FAIR Pool #01

I’m voting NO because v2.0 as presented in this governance action goes beyond what I am comfortable changing in one go. I would prefer small iterative changes to the constitution. There are lots of good and valid changes but I am not yet convinced about the removal of budget info actions and other control mechanisms e.g. audits.

I voted no because the proposal lacks the required Budget Info action and therefore cannot pass. Beyond that, the stated ecosystem benefits are not supported by a clear, KPI-backed delivery plan, making it difficult to assess value for money, accountability, and most importantly how the benefits would reach other projects and the wider community. I would support a resubmission as a Budget Info action, along with a concrete roadmap, measurable KPIs, detailed budget and beneficiary pathways, risk-mitigation and governance arrangements, and open deliverables to ensure broad, equitable impact.

I voted no because the proposal lacks the required Budget Info action and therefore cannot pass. Beyond that, the stated ecosystem benefits are not supported by a clear, KPI-backed delivery plan, making it difficult to assess value for money, accountability, and most importantly how the benefits would reach other projects and the wider community. I would support a resubmission as a Budget Info action, along with a concrete roadmap, measurable KPIs, detailed budget and beneficiary pathways, risk-mitigation and governance arrangements, and open deliverables to ensure broad, equitable impact.

I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.

I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.

I’m voting YES to replace the Interim Constitutional Committee with the elected Constitutional Committee because I accept the election’s legitimacy. Confirming the new CC on-chain prevents a governance gap when the ICC expires and keeps governance moving. Thanks to the incoming members for stepping up to serve Cardano and the Cardano Constitution.

I voted no, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.

I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.

I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.

I voted no, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.

I voted yes, consistent with my prior positions in the 2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation.

While I strongly support fiscal responsibility and sustainability, I do not support reducing the NCL from 350M to 200M ADA at this time, and thus vote NO on this proposal.

First, I believe the NCL should not be changed frequently without a compelling shift in market, governance, or network conditions. Since the 350M limit was recently approved and no significant change has occurred, lowering it now risks undermining governance stability and the credibility of prior decisions. We must avoid sending the signal that every few months we will re-debate core parameters without new data.

Second, while I find 350M ADA somewhat high, I believe 200M ADA may be too restrictive. We need some headroom to accommodate important proposals that may arise later in the year or to adapt to changing market conditions. Development should not stall due to an overly conservative cap.

Third, the NCL is only a ceiling, not a spending target. Treasury withdrawals still require DRep approval, and I trust the scrutiny and collective judgment of Cardano’s DReps to ensure responsible funding. With these checks in place, a higher cap does not equate to reckless spending, it provides flexibility and responsiveness, not excess.

Lastly, delaying or deferring critical infrastructure, tooling, or governance development at this stage could do long-term damage to Cardano’s competitiveness and momentum. I believe it is wiser to empower responsible growth within the ecosystem than to risk missing critical opportunities due to overly tight funding constraints.

In summary, I vote NO to preserve governance consistency, allow for strategic flexibility, and place trust in the decentralized checks already in place to ensure responsible treasury use.

I believe the proposed 350M ADA limit, while thoughtfully aligned with annual inflows, risks encouraging spending that may not always be truly essential or efficient. History shows us that budgets set near expected inflows often become spending targets rather than ceilings, potentially leading to unnecessary resource allocation. I prefer a more conservative approach, setting a limit slightly lower to ensure that the treasury grows steadily year over year. This strategy enhances Cardano’s long-term stability, reduces unnecessary ADA0 sell pressure, and preserves the ecosystem’s resilience and attractiveness. Voting NO today upholds the principles of moderation, fiscal responsibility, and sustainability.

The proposed roadmap addresses some of the ecosystem’s most critical challenges—such as scalability (with Leios' parallel block creation), decentralization through multiple node implementations, and significant enhancements to developer and user experiences. The roadmap offers promising, practical solutions in all these areas. I'm voting Yes on this proposal and am excited about the future of Cardano.

I’m not entirely convinced that the rationale provided justifies such a substantial treasury tax reduction at this stage. While enhancing staking rewards is appealing, the uncertainty around the real usefulness and practical benefits of a lower treasury tax remains a concern. A well-funded treasury is one of Cardano's strengths, attracting developers, funding future growth, and providing stability during uncertain market conditions. The proposal overly relies on speculative assumptions about ADA price appreciation, potentially risking long-term sustainability. Moreover, the incremental increase in staking rewards seems minimal compared to the potential advantages of retaining robust treasury resources. Given these uncertainties, I believe it's better to avoid significant reductions until clearer evidence or deeper analysis demonstrates that such a change would genuinely benefit the wider ecosystem.

I support the constitution because its framework is robust and transparent, with clearly defined guardrails that enhance the security and decentralization of Cardano while facilitating effective community governance. My primary concern is that the comprehensive detail and potential rigidity of the framework could limit the system's agility in addressing unforeseen challenges. Nevertheless, I consider it a promising foundation that warrants further refinement and clarification over time.