Referendum 90: Should Vara Have Its Own Treasury? Here's What You're Actually Voting On.

Well, we've got another referendum on the table, and this one's asking a pretty fundamental question about the future of the Vara Network.

Should the Vara community have its own treasury?

That's Referendum 90, currently open for voting under Vara's General Admin governance track.

The idea is simple enough: establish whether VARA holders want a network-owned pool of funds whose spending decisions are governed by community referendums.

Not whether we should spend millions of VARA on something. Not whether a particular developer deserves a grant. Not whether anybody gets to wander off with a fat bag of tokens.

Just whether the community wants a treasury in the first place.

And before anybody starts reaching for their pitchforks, it's worth understanding what this vote does—and, perhaps more importantly, what it doesn't.

Wait. Doesn't Vara Already Have a Treasury?

Technically, yes.

The Vara runtime already includes treasury functionality and governance tracks for making spending decisions.

The plumbing exists.

But having the machinery installed isn't the same thing as having an operational, funded, community-controlled treasury with established rules for how the money gets there and how it gets spent.

Referendum 90 is asking whether holders want to pursue that arrangement.

Think of it as asking whether we want to open a community checking account before anybody starts arguing about who gets the checkbook.

Which, if you've ever been involved in organizational governance, is probably a sensible order in which to have those conversations.

What Does a Community Treasury Actually Mean?

In principle, a treasury would provide a pool of resources that VARA holders could collectively direct toward things the network needs.

Depending on future proposals, that might include developer grants, ecosystem infrastructure, educational initiatives, tooling, community programs, or other approved activities.

Those are examples of possible uses, not spending categories approved by Referendum 90.

The essential idea is that the network's holders would participate in determining how shared resources are allocated.

That's an interesting proposition for a decentralized ecosystem.

It also raises some questions that Referendum 90 deliberately leaves unanswered.

Where would the money come from?

Would it be funded by an existing allocation, future revenue, or some other mechanism?

How much would be available?

Who could submit spending proposals? What safeguards would apply? How would recipients demonstrate that the money was used as promised?

And what happens when somebody proposes something spectacularly stupid?

Those are not insignificant details.

But they're also questions that can be addressed through subsequent proposals, rather than pretending a short initial referendum has already settled them.

This vote is straightforward. Do we want this treasury thing?

If we do, this vote will record that sentiment. Then we can get to work on exactly what that will look like sometime later.

But if the community DOES NOT want a Vara treasury, there's no need to spend time, effort, and code designing how one would work.

And that's a perfectly useful thing to establish before somebody starts writing software.

What Happens If You Vote Aye?

An Aye vote supports the principle of establishing a community-governed Vara treasury.

It tells the network that you support pursuing the idea.

It does not approve a particular amount of funding, authorize a transfer, select anyone to administer the funds, or establish detailed spending rules.

Those would require separate decisions.

What Happens If You Vote Nay?

A Nay vote rejects the treasury principle as presented in this referendum.

It does not eliminate the treasury software already present in the Vara runtime, confiscate funds, or permanently prevent someone from proposing a different treasury arrangement in the future.

It means this particular consultation does not receive your support.

Neither option automatically creates or removes an operational treasury.

Here's the Engineering Detail Worth Understanding

Referendum 90 is a text-based governance consultation.

Its verified onchain call is system.remark, containing a reference to the proposal's text.

For the non-engineers: that means the referendum records a governance statement on the blockchain. It doesn't execute treasury transactions or modify the network's operating rules.

For the engineers: no, there isn't a sneaky treasury.spend hiding in the call tree.

That's an important distinction.

The result may establish a publicly recorded community preference, but getting from that preference to an operational treasury would require additional, concrete implementation decisions.

The code and the intention are not the same thing.

What Do the Votes Look Like Right Now?

At our October 22 check, Subsquare showed the following voting figures:

The vote is currently in its Deciding phase.

At first glance, 100% approval looks rather impressive.

But there's a second number worth considering.

The reported support capital is only about 0.00034% of the approximately 10.15 billion VARA issued.

That's not exactly a stampede to the voting booth.

And it illustrates why approval percentage and participation are two different things.

A proposal can have unanimous support among participating votes while representing a very small portion of the network's available economic stake.

Also, these are not necessarily 34,725 individual tokens cast by 34,725 people. OpenGov uses conviction-weighted voting, and the weight of votes can differ from the underlying capital.

The figures above are a snapshot, not a final result. The tally can change as additional holders participate.

And more importantly, this vote is still EARLY in its Deciding phase.

You still have plenty of time to make yourself heard onchain.

How Long Do You Have to Vote?

Referendum 90 was submitted on October 19 and entered its decision period on October 20, 2026.

Its General Admin decision window is 14 days, placing the ordinary decision-period deadline at approximately:

November 3, 2026, at 09:27 UTC — 4:27 AM Eastern Standard Time.

As of October 22, that's roughly another twelve days on the calendar.

There is an important qualification: OpenGov can complete a referendum earlier if the applicable approval and support thresholds are met and its confirmation process completes.

So November 3 is the normal decision-period deadline, not an unconditional promise that voting will remain available until that minute.

If you're planning to participate, check the live referendum status rather than relying on a screenshot of a countdown.

You can examine the live vote and participate through Subsquare's Referendum 90 page.

For the plain-language explanation, visit VoteVara's Referendum 90 page.

The Conversation Worth Having

I find the treasury question interesting because it sits at the intersection of two things we talk about quite a lot around here: independent ecosystem development and community governance.

A shared treasury could create additional ways for the network's holders to fund work they consider worthwhile.

It could also introduce new governance responsibilities, including deciding what deserves support, establishing accountability, and ensuring that the people making spending decisions understand what they're authorizing.

Those possibilities deserve careful consideration.

And we shouldn't confuse agreement with the general concept of a treasury with agreement about how one should operate.

The details matter.

In fact, they matter rather a lot when the subject involves collectively controlled assets.

That's why I appreciate that Referendum 90 is asking the foundational question separately from any future funding proposal.

The community can express a preference without simultaneously approving an entire financial operating model nobody has fully specified yet.

Whether that's the direction the community wants to go is up to the people holding the votes.

Your Network. Your Decision.

We recently launched VoteVara because we believe the community should have an easier time understanding what its referendums actually mean.

Referendum 90 is an excellent example.

The question sounds simple. The potential consequences deserve a more detailed conversation. And the onchain action is considerably narrower than some readers might assume from the word treasury.

So read the proposal. Think about the distinction between endorsing an idea and funding it. Consider what safeguards and accountability you'd expect from any future implementation.

Then decide where you stand.

I don't particularly care whether you vote Aye or Nay.

I care that you understand what you're voting on, and that the people building and holding this network participate in the decisions that shape it.

Your network. Your governance. Do your thing. And fucking vote.

— Varbear

UseVara is an independent, unapologetically pro-Vara publication. VoteVara provides neutral explanations of governance proposals and does not endorse either voting outcome.

Voting figures: October 22, 2026 snapshot from Subsquare. Status and totals can change. The decision deadline is based on the recorded start of the 14-day decision period and may be superseded by earlier confirmation.