Withdraw ₳1,150,000 for GovTool 12 months active maintenance and development
This Treasury Withdrawal funds **12 months** of full active maintenance and development for GovTool, the open-source, community-owned set of governance tools that form Cardano’s core low-barrier platform for participation in on-chain governance. GovTool enables ada holders to register, delegate, propose, vote, and transparently view outcomes. It is actively maintained and expanded by the Cardano GovTool Consortium which consists of ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, LidoNation and Dquadrant with additional open source contributors, guided by the Governance Tools Working Group. Funding will ensure operational stability, incentivisation for community contributions, support for other open source governance tools using GovTool open-source code and APIs, and deliver accelerated functional updates across all governance pillars. Any unused funds will be returned to the Cardano Treasury. This withdrawal follows the approved budget Info Action for ₳1.15M (gov_action1n5sn54mgf47a7men2ryq6ppx88kta4wvenz2qkl4f9v6ppje8easqxwm88m) and it will be administered by Intersect via smart contract framework, fulfilling the constitutional requirement to detail the proposed solution, its alignment to the approved budget, and the amount to be withdrawn.
Reasoning
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
1,150,000 ADA for 12 months of active maintenance and development of GovTool, the open-source governance tooling maintained by the GovTool Consortium of ByronNetwork, WeDeliver, LidoNation and Dquadrant.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
GovTool is how ordinary ADA holders register, delegate, and vote. If it does not work, participation drops and governance concentrates among people with the technical ability to route around it. That matters and I want to be fair about it.
What specifically concerns me
I voted no here and also no on the companion Info Action, and I want the reasoning on the record because voting against governance tooling looks bad without it. My objection is not the mission, it is the arrangement: a consortium formed around a funding stream, seeking a full year of active development funding, for a tool whose actual usage numbers have never justified the spend to me. Governance participation on Cardano is low and it is not low because the interface is missing features. Adding development budget does not fix a demand problem.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
Both were dropped. What would change my vote: publish real usage. Monthly active users, registrations completed, votes cast through the tool. If those numbers are strong, I will say so publicly and vote yes. If they are weak, then the money belongs in getting people to participate, not in building more tool for the few who already do.