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.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
DREP VOTING UPDATE:
Proposal: Cardano Product Committee: Community-driven 2030 Cardano Vision and 2026 roadmap insights collection via workshops and structured product research
Cardano cannot thrive without a clear, shared vision and roadmap—without it, the ecosystem risks fragmentation, misaligned priorities, and missed opportunities.
This proposal funds the first large-scale, community-led effort to define that vision, backed by structured research and broad stakeholder engagement.
It creates the strategic foundation needed for Cardano to compete globally, guide development priorities, and coordinate ecosystem growth.Supporting this ensures that critical direction-setting is not left to chance, but driven by data and a unified plan for success.
I trust the committee will lead us in the right direction
DRep ID: drep1y2jd3c4hgg0tdua58z6c64k9rf58lz3jlcjlxcjfeaspl6q2e9zm6
VOTE 0022
- Abstain 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.2M ₳ Rationale
I decided to vote ✅ YES on 37 treasury withdrawals, ➖ ABSTAIN on none, and ❌ NO on 2 treasury withdrawals from the Intersect 2025 budget.
It’s obvious I consider all proposals I approved in the budget vote on Ekklesia beneficial for Cardano, so those all receive a ✅ YES vote.
I also vote ✅ YES for most proposals I initially abstained from or voted against in the Ekklesia vote. There are a few reasons for this:
- Some proposals gained strong community support after all, so I don’t want to be the one standing in the way, especially when the requested amount is negligible in the bigger picture.
- Some proposals I actually liked, but I found them more suitable for Catalyst. However, with all the delays, it now makes more sense to fund them as soon as possible.
- Some didn’t get my initial support because I thought the requested amount was too high. But I now believe it’s better for the ecosystem to fund them, despite the larger budget, than not fund them at all.
- I needed to vote for budget proposals with my own NCL in mind. Not all those I approved made it, however, so that leaves some room for other ones.
I won’t approve the treasury withdrawal for two proposals:
❌ Withdraw ₳3,000,000 for High-yield RWA Asset for Cardano: Tokenized Real Estate
This proposal won’t bring much value to our ecosystem, imho.❌ Withdraw ₳1,500,000 for Complement Catalyst: Extended Quadratic Funding---Zero Operational Costs
While the proposal includes some interesting ideas for a fairer voting mechanism, I now support Catalyst and don’t see the need for an additional funding system at this moment, especially considering total spending. The requested amount also seems too small to meaningfully fund multiple projects. While the model relies on donations, it’s unclear what the donor incentive is. Since voting power is tied to donation size, why wouldn’t donors just support specific fundraisers run directly by the projects they care about? That way, they can ensure their contribution goes straight to their preferred initiative without needing it to win a vote first.
I do appreciate the idea of a hybrid funding model where the treasury covers part of a project, but ideally, the remaining portion should come from investors rather than donations, imho.
Lastly, I don’t appreciate that the proposal’s title refers to Catalyst, even though it has no relationship to it. This seems intended to mislead people into thinking Catalyst would benefit from this proposal, which it doesn’t...I acknowledge there’s a metadata issue in the proposal “Withdraw ₳45,217 for MLabs Core Tool Maintenance & Enhancement: Cardano.nix”, but I approved it nonetheless, as the problem is minor and not worth obstructing the process.
- Abstain 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
The proposal’s goal to create a community-driven 2030 vision and roadmap is essential and strategically aligned with Cardano’s values. However, the ₳750,000 budget is excessive given the lack of a detailed breakdown, clear accountability measures, and a robust community engagement plan. Without these, I cannot justify such a large treasury withdrawal. I vote NO until the proposal is refined with greater financial transparency and stronger execution safeguards.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ 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
- No 791.4K ₳ Rationale
Community input on the development of Cardano has been implemented in various ways on the Blockchain. Our governance process allows ideas to be presented and vetted with community input. While criticisms on the current approaches have been made, it seems the underlying belief of the proposer is that there is a lack of community input in the development and roadmap of Cardano. which is perceived as harmful to the ecosystem. While it may seem true, analyzing the basis of this reveals, in my analysis, that the community's list of wants may or may not always match the capabilities of the developers/blockchain.
Our current method of vetting ideas seems to work better than directly engaging the community- I reject the idea that engaging the community alone creates a better direction for a decentralized ecosystem to follow.
- Yes 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 738.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 716.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 670.2K ₳ Rationale
This proposal requests ₳750,000 to fund Intersect’s Cardano Product Committee in creating a community-driven 2030 vision and 2026 roadmap. It will gather insights from the community, SPOs, builders, and businesses through workshops, focus groups, and structured research, creating the first consolidated product research framework for Cardano. Managed with audited smart contracts and independent oversight, the project ensures transparency and alignment with ecosystem needs. Supporting this strengthens Cardano’s long-term strategy and informed decision-making—this is why I vote yes.
- No 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
As the only Iranian DRep, I cannot support this proposal administered by Intersect due to fundamental issues with Intersect’s structure and representation. Because of U.S. sanctions, I am excluded from Intersect membership and decision-making, which means this organization does not truly represent the entire global Cardano community. Without full inclusion and equal participation, the legitimacy of Intersect-led initiatives is compromised.
Furthermore, while the goal of creating a community-driven 2030 vision and roadmap is important, the process led by Intersect lacks full transparency and inclusivity for all DReps, especially those from sanctioned regions like Iran. Until governance bodies are fully representative and enable equitable involvement of all community members, including myself, I cannot endorse significant treasury funding for such projects. - Yes 534.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 521.2K ₳ Rationale
I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.
- Yes 502K ₳ Rationale
For 750k, we get structured product research and a framework for making decisions based on data instead of whoever talks loudest on X. Easy Yes for me.
- Abstain 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 438.7K ₳ 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
- Yes 371.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale