2025 Cardano NCL
272 DReps voted · 65 with a rationale · 26 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes183.5K ₳No rationale
- Abstain182.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes182.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes178.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes174.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes166.4K ₳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 The constitution mandates the establishment of an NCL before any Treasury funds can be withdrawn.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.
- YesChanged147.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes138.4K ₳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.
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes136.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes135.1K ₳No rationale
- No134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes133.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes131.9K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted129.1K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes126.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes118.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes112.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes110.9K ₳No rationale
- No108.3K ₳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.
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes93.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes89.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes71.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes65.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes56.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes55.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes50.5K ₳No rationale
- AbstainChanged49.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes40.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes40.4K ₳No rationale
- YesRevoted36.3K ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes35.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes30.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain28.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes26.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes25.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes24.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes16.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes15.3K ₳No rationale
- No15.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes15K ₳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. - Yes8.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain8.5K ₳No rationale