Jurgen Proschinger

Congratulations to IO for approving 6 out of 9 proposals! Let's look at the numbers. The approved budget for IO is ₳131,510,093. In dollar terms, at $0.25 per ADA, that's $32.8M. From my perspective, all the important proposals have been approved: ▪️₳27,714,342: IO: Consensus Initiative: ▪️₳13,103,039: IO: Cardano Upgrades ▪️₳3,601,926: IO: DevEx ▪️₳62,134,630: Ensurable Systems ▪️₳13,078,578: High Assurance ▪️₳11,877,575: Enhancing Plutus IO can keep most of the engineers. I heard that IO plans to resubmit the failed proposals. This may not be the final budget. There are still active research (₳32.9M) and Pentad V2 (₳23M) proposals. These have a high chance of approval. In total, it is ~₳56M. According to NCL, it is possible to approve an additional budget totaling ₳150.6M. This is the budget that all active proposals are striving to obtain, whether on-chain or in the Intersect process. These include the Tweag proposal, which will most likely be resubmitted with a 1-year budget. I guess that the team will ask for ₳20M. A liquidity proposal (₳50M) is about to be submitted. Most of the budget will be distributed in on-chain governance. I guess that ₳30M to ₳100M will be distributed in the Intersect process, depending on when the liquidity proposal is submitted and if it is approved. I expect the resubmitted Tweag proposal to be approved. Assuming the liquidity proposal is approved, then in the Intersect process, there can only be approved a budget of about ₳30M to ₳50M. Intersect is asking for ₳25.4M plus additional budget for committees. If DReps support Intersect, there will be almost nothing left for other proposals. Assuming the liquidity proposal is not submitted on time or is not approved, there will be ₳50M more left for others. It is almost certain that Catalyst will not return this year, because there is no budget for it. It would have to be provided by the Cardano Foundation. This is unlikely. This year, small and new builders can only get funding through DAOs: ▪️Innovation & Growth DAO ▪️CB DAO ▪️Tooling DAO, etc I expect there will be efforts to increase NCL. Many DReps are builders, or are close to them. It would have a chance of being approved, but I don't dare to predict the outcome. We have a few exciting weeks ahead of us. Hold on to your hats. It's going to be a ride.

Charles, when every critic becomes a villain, the pattern is not everyone else. The pattern is you. You just listed Optim, Iagon, Cardano Whale, Dave, Rick, Adam and others like this is an "inventory." It is not an inventory. It is a list of people in this ecosystem who have questioned you, disagreed with you, did something you didn't like, challenged IOG, challenged a narrative or refused to act like Cardano governance exists only to ratify what you want. And instead of reflecting on why so many serious people keep ending up on the other side of your megaphone, you reach for the same playbook every time - Dismiss the substance. - Attack the person. - Recast yourself as the victim. - Then tell everyone else to "grow up." So let's take the Iagon part of your "inventory," since you brought us into it. You say Iagon "started bullying and harassing" Midnight ambassadors. That is a convenient story, but it is not what happened. I as a dRep asked a governance question, NOT Iagon. A dRep asked whether people with roles connected to Midnight or IOG linked interests, who also held meaningful dRep voting power, should abstain on IOG related treasury proposals. That is governance. That is literally what dReps are supposed to do - ask hard questions, examine conflicts, protect treasury neutrality and represent the $ADA holders who delegated voting power to them. If a person is participating in governance with delegated $ADA while also holding a role connected to a project or organization affected by that vote, asking about conflicts is not an attack. It is accountability. And let's be very clear - ambassadors are not above scrutiny. dReps are not above scrutiny. Iagon is not above scrutiny. IOG is not above scrutiny. Midnight is not above scrutiny. You are not above scrutiny. This is supposed to be decentralized governance, not a court where certain people get protected status because they are useful to Charles Hoskinson. The moment a person participates in public governance with public voting power, the public is allowed to ask public questions. You did not answer the conflict question. You reframed it as "bullying" - ironically this is exactly what you have been doing in this ecosystem. Then you escalated it into an attack on Iagon, my leadership and the holders. You used your platform to tell the market you had "no more time" for the project unless leadership changed. You warned that Iagon could fail and destroy value for token holders. You called into question the ethics and integrity my leadership. You accused us of acting out of spite rather than engaging with the actual governance concern. And then, after the damage was done, you turned around and said people are "playing the victim." That is not leadership. That is deflection. You cannot threaten a Cardano native project, watch real holders suffer, then accuse the people objecting to the threat of being childish. You cannot say you care about token holders while dismissing "your token holders" when those holders happen to be in a project that challenged you. There are no "Iagon holders" over there and "Cardano holders" over here. $IAG holders are $ADA holders. They are stake pool operators. They are voters. They are dReps. They are builders. They are community members. They are families. They are the same ecosystem you claim to defend. When you attack a Cardano project, you are not attacking some foreign body. You are attacking people inside Cardano. That is the part you keep avoiding. You talk about ambassadors being bullied. Fine. I will say this clearly - I do not condone harassment of any ambassador, volunteer, dRep, builder, SPO or community member. Anyone who crosses into personal abuse should stop. But do not use "protecting ambassadors" as a shield to make governance questions untouchable. Do not use volunteers as human armor around treasury proposals. Do not say "decentralized governance" when the rule is really - vote,but do not question my side - ask question but not about my people - participate but only if you accept the consequences of my platform turning on you. That is not governance. That is intimidation. And since we are talking about red lines, where were those red lines when Iagon was being called a scam? Where were those red lines when IOG aligned voices and consultants were smearing Iagon publicly? Where were those red lines when defamatory claims, racial slurs and personal attacks were being thrown at builders who have spent years building on Cardano? Where was the concern for "bullying" then? The standard cannot be: When your side attacks, it is criticism. When others ask questions, it is harassment. When you escalate, it is leadership. When people respond, they are victims. When you use a 1M+ follower account, it is accountability. When a dRep asks about conflicts, it is a mob. That double standard is exactly why people are speaking up. You say people "lash out, get hit hard and then play the victim." No. People ask legitimate questions. You hit hard. Then you call their injuries proof that they were wrong to ask. That is the pattern. A dRep raises a conflict of interest concern. You call it bullying. A project CEO disagrees with IOG proposals. You call it spite. A community member challenges your narrative. You diagnose them, mock them, block them or write them off. Then, when people notice the pattern, you call them children. Charles, the lack of self-reflection here is breathtaking. At some point, when the same story keeps happening with different people, different projects, different dReps, different critics,and different cycles, maybe the common denominator is not that everyone else is irrational. Maybe the common denominator is that you treat disagreement as disloyalty. Maybe the common denominator is that you confuse criticism with attack. Maybe the common denominator is that you cannot separate Cardano from yourself. That is dangerous in a decentralized ecosystem. Because Cardano does not belong to you. It does not belong to IOG. It does not belong to Iagon. It does not belong to Midnight. It does not belong to any ambassador group, any DRep bloc, any founder, any company or any whale. It belongs to the $ADA holders and the people building, maintaining, securing, voting, delegating, questioning and participating in it. And if those people cannot ask whether conflicts exist without being threatened, mocked, financially harmed or publicly targeted, then governance is not free. You said "grow up kids." Here is the adult version: Answer the question. Should dReps with roles, incentives, payments, affiliations or obligations connected to an organization seeking treasury funds disclose those overlaps and consider abstaining? Yes or no? That was the issue. Not your ego. Not my tone. Not Iagon’s existence. Not whether Midnight ambassadors are good people. Not whether Charles feels attacked. Not whether people should be afraid to ask next time. The question was about conflict, disclosure and treasury integrity. If there is no conflict, explain why. If there is a conflict, disclose it. If abstention is not necessary, make the case. If the Constitution already provides the standard, apply it equally. But do not turn a governance question into a loyalty test. Do not demand apologies for asking what every serious governance system must be willing to ask. Do not pretend you are defending decentralization while using centralized influence to punish dissent. And do not tell people to "grow up" while threatening to burn projects down. The Cardano community should be able to disagree without fear. dReps should be able to vote NO without being branded enemies. Builders should be able to compete without being targeted. Token holders should not become collateral damage in personality conflicts. Ambassadors should be respected, yes. But they should not be used to make legitimate governance scrutiny off limits. So yes, let's take inventory. Who asked a governance question? Who answered with escalation? Who raised a possible conflict? Who turned it into a campaign against a project? Who claims to care about token holders? Who publicly attacked leadership of a project whose holders are also Cardano community members? Who says others play the victim? Who keeps casting himself as the victim whenever accountability arrives? That is the pattern people are seeing. And no amount of "grow up kids" changes it. Iagon will continue building. I will continue voting my conscience as a dRep. I will continue asking questions when treasury neutrality, conflicts of interest and governance integrity are at stake. If I am wrong, answer with facts. If you disagree, make the argument. But threats, mockery, blocks and public intimidation are not arguments. They are the behavior of someone who wants decentralized governance only until it decentralizes power away from him. Cardano deserves better than that.

チャールズさん、メッセージをありがとうございました。私はいかなる理由があってもIORの提案書は決して再提出されることはないことを確認しました。 私の考えではこの中のいくつかの研究はお金の無駄になる可能性が高いと考えていますが、LeiosやPerasや量子耐性などいくつかは必須です。私は分割されて再提出されることを願って、そのいくつかにYESを、そのいくつかのNOを投票したいと考えていました。 しかし、いかなる理由があってもIORの提案書は決して再提出されることはないことが確認できた今、DRepの現在の選択肢は次の２つで、その他の選択肢の交渉の余地はありません、全てを破壊する選択をできないので、私は投票を変更します。 1. IORの現在の提案書を受け入れる。（ PoUW などCardanoエコシステムから見て、優先度の低いと思う内容があっても） 2. IORの現在の提案書を拒否して、LeiosやPerasや量子耐性の全てを研究を捨てて、スケーラビリティとセキュリティを破壊する。