals.
Each of these 39 withdrawals corresponds directly to proposals that have already passed a respective Budget Info Action with wide community and DRep support of 64.23%. As Wada DRep, we reviewed, scored, and supported many of these initiatives during the budgeting phase, using our internal ₳280M Net Change Limit framework. Our endorsement of the full ₳275.3M package was not a blanket approval but the outcome of detailed deliberation. Therefore, we see it as our responsibility to honor those community-approved funding decisions by affirming these follow-up Treasury withdrawal governance actions.
Importantly, we are confident in Intersect’s role as the administrator of these treasury disbursements. We have independently reviewed the Smart Contract Guide, disbursement architecture, and accountability structures associated with these withdrawals. The use of milestone-gated smart contracts, multi-signature treasuries, and on-chain/off-chain tracking mechanisms provides strong assurance of transparency, risk management, and community accountability. We are particularly satisfied that Intersect has adopted security-audited contract templates and provides public documentation on how treasury funds will be administered, paused if necessary, and even returned if unused.
In our view, rejecting or abstaining from these Treasury Withdrawals at this stage would risk destabilizing delivery timelines, undermining community trust, and introducing administrative conflicts that may violate the spirit of the Constitution’s Articles on budgeting. We believe that treasury funding is not just about allocation; it’s about consistent and credible execution. As such, the DRep role requires continuity and follow-through, especially when prior voting outcomes have clearly mandated action.
Therefore, in alignment with our constitutional responsibilities, community-aligned decision-making, and our assessment of Intersect’s administrative protocols, we have decided to upvote on all 39 Treasury Withdrawals Governance Actions.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ No rationale
- No 10.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.8M ₳ Rationale
「275M ADA Administered by Intersect」に含まれるすべての個別提案に対して、エクレシア投票の段階では必ずしもすべてに賛成していたわけではありませんが、最終的には本ガバナンスアクションに賛成票を投じました。Cardanoエコシステム全体への貢献を高く評価し、その前進を後押しする立場から、今回提出された39件すべての提案に賛成票を投じる判断をいたしました。\n\nWhile I did not necessarily support every individual proposal included in "275M ADA Administered by Intersect" during the Ekklesia vote, I ultimately voted Yes on this governance action. Recognizing its overall contribution to the Cardano ecosystem and in support of continued progress, I cast a Yes vote on all 39 proposals submitted under this initiative.
- Yes 8.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 7.1M ₳ Rationale
I will keep the rationale brief for expediency - as 38 proposals were submitted concurrently by Intersect today. I voted YES for this proposal in the previous Ekklesia temp check and will vote YES now again.
This proposal helps bridge two probably important goals. Ensuring a decentralized approach to developing Cardano further, while also maintaining core competency and experienced oversight through the Cardano Product Committee. As they say themselves, we need an "open, shared, and transparent process for the Cardano community to define a long-term vision and a roadmap". Thumbs up.
- No 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 6M ₳ Rationale
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 security) -- 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
STORM Partners believes this is a strategically important step toward aligning the ecosystem around user needs, market opportunities, and a shared product roadmap beyond Voltaire. The proposed methodology is robust, inclusive, and backed by capable contributors. We especially support the emphasis on structured research, stakeholder consultation, and transparent insight-sharing as foundations for a more adaptive and user-centric Cardano.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
Product market fit driven discussion and advancement of Cardano is needed.
Product market fit driven discussion and advancement of Cardano is needed.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlr24hsvpk), pois essa proposta envolve três itens essenciais que precisam ser debatidos com os holders da Cardano, em diversas instâncias virtuais e presenciais, de modo a construirmos o futuro da Cardano ouvindo o maior número de stakeholders possível. São eles: a Visão Cardano 2030, o roadmap para 2026 e o primeiro esforço consolidado de pesquisa de produto da Cardano. Além disso, a justificativa de gastos apresentada, bem como as métricas de avaliação e controle, foram bem apresentadas.
[English]
We chose to vote "YES" on this governance action (gov_action13tfag48nf94rtjcdq7c06vhkslmxxw9h6c88sl7q5g5nnewcsvlr24hsvpk), because this proposal involves three essential items that need to be discussed with Cardano holders, in various virtual and in-person instances, in order to build the future of Cardano by listening to as many stakeholders as possible. These are: the Cardano Vision 2030, the roadmap for 2026, and the first consolidated product research effort for Cardano. Furthermore, the expense justification presented, as well as the evaluation and control metrics, were well presented. - Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting NO as this is not a priority of my DRep.
See: https://x.com/OracleAltcoin/status/1917257059071934483Core engineering first, conservative with the treasury and decentralization of influence.
Strength and honor. - Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
While unsatisfied with Intersect’s administration of the Constitutional process, I have to agree that done is better than perfect.
Someone must step up to do this job, so if INTERSECT is the only volunteer it is better to support than impede this approved project so I must vote yes.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
Intersect's product committee, composed of elected members with business and market expertise, is well positioned to drive Cardano's roadmap research. I support their efforts to advance the ecosystem.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 3.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- No 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I think this is unnecessary spending to deliver something that does not require the expense asked for.
Cardano has had a longstanding vision that has yet to be realized, and there is already plenty to deliver on that has been previously promised.
Both GAs and budgets will shape the future direction of Cardano, and this is not something that requires $750,000 ADA to decide.
That ADA could be better spent on projects that will deliver something to improve Cardano and realize the vision and promises already made to the Cardano community.
- No 2.7M ₳ 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
I'm not sure that creating a roadmap should cost 750,000 ADA. I believe the requested amount is extremely high for the stated goals.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
I have some room left in the 150M cap I had set out to hit and this proposal will help bring the community voice to the roadmap in a grass roots way.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
本提案は、Voltaire以後の長期ビジョン（2030）と中期ロードマップ（2026）をコミュニティ主導で策定する枠組みの確立を目的としており、ガバナンスの民主化と製品開発の透明化に資する取り組みです。Cardano Product Committeeによる段階的計画と参加型プロセス設計が明確なため、賛成します。
This proposal supports a structured, community-driven process to define Cardano’s 2030 long-term vision and 2026 roadmap. With clear planning, stakeholder engagement, and transparent research methods led by the Product Committee, I vote in favor.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
I am a big supporter of the Cardano Product Committee's vision to advancing the blockchain. As a temporary voting member and day 1 participant, i can 100% back this group.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.1M ₳ 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
Voting Yes. Defining a clear 2030 vision and 2026 roadmap gives the Cardano community a shared understanding of long-term goals and a practical plan to achieve them. It enables coordinated development, highlights key priorities for builders and stakeholders, and provides a framework for ongoing community participation.
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No. While strategic planning and long-term vision are important, this proposal is premature. Cardano’s governance tools and processes are still maturing, and introducing a formal product committee and roadmap at this stage risks misalignment and inefficiency. A more effective approach would be to revisit this concept once the governance framework is more mature and capable of fully integrating such efforts.