Will Norris | DRep | ₳D₳

Hey, keyboard warrior. Anyone can become a DRep. If you feel that strongly, step up, publish your rationales, and take accountability for your votes.

@c6c6dog @CashAnvil @alphagrowth1 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@CashAnvil @alphagrowth1 Repent! @Cardano_Will hath fallen prey to the DRep "R-word" doom loop. He hath voted NO on the @alphagrowth1 PRIME proposal. x.com/Cardano_Will/s…

Met with the @alphagrowth1 team yesterday and was highly impressed by their knowledge of DeFi and ability to communicate their goals on Cardano. They are the real deal imo, and can help push Cardano to places it has not yet been in terms of DeFi. I still want to do a thorough read through the proposal but I am a YES vote unless I see something that truly is out of line. Make sure to give them a real chance here. This may be the huge Catalyst we need to push Cardano back into the top 5. They are also heavily in favor of pushing RWA markets which directly aligns with our Ticketing proposal with Sellout, and other products we are working on. Not a paid endorsement. No pending contracts. I just actually believe they can make it happen. If you want this to go through that also means raising the NCL. Best of luck to all DReps! tempo.vote/governance-act…

Voting early is important. It gives delegators a chance to review, asses & move. It is essential to liquid democracy. DReps who don't post rationales will feel this more and more as the community matures and evolves around governance. Shocked at some very large DReps who seem to believe posting a rationale is below them.

@Cardano_Will @alphagrowth1 At least Will has come clean about the proposal nice and early. Move to another Drep if you don't agree.

I voted NO on AlphaGrowth's Cardano PRIME proposal. This is not a vote against @alphagrowth1. It is not a vote against DeFi growth. It is not a vote against business development, liquidity, institutional outreach or the idea that Cardano needs to become more ambitious. In fact, I do think Cardano needs a stronger business development function. We need deeper liquidity, stronger DeFi distribution, better integrations, and a clearer strategy for attracting capital and users. And to be fair: PRIME is not a low-effort proposal. It is detailed. It is structurally serious. It includes phases, oversight, reporting, audit/assurance funding and return-to-treasury mechanisms. But the ask is 120,000,000 ADA. That is enormous. A programme of this size should not be approved inside the current treasury framework. My main concern is sequencing. If Cardano is going to consider a 120M ADA DeFi growth and liquidity programme, then the NCL framework should be reformed first. We need: shorter NCL windows category-level budget buckets a defined DeFi/growth allocation strategy for strong and weak ADA markets a sovereign reserve plan stablecoin / non-ADA reserve policy risk limits concentration limits conflict controls independent due diligence public reporting accountability for returns and losses PRIME is not simply critical infrastructure maintenance. It is a large DeFi growth, incentives, liquidity, business development and treasury-capital deployment programme. That may become something Cardano should fund. But it belongs inside a clear growth / DeFi / treasury-investment bucket. Not inside one long, undifferentiated NCL pot. I am not against the Treasury eventually developing a more sophisticated business development or VC-style ecosystem investment function. But that must be built slowly, deliberately and with a clear mandate. A 120M ADA programme should not be the starting point. My view is that AlphaGrowth should work with DReps and the community on NCL reform and treasury architecture first, then resubmit PRIME once the framework is in place. Framework first. Then growth capital. My vote: NO My DRep ID: drep1ytuufvd6maykgfcp20xgpx7g6a9z2suchqehfejwdsx8cgpx80yg

$ADA feels like it’s about to go Boom! Builders are still here. Governance layer is alive. Rails are getting stronger. Narrative is coming back. Quiet conviction is about to get loud. 🚀 Cardano season loading.

Buckets are the most important NCL reform. But window length matters more than people realise. If the window is too long, proposers have a strong incentive to front-run the budget early before the NCL is consumed. That creates pressure for speculative or half-baked asks because teams fear missing the funding window. Shorter NCL windows — maybe 3–4 months — would force more regular prioritisation and reduce the “rush to submit before the pot is gone” dynamic. DReps need this framework too. It is very hard to judge a year of future treasury capacity in one early-cycle pile-up. Better structure: 👉Category budget buckets 👉Shorter NCL windows 👉Defined Strategy for strong and weak ADA markets This means that proposals compete inside their category, ideally alleiveating the rush to front-run. That feels much healthier than a long, undifferentiated, first-come treasury race.

Yes, NCL buckets need to be implemented before any raise to 500M ADA is granted.

Not the intention at all. I'd like every Drep to post ratioanles. I was just trying to define a boundary between a Drep who might be managing funds for freida and family vs a Drep who owes a public rationale to the community. Could have worded it better. My intended point I hope is still valid.

@Cardano_Will This just kinda screams of "if you don't have at least 1 mill in voting power, you aren't important."

To all Dreps who control over 1m ADA in voting weight, Please, please, please publish a rationale. It is so important. To all delegates of a 1m ADA+ Drep, If your DRep isnt providing an explanation for their votes, or interacting with you ahead of time, then please, please, please consider a change. This is the beauty of liquid democracy: drep1ytuufvd6maykgfcp20fxgpx7g6a9z2suchqehfejwdsx8cgpx80yg

Tuchel let us down badly. With a 1-0 lead why on earth would you start playing defensive at the 62nd minute.... Players were great. Manager at fault. We had it in the bag until we gave Argentina a free pass to put as many shots forward as possible. I expect Tuchel will regret this and lose his job over it soon.

Classic #rugby match between #Argentina and #England..... Who knew they played??

Wrong perspective IMO. A business that delivers value will succeed regardless. We are not in the socialist, even communist mindset of picking winners or forcing winners. Crrypto, especially Cardano and somewhat Bitcoin is all about free market libertarian economics. Let that mindset rip through the community.... Treasury funding should only be reserved for core infrastructure that doesnt deliver private gains, we fund these things becuae they need to be done and no business will. At some point when we are more mature we can talk about the treasury enacting a regulated VC function. Until then... No... A new NCL framework needs to come first. Right now you're encouraging pirates and cowboys with your approach.

So you guys are ok with "Fund it or we shut it down!" But not ok with Loans that repay Treasury with interest Or Supporting builders that already have duplicated and improved upon the product. Cardano is doomed because they don't back the obvious winners. $STRIKE $IAG

@jasonappleton @stakenuts Jason - Please start posting rationales. You're a huge voice here - I like you. But you have a responsibility to tell Delgates and Dreps what your thought process is. We would all appreciate you starting to do this.

@stakenuts Anyone saying "Goodbye" doesn't know much about development or how much BF has contributed to on chain Cardano dev. I need to look deeper into this.

To be clear, we won't be continuing Blockfrost without this mandate. We hope the community sees the same opportunity we do: a chance to do API management better (and mostly for the first time, truly decentralized) than most ecosystems have managed. But hope is all we get to bring to this vote. The decision, and whatever comes of it, belongs to the community.

@TheRealWeb3Kat I'd fund core infrastructure only and let entrepreneurs build on a libertarian free market economy for ther own gain rather than rely on the state. Isn't that the whole point of decentralised cryptographic money

Another day, another Cardano Treasury funded project announces they are out of runway and have to close shop. I wonder how much money has been burned funding projects who have never earned a dollar in profit and never will. I suspect this will get worse before it gets better. If you were in charge of the Treasury, what would you do to fix it?

@BELTRAANC @phil_uplc @alphagrowth1 @Cardano When the request is to raise the NCL by 43% and then use 80% of that to fund the largest ever treasury withdrawal I don't think it is unreasonable to argue for implementing a much more comprehensive NCL framework ahead of that.

@Cardano_Will @phil_uplc @alphagrowth1 @Cardano 🙄 Just because you are a DRep doesn’t mean you have to pushback and critique everything. This has nothing to do with reforming the NCL and everything to do with funding Alphagrowth. Sometimes it’s as simple as understanding the mission and getting out of the way.

What does success look like for PRIME? Not just a higher TVL chart. A stronger, more competitive @Cardano DeFi ecosystem. That's what the community is voting on today.

@jasonappleton I couldn't find your rationale for the Yes vote, Jason. I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning if you could.

Voted YES already. Must be done!

I'm very nervous abour this. It has all been done backwards and with a rushed NCL top up. I plan to vote NO and ask for a deliberate restructuring of the NCL ahead of a proposal of this size being put forward again. We can top up the NCL, but first we need spend buckets and a real think about window length and spend strategies for strong and weak markets all embedded in an updated constitution.

I'm looking at the AlphaGrowth proposal. I don't think it is ready for approval yet. My main concern is the authority delegated to an unelected five-member Operating Group (OG). AlphaGrowth formally prepares the funding recommendations, so the OG members are not the proposers. However, the OG serves as a binding approval layer. The release of approximately ₳90M for Phase 3 requires an explicit 3-of-5 affirmative vote from the OG. Only 3. For individual decisions above the ₳400,000 threshold, an AlphaGrowth recommendation proceeds unless at least three OG members veto it within the review window. In other words, fewer than three vetoes authorize execution. The OG has substantial authority over the ₳29M performance-fee reserve. It activates the reserve and approves the final TVL-attribution methodology and baseline after the withdrawal is approved. The performance fee itself is calculated solely from verified qualifying TVL growth. Transaction volume, protocol fees, active users, and longer-term TVL persistence are reported, but they are not separate conditions for earning the performance fee. The responsibility of OG members is therefore high. In my view, the OG should not be appointed as a fixed part of the Treasury withdrawal. DReps should first decide whether to approve PRIME as a program. After that, the OG members should be selected through an open nomination process and elected separately through on-chain governance. I remember that some DReps opposed Elder's liquidity proposal for a similar reason. That proposal plans to request ₳50M and has a nine-member unelected committee. The Strike proposal requests only ₳9M, and they have a three-member administrative structure. In that context, I would expect a ₳120M program with such a broad scope to have a significantly larger and more representative oversight body, perhaps 17 or 21 elected members. I am afraid five members are not enough for a program of this size. The small group creates an unnecessary concentration of authority. It makes the system more vulnerable to capture, conflicts of interest, or simple errors in judgment. This is relevant because one of the main arguments previously used against the Innovation & Growth DAO and other DAO-based funding structures was that too few people would make allocation decisions, the system could be captured, and DRep oversight would become too complex. We have discussed this topic with several DReps, including one OG member. Some of them have repeatedly argued that all Treasury allocations should be processed exclusively through on-chain governance. DReps vote once on the full withdrawal, but they do not directly approve the individual grants, liquidity deployments, or the final Phase 3 allocation plan. The average Treasury allocation processed through on-chain governance is approximately ₳28M. In my view, on-chain governance is not suitable for smaller requests, especially Catalyst-sized grants. Some form of delegated allocation system may therefore be necessary. But if we accept that delegation is necessary, it should be designed with strong legitimacy and diversity. A five-member unelected OG is a weak point of the proposal in this context. This concern is even stronger because PRIME has a very broad mandate. The OG may be expected to assess ecosystem grants, protocol teams, liquidity incentives, DeFi risks, capital deployments, attribution disputes, remediation plans, and AlphaGrowth's performance compensation. The proposal does not meaningfully explain what specific skills and qualifications each OG member brings to these responsibilities. It lists names and affiliations, but it does not provide individual bios, relevant experience, or prior capital-allocation expertise. DReps are being asked to trust the selection rather than being given enough information to evaluate whether the selected group has the skills required for the OG role. For a ₳120M program, including a ₳11M fixed fee and a potential ₳29M performance fee, direct DRep and community control after enactment are too limited. What is your opinion on it? Would you accept the proposal as is?

@phil_uplc @BELTRAANC @alphagrowth1 @Cardano Thank you - you're right. I had thought a parameter change was required. I think we're missing an opportunity to introduce spend allocation buckets and further NCL reform over a simple top up.

@Cardano_Will @BELTRAANC @alphagrowth1 @Cardano The NCL is an info action my guy. It’s established via info action.

@BELTRAANC @alphagrowth1 @Cardano It's an info action

@Cardano_Will @alphagrowth1 @Cardano There is another proposal to raise the NCL for exactly this reason.

@alphagrowth1 Cardano PRIME proposal is now live. At a high level, PRIME is a 12-month DeFi growth programme requesting 120M ADA from the Cardano Treasury. The aim is to grow Cardano DeFi liquidity, TVL, incentives, integrations and institutional awareness. It is designed as a phased programme: first analysing the current state of Cardano DeFi, then identifying gaps, then deploying incentives/capital if release gates are met. The proposal also includes oversight, reporting, audit/assurance funding and return-to-treasury mechanisms. So I want to be fair: This is not a low-effort proposal. It is detailed. It is structurally more serious than many treasury asks. It addresses a real issue: Cardano needs deeper liquidity and stronger DeFi activity. But I do not believe it should pass in its current sequencing. In fact, I think it likely will not, and should not, pass Constitutional Committee review unless the NCL issue is resolved first. The reason is simple: There is currently nowhere near enough NCL headroom for a 120M ADA withdrawal. Until the NCL is validly topped up, this proposal should not be considered constitutional. That is not a judgement on AlphaGrowth’s competence. It is a basic treasury guardrail issue. The launch sequence feels wrong to me. If the programme depends on additional NCL headroom, then the NCL reform/top-up should have been positioned first, clearly and directly, with the Prime proposal following after the community had debated the spending framework. Instead, we now have a major 120M ADA growth proposal landing before Cardano has agreed the treasury architecture needed to evaluate it properly. This is exactly the problem I have been raising. I am not against a top-up for the right reasons. I am not against DeFi growth. I am not against the Treasury eventually acting more strategically. But if Cardano is going to increase the NCL or fund large growth programmes, that should come with real NCL reform: 👉shorter NCL windows 👉pre-agreed budget buckets 👉a defined DeFi/growth allocation 👉market-aware spending strategy 👉stronger weak-market discipline 👉a plan to build reserves in strong ADA markets 👉clear risk controls for treasury investment-style programmes A 120M ADA DeFi growth programme should not be the thing that forces the NCL conversation after the fact. The NCL framework should come first. Then proposals like PRIME can be evaluated inside a clear, agreed category budget. If AlphaGrowth wants to pass something of this scale, I think the way forward is to work with DReps and the community on NCL reform at the same time. Show how this fits into a broader treasury strategy. Show how much of the NCL should go to DeFi/growth. Show how the programme fits alongside infrastructure, wallets, tooling, governance, reserves and other priorities. Show how Cardano avoids simply expanding the ceiling whenever a large ask arrives. My view: PRIME may be serious. PRIME may be well-structured. PRIME may even point toward a real strategic need. But until the NCL is properly topped up and the framework around that top-up is agreed, it should not be considered constitutional. Framework first. Then growth capital. Reform the NCL before expanding the ceiling. My DRep ID: drep1ytuufvd6maykgfcp20xgpx7g6a9z2suchqehfejwdsx8cgpx80yg