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 323.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 321.1K ₳ 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 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.
- 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.
- No 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 257K ₳ 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.
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 234.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 208.6K ₳ 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.
- Yes 206.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 203.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 195.9K ₳ 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.
- No 180.9K ₳ No rationale
- No 177.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 166.4K ₳ 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.
- Yes 143.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 137.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 131.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 131.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 111.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 105.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 103K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 94.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 89.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 88.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 64.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 61.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 60.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 59.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 58.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 55.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 53.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 49.7K ₳ No rationale
- No 49.3K ₳ No rationale
- No 48.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 48.4K ₳ No rationale
- No 45.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 36.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 26.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 15.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 14.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 8.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 5.5K ₳ No rationale