2025 Cardano NCL
272 DReps voted · 65 with a rationale · 26 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- No584.2M ₳No rationale
- Yes435.8M ₳Rationale
I will vote YES on both of the next two GAs.
200 M ADA NCL for 2025
300 M ADA NCL for 2025 3Q- 2026 2QBecause I think the following order is good, in which case it would be reasonable to vote YES for both:
- 300 M ADA NCL for 2025 3Q- 2026 2Q
- 200 M ADA NCL for 2025
- 350 M ADA NCL for 2025（now）
The approach of determining spending based on inflows has been well-received by the community.
The 350M ADA NCL is too large for the second half of 2025 alone.
The 200M ADA NCL may be appropriate for the second half of 2025 alone, but many of the current Cardano budget proposals are expected to cover a 12-month period, i.e., up to mid-2026. From that perspective, it seems insufficient without a separate NCL for 2026.
Therefore, I would vote YES on both and recommend setting the 2026 NCL in the case where the 200M ADA NCL is approved and the 300M ADA NCL is rejected.
But personally, I think it would be better to set it as 3Q2025-2Q2026, rather than setting separate NCL 2025 and NCL 2026. This is easier to manage, since most of the Cardano budget work will probably be set in 3Q2025-2Q2026.
私は次の2つのGAの両方に賛成票を投じます。
200 M ADA NCL for 2025
300 M ADA NCL for 2025 3Q- 2026 2Q以下の順序が良いと考えているため、両方に賛成票を投じるのが妥当です。
①300 M ADA NCL for 2025 3Q- 2026 2Q
②200 M ADA NCL for 2025
③350 M ADA NCL for 2025（now）流入額に基づいて支出額を決定するというアプローチは、コミュニティから支持を得ています。とすると、
③は2025後半だけを考えると流入に対して多すぎます。
②は、2025年後半のみに適用すると、妥当かもしれませんが、現在のCardano予算案の多くは12ヶ月間、つまり2026年半ばまでを対象としています。この観点からすると、2026年用のNCLを別途設定しなければ不十分であるように思われます。
したがって、私は両方に賛成票を投じ、②が承認され、③が却下された場合は、2026年のNCLを設定することを推奨します。
しかし、個人的には、2025年のNCLと2026年のNCLを別々に設定するよりも、2025年第3四半期から2026年第2四半期に設定する方が良いと考えています。Cardano予算作業の大部分は2025年第3四半期から2026年第2四半期に設定されると思われるため、管理が容易になります。
- No293M ₳Rationale
Summary
EMURGO, as a DRep, votes No on this Info Action regarding the 2025 Cardano NCL (7d9fc9fe4cee64fb34e57783378ac869a85c78d6fbcd4078ed131ab6fa3c7db600).
Rationale
EMURGO maintains its voting stance on the 2025 Net Change Limit (9b62b3c632f329016a968ac25211825bb4f84b12461121c7da3aa11df92370f900).
Repeated attempts to redefine the cap may lead to delays in governance processes, which in turn pose a risk that critical funding will not reach the projects that need it. This could ultimately slow down the development of the Cardano ecosystem.
In conclusion, the 350M ADA proposed under the 2025 Net Change Limit, and approved by a majority of DReps, represents the maximum amount that can be withdrawn from the Cardano Treasury, but not a fixed amount that must be fully utilized. Therefore, we believe it is sufficient as an initial annual cap. - Yes254.7M ₳No rationale
- No222.9M ₳Rationale
TL;DR: EDC voted NO on gov_action10k0unljvaej0kd89w7pn0zkgdx59c7xkl0x5q78dzvdtd73u0kmqq5xl5y5. 200m NCL for the remainder of 2025 would delay fund allocation for projects other than IOG's.
- Yes174.6M ₳No rationale
- No120.2M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged92.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No91.5M ₳Rationale
I voted NO to reduce the Net Change Limit (NCL) to 200M ADA, which has been one of the toughest governance decisions so far. It feels like there’s no entirely good option here.
Moreover, I myself called for a lower NCL.The current NCL of 350M ADA has some notable drawbacks.
If high selling pressure causes ADA’s price to drop significantly—say to 0.2 USD—it could result in serious challenges. Funding the ecosystem in dollar terms would require selling a large amount of ADA from the treasury, leading to a spiral of selling pressure that could worsen the situation.
Cardano Whale pointed out that some projects like Tezos and Polkadot have invested heavily in their ecosystems, possess innovative technologies, yet struggle to gain substantial attention.
For blockchains, maintaining a presence in the top 10 market capitalization rankings is vital.
Retail investors, institutions, and crypto enthusiasts evaluate projects not only based on technology but also on market performance. If Cardano drops out of the top 10 for an extended period, it may never regain its position, regardless of decentralization or technological progress like Ouroboros Leios. This is an important factor to consider, even if it feels unfair or subjective.
On the other hand, reducing the NCL to 200M ADA comes with its own set of concerns.
Cardano needs investments to advance its technology, support builders, and develop the ecosystem. Without increased user activity, Treasury revenue won't grow. Spending on maintenance and development in the next years risks exhausting the reserve, ultimately making Cardano economically unsustainable.
Protocol security also hinges on attractive staking rewards and incentives. Moreover, Ouroboros Leios’s potential will remain untapped without active developers, tools, and a growing DeFi ecosystem. Investments in all these areas are crucial.
IOG has made their funding requirements clear: Core Dev needs 96M ADA, Catalyst 69M ADA, and Research 27M ADA. Combined, this totals 192M ADA. The offer from IOG is simple: either approve this funding or let it be.
Debates around fairness, IOG and Charles’s past contributions, and the definition of “completion” for Cardano have their place, but the reality is that IOG holds unmatched expertise in the protocol. No other entity can effectively take over maintenance, development, and research at the same pace or quality.
If DReps allocate 192M ADA to IOG, only 8M ADA remains for other projects.
After reviewing budget proposals, I supported only the essentials I believe the ecosystem absolutely needs: projects like Midgard, Starstream, Hydra, ZK Rollups, Blockfrost, Lucid, Chainlink integration, and others. For the CORE category alone, this amounts to around 12M ADA. Across all categories, my total approved budget comes to 213M ADA.
Given my own estimate of required expenditures is 213M ADA, I cannot support an NCL of 200M ADA. It would contradict my stance on necessary project funding versus the cap I approve. This inconsistency guided my decision to vote NO on reducing the NCL.
Cardano requires effective marketing and improved governance support, as the current situation is far from ideal.
Investing in the ecosystem and advancing new technologies must go hand in hand to ensure sustainable growth.
Approving the NCL of 200M ADA, in my view, would mean preserving the status quo, leaving all key responsibilities to IOG while neglecting investment in the broader ecosystem. Essentially, it would restrict funding for entities that are vital to the ecosystem, just as IOG is.
An important consideration is the expected scenarios surrounding the NCL.
Both NCLs, an NCL of 350M ADA and 200M ADA, are extremes in my view.
The current NCL, set at 350M ADA, has strong support with 76% of the voting stake participating. Nearly the entire voting stake approved it. Drastically reducing the NCL from 350M to 200M ADA would be either irresponsible or overly ambitious.
What would happen next? Builders, Intersect, IOG, or others would likely submit a new governance action proposing an intermediate NCL, perhaps 250M or 300M ADA. Alternatively, multiple proposals could be submitted simultaneously.
This scenario would create an unstable environment that is counterproductive and difficult to support. Such instability undermines progress.
Moreover, the crypto community has little interest in prolonged debates about how much the Cardano ecosystem can afford to invest.
In an unstable environment, even proposing a coherent budget becomes nearly impossible.
Currently, we have an NCL of 350M ADA. Consider this likely scenario:
Intersect is expected to submit a governance action for the budget expiring in June. Meanwhile, if a new NCL of 200M ADA is approved by the end of May, the proposed budget would effectively become unconstitutional unless it is approved before the new NCL takes effect. This complicates the process and further highlights the issues with sudden, extreme changes.
Debating the NCL through governance actions is both inefficient and overly time-consuming.
It seems likely that the community's consensus would fall somewhere between 250M–300M ADA. However, no off-chain temperature check was conducted (to which the majority of the community would respond) before the on-chain vote, which led to the current NCL being approved simply to allow the budgeting process to continue.The concept of the NCL itself is starting to feel unnecessary, as it constantly shifts based on the majority vote. If the voting stake agrees to increase or decrease the NCL, it will inevitably happen.
It’s important to emphasize that the NCL doesn’t dictate the amount that must be spent from the treasury. Every withdrawal proposal still requires approval from the community.
I would likely vote YES if the current proposal fell within the 250M–300M ADA range. If a proposal like this is submitted, I would support it, as it aligns with the budget I consider reasonable based on the proposals I have endorsed.
However, my decision isn’t final and may change depending on future developments in governance. For instance, if governance actions combine multiple proposals that result in an excessively high total cost, or if the IOG proposal is grouped with several proposals I don’t support, or one I strongly oppose, such as the Daedalus 2025 Service Enhancement, I might reconsider my stance.
If the only way to prevent a poor budget outcome is to vote for a lower NCL, I am prepared to do so. This decision is nuanced and cannot be seen in black-and-white terms.
I want to avoid a scenario where approving a lower NCL inevitably results in another GA submission. Addressing the NCL repeatedly is time-consuming and unproductive. DReps need to prioritize budget proposals instead.
A higher NCL serves no purpose if it ends up funding low-quality projects within the budget.
- No88.6M ₳Rationale
While I agree with some of the arguments for a 200M ADA NCL, I voted No because the budget proposal I supported this term was for 250M ADA. Even though only half of 2025 remains, I believe 200M is a bit too low.
- No86M ₳Rationale
As the DRep representing SIPO, we vote NO on this governance action proposing to lower the 2025 Net Change Limit (NCL) to 200 million ADA.
Our position is grounded in the strategic necessity of enabling the 275M ADA unified ecosystem budget submitted by Intersect, which is already supported by a majority of DReps and designed to fund 39 critical proposals for infrastructure, community growth, technical innovation, and global expansion.
2025 is a foundational year for Cardano's Voltaire era. Attempting to reduce the already-ratified NCL of 350M ADA at this stage would undermine governance predictability and delay execution of ecosystem-wide development initiatives that have undergone robust community signaling.
It’s crucial to note that:
- The 350M ADA limit is an upper ceiling, not a mandatory spending requirement.
- Emergency or milestone-based Treasury Withdrawals can still be proposed and approved with full transparency.
- Real-world use cases—including Bitcoin DeFi integrations, Midnight privacy architecture, Hydra L2 scaling, and Leios throughput enhancements—require early, coordinated investment that can yield measurable returns within 2–3 years.
- Strategic spending now accelerates Cardano’s evolution into a sovereign, decentralized public infrastructure for digital societies.
We also support the view that NCL should not be interpreted as a fixed cap on spending alone, but rather as a dynamic net limit that can accommodate returns to the treasury via revenue-generating proposals (e.g., DeFi liquidity fund returning 15% monthly yield to the treasury).
Reducing the NCL to 200M ADA at this point would disrupt both the spirit and function of decentralized fiscal governance. Therefore, we reject this proposal and reaffirm our support for the previously approved 350M ADA limit, which reflects both financial prudence and readiness to support Cardano's ambitious roadmap.
- Yes84.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes77.7M ₳Rationale
本次提案将预算上限调整为200M，相较之前的350M大幅降低，体现了更审慎的财务规划
建立合理的预算上限对开发团队至关重要，这将使团队能够按计划支取Ada资金，确保项目持续、稳定地开发
尽管我依然期望未来能够建立更完善、更成熟的支出监管机制，但当前阶段通过这一预算上限的设定是项目推进的必要步骤
综上，投赞成票
- Yes75.4M ₳No rationale
- No75.2M ₳No rationale
- No74.5M ₳Rationale
The proposals currently submitted by IOG — covering Core Development, Catalyst, and Research — already request a total of 193M ADA. Setting the NCL at 200M ADA would nearly exhaust the limit, leaving little room for funding other critical infrastructure proposals. This situation risks hindering Cardano’s growth. Fundamentally, the NCL is not a budget intended to be fully spent, but rather a guardrail that defines the maximum amount that may be withdrawn within a given period. As we are still in the early stages of transitioning to on-chain governance, imposing a restrictive cap at this time could undermine the flexibility needed for effective decision-making and timely response. Moreover, the NCL is not fixed permanently once established. It should be subject to review and adjustment as budget execution progresses and as market conditions evolve. In this transitional period, it is prudent to design with sufficient margin to accommodate uncertainty. Doing so will support sustainable and strategic ecosystem governance.
現在、IOGから提出されているCore開発・Catalyst・Research関連の提案だけで合計193M ADAが要求されており、200M ADAではほぼ上限まで達する状況です。この状態では、他の重要提案への投資が困難になり、Cardanoの成長を阻害しかねません。そもそもNCLは「使い切るための予算」ではなく、一定期間内に引き出せる「上限」を定める仕組みです。現在はオンチェーンガバナンスへの移行初期であり、こうした状況で過度に厳しい上限を設定することは、ガバナンスの柔軟性を失わせ、必要な判断や対応を困難にするのではと懸念しています。また、NCLは一度決定すれば永久に固定されるものではなく、今後の予算の進捗状況や市場環境の変化に応じて適切なタイミングで見直していくべきものです。このような過渡期においては、将来の不確実性に備え、余力を持った設計としておくことが健全なエコシステム運営に繋がると考えています。
- Yes73.1M ₳Rationale
I previously voted NO on NCL proposals targeting 300–350 million ADA, as I felt those limits were too high for where Cardano governance is today. Ideally, I'd prefer a lower NCL around 100–150 million, and I hope we can look at that properly for 2026.
This proposal sets the NCL at 200 million, which is more reasonable given the circumstances. With the time pressure and the need to have an NCL in place to allow Treasury spending, I am voting YES on this proposal. It's not perfect, but it's a sensible step for now to keep Cardano moving forwards.
I'd also like to thank the proposer(s) for bringing this together at short notice.
- No69.4M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, i have voted ❌NO on this proposal, because i already voted YES on the last one which passed yesterday.
Its a LIMIT, the actual Budget/Proposal-Buckets have to be approved by the dReps anyway. - No62.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes50.4M ₳Rationale
I am voting “Yes” on setting the NCL to ₳200M. While this amount exceeds the previous budget ballots conducted by IntersectMBO, it does not grant unrestricted access to the entire amount within 2025. Each approved budget item will still be subject to further discussion and scrutiny regarding necessity and scale. To preserve the value of ADA, budget distribution must remain minimal or be justified as a cost shared by all holders. I strongly encourage all projects to reconsider and revise their requested amounts to stay within the new NCL. Additionally, I will continue to advocate for reducing the treasury cut in order to support small-scale, community-led governance.
- NoChanged49.5M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes48.6M ₳Rationale
Given the nascent state of Cardano’s on-chain governance system, it is both prudent and strategic to begin with a conservative treasury allocation of 200 million ADA. This approach allows the community to gain critical experience with treasury management, funding mechanisms, and proposal evaluation under the new governance model without exposing the ecosystem to undue financial risk.
A gradual and measured increase in the treasury budget over time will enable the community to observe outcomes, identify inefficiencies, and refine processes. This learning period is essential to building a culture of accountability, transparency, and effectiveness in funding decisions. By starting with a smaller budget, Cardano can better ensure that early governance iterations are both high quality and low risk, thereby laying a solid foundation for long-term sustainability.
This cautious yet forward-thinking approach reflects a commitment to responsible decentralization and positions Cardano to evolve governance wisely as the ecosystem matures.
- Yes47.6M ₳No rationale
- No42.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes40.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes38.1M ₳No rationale
- No37.8M ₳No rationale
- NoChanged34.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
In the 2025 Cardano NCL, we will vote in favor of this proposal to avoid further confusion, even on a provisional basis. We believe that through the decision-making process and future discussions on various factors, this will help advance the system.
- No34.3M ₳Rationale
2025 Cardano NCL - Vote NO on 200M ADA Limit
After careful consideration, Socious Drep have decided to vote NO on the proposed Net Change Limit (NCL) of 200 million ADA for the remainder of 2025.
Key Points Against 200M ADA NCL
1. Inconsistent with Previous Positions
- Already supported 350M ADA NCL
- 200M ADA is too restrictive for Cardano's current development stage
2. Strategic Investment Needs
- Critical ecosystem growth phase
- Essential development initiatives require funding:
- Scalability upgrades (e.g., Leios)
- Programmability enhancements
- Interoperability and security improvements
3. Treasury Alignment
- Annual treasury inflow: ~350M ADA
- 200M limit risks underfunding critical initiatives
- Current growth phase requires maintained investment
Summary
While the cautious approach is appreciated, a 200M ADA NCL is too restrictive for Cardano's current needs. A limit closer to the annual inflow (350M ADA) better balances sustainability with necessary ecosystem investment.
- Yes33.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes31.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes27.9M ₳Rationale
I’m voting YES on the 200M ADA NCL because it is a fiscally responsible midpoint. It preserves-or-grows the Treasury instead of matching last year’s 350M inflow, yet it doesn’t delay the current budget cycle because the already-enacted 350M limit keeps the budget process open while this refinement is adopted. By shrinking the pot to 200M, proposers must sharpen their forecasts and compete harder, curbing inflated asks and driving better value. Most importantly, a tighter cap protects the protocol while on-chain governance, auditing, and budgeting mechanisms are still in their infancy, ensuring we learn and iterate under controlled risk rather than spending aggressively before the guardrails are battle-tested.
- Yes27.9M ₳No rationale
- No27.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes26.3M ₳No rationale
- No26.1M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted25.3M ₳Rationale
I have voted NO on the current proposal to set the NCL to 200M Ada. I firmly believe we need to establish a fiscally responsible annual NCL, but timing matters. The current timeline in the relevant proposal does not lend the ability to guarantee continuous funding as it forces larger proposals to consider multiple and subsequent treasury withdrawal actions to achieve target annual budgets, which are not guaranteed to successfully pass. Furthermore, I have previously voted YES on a 350M NCL, an amount which I believe may be a necessary contingency to account for unexpected delays in scaling (Leios) by permitting the ecosystem latitude to focus on Praos enhancements.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- AbstainChanged23.5M ₳Rationale
Switching to abstain due to Intersect budget being lower than expected, if not to what I would have desired.
Earlier votes
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- Yes21.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes21.5M ₳Rationale
I vote “YES” in favour of the proposed 200M ada net change limit (NCL). I do so in accordance with my past reasoning for voting “NO” on the previously passed 350M NCL proposal, believing that amount to be too high at the time and I still do. For example, much of the budget process has been carried out using an ada price of $0.50, a price the market has not seen since November 2024. At the time of this vote, the ada price is $0.77 and has sat in the $0.70-$0.84 range for much of this proposals’ voting period. 350M ada at $0.50 would be $175M while 200M at $0.77 today still accounts for around $154M, therefore I do not consider a potential 200M NCL to be as prohibitive for development spending as it may seem.
Many DReps at the time of the previous proposal for 350M ada stated in their rationales that they were voting in favour of that proposal in the absence of any other alternative and so it has been reassuring to see community members step forward with this proposal. It both demonstrates an example of a well-constructed community proposal and provides a forum whereby DReps are able to have their say on a broader range of net change limit options.
The proposal is well-written and stored via a more immutable medium, utilising IPFS to host the proposal metadata. At the time of voting, the file remains accessible and the submitted file hash matches with the currently accessible file.
- No21.4M ₳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。
- Yes21.1M ₳Rationale
SIDAN Lab is voting YES on this proposal to set the 2025 Net Change Limit at 200M ADA.
This decision reflects our belief that fiscal responsibility, clear prioritization, and trust-building are critical in this early phase of Cardano’s on-chain governance.
Why we support this proposal:- Capping spending at 200M ADA remains within that safe range, ensuring we do not draw down reserves prematurely.
- The NCL is not a mandatory budget — it’s a maximum cap, and does not prevent the funding of high-quality proposals. It simply creates a ceiling that encourages discipline and focus.
- Governance is still stabilizing. At this stage, we believe it's better to proceed cautiously and prove the treasury model works with smaller, more transparent allocations.
- Without a cap, or with a higher cap, the treasury could be used inefficiently. A 200M limit forces the community to ask: What is essential? What delivers real value?
- If more funding is genuinely needed later, the NCL can be adjusted through a future governance action. We see this as a checkpoint, not a final lock.
We understand this limit may not satisfy all funding ambitions for 2025. However, we believe it will strengthen confidence in the governance process, reduce potential ADA market impact, and provide a more structured budgeting environment for proposals moving forward.
SIDAN Lab supports strategic investment in Cardano’s growth — but only when paired with clear, predictable, and measured spending limits. For that reason, we vote YES on this NCL proposal.
- Yes20.4M ₳No rationale
- No20.3M ₳No rationale
- No19.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes18.2M ₳No rationale
- No17.4M ₳No rationale
- Abstain17.3M ₳No rationale
- No16.7M ₳No rationale
- Yes16.4M ₳Rationale
Dracula DAO strongly supports a conservative approach to budgeting and the lower NCL is better for the ecosystem long-term. ADA not spent today is ADA available tomorrow when priorities and conditions change. In general we also believe the treasury should provide funding in the form of incentive grants awarded upon project completion, and not a project's entire operating budget.