We’ve given some thought to digest the results of our “Asking for a friend” polls. While it’s clear that the community believes the ADA price should be factored into withdrawal amounts for approved proposals, it is inconclusive on what the preferred method of withdrawal should be. As mentioned, this actually is a good signal for the ecosystem since it reflects the community’s earnest desire for accountability and commitment to strengthening Cardano. Thus, we’d like to share some of our opinions on this matter and hopefully bring up some other tidbits that the community may have overlooked or not taken into account when voting. The withdrawal method garnering the most votes was conducting 39 separate ones (one for each approved budget proposal). On the surface, this seems like a rather straightforward process. However, it’s not as simple as that. In fact, submitting 39 separate governance actions to approve every single withdrawal would prove to be very burdensome and costly, requiring 3.9 million ADA in deposits, slowing funding for vendors, and bogging down Cardano’s overall governance processes with the amount of additional responsibilities placed on Intersect and the ICC. Looking at the second most voted option - withdrawals batched by proposal category - may prove to be more balanced, manageable, and efficient from a time and resource perspective. It can strike a middle ground between upholding the community’s wishes for more oversight while avoiding additional administrative processes that can stall necessary funding to approved budget vendors. So, with these considerations in mind, we’d like to “Ask for a friend” again: ❓ Should Treasury Withdrawals work using a batched method? (either grouped by category or by Ekklesia bracket)