2025 Cardano NCL
272 DReps voted · 67 with a rationale · 12 changed their vote · 11 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 2 to yes, 7 to no, 3 to abstain, together voting with 255.7M ₳ of voting power.
- No2.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.8M ₳Rationale
I’m voting in favor of a limited annual budget to responsibly close out the year, given how much time has already been spent on governance setup and voting. This approach reflects practical timing — not reduced ambition — and allows us to maintain focus and accountability.
At the same time, I’m fully supportive of paying a premium for the talented development houses that have driven Cardano’s progress to date. Their continued work is essential to sustaining momentum and should be prioritized accordingly.
Looking ahead, I strongly support efforts to establish a more efficient and timely budgeting process that avoids this kind of mid-year constraint in the future.
- No1.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳Rationale
We just have a NCL approved, no need to immediately change it. Also, the proposed amount is too restrictive and doesn't leave much room for a possible ADA depreciation.
- Yes1.5M ₳Rationale
Since this is the first time the community is fully in charge of treasury use, it makes sense to start with a lower limit than proposed before (>=300) and increase it later if needed.
Control and understanding of our power (rights) is vital. - Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- No1.3M ₳Rationale
Vote: NO
Proposal: # 2025 Cardano NCL
Rationale for Opposition
This proposal’s cautious 200M ADA ceiling, while fiscally conservative, risks underfunding a foundational year in Cardano’s constitutional and governance evolution. 2025 is not a maintenance year—it is a strategic inflection point. Underspending could lead to half-measures across core infrastructure, developer tooling, and ecosystem growth.
I tend to view Cardano as a startup still searching for product-market fit—not just as a blockchain, but as a governance-layered ecosystem. I don’t believe we, as an industry, have reached that fit yet. In this early phase, investment in talent, experimentation, and feedback loops is critical. We do not yet know the full cost of sustainable, decentralized governance. Arbitrarily capping expenditure without operational precedent is not prudent—it’s blindfolded restraint.
Starting with a low ceiling risks disrupting development continuity and creating political friction over reallocations and perceived scarcity. In conclusion, this is not the year to constrain the ecosystem’s ability to act. It is the year to learn what it takes to responsibly fund and operate an open protocol. A vote against this proposal is not a call for reckless spending, but a recognition that 200M ADA is too low to support the needs of a maturing, self-governing ecosystem in its most formative year ever. Based on community sentiment I’ve observed, expectations for a reasonable 2025 NCL orbit between 200M and 350M ADA. I prefer to position us safely in the middle of that range, rather than risk underspending at the floor.
As a DRep, I also believe Treasury constraints should be informed by real experience and evolving risk management mechanisms—not early-stage caution that may inadvertently stall progress. I hope to see more maturity and responsiveness in the 2026 budget cycle as our governance capabilities evolve.
VOTE0008
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES on the 200M ADA Net Change Limit for 2025. This cap, well below the annual inflow of approximately 315M ADA, protects the treasury’s reserves of 1.71B ADA, aligning with my support for the 300M/250M NCL. Although the 200M ADA does not meet all budget proposals, it forces prioritization of high-impact projects, consistent with my vote for 350M to promote disciplined growth. The lower limit reduces selling pressure on ADA, addresses Stake Pool Operators’ concerns after their rejection of the 350M NCL, and supports price stability. By voting YES, I break the deadlock following the split over the 350M NCL, enabling treasury withdrawals before the May 30, 2025, deadline.
- Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
The current immaturity and inconsistency of the voting process reinforce my commitment to fiscal conservatism. During the current Eckklesia Budget Poll, I supported proposals totaling approximately 196 million ada, which aligns with a more restrained spending approach.
Setting a lower Net Change Limit (NCL) creates greater accountability and incentivizes proposers to deliver transparent bids. It also reinforces community oversight and discourages poorly justified allocations.
The argument that the NCL is "just a limit" and can be set higher is not persuasive. Accepting this reasoning opens the door to arbitrary increases, including the full use of the 350 million ada cap. This concern has already materialized in a plan to submit budgets that aim to use the entire 350 million ada.
I voted No on the 2025 NCL of 350M ada, and while I voted Yes on the 2025–2026 NCL of 300M ada, this was done while expressing a preference for a lower limit of 200 million ada.
I now cast a clear Yes vote for a 2025 NCL of 200 million ada, consistent with my belief in responsible treasury management. - No1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote NO on this proposal for the following reasons:
200M ADA is too low to cover the essential budget needs already submitted, including Core Development (IOG), Catalyst, research, and infrastructure projects such as Hydra, ZK, Midgard, Lucid, and Chainlink. The total for these essential items already exceeds 200M ADA.
A low NCL like this would block the approval of critical proposals, even those that are strategic for the growth and security of the Cardano ecosystem.
Reducing the NCL abruptly from the previously approved 350M ADA to 200M ADA creates instability and contradicts the governance direction, especially since there was no prior temperature check or broad community consensus.
Cardano needs to invest meaningfully to stay competitive in the global top 10. Without sufficient funding to support product development, community builders, and user adoption, Cardano may fall behind—even if the tech is strong.
💬 While I agree that spending must be responsible, budget discipline should come from reviewing each proposal carefully, not from imposing an excessively low, rigid NCL that limits flexibility.
*I would support a moderate NCL in the 250–300M ADA range, which balances sustainability with real ecosystem needs. Let’s not restrict innovation with an artificial spending cap too early in the governance process.
Vietnamese Translation
Tôi bỏ phiếu NO cho đề xuất này vì các lý do sau:
200 triệu ADA là mức quá thấp để đáp ứng các nhu cầu ngân sách thiết yếu đã được trình bày trong các đề xuất hiện tại, bao gồm duy trì Core Dev (IOG), Catalyst, nghiên cứu, và hạ tầng cốt lõi như Hydra, ZK, Midgard, Lucid, Chainlink... Các khoản này đã vượt quá 200M ADA chỉ tính riêng các hạng mục được đánh giá là quan trọng.
Việc thiết lập một NCL quá thấp sẽ làm đình trệ tiến trình phê duyệt ngân sách năm 2025, vì có khả năng khiến nhiều đề xuất vượt trần ngân sách bị từ chối bất hợp lệ, dù có giá trị chiến lược cho hệ sinh thái.
Sự thay đổi đột ngột từ mức NCL 350M ADA đã được phê duyệt trước đó sang 200M ADA tạo ra sự bất ổn và mâu thuẫn trong tiến trình quản trị, đặc biệt khi không có cuộc thăm dò đồng thuận (temperature check) rõ ràng trước khi gửi lên chain.
Cardano cần đầu tư nghiêm túc để duy trì vị trí cạnh tranh trong top 10 blockchain toàn cầu. Nếu không có đủ ngân sách để thúc đẩy phát triển sản phẩm, mở rộng quy mô, hỗ trợ cộng đồng builder và cải thiện trải nghiệm người dùng, thì Cardano dễ bị tụt lại dù có công nghệ tốt.
💬 Trong bối cảnh thị trường vẫn còn nhiều biến động, chúng ta cần quản lý chi tiêu thông minh, nhưng không nên tự giới hạn khả năng đầu tư phát triển hệ sinh thái. Việc chi tiêu bao nhiêu ADA nên được kiểm soát bởi từng đề xuất cụ thể, không nên bị giới hạn bởi một mức NCL quá thấp và cứng nhắc.
- Tôi đồng ý với quan điểm rằng việc chi tiêu cần thận trọng, nhưng điều đó phải đi kèm với trách nhiệm đánh giá chất lượng từng đề xuất ngân sách – chứ không phải hạ mức NCL một cách cực đoan. Thay vào đó, tôi ủng hộ một NCL ở mức trung bình như 250–300M ADA, phản ánh nhu cầu thực tế và vẫn giữ tính bền vững.
Japanese Translation
私は以下の理由から、この提案にNO票を投じます：
2億ADAでは、すでに提出された基本的かつ不可欠な予算項目を賄うには不十分です。Core Dev（IOG）、Catalyst、リサーチ、Hydra、ZK、Midgard、Lucid、Chainlinkなど、重要とされるプロジェクトの合計だけで200M ADAを超えています。
このような低いNCLは、重要な提案の承認を妨げる可能性が高く、エコシステムの成長とセキュリティに必要な投資を制限してしまいます。
すでに承認された350M ADAから突然200M ADAに下げるのは、ガバナンスの方向性と安定性を損ないます。事前の温度感調査（temperature check）や幅広い合意もなく進められた点も懸念材料です。
Cardanoは、世界のブロックチェーン上位に留まるために十分な投資が必要です。製品開発、ビルダー支援、ユーザー拡大に資金が不足すれば、技術が優れていても競争に負けてしまいます。
💬 責任ある支出は重要ですが、柔軟性を失うような極端に低いNCLではなく、各提案を丁寧に審査することで財政規律を確保すべきです。
※私は、持続可能性と実際のニーズを両立できる250〜300M ADA程度の中間的なNCLを支持します。ガバナンス初年度において、過度な制限でイノベーションの芽を摘むべきではありません。
- YesRevoted1.2M ₳Rationale
I voted No for the two prior Net Change Limits because we should not be allowed to withdrawal such a large portion of the Ada that we take in for the year. In that reasoning I suggested we save close to 50% of the fees we take in every year, since this is the first year of our governance experiment. We must be cautious and try to spend as little as possible like any wise person does. We must set a strong precedent early on. I am ecstatic to vote Yes for a proposal that I couldn't have written better myself. The only thing I would change is to make it 150 million Ada, but in negotiations, both sides have to give in a little. 200 million is a lot better than 350 million, especially when the year is 33% over. I hope we spend a lot less than the maximum we can withdrawal, then we could set the 2026 NCL for 200 million again, or hopefully less. The more savings, the better. Thank you all for voting No on the two prior NCL proposals. This one was worth the wait.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
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.
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted1.1M ₳Rationale
The proposal to set the Net Change Limit (NCL) at 200M ada for 2025 strikes me as a commendably cautious and forward-thinking approach — especially given the Cardano Treasury’s pivotal role as a financial backbone for the ecosystem's sustained vitality.
In an era where exuberance often tempts rapid capital deployment, the insistence on a conservative NCL reflects a mature recognition that treasury governance is not merely about spending but about stewardship. To approve a high NCL upfront risks undermining the very foundation we seek to build: a resilient, self-sustaining ecosystem capable of weathering volatility — both in market conditions and technological evolution.
Recent data from Q1 2025 underscore that crypto markets continue to face regulatory headwinds and fluctuating investor sentiment. Despite Cardano’s steady innovation pipeline in DeFi, NFTs, and decentralized governance mechanisms, the broader environment remains uncertain. This context strengthens the argument for a measured withdrawal limit that safeguards principal growth.
Strategically, this 200M ada baseline creates breathing room for the community to refine its priorities without rushing into premature or oversized commitments. It encourages rigorous vetting of budget proposals and stimulates disciplined commercial innovation. By preserving treasury capital, we keep open the option to scale initiatives sustainably as use cases mature and adoption deepens.
However, this approach’s success hinges on transparent, agile governance processes that allow timely revision of the NCL when justified by evolving ecosystem needs — be it emerging partnerships, technological pivots like Hydra scaling, or new revenue streams from staking and DeFi activities. A static limit without such mechanisms risks either stifling growth or inviting political gridlock.
Moreover, in my view, embedding strategic foresight into treasury management requires integrating predictive analytics and scenario planning to anticipate future cash flow needs and external shocks. The community could benefit from adopting more sophisticated financial modeling tools that align budget cycles with market realities and developmental milestones.
In essence, this is not just a budgetary decision; it is an inflection point for Cardano’s governance culture. Prioritizing sustainability over immediacy today lays groundwork for genuine long-term acceptance of crypto technologies — a journey still in its infancy.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- No969.9K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged966.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes951.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes943.3K ₳No rationale
- No929.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- No888K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes870.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes866.3K ₳No rationale
- No829.9K ₳Rationale
Being consistent with our view expressed in previous NCL proposals we are voting NO because we believe the NCL should be defined as a maximum percenual change of the balance of the treasury in a dynamic window of time so it doesn't need to be approved every year.
- Yes829.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes796.1K ₳Rationale
I believe an NCL of 200M represents a conservative limit that protects the long term interests of the Cardano Community yet supports mission critical investments.
- No792.3K ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted765.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes760.2K ₳No rationale
- No737.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes663.8K ₳Rationale
We, The Dutch DRep, vote Yes on the proposed 200M ADA Net Change Limit (NCL) for 2025.
While we previously supported the 350M ADA NCL to prevent further delays in the governance process, our support for this new 200M ADA NCL reflects updated insights gained from the first draft budget. We believe this lower NCL provides essential guardrails for Cardano’s first-ever on-chain budget process.
Initial budget proposals have demonstrated a tendency to overestimate expenses. A more conservative NCL will encourage proposers to prioritize what is truly essential for the ecosystem's growth and maintenance, rather than submitting inflated or "nice-to-have" budgets. As is often the case in both public and private sectors, a larger budget invites unnecessary spending.
This 200M ADA limit preserves treasury sustainability while giving the community space to refine budgeting processes, improve proposal quality, and learn from this foundational year. A lower NCL is not a ceiling on ambition, but a framework for responsible stewardship and long-term planning.
Additionally, we want to signal our concern regarding the bundling of multiple treasury requests into large lump sums. We fear this practice risks the approval of weaker or unjustified proposals solely because they are packaged alongside more compelling ones. We encourage future budget submissions to separate proposals clearly, so each can be evaluated and voted on according to its individual merit.
- Yes657.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes637.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes627.2K ₳No rationale
- No604.7K ₳Rationale
I'm voting no on the NCL for 2025, covering the period from the start of Epoch 532 to the end of Epoch 604, set at 200M ada. My reasoning for the no vote is based on the projected expenditure of about 275 million ADA voted on by a majority of DReps during the 2025 Intersect budgeting and socialization process. To ask for greater funding than allocated in the NCL is irresponsible and would put undue constraints on development progress