Anchor document

{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "authors": {
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@context": {
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature",
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:witness"
        }
      },
      "@id": "CIP100:authors"
    },
    "body": {
      "@context": {
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates"
        },
        "references": {
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@context": {
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest"
              },
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash"
            },
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri"
          },
          "@id": "CIP100:references"
        }
      },
      "@id": "CIP100:body"
    },
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256",
  "body": {
    "comment": "This was a very difficult decision to make, but I have chosen to abstain from this Budget Info Action. This proposal is undeniably ambitious and represents **a tremendous effort by Intersect and the broader community** to coordinate funding for 39 initiatives that support the Cardano 2025 Vision and Roadmap — a proposal I previously voted in favor of. I also recognize that at the time of voting, most DReps appear to be leaning toward approval, suggesting a clear mandate to proceed. My abstention should therefore not be mistaken as opposition to progress, but rather as a principled response to the way this proposal has been structured and processed.\n\nI genuinely support many of the individual projects listed — including the IOE Core Development Plan and the Catalyst 2025 proposal — and I want to see them succeed. They are well-aligned with Cardano’s strategic goals, include detailed deliverables and in many cases incorporate smart contract oversight and milestone-based disbursements. The overarching budget proposal itself adheres to Article IV of the Constitution, sets clear temporal scope (73 epochs), identifies an Administrator (Intersect) and does not authorize immediate spending — each Treasury Withdrawal still requires its own governance action.\n\nHowever, the all-or-nothing bundling of 39 proposals into a single vote is a fundamental limitation **that prevents me from supporting or opposing individual initiatives on their own merits**. This format forces DReps to overlook important distinctions between project scopes, budgets and execution risks. Furthermore, Intersect’s dual role — both as the intake facilitator and appointed Administrator — from the information currently available lacks sufficient definition of its vetting procedures, dispute mechanisms and long-term accountability. While I respect Intersect’s contributions, this ambiguity raises valid governance concerns.\n\nThe proposal also relies heavily on off-chain temperature checks via Ekklesia, which, although anchored on-chain via a hash, remain unverifiable in terms of voter identity and weight. As we evolve our governance systems, more transparency and traceability must be built directly into the on-chain process. Additionally, the 275M ADA requested consumes nearly the entire 350M Net Change Limit currently in effect — leaving limited fiscal agility for emergent or late-year proposals.\n\nIn short, my abstention reflects conditional support for the broader vision but urges a higher standard for governance design. Going forward, I would like to see proposals of this nature handled with more granularity, modular voting options, clearly defined administrator roles, and verifiable participation mechanisms. These enhancements would empower DReps to make more informed decisions and strengthen the legitimacy of governance outcomes across the ecosystem.\n"
  }
}