[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Cardano YOD₳ [@JaromirTesar](/creator/twitter/JaromirTesar) on x 12.8K followers Created: 2025-07-22 17:24:06 UTC You are asking me about The Cardano Builder DAO (CB DAO), which I voted NO for. This project deserves a longer rationale. The CB DAO is a member-led funding system focused on supporting live, high-impact apps that drive user adoption and on-chain activity. It fills the gap between early-stage funding from Project Catalyst and long-term support for active products. Current members are Minswap, FluidTokens, Vespr, Iagon, Gero, Anvil, Xerberus, $handle, Tokeo, Indigo, Sundae Lab, TapTools, and many others. Many teams have excellent reputations. When I looked at who was a member and what the DAO decided, their website asked me to register and purchase tokens. I refused to register. Why do we need another DAO when we have on-chain governance? As a DRep, I want to control all expenses and control the treasury through processes that I know. I appreciate the current system where teams submit governance actions with clear funding requests and deliverables—it brings transparency and accountability. All DReps can participate. It is the best we can have. Why do I have to buy a token as a DRep to get information about how the DAO manages ADA from the Treasury? Amaru received funding. DReps decide on TempoVote and Govtool. They are now voting on XX withdrawals and the turnout is surprisingly high. In my opinion, we don't need to build new, less transparent layers in governance. DReps currently work without compensation. But will DAO members be rewarded for managing 12M ADA in Treasury funds? Their proposal doesn’t say. It also fails to explain how the 12M ADA will be used. Is it for operating costs, development, research, or liquidity? The details are included, but still relatively vague. Catalyst has already helped launch many applications. If those apps are successful, they should be generating revenue—enough to cover their own costs, fund further development, and support infrastructure without relying on large Treasury withdrawals. Some projects are not commercial in nature and do not generate revenue, but they are important. I understand that. It’s reasonable for Treasury ADA to fund new business development. But it’s not acceptable for it to subsidize costs that should be covered by profitable applications—especially if teams are boosting their own earnings while relying on public funds. I’m not claiming this is going to happen, but the CB DAO proposal gives off that impression. The lack of clarity around how the 12M ADA will be used raises concerns about accountability and fairness. If I were to support another DAO as a responsible DRep, I’d likely need to join it to help maintain oversight. Ideally, more DReps should be involved to share that responsibility. DReps’ responsibility shouldn’t stop at approving governance actions—they should also follow up on how teams manage the funds and whether they deliver on their promises. That kind of accountability is crucial when evaluating future funding requests from the same project. The most transparent approach is when a team submits a governance action themselves, clearly stating what the funds are for. This allows all DReps to make informed decisions about whether to support the proposal. As for DAOs that require DReps to register and buy a token just to participate—that’s a dealbreaker for me. Governance should be open and inclusive, not gated by financial barriers. I see how CB DAO could help cut through bureaucracy and speed up fund distribution—but I’m not convinced that’s actually their intention. Their proposal doesn’t clearly show that efficiency is the priority, which leaves room for doubt about what they’re really aiming to achieve. I’m not here to oppose the Cardano Builder DAO. It’s backed by many respected teams, which shows they see value in the idea and understand its purpose. Let's talk about whether we want to build new DAOs and bypass Cardano on-chain governance. I’m open to changing my view—if someone shares clear, relevant information and if DReps can join the DAO without needing to purchase a token. That kind of openness and accessibility is important to me.  XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [longterm](/topic/longterm) [onchain](/topic/onchain) [adoption](/topic/adoption) [coins dao](/topic/coins-dao) [cardano](/topic/cardano) [coins layer 1](/topic/coins-layer-1) [coins made in usa](/topic/coins-made-in-usa) [coins cardano](/topic/coins-cardano) [Post Link](https://x.com/JaromirTesar/status/1947709250366582849)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Cardano YOD₳ @JaromirTesar on x 12.8K followers
Created: 2025-07-22 17:24:06 UTC
You are asking me about The Cardano Builder DAO (CB DAO), which I voted NO for.
This project deserves a longer rationale.
The CB DAO is a member-led funding system focused on supporting live, high-impact apps that drive user adoption and on-chain activity.
It fills the gap between early-stage funding from Project Catalyst and long-term support for active products.
Current members are Minswap, FluidTokens, Vespr, Iagon, Gero, Anvil, Xerberus, $handle, Tokeo, Indigo, Sundae Lab, TapTools, and many others.
Many teams have excellent reputations.
When I looked at who was a member and what the DAO decided, their website asked me to register and purchase tokens. I refused to register.
Why do we need another DAO when we have on-chain governance?
As a DRep, I want to control all expenses and control the treasury through processes that I know.
I appreciate the current system where teams submit governance actions with clear funding requests and deliverables—it brings transparency and accountability.
All DReps can participate. It is the best we can have.
Why do I have to buy a token as a DRep to get information about how the DAO manages ADA from the Treasury?
Amaru received funding. DReps decide on TempoVote and Govtool. They are now voting on XX withdrawals and the turnout is surprisingly high.
In my opinion, we don't need to build new, less transparent layers in governance.
DReps currently work without compensation. But will DAO members be rewarded for managing 12M ADA in Treasury funds? Their proposal doesn’t say.
It also fails to explain how the 12M ADA will be used. Is it for operating costs, development, research, or liquidity? The details are included, but still relatively vague.
Catalyst has already helped launch many applications.
If those apps are successful, they should be generating revenue—enough to cover their own costs, fund further development, and support infrastructure without relying on large Treasury withdrawals.
Some projects are not commercial in nature and do not generate revenue, but they are important. I understand that.
It’s reasonable for Treasury ADA to fund new business development. But it’s not acceptable for it to subsidize costs that should be covered by profitable applications—especially if teams are boosting their own earnings while relying on public funds.
I’m not claiming this is going to happen, but the CB DAO proposal gives off that impression. The lack of clarity around how the 12M ADA will be used raises concerns about accountability and fairness.
If I were to support another DAO as a responsible DRep, I’d likely need to join it to help maintain oversight. Ideally, more DReps should be involved to share that responsibility.
DReps’ responsibility shouldn’t stop at approving governance actions—they should also follow up on how teams manage the funds and whether they deliver on their promises.
That kind of accountability is crucial when evaluating future funding requests from the same project.
The most transparent approach is when a team submits a governance action themselves, clearly stating what the funds are for. This allows all DReps to make informed decisions about whether to support the proposal.
As for DAOs that require DReps to register and buy a token just to participate—that’s a dealbreaker for me.
Governance should be open and inclusive, not gated by financial barriers.
I see how CB DAO could help cut through bureaucracy and speed up fund distribution—but I’m not convinced that’s actually their intention.
Their proposal doesn’t clearly show that efficiency is the priority, which leaves room for doubt about what they’re really aiming to achieve.
I’m not here to oppose the Cardano Builder DAO. It’s backed by many respected teams, which shows they see value in the idea and understand its purpose.
Let's talk about whether we want to build new DAOs and bypass Cardano on-chain governance.
I’m open to changing my view—if someone shares clear, relevant information and if DReps can join the DAO without needing to purchase a token. That kind of openness and accessibility is important to me.
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics longterm onchain adoption coins dao cardano coins layer 1 coins made in usa coins cardano