Withdraw ₳96,817,080 for 2025 Input Output Engineering Core Development Proposal
196 DReps voted · 52 with a rationale
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes 11M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 10.8M ₳ 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. The IOG proposal is a continuation of work on a several seemingly critical pieces of infrastructure and research for Cardano. The team has delivered Cardano's unique architecture and vision. It is an omnibus proposal and probably serves as a good example for other ambitious and competent teams that may see this proposal as inspiration to deliver competing omnibus proposals and competing visions for Cardano's future in 2026. Not just technical pieces of a disjointed jigsaw puzzle, but also a rival masterplan of sorts - like IOG is doing here in 2025.
- Yes 6.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 6M ₳ Rationale
Voting decision was made to be consistent with my reconciliation back in May 2025;
https://2025budget.intersectmbo.org/voters/drep1yfdfs28uwafjgmrkatdektlzrvha2cmvqjhuz700e04mawq23rmrgMy votes, I hope, align with my overall goal as a DRep to see continuous improvement in the ecosystem.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
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 seucrity) -- 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
IOG has delivered the foundational infrastructure of Cardano with high engineering standards throughout the years. This proposal builds directly upon that, with essential upgrades like Leios, Hydra, and enhanced dev tooling. The proposal impact is clear: this is necessary work to scale Cardano for the next cycle.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ Rationale
We need to accelerate Leios development more than ever.
We need to accelerate Leios development more than ever.
- Yes 4.8M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 4.2M ₳ Rationale
I'm voting yes, as per list described in my tweet:
https://x.com/OracleAltcoin/status/1917257059071934483Core engineering first, decentralization of influence and conservative with the treasury.
Strength and honor. - Yes 4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3.8M ₳ Rationale
I support IOG continuing to be the main contractor for Cardano, but I have reservations on this proposal.
A PDF version of this rationale is also made available.
In general, I believe IOG has delivered on the roadmap it promised in Miami in 2019. The organization has acted in good faith, transforming an idea into the robust ecosystem we have today.
A great deal of credit goes to Charles Hoskinson for his vision, leadership, and the long-term goals he set to build a better world. These ideals have guided Cardano’s development to this point.
As such, I am strongly inclined to continue funding IOG’s work to improve and expand the Cardano chain. I continue to place trust in their technical expertise and overarching vision for the ecosystem.
That said, I found this proposal difficult to vote for. I do not believe IOG, as the de facto leader of the ecosystem, has set an appropriately high standard for how funding requests should be presented in the Voltaire era. We are in a transitional phase—from IOG-led development to a more open, multi-developer ecosystem. I had expected IOG to set the benchmark during this shift, and in this proposal, I believe they fell short.
Specifically:
• I agree with the Cardano Foundation’s abstention rationale: IOG failed to adequately address legitimate community concerns. Reasonable requests for clarity around milestones, timelines, and KPIs—particularly for a large, publicly funded proposal—were largely ignored. Rather than engaging constructively, Charles publicly characterized these requests as personal attacks.
• While IOG is a trusted actor, a proposal that boils down to “trust us, we’ll do it right” sets a poor precedent—not just for IOG, but for all future proposers. Cardano needs a competitive funding process that minimizes overbilling, gold-plating, and unnecessary complexity. This proposal did not embrace that standard. It bundled disparate components into one massive, non-negotiable package, limiting meaningful community oversight and feedback.
• By leveraging its role as the chain’s most critical developer to present the proposal as an “approve it as-is or we walk” ultimatum, IOG crossed a line. This was an inappropriate use of its position.
• Finally, Charles’s public threats on Twitter about the consequences of rejecting the proposal were harmful to the very public budgeting process he helped envision. Voltaire governance is meant to empower non-specialist DReps who are still learning how to evaluate complex proposals. It requires patience and a collaborative tone. Heavy-handed responses to scrutiny hindered the growth of this process rather than advancing it. - Yes 3.7M ₳ Rationale
IOG possesses the skilled engineers, expertise, experience and commitment to further enhance our capabilities.
- Yes 3.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 3M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.8M ₳ Rationale
I am following through with my YES vote from the Cardano Budget 2025 Ekklesia process. This proposal falls within my personal NCL of 250,000,000 ADA.
- Yes 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 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.
- Abstain 2.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
IOG has delivered the tech we needed to get this far and I think funding them in this first round is absolutely worth it. Given the .50 price, I will certainly be looking forward to a smaller amount in the next year. However, there is no reason to slow things down at this time.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
Cardanoのコアインフラ開発・保守を担う提案として、ネットワークの安定性・持続性を支える重要な投資と評価します。LeiosやMithrilなどの進化を見据えた基盤整備が継続されることを期待し、適切な報告と透明性が確保される前提で賛成します。
As a proposal supporting the core infrastructure development and maintenance of Cardano, this represents a critical investment in the network’s stability and sustainability. Assuming proper transparency and reporting, and with expectations for continued progress on foundational upgrades like Leios and Mithril, I vote in favor.
- Yes 2.5M ₳ Rationale
We have been reviewing and openly discussing this proposal for a few months now. I think the IO team did a good job reinforcing the importance of this proposal for a while. Let's get shipping.
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 2.3M ₳ 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 ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.7M ₳ Rationale
I am frustrated by the price tag on this proposal since it went from "I'll fund it myself if I have to" to 97 mil or GTFO. That alone is in extremely poor taste. As promised to my delegators, I am supporting this because I consider it critically important for the future of the chain and expect this to be the last real year for relevancy if we upgrade now. That said. I expect results and the proposal does not give me a warm fussy on deliverables. So I vote yes, with the warning that it better produce results.
- Yes 1.7M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.6M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.5M ₳ Rationale
This ones drives critical scalability (Leios, Hydra), dApp security (Plutus tools), and node efficiency. It but need budget clarity and prioritization to mitigate execution risks, but it's important to fund reliable and trustful developers.
- Yes 1.5M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.4M ₳ No rationale