EMURGO supports this perspective, grounded in @krissbaird’s experiences with Catalyst. For those who prefer 39 separate treasury withdrawal governance actions for each approved budget proposal, consider the following, which will negatively impact builders, potentially burden some DReps, and ultimately result in the unnecessary gridlock of Cardano's ecosystem progress. Here’s the reality: 🔹Many of these 39 proposals have already been approved by a strong majority of DReps and are very likely to be approved for withdrawals in the next voting round. Still, if 39 individual withdrawals are the selected method, then Intersect would need to do the following (Some DReps may not be fully aware of this at the moment): 🔹Spend multiple hours preparing and posting each treasury withdrawal governance action on-chain. This is all before any on-chain DRep voting for each proposal even gets underway. 🔹This is the approximate equivalent of more than 2 full working weeks of just admin work. This causes unfairness & inefficiency: 🔹Due to the preparations required, it is impossible to post governance actions for all proposals on the same day. 🔹While prioritizing the order of posting could be considered, doing so would risk compromising impartiality. 🔹Additionally, governance actions posted earlier tend to attract more attention, whereas those posted later may be overlooked. Other side effects include: 🔹Fragmented approvals of certain projects. 🔹Inability to hire and procure the required resources to build. 🔹Missed delivery timelines. As we mentioned before, this isn’t about a rush to judgment and start approving. Rather, we need a balanced and efficient process that accounts for current practical conditions, realistic expectations, and the need for community input, while focusing on the ultimate goal of continuing the fast-paced development of Cardano’s ecosystem. Voting ends soon on Tuesday, June 10, at 23:59 UTC. Submit your vote now 👉 https://intersect.ekklesia.vote/