{
  "@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 NO on the treasury withdrawal action “Alchemy by Sundial x Charms: Cardano-Native Bitcoin Treasury Protocol” (0f75dd11be0b7a6cb4b305a175b17cf4b60cd307c052fccabf9f572950e70583#0).\n\nThis appears to be a somewhat rushed proposal and I am not sure why extra time was taken to clarify key elements ahead of submission. I understand that there has been a “race to the NCL” in 2026 but some of the ambiguities in this proposal are perplexing to say the least.\n\nFirst of all, “Intersect is proposed as interim fund administrator, subject to confirmation and final agreement”. Why was this not confirmed prior to submission? This ambiguity alone pushes this proposal into unconstitutional territory right out of the gate. Naming an administrator “in case they accept” is not the same as having a defined and agreed administrator. DReps are expected to vote on a proposal with a named administrator so that they can verify and vet the appointed administrator if required.\n\nSecondly, the designated receiving address points to the Intersect [ 2025 Treasury Reserve Smart Contract]( https://cardanoscan.io/stakekey/stake17xzc8pt7fgf0lc0x7eq6z7z6puhsxmzktna7dluahrj6g6ghh5qjr). If Intersect has not been confirmed as the administrator, how can the proposer point the treasury withdrawal at Intersects smart contract framework in this proposal?\n\nFurthermore, this is the 2025 smart contract which is the most curious aspect of this whole proposal given that Sundial is one of the co-proposers. All of the treasury withdrawal proposals from the Intersect budget process 2026 point to the [2026 Treasury Reserve Smart Contract]( https://cardanoscan.io/stakekey/stake1784sdxt6jjennmstphgdu7l7c2scf5d02a6cve2dgn5s2kq5u3j9v). Sundial is a part of the recently expanded 2026 Oversight Committee, as listed in all of the Intersect TWGA proposals under “Intersect Budget Management Tooling – Specifics”. This distinction should have been well known and understood by them."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}