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.
- Yes792.3K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged765.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
Abstain1y agoSuperseded
- Yes760.2K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged742.6K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
Yes1y agoSuperseded
- No678.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes663.8K ₳Rationale
We, the Dutch DRep, vote "Yes" on this governance action proposal 2025 Net Change Limit.
While we did not reach consensus within our group, the majority of members expressed the desire to approve this Net Change Limit, as the result of not approving this NCL would have undesirable consequences and even further delay an already overdue Cardano budget.
We would also like to express a desire for a more structured and streamlined process for the 2026 NCL and want to emphasize that this is a spending limit, and not an amount of spending to strive for.
- No637.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes636.4K ₳No rationale
- No627.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes604.7K ₳Rationale
I am voting yes on this net change limit action because I believe it is an appropriate treasury expenditure when faced with the current development requirements of the Cardano ecosystem. My primary focus in decision making currently revolves around increasing transactions in both volume and type and since Cardano has not yet fully realized all the capabilities laid forth in the original roadmap nor to fully implement Basho era advancements and upgrades increased spending will be required to fully realize Cardano's goals. The current restrictions on speed, scaleability, and transaction volume are severely inhibiting adoption of the Cardano ecosystem and its overall marketshare of the crypto domain space. Furthermore the Cardano treasury is projected to grow by about 320 million ADA in 2025, and by setting a NCL of 350 million ADA we are ensuring prudent conservation of resereves in addition to ample support for this accelerated stage in Cardano's development.
- No598.8K ₳Rationale
I believe the proposed 350M ADA limit, while thoughtfully aligned with annual inflows, risks encouraging spending that may not always be truly essential or efficient. History shows us that budgets set near expected inflows often become spending targets rather than ceilings, potentially leading to unnecessary resource allocation. I prefer a more conservative approach, setting a limit slightly lower to ensure that the treasury grows steadily year over year. This strategy enhances Cardano’s long-term stability, reduces unnecessary ADA0 sell pressure, and preserves the ecosystem’s resilience and attractiveness. Voting NO today upholds the principles of moderation, fiscal responsibility, and sustainability.
- Abstain582.9K ₳Rationale
SIDAN Lab has chosen to abstain from voting on the 350M ADA Net Change Limit (NCL) proposal for 2025.
We recognize and agree with many of the key arguments in favor of this proposal:- Sell pressure concerns are likely overstated, as treasury disbursement and proposal execution occur in phases over time.
- Setting an NCL is essential to unlock treasury funding and enable proposal review and budgeting under the new governance model.. A delayed NCL or failed vote could cause a 60-day funding freeze, stalling community innovation and disproportionately benefiting large entities with early proposal traction.
At the same time, we share several concerns raised by those who voted NO: - We believe more governance infrastructure is needed—including clearer treasury oversight, tracking, and community visibility—before approving higher NCLs.
A Yes vote could be seen as endorsing the current treasury governance structure without addressing its known shortcomings.
A No vote could unintentionally delay needed funding, harming the same community builders we aim to support.
Given the above, SIDAN Lab is abstaining as a signal that: - We value progress and funding continuity, but also expect clearer NCL modeling and stronger oversight mechanisms in future treasury actions.
- We will continue participating actively in treasury governance discussions, and support community-led initiatives to improve transparency, accountability, and access to funding.
- Yes579.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes573.2K ₳No rationale
- No568K ₳No rationale
- Yes550.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes502.1K ₳No rationale
- No501.6K ₳No rationale
- No481.2K ₳No rationale
- No479.2K ₳No rationale
- No477.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes466.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes435.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes401.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes393.6K ₳Rationale
We should fix the amount of ADA withdraw from our treasury to make sure it will not effect in price of ADA much.
- No388.8K ₳No rationale
- No379.5K ₳Rationale
I'm voting No on the net change limit of 350 million ADA as proposed by the 'budget committee'. As discussed in detail in https://forum.cardano.org/t/fundamental-critcism-of-the-budget-process/143519#p-367722-net-change-limit-2, the treasury will almost certainly only grow by roughly 300 million ADA in 2025 and I don't want to start spending from the treasury stock yet. It is true that the methodology employed by the 'budget committee' now after a lot of questions would prevent unlimited spending – it will go down to this year's earnings next year if they continue to use that methodology. But the genesis of this proposal sets a bad precedent on how to go about such matters.
- No379.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes371.7K ₳No rationale
- No366.6K ₳No rationale
- No358.6K ₳No rationale
- No356.1K ₳Rationale
350m ADA may be fitting for a 12 month budget, however we're almost halfway through the year, so I would expect the net change limit to appropriately reflect the timeline that is being funded. If treasury income was approximately 168m for a 6 month period, then a net change limit within 5% of that figure would better suit the timeline.
- No338.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes330.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes329.7K ₳No rationale
- No324.3K ₳No rationale
- No321.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes321.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes318.1K ₳Rationale
Krypto Labs advocates for a “yes” vote on this governance action, proposing a Net Change Limit (NCL) of 350,000,000,000,000 lovelace (350 million ADA) for 2025, spanning Epoch 532 to Epoch 604 (approximately January to December 2025). This aligns with our core stance from the prior action: prioritizing a fixed-amount NCL over a percentage-based one for practicality and clarity, ensuring the treasury remains robust to fund Cardano’s ecosystem growth.
The Cardano Constitution (Article IV, Section 3) mandates an NCL before budget requests, validated by Appendix I’s Treasury Withdrawal Guardrails (TREASURY-01a), requiring DRep approval. This proposal’s 350 million ADA limit is grounded in 2024 treasury inflow data (335,957,093 ADA from Epoch 459-531), within 5% of the October 2024 projection (351 million ADA), justifying its retention. Setting the NCL based on prior inflows incentivizes projects to boost blockchain utility, enhancing transaction volumes and ecosystem value—key to Cardano’s ascent among layer 1 blockchains.
We favor this approach over a percentage-based NCL due to its simplicity and direct link to tangible outcomes, avoiding the complexity of fluctuating inflow calculations. The 350 million ADA cap ensures sustainability, balancing withdrawals with inflows to maintain Cardano’s “financial hammer” for innovation and adoption. Community feedback suggesting a 67% DRep threshold (matching treasury withdrawal standards) is noted, but the Constitution requires only >50% active voting stake, which we adopt for this vote.
Voting “yes” ensures transparency, accountability, and alignment with constitutional mandates, enabling budget and withdrawal actions without risking depletion. As community members, Krypto Labs emphasizes timely approval to prevent delays that could stall Cardano’s progress, fostering long-term growth and competitiveness. - Yes314.4K ₳Rationale
Rationale on: "2025 Net Change Limit" Voting
The Net Change Limit proposal appears well-considered and justified based on last year’s inflows. This sets a rational precedent for formulating fiscal policies within our ecosystem. However, I would prefer the proposed amount to be grounded in actual figures rather than projections. The actual 2024 inflow was approximately 336M, while the October 2024 projection stood at 351M. Given that we are now in April 2025, it seems reasonable to revise the number based on these actuals.
I’m deeply uncomfortable with a Net Change Limit of 350M ADA, and I would much prefer the community-led proposal of 300M ADA that unfortunately didn’t pass. The 2024 inflow was lower than 350M, and the projected 2025 figure is also below this mark. This means we risk spending more funds annually than we accrue, which seems unsustainable.
I acknowledge that without a Net Change Limit in place, our ecosystem remains in a stagnant phase, unable to fund pressing budget proposals. As we operate in a competitive industry, delaying decisions might jeopardise our position and competitiveness relative to other blockchains.
Moreover, I view the NCL as a spending ceiling rather than a target. In my experience, businesses often aim to exhaust their budgets due to concerns about future cuts if not fully utilised. I hope this isn’t true for us, since every ADA holder has a direct interest in our treasury’s sensible management. As such, while I am inclined to support the NCL proposal, I’ll be vigilant when evaluating individual budget proposals and will scrutinise them diligently. Each budget request should have a clear return on investment (ROI) - not necessarily monetary, but demonstrating the value and utility it brings to our ecosystem.
I’d really hoped for another, lower NCL proposal to appear before this one expired. Since this doesn’t seem likely, I would reluctantly vote “YES” in order to start building and avoid further disruptions.
Additional remarks:
- I welcome any other lower NCL that might appear in the future, and I would most likely vote in favour of it (my ideal NCL would be set at 300 million ADA).
- If I had 100k ADA available, I would submit a new NCL proposal at 300M ADA (only for 2025).
- It’s imperative that we do not lose even a single day more; it’s mid-April, and starting a new GA cycle would lead us into the second half of the year before we begin investing funds.
- Withdrawals from the treasury are investments, and as such, I would evaluate them carefully. If a proposal is not linked to clear results, I would be very hesitant to support it.
- Yes313.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes308.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes297K ₳Rationale
It is important to remember that the NCL itself does not dictate how much will be spent in a year, but rather only how much can be spent that year.
The DReps will still have an opportunity to reject treasury withdrawals as they arise.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 am voting YES on this governance action.
Signed,
William Doylehttps://github.com/willpiam/drep/blob/master/vote_context/markdown/9_ncl_2025.md
- Yes291.8K ₳Rationale
I’m voting “Yes” on this governance action.
As mentioned in the body of this submission, an agreed upon Net Change Limit is required before any budget draws can be made from Cardano’s treasury to support proposed Cardano-based projects and initiatives.
The spending cap put forth in this GA is reasonable and how the figure was derived is explained clearly. A Net Change Limit is meant to protect the treasury from abuse and ensure that it remains sustainable while the ecosystem continues to build and expand.
Right now, the treasury is slowly dwindling. Until Cardano can successfully boost the amount of transactions on its chain (hopefully with the arrival of Leios and Hydra) it’s critical that treasury funds be managed with extreme care, while also allowing enough room for spending on critical innovation, development, and community engagement activities. The proposed Net Change Limit appears to achieve that.
- No285.2K ₳No rationale
- No275.2K ₳Rationale
While I understand that setting a Net Change Limit does not mean it is necessary to spend the maximum amount specified by that limit, I have, however, seen this exact scenario play out repeatedly over the years. A higher potential for covering expenses, inevitably leads to higher expenses. Also, I feel it would be irresponsible to to set the 2025 NCL to the entire projected yearly treasury income.
It is for these reasons that I am voting NO to this proposal. I feel that a 350M NCL is excessive and is not beholden to a fiscally responsible approach and would incentivize unnecessary and unneeded spending.
- No272.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes263.3K ₳No rationale
- No236.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes236.8K ₳Rationale
I'm voting Yes to avoid projects being stalled, however I do believe 350M ADA is just too much. I will support any subsequent changes.