Withdraw ₳889,500 for Cardano Ecosystem Pavilions at Exhibitions
210 DReps voted · 65 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.9M ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 1.8M ₳ Rationale
Voting Abstain. I am choosing to abstain rather than vote no, as while I see value in increasing Cardano’s global visibility and supporting exhibition booths that attract builders, broad participation offers uncertain long-term impact. Targeted event funding (potentially via Catalyst) would be a more strategic use of funds.
- No 1.8M ₳ Rationale
I am voting No. The proposal comes at a high cost and appears to duplicate existing outreach and marketing efforts already covered in other proposals. Without a clear justification for the scale of spending or a strategy to coordinate with ongoing initiatives, this funding request lacks efficiency and strategic clarity. Treasury funds should be deployed with greater focus and consolidation to maximize impact.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
Vote Rationale – YES
This proposal merits support in light of both its strategic objective and the proven track record of its driving force, Dave. Dave has been a consistent and visible contributor to the Cardano ecosystem for years, often working far beyond any direct funding to ensure that projects, entrepreneurs, and advocates have opportunities to showcase their work to global audiences.
His efforts demonstrate commitment, capability, and a deep understanding of how to position Cardano in competitive spaces.
While the requested ₳889,500 is significant, the potential marketing leverage across multiple regions and audiences, combined with Dave’s long history of successful delivery for the Cardano community, makes this an investment in both ecosystem growth and a trusted operator who has repeatedly demonstrated value.
Conclusion: Yes – This is an opportunity to amplify a proven contributor’s impact, extend Cardano’s reach into critical industry events, and provide tangible support to ecosystem projects in a structured, accountable manner.
VOTE0021
- No 1.5M ₳ Rationale
As I mentioned in other proposals, the visibility of Cardano will grow as we invest in improving the protocol, making it easier for everyone and with more features.
- Abstain 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- No 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.
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ Rationale
I 100% agree, Cardano needs global exposure and getting builders in front of investors, devs and users is critical. But the "Ecosystem Pavilion" type of approach (pay to have a booth at a generic event for multiple projects) feels like a old school marketing stunt in a digital first world.
Cardano's problems won't be solved with more generic booths at a generic event. What is missing from this proposal is a clean statement of what unique value Cardano has at these expos that would make them come to Cardano, what exactly makes us different in a generic blockchain expo hall? No answer here. Intersect has funded and continues to fund community booths, hackathons and dev onboarding at global events. Cardano Foundation, EMURGO and a dozen community groups have already put forward presence at expos and conferences. Is Supplyoneers FZ-LLC just copying what's already out there? No clear evidence that this proposal is coordinating with anything else, or filling a hole that's not there.Yes Intersect will manage the contracts and the milestones. Yes there are oversight committees. But the core problem is upstream: what if the whole concept doesn't work out and we burn treasury on visibility without conversions and without any network effect.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- No 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 793K ₳ Rationale
I think @Invalid_eutxo will make excellent use of the funding to improve Cardano's brand.
- Yes 791.4K ₳ Rationale
As a music professional, it is clear that real world, in person events are among the strongest social interactions that can take place. However, it is crucial that these events are organized as efficiently as possible to be sustainable.
Onboarding the next wave of Cardano users is, IMO, dependent upon new projects having a direct interface with their target audiences; my delegates, as well as myself, feel this is a good step in realizing such a bridge!
- No 785.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 765.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- No 716.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 670.2K ₳ Rationale
This funding helps Cardano projects gain global exposure at exhibitions, provides structured support to maximize ROI, and increases ecosystem visibility beyond just Cardano events. Supplyoneers FZ-LLC has 15 years of exhibition experience and a track record of helping projects gain visibility. Let’s do it!
- 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. - No 589.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 587.1K ₳ Rationale
While building global visibility is valuable, allocating treasury funds to temporary event booths at exhibitions does not contribute to long-term infrastructure or technical advancement within the Cardano ecosystem. As a DRep, I believe our priorities must focus on lasting developer tools, infrastructure projects, and on-chain innovation—not ephemeral marketing placements with limited strategic impact.
Event booths do little to strengthen core protocol resilience, developer adoption, or decentralized growth. Without a clear path linking expense to lasting benefits, this proposal relies heavily on brand awareness that may not translate into real on-chain activity or measurable community growth. Therefore, I vote NO, believing that treasury resources are better spent on projects that deliver enduring value and technical substance.
- 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
This is just smart economics. Instead of every project burning their life savings on expensive conference booths, we pool resources and multiply our presence. Dave (proposer) has 15 years in exhibitions and actually understands the pain points of trying to represent a complex ecosystem at events designed for simple pitches.
Also, having a coordinated Cardano presence instead of random projects scattered across a conference hall is called professionalism, and we could use more of it. - Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- No 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 443.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 438.7K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
As a Cardano DRep, I support voting YES on the Ecosystem Pavilions proposal. Initially, I was skeptical about its impact on the Cardano ecosystem. However, after engaging in X spaces and discussing with Dave, I am convinced it will enhance exposure at a reduced cost for projects. The partial subsidy and support for projects at exhibitions align with Cardano’s need to attract investors, developers, and users. This affordable entry point, coupled with education justifies the ₳889,500 withdrawal, making it a strategic investment for Cardano’s growth.
- Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- No 377.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 365.3K ₳ No rationale