{ "@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 vote YES in favour of the budget info action proposing a 5 million ada loan for Cardano global listing expansion put forth by the Snek Foundation. I appreciate that the proposers have taken onboard community feedback following their previous proposals and revised this proposal, with the help of Intersect, to better meet the requirements of the Cardano governance process and going one step further by submitting a first-of-its-kind proposal in the format of a loan, a treasury withdrawal with a repayment commitment.\n\nWhile voting YES in favour of this revised proposal, two issues surrounding it have given me pause for concern. The handling of the initial two proposals, it often gets forgotten that there were two and why the first one was even more of a complete false start, and the behaviour of some elements of the community towards anyone with opposing views or genuine questions in the time since the proposal became public.\n\nFirst off, the hasty mishandling of the previous two proposals demonstrated both a complete disregard and lack of understanding of the governance process and also raised concerns at how quickly the proposers were willing to throw 200,000 ada at governance proposals that were ultimately locked up for 6 epochs because they were premature and incomplete. A detailed breakdown can be found in my previous rationale for these proposals at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hephy-io/mainnet/refs/heads/main/drep_rationales/GA062-063-treasury-snek.jsonld. Yes, I appreciate all that the Snek team have achieved to date and the levels of their own funds that they have deployed to get to where they are today but you can’t deny that throwing a second wave of 100,000 ada at another proposal that was unconstitutional at the get-go because, just hours previously, the first one incorrectly requested 5 ada on-chain instead of 5 million, could come across as erratic at best, incompetent at worst. It also did little to reassure voters that they can handle 5 million ada when 200,000 was so hastily deployed incorrectly.\n\nThe second issue is with regards to some elements of the Snek community and their treatment of DReps throughout this process. The situation was not helped by having two incorrectly submitted proposals in the first place, that were never going to pass, which likely fed into community frustrations early on. That said, I did not appreciate seeing repeated labelling of DReps as “low IQ” and much worse on social media, especially when you consider that the initial proposal requested 5 ada and not 5 million. I appreciate that the minority does not reflect the majority and that there are many good actors amongst the Snek community, however such animosity from bad actors does little to win favour amongst the wider Cardano community and should be considered thoughtfully when you take into account that the actual treasury withdrawal proposal that will follow this will require a 67% approval threshold, greater than the >50% required for this budget info action.\n\nThat said, it has been encouraging to see the Snek team reach out to Intersect for assistance and for putting forward this much revised and improved proposal, which is also novel in its intention for treasury repayment.\n\nCardano on-chain governance was launched with the Chang and Plomin hard forks as “minimum viable governance” (MVG), it was always meant to iterate and improve upon these foundations to move towards what could be considered as a more “sustainable viable governance” (SVG). The Constitution lays the foundations for how governance actions should work, including the treasury withdrawal action processes. It does not lay out the processes for loan proposals and this can be seen as the Cardano ecosystem iterating upon the MVG towards SVG, much like the recent development whereby governance action proposals have begun to include a self-constitutionality checklist within their rationales, it isn’t constitutionally mandated but it is becoming a useful and accepted standard. This is the first time a treasury withdrawal has been proposed with repayment details and this is precedent setting in itself and a welcome one as we iterate towards a more sustainable system. I commend the Snek team for taking community feedback on board, for adapting their proposal and for putting forth this novel proposal that commits to repaying the requested funds to the treasury in the future.\n\nThis proposal still has to be submitted as a treasury withdrawal action and reach the 67% approval threshold after this budget info action and I hope during that time that the Snek community can keep itself in check and tone down some of the toxicity from some community members that has been directed towards DReps who hold different views or ask questions during their deliberations. It does little to win people over and creates unnecessary animosity within the Cardano community." }, "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256" }