RABIT

'nuff said:

https://x.com/rabbitholepools/status/1980860255153033299

This Info Action feels incomplete and I am therefore voting NO to it.

As a dREp I voted YES on the 275M ADA Budget administered by Intersect. My vote does not mean that I agree with funding all of the proposals contained herein. Voting YES is an acknowledgement of due process and a signal to support furthering Cardano Governance and budgeting for 2025. Each proposal contained herein will have a Treasury Withdrawal Governance Action submitted separately: each with a 67% approval threshold, and I will vote YES to the ones I agree with. If proposals for Withdrawal should be clumped together in a way that I deem unacceptable I will vote NO on those that are.

As stated in the metadata added to a previous NCL gov action, I will support a percentage-based NCL, rather than a fixed-amount one. Regardless of my personal opinions, the current NCL setting process is unnecessarily convoluted: we have now seen 4 proposals around the exact same topic.

Percentage-based NCLs would be simpler and more flexible, especially if set conservatively low. This change would make last-minute adjustments (such as the ones we are currently seeing) unnecessary, as well as ensure that budgeting is always up to date with treasury inflow and outflow. A smaller treasury would necessarily and automatically result in smaller budgets for the period of interest (because they would be percentage based).

Further, I disagree with having to change NCLs on the fly just because some projects might go over the calendar year, or because approval of the NCL has been delayed (for whatever reason). If projects budget over a longer period of time (eg they have a five-year plan), they should do so with the NCLs in mind, over multiple years, and do so conservatively. They should then compete for year-to-year funding within the constraints of the yearly NCL. For these reasons NCLs should be set for specific financial years in my view.

The latter would also assist projects in their tax reporting, which is done yearly regardless of the long-term budgeting for a specific development.

These are just my opinions and are not meant to be prescriptive in any way, but aim to provide context to my votes on NCLs for interested stakeholders. Respectfully, RABIT.

I voted NO on this proposal, even if I agree with the necessity of a Net Change Limit prior to budgeting. These are my main concerns:

• anonymity of the proposing Team does not foster good discussion;
• the proposal lacks strong research foundations;
• I personally would support a percentage-based Net Change Limit, rather than a fixed one.

Thank you to the proposers, respectfully.

Voting yes is an acknowledgement of two important factors:

• this is the Constitution we have, it might not be perfect but we must start from it and progress from there;

• loads of work and thought have gone into this document, to build a base from which to continue building together.

I wish to thank all the people who have contributed to the Constitution with their time and hard work. My vote is for you!

K represents the ideal number of stake pools and over 1000 stake pools have minted at least one block in their lifetime: K should be increased to 1000.

Increasing K would encourage delegators of saturated pools to redelegate to smaller pools, increasing decentralisation.

More info:

https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2020/11/13/the-general-perspective-on-staking-in-cardano/

https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/blockchain/2022/04/19/pool-splitting-behaviour-and-equilibrium-properties-in-cardano-rewards-scheme/