body:
  comment: This is a combined rationale for the two treasury withdrawal governance actions submitted by the Snek Foundation, with the action ID’s: “4ff43f1eab5252ef00ba6f1429dc23715e3899834f10c067e8065c8364d5559a#0” and “1d6aea56e6a523b13e03ae30ff24ebf9852543b4f7d415c7e50f55f6baaa4e3d#0”. A combined rationale is provided to give further context to the “NO” vote submitted here. First and foremost, this is not a reflection of my views regarding Snek’s achievements, their position in the ecosystem to date, or whether treasury funds should be used for project listings and is an assessment of the handling of the submission of these two proposals. While constitutionality is the remit of the Constitutional Committee and not DReps, it plays a role in assessing the handling of these two proposals. On August 2 2025, two treasury withdrawal actions were submitted less than an hour apart, with a combined governance action deposit of 200,000 ada. It appears as though the second action was submitted in haste following an input error that resulted in the first proposal requesting only 5 ada instead of 5 million ada. This is the first and foremost issue with the first governance action and any DRep voting yes without recognising this fact raises questions about their levels of due diligence when it comes to voting. Constitutional or otherwise, the on-chain treasury withdrawal request is for 5 ada and not the proposed 5 million ada in the proposal text. A deeper assessment of the timeline of events raises further questions (times in UTC+1). The provided withdrawal address was first funded at 13:13:24 on August 2 2025 with the stake key registered and delegated to a DRep at 13:14:12, breaking the first constitutional requirement for treasury withdrawals before the proposal was even submitted (https://cardanoscan.io/address/addr1q9gcxfl9fe9ulluvtc2sxj6xux7jfa49zzq4aheyywqm0k3gudvqrjyfk4nqpvscu2ggqg67x9e0dk5l5p4s6msvkpys6qv4v6). This address was then funded with the 100,000 ada deposit funds at 1…
hash algorithm: blake2b-256