Don’t really want to make it a habit to comment on every vote, especially off-chain ones. But briefly on the 39 vs grouped proposals vote currently happening, where I voted for putting all individual proposals on-chain: Not everything in governance is going to be a case of wheeling and dealing. There are some early signs that point to groups that were formerly at the center of things envisioning it will go something like this: - They know what’s best for the chain - We have a vote where they urge people to vote for the “best for the chain” option - Outreach behind the scenes to massage in the “best for the chain” option - Founding entities vote for the “best for the chain” option at a strategic time On the contrary, we are all different people with different beliefs and value systems. My stances have been pretty clear: pro decentralisation (that includes doing things on-chain btw), Cardano must scale, fiscally cautious and at all costs don’t want to play with monetary policy if it can be avoided. So I voted against the highest NCLs, I voted against the 275m budget, against changing the treasury accrual rate from fees. I will also vote against bucketing treasury withdrawals based on extra-governance voting outcomes. Some may say that means I’m an unconstructive player in governance. On the contrary. If the votes had been for a 200m NCL, a 150m budget and within that bucketing things in a bunch of small and highly correlated different withdrawals - I would have been able to vote YES on everything. It’s not that I am not pragmatic either. I hope all votes can be done on-chain, yet have tirelessly voted on all the off-chain stuff being developed, simply because I accept you have to participate to have an opinion. I chose not to obstruct Intersect deliberately. I upvoted an NCL that was the lowest option put to a vote, despite still finding it high-ish. Stuff like that. But as far as I am concerned, I represent close to 1000 people that think in the same way. And I know other DReps represent thousands too with the same mindset. Maybe we are a minority, in which case it doesn’t matter what we think anyway. Please proceed. But if you find that we are constantly in the way of things you want to push through, maybe instead of as an opponent to defeat you should see us more as a natural constraint you need to work with. Pushing a high NCL, a high budget, bucketed spending and just powering through will be a frustrating ride. Political tactics are not really going to work here either. We simply exist, we don’t want to overspend and dilute ADA, we want things done on-chain. If that means half of the 39 proposals don’t make it, maybe because not getting enough votes, not even having the capacity to put it to a vote on-chain, or because the order causes people to forget about some votes, then that is just the natural result of what ADA holders want. Meanwhile it’s obvious what will pass: IOG and core development type of stuff. We have also seen alternative nodes getting through. If people hypothetically speaking put proposals on-chain to have Binance and Coinbase list native tokens today for 5m ADA, I’m sure it will pass. 10m ADA spend to get USDC on-chain? 25m to get Cardano 10k TPS this year? People will fall over themselves to upvote it. A lot of less impactful stuff is simply going to have a harder time. This is a new era of Cardano, make your peace with that and work with it. The treasury is guarded.