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 1.4M ₳ 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.
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1.1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ Rationale
I vote YES - provided full transparency, milestone enforcement and aggressive public reporting of progress and spend.
It is "core engineering to keep the lights on" for Cardano as a global settlement layer. If we do not do it, we risk a stagnant or worse ecosystem.
However, let's be clear: It will not be a black box or IOE slush fund. We need to see exactly what is being delivered for every ADA spent. If Intersect do not enforce this, I will not give them my vote next year.
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 1M ₳ No rationale
- Yes 955.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 947.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 935.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 922.9K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 860.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 819K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 818K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 810K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 785.2K ₳ Rationale
I support core tooling and protocol development
- Yes 762.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 738.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 733.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 717.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 716.6K ₳ Rationale
We, The Dutch Drep, vote Yes on this withdrawal governance action for Cardano Builder DAO, administered via Intersect. It is important to keep ecosystem talent active however we advise Intersect to showcase the milestones that show increased transaction volume or other value ads attributable to the individual members of the builder DAO.
- Yes 655K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 654.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 624.8K ₳ Rationale
This proposal represents a strategically vital investment in Cardano's core infrastructure that addresses the ecosystem's most critical challenges for long-term viability and competitive positioning. The comprehensive technical scope spans fundamental improvements from consensus mechanisms to developer tooling, collectively positioning Cardano for large-scale adoption and real-world applications.
The scalability enhancements through Ouroboros Leios implementation and Hydra development directly tackle throughput limitations that constrain user experience during high network demand. These Layer 1 and Layer 2 solutions work synergistically to provide both immediate relief and long-term scaling capacity essential for ecosystem growth. Leios represents a significant advancement in blockchain throughput technology, while Hydra's state channels offer near-instant finality, creating a comprehensive scaling solution maintaining Cardano's security guarantees.
The Acropolis node architecture refresh demonstrates forward-thinking technical debt management and ecosystem participation. By transitioning to modular architecture, this initiative improves performance, reduces operational costs for stake pool operators, and creates pathways for broader community participation in core development. This architectural evolution supports Cardano's decentralization commitment by making the codebase more accessible to diverse development teams.
The Plutus High Assurance suite addresses critical gaps in smart contract development and security verification. Automatic formal verification, property-based testing, and static analysis provide developers with robust tooling for secure, reliable applications. These tools reduce development barriers while improving overall ecosystem security, with transaction monitoring and tiered pricing enhancing developer and user experience.
Infrastructure improvements through Ledger-HD, LSM integration, and UTXO-HD directly address operational concerns affecting network sustainability. By reducing memory requirements and improving disk-based state management, these enhancements make node operation more accessible and cost-effective, supporting broader network participation. The KES Agent adds crucial security enhancements for stake pool operators.
Innovative features like Nested Transactions enabling Babel Fees demonstrate Cardano's commitment to user experience improvements that differentiate it from other platforms. The ability to pay fees with native tokens removes significant friction points, potentially accelerating adoption across diverse use cases.
Input Output Engineering's proven track record spanning Cardano's entire development history provides strong execution confidence. Their involvement from Byron through Voltaire demonstrates consistent capability in research-driven development and production-ready implementation, with retained key personnel ensuring continuity of institutional knowledge.
The proposal's emphasis on knowledge sharing and supplier diversity aligns with Cardano's open-source ethos and sustainability goals. Creating pathways for broader community participation while maintaining technical standards supports the ecosystem's transition toward decentralized development.
This represents exactly the strategic, foundational investment Cardano requires to achieve its vision of supporting global-scale decentralized applications, making support essential for continued evolution as a leading blockchain platform. - No 601.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 596.3K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 589.2K ₳ Rationale
Maintaining engagement with IO is critical for future Cardano success
- No 502K ₳ Rationale
I know this proposal is going to pass no matter what, but I would like to share my opinion on it non the less, as I have been loud about it on x as well, might as well speak on chain. First of all, I respect IOG's technical contributions immensely. They built the foundation we're all standing on. But 97 million ADA for what reads like a university research department's wishlist just makes me uncomfortable. Ouroboros Leios, Acropolis, Hydra, Plutus improvements, LSM integration, KES agents... Eh,how about this..pick three things and do them excellently instead of promising everything to everyone? Also, where are the KPIs and deliverables on each line item?
This feels like the classic big tech company approach of throwing money at problems until they go away. For this much treasury funding, I need more than a bunch of blockchain buzzwords. In the age of voltaire, the community deserves better than "trust us, we're the smart guys." I mean, of course you are, but at least show me? - Yes 473.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 466.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 445.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 437.8K ₳ Rationale
This proposal is a long‑term, strategic investment that strengthens Cardano’s scalability, decentralization, and practical utility. Building on Input Output Engineering’s track record with projects, it pairs concrete deliverables with a focus on knowledge sharing, ongoing maintenance, and a more diverse supplier base, principles central to Cardano’s open, decentralized ethos. Given its clear alignment with the Product Roadmap and the team’s history of successful delivery, I fully support the proposal as key to preparing Cardano for large‑scale, real‑world applications
- Yes 431.4K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 403.1K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 385.6K ₳ Rationale
As a dedicated Cardano DRep, Krypto Labs has actively participated in the 2025 budget process since February, contributing to workshops, forums, and discussions to ensure proposals align with the community's longterm vision for decentralization, scalability, and innovation. After carefully evaluating the pros and cons, drawing from the proposal's detailed roadmap, comparative analyses against alternatives like the TSC proposal, and broader ecosystem feedback. I am voting YES on this treasury withdrawal
This decision is rooted in IOE's unmatched expertise as the architects of Cardano's foundational elements, including Ouroboros and Plutus, which have proven resilient through peer-reviewed research and real-world deployment. The proposal addresses pressing challenges like scalability limitations (via Leios and Hydra) and smart contract security (via Plutus High Assurance tools), delivering tangible benefits such as reduced node costs for SPOs, faster transactions for users, and enhanced tools for developers, essential for Cardano's competitiveness in a rapidly evolving blockchain landscape. While the ₳96.8M cost is substantial, it represents a strategic investment within the approved ₳350m NCL, backed by milestone based accountability, thirdparty audits, and Intersect's transparent smart contract framework, minimizing risks of mismanagement.
Criticisms regarding IO's past slow pace and potential centralization are valid, as acknowledged by Charles Hoskinson himself, but the proposal incorporates shifts toward modularity (e.g., Acropolis) and knowledge sharing to foster greater community involvement and supplier diversity. Alternatives like the TSC proposal offer agility, but they lack IOE's depth in high assurance engineering, which is crucial for mission critical features like consensus upgrades. Given my involvement since February, I've seen firsthand how this aligns with community priorities for sustainable growth, outweighing risks like delays or opportunity costs. Approving this will accelerate Cardano's roadmap, boost adoption, and reinforce its position as a secure, scalable platform ultimately benefiting all stakeholders
- Yes 382.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 371.8K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 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
YES Vote
In my opinion, this proposal funds critical core infrastructure work that supports Cardano’s continued growth, security, and decentralization. Key upgrades include Ouroboros Leios, Hydra, Mithril, and Acropolis, each essential for improving scalability, node architecture, and smart contract tooling.
While the cost is substantial, the proposal aligns with the approved 2025 budget and is subject to milestone-based funding, third-party audits, and oversight mechanisms managed by Intersect. These controls help ensure accountability and transparency.
Given IO’s track record in delivering foundational Cardano components, and the urgent need to advance L1/L2 capabilities, I believe this represents a strategic and necessary investment in the network’s future.
- Yes 271.5K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 262.3K ₳ No rationale
- Abstain 258.6K ₳ Rationale
🧭 Evaluation Methodology and Rationale
Given the unprecedented volume and technical depth of the 39 Treasury Withdrawal Governance Actions submitted in this cycle, a comprehensive, proposal-by-proposal audit of budgets, scopes, and implementation frameworks would demand a level of time and resourcing incompatible with the available review window.
Rather than abstaining from participation, I adopted a hybrid evaluation methodology that combines AI-assisted content parsing with structured human analysis. This standardized checklist framework was designed to streamline high-volume assessment while preserving critical reasoning, contextual understanding, and value-based judgment.
All final decisions reflect deliberate human oversight — AI outputs serve to accelerate comprehension and comparison, but no vote is cast without manual review and a principled assessment of relevance, feasibility, and accountability.
📋 Checklist Criteria Explained
Each proposal is evaluated across six standardized dimensions using a three-point scale:
✅ Yes — fully meets the criterion
🟡 Partial — partially meets the criterion
❌ No — does not meet the criterion1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality
Does the proposal address a critical function within Cardano, or is it peripheral or redundant?
This criterion assesses the strategic relevance of the initiative. Proposals should contribute meaningfully to Cardano’s infrastructure, decentralization, usability, or long-term resilience. Initiatives that duplicate existing efforts or lack demonstrable alignment with ecosystem priorities may score lower.2️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers
Does the proposal define measurable success indicators or quantifiable outcomes?
This includes Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), numerical targets, milestones with metrics, or other tangible proxies of progress. The absence of quantifiable measures introduces uncertainty around potential impact and limits effective performance tracking.3️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables
Are there clear, time-bound milestones with verifiable deliverables and acceptance criteria?
Effective proposals define not only what will be delivered, but also when and how success will be verified. This enables staged disbursement, delivery monitoring, and community oversight. Lack of milestone clarity may indicate execution risk.4️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record
Is the proposing team clearly identified, with relevant expertise and a verifiable delivery history?
This criterion evaluates the transparency and credibility of the individuals or organizations responsible for delivery. Established contributors with proven ecosystem involvement are preferred. Anonymous or unvetted teams may raise accountability concerns.5️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail
Is the budget transparently structured, with clear categories, amounts, and justification?
A strong proposal includes itemized costs (e.g., per workstream, staff role, tooling), explains the rationale behind budget allocations, and clarifies estimation methods. Lack of detail in budget structure reduces transparency and erodes confidence in treasury stewardship.6️⃣ Internal Consistency
Are the on-chain metadata, proposal content, and budget details aligned?
Consistency across all proposal components — including funding amounts, receiving addresses, project scope, and references — is essential. Misalignment creates confusion, undermines credibility, and may signal governance process weaknesses.7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
Does this proposal present a potential conflict of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the evaluation?
To preserve the integrity of the voting process, any proposal in which I (as evaluator) hold a significant, non-marginal conflict of interest will be automatically met with an ABSTAIN vote. Minor or indirect associations are disclosed where relevant, but only material conflicts — such as direct financial involvement, employment, or formal partnership — trigger abstention. This ensures all evaluations remain transparent, independent, and in service of the broader Cardano community
🧾 Governance Action Evaluation: Input Output Engineering 2025 Core Development Proposal
Proposal Type: Treasury Withdrawal
Amount Requested: ₳96,817,080
Submitted by: Intersect on behalf of Input Output Engineering (IOE)
Linked to Info Action:gov_action1u9x…(₳275M Ecosystem Budget)
Evaluation Date: August 2025
Evaluator: Agora dRep
✅ Critical Evaluation Checklist with Evidence
1️⃣ Ecosystem Essentiality → ✅ Yes
📌 Source: Motivation section of the Governance Action and IOE PDF (pp. 3–4, 8–10).
“This proposal addresses several critical challenges and opportunities within the Cardano ecosystem necessary for its continued growth, competitiveness, and decentralization.”
Key Scope Areas:
- Scalability: Leios (L1), Hydra (L2), Mithril (light clients)
- Security: Audit & Assurance, KES Agent, Minotaur (AVS)
- Incentives: Stake Pool Incentive Scheme Revision
- Developer UX: Plutus Core roadmap, testing/verification tools
✅ Confirmation note: It is publicly acknowledged across the ecosystem — including by prominent SPOs, dReps, developers, and governance facilitators — that no other entity currently has the capacity to deliver this scope in full. While decentralization remains a strategic goal, IOE is uniquely positioned at present to implement these foundational infrastructure components.
2️⃣ Budget Structure and Detail → 🟡 Partial
📌 Source: IOE PDF, pp. 4–7
- High-level cost per initiative provided (e.g., Hydra: $1.859M; Leios: $7.098M; Maintenance: $14.682M)
- No breakdown by operational category (HR, infrastructure, auditing, etc.)
- No FTE estimates, hourly effort, or partner-specific budget details
⚠️ The largest item ("Maintenance & Support") consumes over $14M without detailed justification.
✅ Clarification: No additional budget breakdowns or financial attachments were found in the metadata, IPFS anchor, or references. This review reflects all available data.
3️⃣ KPIs or Impact Identifiers → ❌ No
📌 Source: Full Governance Action and IOE PDF
- No quantifiable targets or KPIs included
- No expected % performance improvements, usage metrics, or adoption goals
- No success criteria for impact evaluation
“Delivers massive L1 throughput increase […] enhances decentralization […] lowers development barriers.” — qualitative only
⚠️ The absence of measurable KPIs weakens transparency and accountability.
4️⃣ Milestones and Deliverables → ❌ No
📌 Source: Governance Action “Project Delivery” section; IOE PDF, p. 9
Although each initiative includes bullet-point descriptions, the proposal lacks a formal milestone framework. A proper milestone structure would include:
- Concrete deliverables
- Timelines or phase-based estimates
- Acceptance criteria
- Assignment of responsible actors
❌ All milestones are to be defined post-approval in private legal contracts with Intersect. This removes transparency and disables community validation.
✅ Quote:
“All milestones, acceptance criteria, payment amounts and expected delivery dates will be agreed between the Vendor and Intersect, acting on behalf of the CDH.”✅ Note: Only Leios includes a more detailed outline (18 items), but still without clear timelines or success criteria.
5️⃣ Internal Consistency → ✅ Yes
📌 Verifications:
- ADA ↔ USD conversion (~$48.4M @ $0.50/ADA) aligns
- Proposal correctly linked to ₳275M Info Action
- Smart contract structures and receiving address consistent
✅ No mismatch detected across metadata, text, and budget context.
6️⃣ Team Visibility & Track Record → ✅ Yes
📌 Source: IOE PDF, pp. 2, 12–14
“The combined experience of these groups spans the entire history of Cardano… Collaborators include MLabs, TxPipe, Vacuumlabs, Serokell, Well-Typed…”
- All teams named and known
- Extensive protocol-layer experience
- Audits by TxPipe and MLabs confirmed in submitted documents
✅ Execution capacity is proven and credible.
7️⃣ Conflict of Interest
No relevant conflict of interest.
🧠 Strategic Context and Political Rationale
Despite the proposal’s technical merit, there are major structural and governance concerns:
🚨 1. Bundling as a Power Strategy
The proposal merges 20 initiatives into a single unbreakable unit — removing any ability to prioritize, approve partially, or challenge specific components.
💰 2. Budget Centralization and Community Displacement
IOE's combined proposals approach ₳200M. At the time of submission, a ₳200M Net Change Limit was being debated. This risks:
- Crowding out community innovation
- Violating pluralistic funding principles
- Converting public treasury into single-vendor control
🚫 3. Refusal to Modularize or Negotiate
The vendor refused to split scope, reduce ask size, or publish milestone criteria in advance — reinforcing asymmetry in power and eroding accountability.
🗳️ Final Voting Position: ABSTAIN
While I acknowledge the technical necessity of many components within this proposal (especially Leios, Acropolis, Mithril, and Minotaur), I cannot support the submission’s format, strategy, or political implications.
I abstain as a political statement — not due to indecision, but as a deliberate rejection of:
- Centralized budget control
- Monolithic proposal formats
- Opaque governance practices
This abstention signals the need for:
- Modular proposals
- Transparent milestone and KPI frameworks
- Competitive and decentralized treasury access
- Yes 256.2K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 252.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 245K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 238.6K ₳ No rationale
- Yes 208.6K ₳ Rationale
This is must have core development that will bring a return on investment for the ecosystem, end users, developers, dApp builders and stake pool operators. Input Output is no doubt the best development arm to be tackling this technological advancements and their proposal serves as a reference for the community on the level of detail that is to be expected for Treasury Withdrawals proposals.