Vote record

tx 9c501d617adf8a6572ae785b1405cdc0d7c3c1396b16c26d7e300f421f9e141b

One transaction — 6 vote certificates

YES

Withdraw 540,750 ada for UTxO RPC by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano’s Integratio...

Epoche643

Cast2026-07-17

Requested541K ₳

OutcomeENACTED

This Treasury Withdrawal funds UTxO RPC by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano’s Integration Standard, Year 2. This Treasury Withdrawal is submitted by Intersect on behalf of the vendor. The content for the following sections; Abstract, Motivation and Rationale have been sourced from the approved proposal submitted by the Vendor as part of the Intersect budget process.

Reasoning

Written after the vote was cast

What this asks for, and from whom

540,750 ADA (420,000 plus a 105,000 contingency) to fund a part-time maintainer for UTxO RPC for twelve months at $105,000 a year. Continuing maintenance of the open interface specification that standardizes how tools talk to UTxO chains, with SDKs in Rust, Go, Node.js, .NET, Haskell, and Python.

What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds

Adoption by things that matter. UTxO RPC is used by Amaru, Dingo, and the Haskell Cardano node itself as a query interface. When alternative node implementations and the reference node all speak the same interface, that's a standard doing its job. Ten-plus repositories of spec, SDKs, and docs, all Apache 2.0.

What specifically concerns me

Honestly? A part-time maintainer at a market-rate salary keeping a cross-ecosystem integration standard alive is what a boring, correct treasury grant looks like. My only structural note. And it applies to this whole TxPipe batch I voted yes on the same day. Is concentration: one company maintaining several critical pieces at once. The mitigation is that everything is open-source with outside contributors, so the bus factor is a risk, not a hostage situation.

What I am asking of the proposer if this passes

It was enacted. Keep the contributor base growing beyond TxPipe's own people. That's the real insurance policy. And keep the spec's adopters list public and current so next year's renewal takes five minutes to evaluate.

YES

Withdraw 1,310,960 ada for Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026

Epoche643

Cast2026-07-17

Requested1.3M ₳

OutcomeENACTED

This Treasury Withdrawal funds Hardware Wallet Maintenance 2026. This Treasury Withdrawal is submitted by Intersect on behalf of the vendor. The content for the following sections; Abstract, Motivation and Rationale have been sourced from the approved proposal submitted by the Vendor as part of the Intersect budget process.

Reasoning

Written after the vote was cast

What this asks for, and from whom

1,310,960 ADA for twelve months of production maintenance of Cardano's hardware wallet stack: Ledger and Trezor compatibility updates, the interoperability libraries and cardano-hw-cli underneath them, developer support for integrators, and vendor-required audits when firmware changes trigger them.

What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds

Simple: cold storage has to keep working. Every protocol upgrade on our side and every firmware cycle on Ledger's or Trezor's side is a chance for the signing path to break. And when hardware wallet flows break, the most security-conscious holders in the ecosystem are the ones locked out. The proposal's own framing is right: paying for continuity is cheaper and less disruptive than waiting for breakage and scrambling.

What specifically concerns me

Nearly nothing, which is worth saying out loud. This is a continuity grant for a proven access layer, scoped explicitly to compatibility and security. Not a request to build a new wallet product. It cleared the Intersect budget process at the 67% threshold. I tell people constantly to self-custody and use cold storage; voting to keep that path maintained is the least I can do to back the advice up. Hardware wallets are the seatbelts of this industry. You don't skip maintenance on seatbelts.

What I am asking of the proposer if this passes

It was enacted. The single commitment I care about: compatible releases before mainnet hard forks, every time, with enough lead for integrators to test. A hard fork where Ledger users can't sign for a week would undo years of "your keys, your coins" preaching. From me and everybody else.

YES

Withdraw 1,193,000 ada for Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support

Epoche643

Cast2026-07-17

Requested1.2M ₳

OutcomeENACTED

This Treasury Withdrawal funds Intersect Technical Steering Committee Support. This Treasury Withdrawal is submitted by Intersect on behalf of the vendor. The content for the following sections; Abstract, Motivation and Rationale have been sourced from the approved proposal submitted by the Vendor as part of the Intersect budget process.

Reasoning

Written after the vote was cast

What this asks for, and from whom

1,193,000 ADA ($298,250) for twelve months of Intersect Technical Steering Committee work: sending technical experts to major ecosystem events and commissioning technical reports, funding the Parameter Committee, CIP editors, and Hard Fork Working Group, and standing up a pilot independent technical review program for 2027.

What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds

The unglamorous machinery has to actually gate real decisions. It does. Parameter changes, CIP editing, and hard fork coordination are where protocol evolution actually happens. And the proposal's structural detail I weight heaviest is independence: parameter advice gathered independently of node vendors, and the review program carrying formal conflict-of-interest provisions with published recusals. Independent review with recorded recusals is exactly the standard I hold myself to as a Drep, so I'm not going to vote against funding it for the protocol.

What specifically concerns me

Committee funding is where ecosystems can quietly grow bureaucracy, so the thing to watch is output per dollar: reports commissioned that nobody reads versus parameter recommendations that actually shape upgrades. The three working groups funded here have visible track records. CIP editing alone is a real, thankless public good that every proposal author in the ecosystem leans on.

What I am asking of the proposer if this passes

It was enacted. Publish the work product. Reports, parameter rationales, review findings. Where Dreps can actually use it, because informed Drep votes are the stated purpose. And when the 2027 independent review pilot runs, publish the recusal log with it. Show the machinery working and next year's renewal argues for itself.

YES

Withdraw 540,750 ada for Oura by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano’s Event Pipeline

Epoche643

Cast2026-07-17

Requested541K ₳

OutcomeENACTED

This Treasury Withdrawal funds Oura by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano’s Event Pipeline. This Treasury Withdrawal is submitted by Intersect on behalf of the vendor. The content for the following sections; Abstract, Motivation and Rationale have been sourced from the approved proposal submitted by the Vendor as part of the Intersect budget process.

Reasoning

Written after the vote was cast

What this asks for, and from whom

540,750 ADA (420,000 plus a 105,000 contingency) for a part-time maintainer for Oura for twelve months at $105,000 a year. Oura is TxPipe's Rust-native event pipeline: it watches the chain and routes events to wherever infrastructure needs them. Kafka, Elasticsearch, AWS, Redis, SQL databases, webhooks.

What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds

Real infrastructure operators have to actually run it. The signals say they do: most-starred project in the TxPipe portfolio, 288 stars, 58 contributors, previously funded twice through Catalyst (Fund 9 and Fund 13) for feature development. This ask moves it from episodic feature grants to sustained maintenance. Which is the correct lifecycle for a tool that indexers, monitors, and analytics stacks now depend on daily.

What specifically concerns me

The distinction worth naming: Catalyst money built it, and this is the ecosystem deciding it's now load-bearing enough to keep permanently maintained. I'd rather we make that promotion explicitly. Like this. Than let popular tools die of neglect between grant rounds, which is how open source usually starves. Tidelift's own research says most maintainers work unpaid and the majority have considered quitting. Paying the maintainer is the fix. It is what it is.

What I am asking of the proposer if this passes

It was enacted. Same asks as its siblings: grow contributors beyond the company, keep the source/sink integrations tracking what operators actually deploy, and surface real usage in the renewal so the vote stays easy.

YES

Withdraw 540,750 ada for Pallas by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano's Core Rust Li...

Epoche643

Cast2026-07-17

Requested541K ₳

OutcomeENACTED

This Treasury Withdrawal funds Pallas by TxPipe: Maintaining Cardano's Core Rust Libraries, Year 2. This Treasury Withdrawal is submitted by Intersect on behalf of the vendor. The content for the following sections; Abstract, Motivation and Rationale have been sourced from the approved proposal submitted by the Vendor as part of the Intersect budget process.

Reasoning

Written after the vote was cast

What this asks for, and from whom

540,750 ADA (420,000 plus a 105,000 contingency) to fund a part-time maintainer for Pallas for twelve months at $105,000 a year. Pallas is the collection of Rust crates re-implementing Cardano's core primitives. CBOR, crypto, mini-protocol networking, multi-era ledger traversal, transaction building.

What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds

Everything downstream has to actually sit on it. It does: Aiken, Dolos, Lucid, Oura, Mithril, Amaru and more build on Pallas rather than re-implementing blockchain primitives themselves. The stats are real open-source stats. 649 pull requests, 60 contributors, 214,446 downloads on crates.io. This is the foundation layer of the entire Rust side of Cardano.

What specifically concerns me

Very little. Here's the picture I'd give anyone who thinks half a million ADA for one part-time maintainer sounds odd: Pallas is the concrete slab under a whole neighborhood of houses. Aiken smart contracts, the Amaru node effort, half the indexing tools people use daily. You never see the slab. You'd notice fast if it cracked. Paying one competent person a normal salary to keep it sound is the cheapest insurance in the ecosystem. Same concentration note as the rest of the TxPipe batch: one org, several critical crates. Offset by 60 contributors and full Apache 2.0 openness.

What I am asking of the proposer if this passes

It was enacted. Keep compatibility tracking the ledger eras as they land. Dijkstra especially. And keep welcoming outside contributors, because the day Pallas needs a second maintainer, I want the candidate already in the commit history.

YES

Withdraw 1,684,050 ada for Tx3 by TxPipe: Open API Layer for Cardano's dApp P...

Epoche643

Cast2026-07-17

Requested1.7M ₳

OutcomeENACTED

This Treasury Withdrawal funds Tx3 by TxPipe: Open API Layer for Cardano's dApp Protocols. This Treasury Withdrawal is submitted by Intersect on behalf of the vendor. The content for the following sections; Abstract, Motivation and Rationale have been sourced from the approved proposal submitted by the Vendor as part of the Intersect budget process.

Reasoning

Written after the vote was cast

What this asks for, and from whom

1,684,050 ADA (1,308,000 plus a 327,000 contingency) for TxPipe to build Tx3 over 12 months: an open, standardized interface layer across Cardano's major on-chain protocols, so any developer. Or any AI agent. Can discover, integrate, and compose them through one consistent surface. Strike Finance, Indigo, VyFinance, Bodega, and Fluid Tokens are already accessible through it.

What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds

The integration problem has to be real and the agent thesis has to be right. It is, and it is. Today every integrator reverse-engineers every protocol separately. That cost lands on every single team. And I've been saying on stream for a year that the world is moving to agentic workflows: the next wave of on-chain activity comes from AI agents executing intents. The proposal names the danger honestly. A hallucinated transaction moves real assets irreversibly. And its answer is the right one: deterministic transactions behind auditable intents, with MCP servers and LLM-structured docs so agents integrate safely.

What specifically concerns me

Standards funded before adoption is usually my objection. I voted no on a different "standard" proposal this same cycle on exactly that ground. Tx3 clears the bar the other one didn't: five named protocols already integrated, shipped SDKs, live RPC endpoints. This is funding the expansion of something working, not the wish for something to exist.

What I am asking of the proposer if this passes

It was enacted. Publish the protocol coverage count as it grows, keep the agent-facing tooling open-source, and get the intent-audit flow in front of wallet teams early. If Cardano is going to catch the agent wave. And it should. This layer is what catches it.