2025 Net Change Limit
289 DReps voted · 67 with a rationale · 16 changed their vote · 8 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
Changed votes: 14 to yes, 2 to no.
- Abstain2.3M ₳No rationale
- No2.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.3M ₳No rationale
- NoRevoted2.2M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No2.2M ₳No rationale
- No2.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes2.1M ₳No rationale
- Abstain2M ₳No rationale
- No1.9M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.9M ₳No rationale
- No1.7M ₳Rationale
While I support the principles of structured governance and long-term planning, I am voting against this NCL for the following reasons: 1. Approving a 350M ADA limit without clear details on allocation or specific project plans makes it difficult to justify such a large potential withdrawal. There are no visible checks or accountability mechanisms tied to how this amount will be managed or monitored. 2. Authorizing such a high cap could weaken the treasury’s long-term sustainability. Without clearer priorities or constraints, there’s a real risk of inefficient spending or missed opportunities in future cycles. 3. I would be more comfortable voting for specific projects or a proposal with a narrower, more defined scope. Approving this limit as-is, without knowing how it will directly benefit the ecosystem, makes it hard to vote yes in good faith.
- Yes1.7M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged1.6M ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.6M ₳No rationale
- Abstain1.6M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.6M ₳Rationale
The proposed amount strikes a good balance between enabling Cardano's continued development, growth, and a buffer for potential price depreciation on one hand, and preserving adequate treasury funds on the other. Approving this NCL is by no means a mandate to spend the entire amount. Budget proposals will only be approved if deemed appropriate, and individual treasury withdrawals will be assessed with regard to the ADA price. We should seize the time—now is the time to act; in the future, we may shift to a more conservative NCL approach.
- Yes1.6M ₳No rationale
- No1.5M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.4M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.3M ₳No rationale
- YesChanged1.3M ₳Rationale
Voting Rationale – 2025 Net Change Limit (NCL)
I'm voting YES on this governance action — not because it's perfect, but because having a 350M ₳ budget is better than having no budget at all for the months ahead. We can't afford a governance deadlock. The ecosystem needs continuity, especially as we step into a new era of on-chain decision-making. 350M ₳ its still a huge number, I would be more comfortable with spending 250M ₳ in 2025.
That said, here's some nuance:
This should have been a percentage, not a fixed yearly number. A percentage of treasury inflows keeps us flexible and aligned with network growth. Hard limits age quickly and tie our hands — not great for dynamic environments like blockchain governance.
I already voted NO on the 2025 + 2026 NCL combo proposal. Why? Because locking ourselves into 2026 without deeper analysis or flexibility is not a sustainable strategy for a new governance system. Each year should be modeled and discussed based on fresh data and needs — not bundled and rushed.
While I’m voting YES on the 350M ₳ NCL for 2025, I plan to be disciplined in budget reviews. That means I’ll most likely supporting withdrawals up to 300M ₳ as a counterbalance, pushing for fiscal responsibility and impact-driven funding. Budgets tend to expand to its upper limit, that's why I'm doing this counterbalance. Although most likely a symbolic one.
So yes — this vote is strategic, not enthusiastic. It's about keeping Cardano moving while holding the line on value, accountability, and progress.
VOTE0007
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes1.3M ₳Rationale
As this is one of 2 competing net change proposals, it appears the choice is between a net change limit of 300 or 350 million. This proposal (350M NCL) gives us a bit more freedom to maneuver during the first year of on-chain governance, and I appreciate the part of the rationale explaining the predicted motivation to increase fee revenue if the yearly NCL is tied to yearly treasury inflows. I will vote yes on this proposal and no on the other.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I agree to set the Net Change Limit (NCL) to 350 million ADA for 2025.
Enabling treasury withdrawals to fund Cardano’s ecosystem growth without risking depletion. - Yes1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
Rationale for Voting No on the 2025 NCL Info Action Proposal
Constitutionality of Threshold
The proposal sets a "50+1 lovelace%" threshold for approval, while TREASURY-01a specifies "a threshold of greater than 50%" If the 50% threshold is intrinsic to the guardrail, this slight deviation could render the infoAction unconstitutional. Still, I acknowledge a vote greater than 50% is needed to agree on an NCL.Supporting a 67% Threshold
I support a 67% DRep ratification threshold for the NCL to bolster governance rigor, ensuring stronger consensus on treasury withdrawals. This aligns with community input noted in the proposal. Though TREASURY-01a sets >50%, a threshold of 67% strengthens trust in treasury withdrawal decisions.Budget Period and Timeline Misalignment
With Q1 2025 gone, the 350 million ada NCL for a full year risks covering undeclared back payments for past work, which I oppose. The NCL should align with the remaining 2025 timeline to ensure accurate funding allocation.Urgent Need for a 2025 Budget
A budget ceiling is needed to limit 2025 roadmap withdrawals, but a competing infoAction I expect to pass reduces this urgency, reducing the need for this 350 million ada proposal.NCL Value and Budget Prudence
The 350 million ada NCL for 2025 exceeds the infoAction's base line inflow (336 million ada), leaving a deficit. I favor budgets with a surplus to ensure fiscal stability.Conclusion
I support a lower, surplus-maintaining NCL and thus vote NO.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
I vote YES for this proposal for the following reasons:
✅ The 350 million ADA figure is based on actual 2024 data (≈336 million ADA in treasury inflow), with less than a 5% margin – making this limit reasonable and data-driven.
✅ Setting the Net Change Limit (NCL) is a prerequisite for any 2025 budget proposals to be considered valid. Without it, all treasury withdrawals would be blocked.
✅ While 350M ADA may seem high to some, it does not mean the entire amount will be spent. Rather, it provides flexibility for DReps to evaluate each withdrawal proposal based on merit and priority.
✅ In a potential bear market, it is crucial to maintain flexibility in funding, especially for technology and infrastructure, to ensure Cardano stays competitive.
✅ From a structural standpoint, this proposal is clear and well-prepared, with defined timeframes (Epochs 532–604) and supporting data sources – demonstrating professionalism and transparency.
💡 I recognize that many DReps, including myself, also value the more conservative community-led NCL of 300M ADA. However, in the worst-case scenario where no NCL is passed, I support both proposals to avoid delays in budgeting and disruption to the ecosystem.
Vietnamese
Tôi bỏ phiếu YES cho đề xuất này vì các lý do sau:
✅ 350 triệu ADA được tính toán dựa trên dữ liệu thực tế của năm 2024 (khoảng 336 triệu ADA thu về), chênh lệch dưới 5%, phản ánh một giới hạn chi tiêu hợp lý và có cơ sở.
✅ Việc xác định Net Change Limit là điều kiện bắt buộc để các đề xuất ngân sách trong năm 2025 được xem là hợp lệ về mặt quản trị. Nếu không có NCL, mọi hoạt động rút ngân sách đều sẽ bị chặn.
✅ Dù mức NCL này có thể cao với một số người, nhưng không có nghĩa toàn bộ số tiền sẽ được rút ra, mà nó tạo khung linh hoạt để DReps đánh giá từng đề xuất rút kho bạc theo giá trị và mức độ ưu tiên.
✅ Trong trường hợp thị trường bước vào giai đoạn suy giảm, cần duy trì khả năng xoay chuyển ngân sách, đầu tư vào công nghệ và hạ tầng, giúp Cardano duy trì sức cạnh tranh và không bị tụt lại.
✅ Về mặt cấu trúc, đề xuất này rõ ràng, có định nghĩa thời gian cụ thể (Epoch 532–604) và các đường dẫn dữ liệu hỗ trợ đầy đủ – thể hiện sự chuyên nghiệp và minh bạch.
💡 Tôi hiểu rằng nhiều DRep, bao gồm cả tôi, đánh giá cao phương án NCL 300M ADA do cộng đồng đề xuất – mức đó mang tính tiết kiệm và thận trọng hơn. Tuy nhiên, trong trường hợp xấu nhất là không có NCL nào được thông qua, tôi ủng hộ cả hai đề xuất để tránh trì hoãn tiến độ ngân sách và ảnh hưởng đến sự phát triển toàn hệ sinh thái.
Japanese
私は以下の理由から、この提案にYES票を投じます：
✅ 3億5千万ADAという数値は、2024年の実際のデータ（トレジャリー収入約3億3600万ADA）に基づいており、誤差は5％未満。合理的でデータに基づいた上限です。
✅ NCL（Net Change Limit）の設定は、2025年の予算提案を有効とみなすための前提条件です。設定されなければ、すべてのトレジャリー引き出しはブロックされてしまいます。
✅ このNCLは一部にとって高く感じられるかもしれませんが、全額を使う必要はありません。DRepが各引き出し提案を重要度と優先度に基づいて柔軟に評価できる余地を与えるものです。
✅ 弱気市場に入る可能性を考慮すると、資金運用の柔軟性を維持することが重要です。特に技術とインフラへの投資は、Cardanoの競争力維持に不可欠です。
✅ この提案は構成が明確で整っており、期間（エポック532～604）やデータ資料も明示されていて、透明性と専門性が高いと評価できます。
💡 私自身を含む多くのDRepが、より慎重なアプローチであるコミュニティ提案（300M ADA）を評価していることも理解しています。しかし、どちらのNCLも否決される最悪のシナリオを避けるため、私は両方の提案を支持します。
- No1.2M ₳Rationale
I voted no on this proposal for the following reasons. The Net Change Limit is essentially a savings plan, and it's critical for ensuring fiscal responsibility in the Cardano ecosystem. While I was always taught that 20% of my paycheck should go toward savings, I am closer to 90% savings going into Ada. For now, we need to recognize that the Net Change Limit is a foundational part of how we manage our funds, especially as it is used when reviewing both budget actions and treasury withdrawal actions to ensure constitutionality, as outlined by Article IV of the Constitution and the Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails in Appendix I. Given this, we cannot make any decisions until we reach an agreement, and I’m going to be firm on this. I want to vote yes to get this passed, but we must stand firm in what we believe. Why must we spend so much now, especially when this proposal doesn't account for the extraordinary growth we expect by the end of this year, driven by world adoption? In fact, we could see 10x returns this year, so why not save as much as possible? If I could choose the savings percentage, I would vote to save as much as we can. Even a higher percentage like 30% or 50% seems reasonable given the significant inflows expected over the next few years. The key point is that we should be focused on saving aggressively, given the market cap potential of Ada. I understand that the percentage of savings is something we should discuss further, but I believe it's crucial that we don't rush to pass something without thoroughly considering the long-term trajectory. The first year is a pivotal one for setting a precedent. If we are going to be able to adjust the Net Change Limit later on when necessary, it’s important to start out as conservatively as possible, ensuring we save as much as we can and only allow more spending when truly necessary. I would be in favor of a higher savings rate, like 50%, and I would even support lowering it to 40% later in the year, should circumstances require it. But let’s take a cautious, wise approach for now, focusing on saving as much as possible while we are in this early stage of development.
- Yes1.2M ₳Rationale
As a DRep, I voted ✅YES on this proposal.
It sets a maximum treasury withdrawal limit for 2025—not a requirement to spend the full amount.
This acts as a guardrail, while DReps still vote on each individual budget/withdrawal request. I support this to help move forward with treasury planning.
- No1.2M ₳No rationale
- No1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳No rationale
- Yes1.1M ₳Rationale
Although 350k seems high to me, I think it important not to hold up the ability for Cardno budget requests. I could see there maybe being an emergency, like a security issue, where having a buffer of funds may be helpful.
- NoRevoted1.1M ₳Rationale
I voted against the proposed 350M ADA Net Change Limit because it represents fundamentally unsound fiscal governance. Setting a fixed ADA amount rather than a percentage of treasury revenue ignores basic economic principles and creates dangerous spending incentives. A dynamic threshold of 77-88% of the previous year's revenue would ensure sustainable treasury management while maintaining flexibility for ecosystem growth.
The proposed 350M ADA ceiling exceeds last year's revenue, effectively normalizing deficit spending. We're still in the early stages of Cardano's evolutionary journey - establishing responsible fiscal guardrails now is crucial. While some may argue this enables more 'investment' in ecosystem development, history shows that untethered spending authority inevitably leads to waste and misallocation. The community must resist the siren song of easy money and instead embrace sound monetary principles that have proven successful in traditional finance.
Building a truly decentralized financial ecosystem requires discipline, not profligacy. My 'No' vote stands for sustainable growth over short-term gratification.
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes1M ₳Rationale
Basic Issue
Cardano needs to set a spending cap—called a Net Change Limit (NCL)—on how much can be withdrawn from the treasury for the year 2025. Without this limit being formally agreed on, no budget proposals or withdrawals can legally happen for that year.Current State
There is no official Net Change Limit set for 2025.
Treasury spending for 2025 is not authorized under the Cardano Constitution.
Projects and governance actors cannot submit budget proposals yet.End State (What’s Changing)
A Net Change Limit of 350,000,000,000,000 lovelace (350M ada) will be formally established.
This limit applies to the period from Epoch 532 to Epoch 604 (January to December 2025).Once approved:
Budget proposals and treasury withdrawals can be made, up to that cap.
The ecosystem enters an annual budget cycle with a clear spending boundary.
The limit is based on 2024’s treasury inflow (~336M ada), aligning spending with income.Why It Matters
It ensures constitutional compliance, budget transparency, and financial responsibility.
It enables projects to start applying for funds.
It links treasury usage to actual blockchain usage and performance—rewarding ecosystem growth. - Yes987.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes969.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes966.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes951.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes929.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes927.7K ₳No rationale
- No920.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes888K ₳No rationale
- Yes884.5K ₳No rationale
- No870.3K ₳No rationale
- No866.3K ₳No rationale
- No829.9K ₳Rationale
We recognize the importance of a Net Change Limit (NCL) being approved to unlock the access to the treasury, but this must be made both with the highest quality standards and with the best economic analysis. Always having Cardano's resiliance as a top priority in mind.
We vote "NO" for 2 reasons:
There us ambiguity in the term of the NCL being proposed. From the text it can be interpreted that it would last for 72 epochs but from the epochs described it would be 73 epochs. This lack of clarity apones the door to future governance problems. We invite proposers to resubmit this proposal without this error.
We are convinced that the NCL should be determined as a percentage of the treasury's balance not as a fixed amount. This eliminates the necessity to guess future income tothe treasury providing aditional layer of resiliance to the treasury management.
- Yes829.9K ₳No rationale
- No796.1K ₳Rationale
I prefer this proposal over the community sourced NCL proposal in that it passes constitutionality checks, and focuses on just one year of Treasury management. The NCL limit, however, is still significantly too high IMO. Let's start conservative ($100-150M) until we demonstrate funding cycles with clear objectives, accountability, and oversight.