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.
- Yes183.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain182.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes175K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.5K ₳Rationale
We need Treasury withdrawals for the continued maintenance and growth of the Cardano ecosystem. The constitution mandates the establishment of an NCL before any Treasury funds can be withdrawn. Without an approved NCL, the Treasury can't be used for its intended purpose. We have witnessed the NCL size wars and we appreciate the nuanced debate from all involved DReps, but we have to start somewhere. The NCL is a maximum spend limit, not a minimum spending requirement. Whichever value ultimately gets chosen, hitting that limit will still require voting to do so. Getting past the first hurdle is more important.
- Yes157.8K ₳No rationale
- No150.4K ₳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. - Yes149.8K ₳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! - Yes138.6K ₳Rationale
I am voting YES because setting a Net Change Limit (NCL) is a constitutional requirement under Article IV, Section 3 of the Cardano Constitution. Without it, no Treasury funds can be accessed—meaning no budgets can be approved and no spending can take place. This would halt critical maintenance and growth across the Cardano ecosystem.
The proposed NCL of 200 million ada represents a prudent and balanced approach:
• It enables the necessary funding to support and scale Cardano in 2025, while safeguarding against rapid depletion of Treasury resources.
• With annual inflows of approximately 350 million ada, the proposed cap ensures the Treasury continues to grow even as spending begins.
• As Cardano embarks on its first community-led budgeting process, this approach emphasizes caution and learning. It allows future NCLs to be fine-tuned as governance structures and audit mechanisms mature.
• It strikes a balance between empowering the community to fund vital initiatives—development, maintenance, scaling—and protecting the ecosystem from excessive or poorly planned expenditures.
• It reinforces Cardano’s long-term sustainability, ensuring a healthy Treasury not just for 2025, but for years to come as governance evolves.Ultimately, a YES vote keeps Cardano governance moving forward in alignment with its Constitution—avoiding the risk of stagnation that could undermine the ecosystem’s progress and innovation.
- Yes136.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes126.5K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted126.4K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes124.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes122.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes112.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes99K ₳No rationale
- Yes97.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes93.7K ₳No rationale
- No90.6K ₳Rationale
Como dRep, voto NÃO na ação de governança para definição do NCL em 200M ADA. Apoio o NCL atual de 350M e aceitaria 250M-300M, mas só com fatores condicionantes:
1 Limite por entidade
Para evitar o monopólio da IOG e garantir equilíbrio na alocação de recursos para a comunidade.
(ex.: 50% do NCL total vigente)2 Limite por proposta
Para evitar agrupamento de trabalhos diferentes dentro de uma única proposta (a.k.a bundling)
(Ex.: Orçamento da proposta solicitado pela Entidade, Grupo ou Indivíduo < 10% do NCL total vigente) Isso reduziria a quantia máxima por proposta e desistimula bundling.
Porém, tais fatores condicionantes poderiam ser considerados inconstitucionais, é uma área cinzenta aparentemente, por isso também estou sendo leniente a um orçamento maior em 2025.
Por que rejeitar 200M ADA?
Um NCL de 200M ADA sufocaria a comunidade, direcionando quase todo orçamento do tesouro disponível em 2025 para a IOG (+190M ADA pedidos para Core Dev, Catalyst e Research).
A IOG se mostrou irredutível a revisar seu orçamento, e a maioria dos dReps mesmo assim sinalizaram apoio, perpetuando a centralização e ignorando as necessidades do ecossistema de descentralização no desenvolvimento do core.
O orçamento do Project Catalyst deve cair de 150M para 60M ADA/ano, impactando projetos essenciais e centenas de contribuidores que dependem desses fundos. Um NCL de 200M pioraria isso, limitando dApps, inovações e adoção. O NCL de 350M, embora não ideal sem limites por entidade, dá mais espaço para a comunidade crescer em 2025.
Preocupações:
Monopólio:
IOG domina (+90% dos pedidos). Um limite percentual por entidade é crucial para descentralizar recursos e apoiar projetos diversos.
Transparência:
Entidades fundadoras (IOG, Emurgo, Cardano Foundation) devem divulgar gastos, reservas e fornecer dados financeiros mais transparentes para que a comunidade avalie se estão usando suas próprias reservas de maneira apropriada antes de acessarem o tesouro, que pertence a todos.
Conflitos:
Todos os dReps têm conflito de interesses em algum nível. Quem apoia NCL maior pode buscar recursos para projetos pessoais; quem apoia NCL menor teme que quedas no preço de ADA desvalorizem os próprios investimentos. Iniciativas privadas, como parcerias com VCs, reduziriam a dependência do tesouro e esses conflitos.
Transição Lenta:
Não há modelo claro para transferir o desenvolvimento da IOG à comunidade, o que perpetua a dependência e atrasa a descentralização.
Tesouro a Longo Prazo:
A sustentabilidade do tesouro é crucial, mas não cabe nesta ação pontual de 2025, que já deveria ter sido resolvida. O foco agora é o orçamento imediato; a sustentabilidade deve ser discutida em outra ação de governança.
Possiveis Soluções:
Estabelecer um limite por entidade (50%) para evitar monopólios e garantir justiça na alocação de recursos do tesouro.
Implementar contratos de vesting para vendas de ADA oriundas do tesouro, minimizando pressão vendedora e protegendo o preço.
Financiar simulações de impacto no preço do ADA para embasar decisões futuras.
Exigir transparência das entidades fundadoras sobre gastos e reservas antes delas requisitarem recursos do tesouro.
Criar um modelo claro de transição para passar o desenvolvimento à comunidade, acelerando a descentralização.
Incentivar financiamento privado (ex.: VCs, parcerias) para reduzir dependência do tesouro e fomentar sustentabilidade.
- No83.9K ₳Rationale
I have decided to vote against the proposed treasury spending limit of 200 million ADA, as I believe this amount is lower than what is optimal. Spending limits need to be a balance between financial responsibility, required spending, and growth spending. With this NCL I do not believe there would be any room for growth spending and I do not agree with not spending at all in this regard.
- Yes81.3K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged77.2K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes74.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes57.3K ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged56.4K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes56.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes56.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes48K ₳No rationale
- Yes45.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes40.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes40.5K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted36.9K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes36.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes35.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes30.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes28.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes26.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes19.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes16.6K ₳No rationale
- No15.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes14.3K ₳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. - Yes14.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes10.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.5K ₳No rationale
- No6.8K ₳No rationale
- Abstain6.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes5.7K ₳No rationale