{
  "@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 voted YES on the proposal to reimburse the Ikigai governance action deposit.\n\nI initially withheld my vote because I did not believe the proposal, on its own, provided enough evidence to justify reimbursement from the Cardano Treasury. When treasury funds are involved, especially in cases involving an individual loss or mistaken transaction, I believe DReps should require clear and independently verifiable evidence before approving reimbursement.\n\nFollowing additional discussion, supporting information was provided that clarified the relationship between the original governance action, the deposit address, and the relevant withdrawal activity. After reviewing that information, I believe there is sufficient evidence to establish that the reimbursement request is legitimate.\n\nIt is also important to distinguish between a protocol failure and user error.\n\nBased on the information provided, this does not appear to have been a Cardano protocol bug or a failure of the governance system itself. Rather, the loss appears to have resulted from user error within functionality that is operating according to the current CIP-1694 design and specification.\n\nThat distinction materially affected my decision.\n\nI do not believe the Cardano Treasury should become an automatic insurance mechanism for mistakes made by users. Establishing such an expectation could create an unhealthy precedent in which ordinary operational errors are routinely transferred to the broader community.\n\nHowever, governance also requires judgment. Not every situation can be reduced to a rigid rule without considering the specific facts involved.\n\nIn this instance, the circumstances have been documented sufficiently, the relevant transactions and addresses can be examined, and the amount being requested corresponds to the governance action deposit involved. I therefore believe reimbursement is reasonable and proportionate.\n\nMy support should not be interpreted as establishing a general policy that every lost governance deposit should be reimbursed. Future requests should continue to be evaluated individually and should meet a meaningful evidentiary standard.\n\nAt minimum, I believe reimbursement requests should demonstrate:\n\nA clearly identifiable governance action and deposit.\nVerifiable transaction history linking the funds to the claimant.\nA credible explanation of how the funds became inaccessible or were lost.\nEvidence sufficient for independent review by DReps and the community.\nA reimbursement amount directly tied to the demonstrated loss.\nNo indication of fraud, manipulation, or an attempt to shift ordinary financial risk onto the Treasury.\n\nThis proposal now satisfies those concerns sufficiently for me.\n\nAn important part of responsible governance is also being willing to change a preliminary position when new evidence becomes available. My initial concern was the absence of adequate supporting information. Once members of the community provided additional context and evidence, continuing to oppose the proposal simply because I had previously expressed skepticism would have served no useful governance principle.\n\nDRep voting should be based on evidence, not attachment to an earlier position.\n\nFor those reasons, I believe approving this reimbursement is fair, reasonable, and consistent with responsible treasury governance.\n\nVote: YES"
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}