{"@context":{"CIP100":"https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#","hashAlgorithm":"CIP100:hashAlgorithm","body":{"@id":"CIP100:body","@context":{"comment":"CIP100:comment"}}},"hashAlgorithm":"blake2b-256","body":{"comment":"I am voting NO on “Cardano Builder DAO.” When this DAO was first funded, the intent was to decentralize funding structures and enable a specialized, builder-led mechanism that could allocate capital against clear Cardano 2030 KPIs, complementing rather than concentrating existing processes. The DAO has since operated two funding rounds, distributing around 11.1M ADA to 34 projects and publishing dashboards that track MAU, TVL, and transaction metrics for funded teams.\n\nAfter reviewing the available public material, however, I do not see enough transparency, structural safeguards, or demonstrated ecosystem-wide impact to justify an additional 20M ADA at this time. The public-facing reporting focuses heavily on internal governance evolution, high-level KPI charts, and membership activity, but does not provide clear, accessible detail on individual funding decisions, project contracts, deliverables, or independent performance reviews for the prior 12M ADA. KPI tracking relies largely on a narrow set of self-described metrics (MAU, TVL, transactions) that are often weak proxies for durable value and can be difficult to interpret without richer context on quality, retention, and real user benefit.\n\nStructurally, this proposal would expand a secondary allocator that already controls a significant pool of Treasury-derived capital, without clear sunset conditions, scale limits, or external guardrails to prevent the DAO from effectively becoming a semi-permanent funding gatekeeper for a relatively small circle of existing ecosystem providers. In a cycle where remaining NCL headroom is tightening, I do not believe it is prudent to allocate a further 20M ADA to a structure that has not yet demonstrated the level of openness, accountability, and independently verifiable results that should accompany large, recurring Treasury commitments to secondary allocators. For these reasons, I am voting NO."}}