2025 Net Change Limit
289 DReps voted · 60 with a rationale · 28 changed their vote
Open a row to read the rationale.
- Yes252.9K ₳No rationale
- No245.5K ₳No rationale
- No238.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes235.2K ₳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.
- Yes233.2K ₳Rationale
After thorough analysis, I vote YES on the 2025 Net Change Limit proposal of 350M ADA. My reasoning: The 350M cap strikes an optimal balance between fiscal responsibility and ecosystem growth. It matches projected treasury income, effectively implementing a balanced budget principle that preserves our ~1.64B ADA treasury while fully deploying annual yields. This approach aligns with successful sovereign wealth fund models and represents a mature evolution from Catalyst's informal limits to constitutionally-bounded governance. While I acknowledge the merit of more conservative proposals (like the 300M alternative), historical data shows 350M is sustainable - our 2024 inflow was ~336M ADA with only ~190M spent. This headroom for increased funding is crucial as Cardano scales. Most importantly, the NCL adheres to constitutional guardrails while institutionalizing fiscal discipline. It's a landmark step in decentralized treasury management, positioning Cardano ahead of peers like Polkadot who've faced challenges without formal caps. Let's build responsibly.
- Yes202.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes200.5K ₳Rationale
This NCL proposal came from an open community discussion. I am concerned that the entire culture growing up around Cardano is one of extreme financial tightness. Its like community members are scoring points for being the most negative about any suggested spending on investment or marketing. At the same time some wail on X about our technology being the best, but they have such a paranoid fear of powerful actors taking their upside, that they can't trust any community organisation to actually do sensible fraud free investments to spread the message that we all have about Cardano. This toxic online environment makes no one want to put their name to any spending that might not fully deliver. This creates a timidity in investment. Out go the innovative and the original, as the only thing that gets passed is low-risk, bland, beige.
The decentralised entrepreneurial spirit gets extinguished. - No199K ₳No rationale
- Yes196.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes193.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes192.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes191.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes185.6K ₳Rationale
I believe this net change limit sets appropriate precedent. Spend the previous year income (+/- 5%) and set an NCL each year as part of the budget process.
- No182.1K ₳No rationale
- YesChanged178.9K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- YesChanged174.5K ₳History
Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes166.4K ₳No rationale
- No152.7K ₳No rationale
- No147.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes145.9K ₳No rationale
- Abstain138.4K ₳Rationale
I believe in responsible, data-driven and community-informed treasury governance. While I appreciate the initiative to establish a net change limit (NCL) for the treasury—an important mechanism to prevent depletion and ensure long-term sustainability, I am choosing to ABSTAIN from this particular proposal concerning contingency plans or emergency provisions.
The proposed limit of 350 million ada for 2025 is high and could set a precedent for even larger amounts in 2026 and beyond. I also support a percentage-based NCL rather than a fixed amount, as it offers greater flexibility and alignment with treasury size over time.
By abstaining, I want to signal that I am not opposed to the idea of a net change limit, but that more refinement is needed. I encourage the proposers to engage further with the community, iterate on the proposal, and consider bringing it back with stronger justifications and greater clarity.
- Yes137.4K ₳No rationale
- Yes136.7K ₳No rationale
- No136.5K ₳No rationale
- No135.1K ₳Rationale
I am voting "No" based on the potential for volatile and unstable funding years.
I believe the net change limit should be based relatively on the prior year treasury income. Meaning since there is a fixed supply of total lovelace, a high level of accumulation in the treasury relative to the total supply of lovelace is not necessary. I also believe that solely basing the net change limit on prior year treasury income will create years where net change is very high and other years where net change is very low relatively.
There should be a ratio of treasury inflows to net change limit that will pave the path for a higher or lower net change limit than prior year, or some sort of system that should be maintained to not have volatile years of funding. Moving in the direction of flat or gently rising net change limits will be beneficial to the predictability and consistency of funding projects and innovation.
An approach such as having a starting net change limit of 100 million to 200 million ADA and every year and using the information from prior year treasury inflows compared to the amount of ADA from the prior year budget to vote on increasing or decreasing the new net change limit by up to 10%. Then having a ratio safe guard that says, if the net change limit is less than 1/12 of the total budget then we can override the 10% rule and vote on up to 25% increase or greater than 1/4 of the total budget then we can override the 10% rule and vote on up to 25% decrease. Under these conditions we will have a much more stable looking and feeling fund for innovation.
- Abstain134.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes115.6K ₳No rationale
- No110.9K ₳No rationale
- No110.5K ₳Rationale
I'm voting No because, quite honestly, it just feels a bit too soon for something this big. Cardano is still growing. Governance, tooling, community trust… all of it is still finding its shape. We’re in a foundational phase, and moves like this need to be rooted in solid ground, not just good intentions.
Raising spending limits this high without strong checks and balances already in place could do more harm than good. It's not that I don’t believe in investing in the future. It's that the ecosystem isn’t quite ready to manage that scale responsibly yet. These things need time. Strong roots before wide branches.
As a DRep, I feel a duty to take the long view. Protecting the treasury now means ensuring we still have one later. When our processes are mature. When oversight is real. When the community can handle this kind of responsibility with clarity and trust.
Let’s keep building. Let’s get it right. Then we can revisit this with more confidence.
- YesChanged108.3K ₳Rationale
This is an addendum to my previous voting rationale. I have decided to change my vote to support this proposal due to the first NCL proposal not being ratified. The reason for this change is explained in the original rationale which I have included here:
I have decided to vote against the proposed treasury spending limit of 350 million ADA, as I believe this amount exceeds what is necessary. While I recognize that this figure serves as an upper spending limit, I also know that reducing such limits will become increasingly challenging over time, especially as various priorities become reliant on treasury funds. Furthermore, I plan to support the first, lower spending limit proposal currently under consideration. However, I understand that there is a possibility this proposal may not pass or could be deemed unconstitutional. If the first proposal is not ratified, I will change my vote to support this proposal. It remains critical to avoid a situation where no spending limit is approved, as this could result in delays and uncertainty in finalizing the budget.Earlier votes
No1y agoSuperseded
- Yes108.1K ₳No rationale
- Yes105.8K ₳No rationale
- Yes103.1K ₳No rationale
- No101.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes99.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes94.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes93.5K ₳No rationale
- Yes92.6K ₳No rationale
- No71.3K ₳Rationale
The current proposal for a 'Net Change Limit' on the Cardano blockchain is premature and potentially detrimental due to the absence of robust constitutional safeguards against mismanagement of the treasury.
Firstly, the existing Cardano Constitution lacks sufficiently effective mechanisms to prevent poor budgetary oversight and potential misuse of funds. Implementing a 'Net Change Limit' without these fundamental protections in place exposes the treasury to risks associated with inadequate governance and accountability.
Secondly, the present distribution of influence among Decentralized Representatives (DReps) exhibits a concentration at the top. This centralization of power creates a potential vulnerability to manipulation or collusion among leading DReps, which could lead to decisions that are not in the best interest of the Cardano ecosystem and its treasury. The risk of such undue influence is amplified in the absence of strong constitutional checks and balances.
Therefore, it is imperative to prioritize an update and strengthening of the Cardano Constitution to include effective measures for safeguarding the treasury against mismanagement. This should be addressed before the implementation of any proposals such as the 'Net Change Limit' that could have significant financial implications for the blockchain. Delaying the 'Net Change Limit' until adequate constitutional protections are in place is a prudent approach to ensure the long-term security and sustainability of the Cardano treasury.
- No58.5K ₳No rationale
- No55.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes53K ₳Rationale
Same reasoning as the earlier Net Change Limit proposal, I'd like to pursue this so that the Cardano Treasury will be usable with an agreed upon Budget, to fund worthwhile projects this year.
- Abstain49.6K ₳No rationale
- Yes45.2K ₳No rationale
- Yes40.4K ₳No rationale
- No39.7K ₳No rationale
- Yes37.9K ₳No rationale
- Yes36.3K ₳No rationale
- Yes35.2K ₳No rationale
- No33.9K ₳Rationale
While we agree with the need for predictability and sustainability with Cardano's Treasury, we disagree with the proposed measures. Establishing percentage limits would be the best way to provide predictability and sustainability to the Treasury. See Constitutional Amendment No. 95 of 2016 of the Federative Republic of Brazil, which establishes that the growth rate of public spending will be limited to the percentage growth of the national GDP. Despite the many problems of the Brazilian administration, Constitutional Amendment No. 95 of 2016 is commendable, as it creates self-adjusting measures to the market.
We do not consider it prudent to approve GAs that require subsequent approvals. The proposed results and effects of GAs should depend as little as possible on the approval of other GAs. The GA is based on analytical studies that are not duly proven in time. For these reasons, we vote no.
We respectfully ask that you improve the proposal so that we can agree in the future.