Since the capitulation is complete @phillip_pon and we have decided to kick the can down the road, does this mean there isnt an actual problem? What in your mind holds people accountable for their obvious missteps lately managing not only their companies but also Cardano? We had one success outside of the sale of vouchers in Japan and the eventual listing of Ada on major exchanges creating value for the ada holder ( I know Charles there has been many technical successes) and that's the 84 days it took us to build the international airport to unlock inter-blockchain commerce with the Pentad and that wasn't with one person thankfully but instead a group together, who respected each other enough to not go out and publicly blow shit up when it wasn't going exactly as it was planned. Will need a plan from @emurgo_io and the rest of the Pentad that will actually involve the governance side at Intersect in a real way. Problems I see currently in my limited vieew. 1. @JBriggsLondon is on the Pentad as a non voting member this is a problem, there is no accountability there, no checks and balances. When egos are involved it is never a good idea to allow 3 of the five to dominate and vote thru all the "Great " ideas you have. 7 members voting on the Pentads strategic moves are key to avoiding failures due to the lack of real oversight Solution: make Jack the chair of the Pentad as he represents the MBO as ED, add 2 non FE employee voting members. We have a structure in place already so one person from the board and one person from the steering committee, since I am writing this I most likely need to recuse myself from being a member due to any smack of bias or desire for control. 2. Cardano governance is distributed across ada owners, DReps, SPOs, and the Constitutional Committee, with no single person or entity given unilateral authority. Official Constitution link: cardano.org/constitution/ We have one decentralized Cardano with a constitution which means there is no actual leader, this doesn't mean we don't have a singular voice when it comes to disseminating information to the ada holder (our actual boss/leader/precious resource). Unless directly authorized, no more reactive youtube videos making unilateral statements that appear to represent us all, when in fact it is the furthest thing from that. Yes he is a leader here, yes he has done many great things and been extraordinarily gracious with his time and financial support but its not a good idea when you have just gone thru the largest single business setback in your life and then o go onto youtube and speak your truth, no matter how much he is hurt or angry or sad he is at that very moment, its not respectful to all of us working here and totally unprofessional and quite frankly should be beneath him yet he still goes out and pulls the trigger to all of our proverbial heads in the process 3. Structurally the current governance structure for the Mbo needs to change and there need to be guardrails in place that keep people honest, have strong suggestions on whats acceptable when it comes to their role and responsibility as a voting member. Proper removal procedures that have teeth and keep people accountable, this isnt a social club its a 1st of its kind decentralized governance model and it requires dedicated people following policies that let them know their time is valuable to us, as well as holding those to their initial commitment when they applied for the voting seat (respect your peers and their time and the entire body flourishes. Theres are more but the last thing we need is more of the same, the question is does anyone have the moxie to follow thru? Help me out here @phillip_pon @F_Gregaard @IOHK_Charles @F_ZK_Now let me know if I'm wrong here and I will shut up and stop talking. I have a great deal of respect for all of you but after 7 years I am tired of seeing us flounder, its frustrating as hell and is becoming a super difficult discussion with my wife on our financial exposure here if I'm being really honest For reach @ItsDave_ADA @Jaromirtesaar @adamKDean

What if Cardano became the backbone of global agriculture? The 5am earth proposal could bring: 2M monthly active users 7–10M monthly transactions Up to $1.2B in ecosystem contribution All driven by real farmers, real commodities, and real agriculture workflows on Cardano. This is what mainstream adoption looks like.

After four years of building for Cardano, today we have difficult news to share.

Before we start blaming DReps, the community, fatigue, price action, or anything else, I want to give what I think is fair feedback on what went wrong with the proposal, why it failed to pass in the first place, and how this could have been avoided. Instead of becoming something positive that the community could be excited about, the proposal turned into something people rolled their eyes at. It even became one of those proposals where the community used the vote to make a point about where it stands with founding entities. In my opinion, this could have been avoided if the process had been handled correctly. How it started On November 13th, 2025, during the closing remarks of the Berlin Cardano Summit 2025, @F_Gregaard revealed that the next summit would happen in Singapore on October 5 and 6, around the time of TOKEN2049. This was actually a good decision. It showed that the @Cardano_CF understood the need to get in front of the right crowd. We do not need to go too deep into that, but I do not think many people had an issue with the location or timing. There was also a good balance between having the 2025 summit in Berlin, which gave many of us “eurepoors” a fairly accessible location to attend, while already knowing that the next one would be a bit more prestigious and internationally focused. Up to this point, there were no real mistakes. Where things started going wrong Unfortunately, the mistakes started after that. From November to March, there was basically nothing. No communication, no community involvement, and no visible public process. It felt like silent work by one corporation preparing an event and a treasury proposal behind closed doors. In my opinion, this was the most crucial period, and it is where the proposal failed before voting even started. That time should have been used not only to prepare the summit, but also to actively involve the community. If conversations were happening, they should not have been behind closed doors. They should have been public. There should have been open AMAs with key builders, community members, and ecosystem participants. There should have been feedback rounds about what could be improved from previous years and what people wanted to see from the next summit. Honestly, there should have been at least three or four smaller, connected PUBLIC sessions each month. That would have communicated two important things to the community: that you were present, and that you cared. It would also have helped set expectations early. Even if you did not have exact numbers, you likely had ballpark figures in USD, since you were already working on the proposal. Sharing those early would have helped prepare the community for what was coming later in the year. You could have used spaces, streams, open forms, and one-to-one calls with important community figures to turn the summit into something positive, as it should be. During those feedback rounds, I think you would also have learned that one of the things you should have done was invite a few people and projects from the community to Singapore so they could be represented. Whether that meant free tickets, or a more tailored opportunity such as covered travel and accommodation, I do not think many people would have had an issue with it. Even if it increased the cost, most people would agree that having those people and projects at the summit would be beneficial (crucial) and would improve the ROI of the event. Instead, what the community got was early-bird discounts and one blog post on March 3rd, looking back at the previous year. In that post, you also stated that some things for the 2026 summit had already been covered from 2025 summit revenue, and that you would again need to open a treasury withdrawal for the next year. So, to sum up the period from November to March: you failed to communicate, you failed to work with the community, you failed to understand your own community, and you failed to set expectations for an important proposal. The result? No Cardano Summit in 2026. The April proposal Then, after all of that, and after already losing five months, April 9th arrived and the first proposal was published as a joint proposal with @emurgo_io/@phillip_pon. The exact decision-making process behind that joint proposal is unclear to me. I could speculate, but honestly, meh. The important point is that this was the version the community first had to react to. The wording was essentially: if this does not pass, we will not make any changes, and there will be no summit this year. I have to ask: are you mad? Do you live in this community with the rest of us? I will not call out specific people or entities, but do you understand that the community has had enough of feeling like it is being held in a chokehold by people or entities above it? In my opinion, this was the second biggest issue with the proposal. Maybe if that announcement had been worded better, with a deeper explanation of what, why, and how, and with more transparency, you would not have faced such a strong backlash. But there it was, backlash. The reaction came too late I also want to point out your reaction after April 9th. You were silent for several months, and only after receiving backlash did you become more proactive. We then saw FAQs, spaces, more posts from CF, and more communication from involved individuals. Honestly, you have to understand how that looked. At that point, it was too little, too late. The sudden activity and care came across as fake and dishonest, as if it was only happening to get the proposal passed. Then came another issue. After strongly stating that you would not resubmit, you resubmitted anyway, and quite quickly. It was only during the early UTC AMA spaces that I understood why: vendors were chasing you, and you needed to lock the venue and make payments. You were forced into a corner, so of course you had to resubmit around April 28/29th. But honestly, even if the proposal ask had dropped by 50 to 60%, I do not think it would have passed. The damage had already been done. You cannot go back in time and fix months of silence, inactivity, and blindness toward your own community. After forcing the proposal onto the community in quite an aggressive way, the damage was already done. Even if you listened during that short window, it was too late. Again, this could have been entirely avoided. The second proposal was not enough I also want to add that changing the proposal was not enough. There were some small pushes and some communication, but from April to late May, you were again fairly silent and inactive. It felt like you thought you had done your work, made an easy fix, and could move on. No. You should have been campaigning and working on getting the proposal passed every day and night (actually every single day 24/7, no breaks, no weekends) from the April resubmission until the voting deadline on May 29th. That might have changed the result. You did make some good decisions, such as abstaining from voting, but even that felt reactionary to backlash. At that point, I think you understood that voting for yourselves would do more harm than good, even if it meant the proposal would not pass. But again, all of this could have been avoided. Final thoughts To sum up, it is a real shame that there will be no summit in 2026. The intention was good, and the value created could have been real. But the proposal should never have passed in the way it was handled. I hope you learn from this and understand where the mistakes were made. It is not all because price is down bad, and therefore people do not want spending. Spending and investment into Cardano are important, even during a bear market, and this was one of the initiatives that had potential for real returns. But you failed to set expectations. And maybe, for the first time, you got a real taste of the impact that can have on your operations. Hopefully, 2027 will be better. There is plenty of time. But let this be a warning: if you come back in six months with another blog post saying how sad it was that we skipped 2026, and that here is a new proposal to vote on because we cannot miss two years in a row, it will fail again.

Mid last year this document was circulated internally within @IntersectMBO, with feedback from different members on the wording incorporated. docs.google.com/document/d/1… The idea was to publish this to get input from all members about how they want their MBO to contribute to #Cardano. Sadly, the focus of these questions were watered down into a larger end of year questionnaire, so no meaningful insights were obtained. @JBriggsLondon and the board (@AdamRusch @OfficialKavinda @M3RSEE @RareRandCorp) could you please advise when some attention will be given to members needs, rather than focusing on trying to service the entire Cardano ecosystem?

cardano's "governance" has been turned into a complete joke. it will never be taken seriously after this level of corruption. they just used genesis tokens in a bunch of burner wallets (tracked and proven) and voting power forcefully taken from Yoroi wallet users to vote for their own paid vacation. that's what this really is, do not fool yourself into thinking ADA will go up in value magically after this trip, or that the number of devs/token holders/users will rise even remotely significantly. this makes us all look like complete idiots for thinking governance could be distributed appropriately, or that the founding entities could have even a shred of awareness of the optics of their own greed. fucking disgusting.