2025 Cardano NCL
272 DReps voted · 65 with a rationale · 26 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- YesRevoted705.1K ₳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
- Yes655.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes652.3K ₳No rationale
- No625.9K ₳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
- No616.3K ₳Rationale
Lalkul is voting NO on this proposal to reduce the Net Change Limit (NCL) to 200 million ADA. A limit of 350 million ADA has already been approved for 2025, and introducing repeated changes to this parameter without clear urgency creates unnecessary churn in the governance process.
As active DReps, we have already begun evaluating and approving a number of budget items within the context of the previously established 350 million ADA limit. Reducing the NCL by such a significant margin midway through this process creates additional complexity and undermines the consistency needed for informed decision-making. It is both operationally cumbersome and procedurally disruptive.
While we are not opposed to a future reduction in the NCL, a more structured and gradual approach would better serve the goals of stability and effective treasury management. - Yes605.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes599.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes598.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes590.5K ₳No rationale
- No589.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes587.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes535.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes533.9K ₳No rationale
- No520.2K ₳Rationale
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.
- Yes501K ₳Rationale
I support this 200M ADA Net Change Limit because it creates necessary constraints that promote thoughtful treasury management. While we need to fund ecosystem development, sustainability should remain a priority. A lower NCL forces us to carefully prioritize proposals, prevents any single entity from dominating the budget, and maintains treasury growth. This isn't about restricting innovation – it's about ensuring Cardano's treasury remains viable for years to come.
- Yes499K ₳No rationale
- Yes479.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes478.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes478.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes473.9K ₳No rationale
- NoChanged466.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No442.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes414.2K ₳No rationale
- Abstain409.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes390K ₳No rationale
- No389.1K ₳No rationale
- No385.2K ₳Rationale
As Cardano delegated representative Krypto Labs, we propose voting no to the 2025 Net Change Limit (NCL) proposal, submitted on April 25, 2025, as an "Info" governance action (ID: gov_action10k0unljvaej0kd89w7pn0zkgdx59c7xkl0x5q78dzvdtd73u0kmqq5xl5y5), setting the treasury withdrawal cap at 200 million ADA for Epochs 532 to 604 (approximately eight months of 2025). This decision is rooted in the Cardano Constitution, CIP-1694, and the need to ensure the long-term sustainability and stability of the Cardano blockchain ecosystem.
Prior NCL Establishment
On April 24, 2025, in Epoch 553, a 350 million ADA NCL was approved and deemed constitutional by the Constitutional Committee. This prior NCL must guide budget actions to maintain consistency as the constitution says “Such budgets are expected to cover not less than a period of 73 epochs (approximately one calendar year) but nothing shall prevent the Cardano Community from proposing budgets for shorter or longer time periods”
Changing the NCH now will make such expectations obsolete.Disruption to Budget Planning: Introducing a new 200 million ADA NCL is counterproductive, as it disrupts ongoing budget proposals reliant on the 350 million ADA limit. Vendors, suppliers, and proposers have proposed deliveries, KPIs, and milestones based on this established limit since March 2025. Changing the NCL mid-process undermines their ability to execute effectively, risking delays and reduced ecosystem productivity
DRep Accountability and Consistency: Approving the 350 million ADA NCL was a deliberate governance action, not a trial. DReps must uphold consistency to foster trust and predictability in the ecosystem. Frequent NCL changes via "Info" actions erode confidence and contradict the Constitution’s emphasis on sustainable treasury management.
Lack of Evidentiary Support: The 200 million ADA proposal lacks robust research to justify reducing the NCL. While it cites 2024 treasury replenishment models estimating 350 million ADA annually, it assumes a lower limit is safer without evidence that the higher limit would harm the treasury (Proposal Metadata). Proposars operating since March 2025 have relied on the communicated 350 million ADA framework, and altering it based on speculation disrupts their efforts.
Need for Structural Governance Improvements: While audit and transparency are critical, reducing the NCL does not address these issues. Instead, it underscores the need for an 8th governance action to manage NCL and budget parameters on-chain, as discussed in CIP-1694’s Edinburgh debates. A treasury working group, yet to be formed, is essential to develop on-chain guardrails and ensure transparent, community-driven treasury management.
Voting no preserves the established 350 million ADA NCL, supports ecosystem stability, and advocates for a dedicated governance mechanism to address treasury management comprehensively. This stance aligns with the Cardano Constitution’s principles and prioritizes the ecosystem’s long-term viability.
- Yes383K ₳No rationale
- Yes381.1K ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes on a treasury net change limit of 200 million ADA for 2025. As argued in previous net change limit proposals and in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519, I am very unsatisfied with how the budget process was handled by the 'budget committee' and the proposals we see so far contain much too much empty promises and grifts. A change limit that is as low as possible will at least reduce the sell pressure that is generated by these low quality wastes of ADA.
- Yes370.3K ₳Rationale
Justification for Voting Yes
As a DRep, I am voting 'Yes' on this governance action to set a Net Change Limit (NCL) of 200M ADA for the rest of 2025. This is a required step before any treasury funds can be used, as outlined in the Cardano Constitution.
The 200M ADA limit is a conservative and responsible choice. It allows the community to start funding important work—like maintaining and improving the network—while we are still learning how to manage budgets and track spending. Since this is the first time the community is fully in charge of treasury use, it makes sense to start with a lower limit and increase it later if needed. This approach protects the treasury while giving us time to improve our governance and funding processes.
- Yes365.7K ₳No rationale
- No332.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes323.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes316.8K ₳No rationale
- No314.4K ₳Rationale
2025 Cardano NCL
After careful consideration, I have decided to vote NO on the proposed Net Change Limit (NCL) of 200 million ADA for the remainder of 2025.
Github Link of this file: https://github.com/kostaspanagias/drep/blob/main/voting/2025/07/NCL25_200M.md – You can visit this link to view the formatted version of these contents. The GitHub page provides a more user-friendly and human-readable format compared to the on-chain or Cardano Explorer metadata.
Below, I outline the reasoning behind my decision:
Rationale
Consistency with Previous Positions:
I have already reluctantly supported a 350M ADA NCL, having previously expressed a preference for a more conservative limit around 300M ADA, which aligns with the projected inflow for 2025. However, a 200M ADA NCL is, in my view, excessively restrictive for the current stage of Cardano’s development.Need for Strategic Investment:
While I generally favor prudent treasury management, we remain in an early and critical phase of ecosystem growth. Cardano’s roadmap includes essential development initiatives-such as scalability upgrades (e.g., Leios), enhancements to programmability, and further work on interoperability and security-that require substantial investment. Setting the NCL too low could impede our ability to fund these priorities and maintain our competitive edge against other blockchain platforms.Alignment with Treasury Inflows:
The annual inflow to the treasury is approximately 300M ADA. It is both reasonable and sustainable to set the NCL in line with this figure, ensuring that we do not spend more than we accrue, while also allowing for meaningful ecosystem investment. A 200M ADA limit, while justifiable if our ecosystem were fully developed or if we were in a more resource-constrained phase, risks underfunding critical initiatives at a time when Cardano needs to accelerate its development.Budget Process and Parallel Execution:
Although only eight months remain in 2025, the logic of scaling the NCL down proportionally for the rest of the year is not compelling. Many budget proposals and ecosystem initiatives can be executed in parallel, regardless of the elapsed months. Restricting the NCL to a lower “remaining months” calculation could unnecessarily limit our ability to fund multiple concurrent projects, especially as the budget process matures and teams become more efficient at proposal execution.Consistency with My Previous Votes:
I have already voted in favor of 51 budget proposals totaling roughly 285M ADA via the “Ekklesia” (2025 Cardano Budget Reconciliation) process. Supporting a 200M ADA NCL would be inconsistent with my prior votes on these individual proposals and would undermine the intent to see these initiatives funded and executed.
Summary
While I appreciate the caution behind the proposed 200M ADA NCL, I believe it is too restrictive for the current needs and ambitions of the Cardano ecosystem. A limit closer to the actual annual inflow-around 300M ADA-strikes a better balance between sustainability and the imperative to invest in Cardano’s future. For these reasons, I have decided to vote NO on this proposal.
- No313.4K ₳No rationale
- No298.9K ₳Rationale
Since my previous vote, where I stated "While the proposed amount of ₳350M is a tad high for my liking, it is not so high as to justify stalling the budget process." I have become convinced that ₳350M is approximately the correct value for the NCL for the remainder of the year.
This new proposal would set the NCL at ₳200M.Cardano needs to learn how to swim — and we need to do it fast. Blockchain was conceived to solve the distribution of control problem. No network has fully lived up to that challenge yet, and it remains a problem we desperately need to solve.
Cardano is the closest to fulfilling the true destiny of blockchain, but we will only succeed if we learn to manage resources and make complex decisions.
We will not learn that by acting so cautiously that we never take risks. We need the freedom to make mistakes — and an NCL as low as ₳200M does not grant us that freedom.Our responsibility is to manage the treasury wisely, not to avoid risk out of fear.
We need to accept that we will make mistakes, and that's okay — because we will address them and learn from them.
Because that's how we get better.Matthew 25:14–30
https://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/10_ncl_2025_b.md
Signed,
William Doyle - Yes294.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes291.8K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted271.8K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes270.1K ₳Rationale
Given the current state of the Cardano ecosystem, I believe the proposed NCL amount is a far more practical option compared to previous iterations presented thus far.
While a 200M NCL leaves little room for anything beyond core research, development, and operations in 2025, I am convinced this focus is precisely where our attention should be in the short to medium term.
As a community now fully responsible for the direction, scale, and pace of the ecosystem’s expansion and evolution, we must ensure a robust and comprehensive framework of policies, procedures, infrastructure, and auditing is in place before allocating significant resources to areas we are currently unprepared or unable to support.
This approach should be a priority across all areas of the ecosystem but is particularly critical for administration, governance, and funding, which currently lack substance, quality, and transparency.
- Yes262.6K ₳No rationale
- No261K ₳No rationale
- Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes245.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes238.8K ₳Rationale
Its a balancing act. We don't want deficit spending but we need to make sure to set a budget aside to fund future growth. I think this 200M limit to start off sounds more reasonable than the previous 350M proposal. My understanding is that the 350M is dangerously closer to a deficit spending path.
One of the main reasons I chose to be a Drep is to help fight the Keynesian mind virus. We can do better! - No238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes233.2K ₳Rationale
After careful analysis of the 2025 NCL proposal, I vote Yes. The proposed 200M ADA limit strikes a prudent balance between enabling ecosystem growth and maintaining Treasury sustainability. As a first-time experiment with community-controlled funding, starting conservative makes sense - we can always adjust up in 2026 once we've gained experience with the process. The Treasury generated ~350M ADA in 2024, so this NCL helps grow reserves while we refine our governance muscles. Key points that influenced my vote: 1) It provides sufficient funding for core development and scaling initiatives 2) Takes a measured approach as we establish budget processes 3) Allows time to evaluate market impact of Treasury spending 4) Maintains flexibility to adjust the NCL based on learnings. This represents responsible stewardship of community resources while enabling continued ecosystem development.
- Yes202.3K ₳No rationale
- No200.5K ₳Rationale
We just passed an NCL last week with over 70% dRep approval. We now have more work to do with the budget reconciliation process and funding proposals. But some people are dragging up the NCL discussion again and again and now wasting our time with this. Its annoying. Stop it.