{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "I am modifying my earlier NO vote on this proposal, after reconsidering. Essentially, my arguments still stand that I think that this proposal would be better served if it were not bundled in a single withdrawal action with a combined ₳11,070,323 budget. However, I did make an exception in the case of the IOG core proposal and I've been thinking about this inconsistency in my voting record - an inconsistency in approach that is penalizing this specific team and proposal. \nFurthermore, the first year's process was very complicated for all vendors and Tweag went with a similar approach to IOG and I penalized them with a NO vote - while giving a free pass to IOG to bundle everything in a proposal that is 5-6 times more expensive. In my original rationale - which is added to the bottom of this one - I specified which components I would have supported as individual submissions. For clarity, I did not include Peras in that list originally, as I thought there was potential duplication with IOG. However, now I would include Peras in a YES vote - following clarifications from TWEAG on social media (see full exchange below). Essentially, I do support the following components: Peras (NEW ADDITION), Canonical Ledger State, Black box Ledger Conformance Testing, Conformance Testing of Consensus, Block Cost Investigation, and History Expiry. \nI will make an exception in this First year of governance - for core infrastructure - and will modify my NO vote to a YES. I have not been contacted or asked to modify my vote by anyone, but this has resulted after a public exchange of tweets that started with me seeing this tweet from Samuel Leathers @therealdisasm \"I can't emphasize this enough. Part of Modus Team is covered by the IOG contract, but the rest is working on the initiatives in this proposal. If we don't get this one across the line, it's going to really slow down Cardano Haskell node development. Please support it Dreps!!!\" [ https://x.com/therealdisasm/status/1951317916915290193 ]. I followed up with questions to Tweag: \"1. Is there any duplication/overlap with the IOG core proposal? (will possible duplication issues be resolved) 2. Also what's Modus Team? 3. The Haskell node work by Tweag will be part of the wider multi-node approach being pursued currently? Thanks!@KrisKowalsky \" [ https://x.com/InputEndorsers/status/1951324660760461792 ]. The response I got was \" Hi, thank you for your questions. 1. There is no duplication and our team is helping with Leios. While IOE is already helping with Peras. Example of two crucial projects. 2. Tweag is part of Modus Create, we currently have more than 20 engineers working on various cardano projects. 3. We are collaborating on Multi Node initiatives, I would  like @osymandias to give a better answer. \" [ https://x.com/KrisKowalsky/status/1951329436801941538 ]. \nI would - at this point in time - advise teams not to submit Mega bundles of proposals as it can be difficult to support them in early days of governance. Also, I think ensuring that IOG has healthy competition in this core engineering space RE: Haskell node is good for Cardano. It might have been good to see Well Typed and others also submit some proposals of its own. \nMY OLD RATIONALE TO VOTE NO IS ATTACHED BELOW. \n==================\nI voted NO on this proposal in Ekklesia and unfortunately, despite the stellar reputation that TWEAG has, this omnibus proposal has not convinced me that it should be a single package. \\nNote: I would like to see TWEAG continue to participate in developing Cardano. \\n\\nI have already voted for a couple of omnibus and high-cost IOG proposals (the IOG proposals are a case sui generis in 2025) and - although TWEAG has rightfully copied the approach by IOG, I think that this proposal would be better served if it were not bundled in a single withdrawal action with a combined ₳11,070,323 budget. \\nAlso, I want to commend TWEAG for providing a really stellar accompanying PDF on \\\"TWEAG’s Proposals for multiple core budget projects for Cardano 2025\\\". I twas an interesting read. \\nI would have voted for some of the components of this proposal - if they had been submitted individually. \\nI could see myself supporting the following components of this omnibus proposal (had they been submitted separately):\\n1. Canonical Ledger State\\n2. Black box Ledger Conformance Testing\\n3. Conformance Testing of Consensus\\n4. Block Cost Investigation\\n5 History Expiry"
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}