As a DRep, I decided to vote YES for the proposal: Tweag Core Cardano Infrastructure: Treasury Withdrawal 2026-2027. My rationale: My previous vote on the earlier version of this proposal was NO. The major reason was that Tweag was asking for a two-year budget, which I considered unfair to other submitters asking for funding. This issue has now been resolved. I consider all three work packages important. Peras is important for faster finality and a better user experience. History Expiry is important for long-term node sustainability and SPO costs, especially if Cardano throughput increases in the future. Conformance Testing is important because protocol upgrades such as Peras and Leios must be delivered safely, with strong testing and validation infrastructure. My main concern remains the milestone structure. The proposal says that milestones, acceptance criteria, payment amounts, and delivery dates will be defined later in the legal contract between Tweag and Intersect. This means DReps are being asked to approve the treasury withdrawal before reviewing the full milestone-level detail. In my view, this should be fixed in future proposals. DReps should be able to review milestones before voting, especially for large infrastructure budgets. I accept this structure in this case mainly because Tweag has a strong track record in Cardano core infrastructure. However, this requires trust that Intersect will ensure the contract is well defined, with clear deliverables, acceptance criteria, reporting requirements, and refund conditions. One broader concern is that core Cardano infrastructure funding is now distributed across multiple entities. Some work packages that were historically delivered within, or closely connected to, IO are now being funded through separate proposals from other specialist teams such as Tweag. This may be a reasonable delivery model, especially when the teams have the right expertise, but it also makes it harder for DReps to understand the total annual cost of Cardano core infrastructure. For that reason, I believe future infrastructure planning should provide a clearer combined view of expected funding needs across IO, Tweag, and other core contributors. This should ideally be available before DReps approve the 2027 Net Change Limit (NCL), so the community can assess treasury capacity with a full picture rather than evaluating each proposal in isolation. For the next funding cycle, it would be helpful if both IO and Tweag communicated their expected future budget needs early. I would appreciate it if Intersect could coordinate this process and help provide DReps with a clearer overview of the expected infrastructure funding pipeline before the NCL is approved. I support this resubmitted proposal and vote YES. If you'd like to support my work, consider delegating to the MANDA pool and backing me as a DRep. Your support is the only way I can get time for governance. MANDA Pool ID: pool1c3fjkls7d2aujud8y5xy5e0azu0ueatwn34u7jy3ql85ze3xya8 My DRep ID: drep1y2m0g4r66pyaw3p7u454wc0p4f0ygm8ueaev0mgd3tvwm7sskqwqp